184197 1303 10032018 0733

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE FIRST DISTRICT STATE OF FLORIDA

RYAN C. TORRENS, Petitioner/Defendant

vs.

SEAN SHAW,

Respondent/Plaintiff ______

Circuit Court Case No.: 2018-CA-1623 Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit In and For Leon County, Florida

APPENDIX TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION

/s/Ryan C. Torrens, Esq. Ryan C. Torrens, Esq. Florida Bar. No. 0089407 Torrens Law Group, P.A. 4016 Henderson Blvd., Suite D Tampa, FL 33629 Phone: 813-260-4883 Fax: 813-354-2357 [email protected] RECEIVED, 10/2/20189:52PM,Kristina Samuels,FirstDistrict CourtofAppeal

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Date Description Pages

2018-07-24 Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive A.1 Relief 2018-08-01 Order Determining Case Entitled to Priority A.24 and Setting Non-Jury Trial/Final Hearing 2018-08-07 Order Deferring Until Trial the Hearing and A. 37 Determination of Defendant Torrens’ Motion to Dismiss 2018-08-14 Defendant Ryan Torrens’ Answer, Affirmative A. 39 Defenses, and Counterclaim 2018-08-21 Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation A. 49 2018-08-24 Final Judgment Granting Declaratory and A. 70 Injunctive Relief 2018-09-24 Amended Notice of Appeal A. 92 2018-09-04 Torrens’ Verified Motion to Disqualify Trial A. 116 Judge 2018-09-05 Torrens Opposition to Motion to Disqualify A. 124 Trial Judge 2018-09-05 Order Denying Disqualification A. 134 2018-09-25 Order Setting Case Management Conference A. 136 2018-08-30 Notice of Filing Trial Transcript A. 141 2018-08-31 Transcript of Proceedings 2018-08-22 A. 143

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Ryan C. Torrens, Esq. Ryan C. Torrens, Esq. Florida Bar No. 0089407 Torrens Law Group, P.A. 4016 Henderson Blvd. Suite D Tampa, FL 33629 [email protected] Phone: (813) 260-4883 Facsimile: (813)354-2357

\ · Filing# 75450373 E-Filed 07/24/2018 04:51:39 PM

IN THB cm.cuIT COURT OF THB SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LBON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEAN SHAW, CASE NO: 2018 CA 001623

Plmntiff DIV: vs.

KEN DBTZNER, in ·his official capacity as the Secretary of State; DEPARTMBNT OF STATE, DMSION OF ELECTIONS; and RYAN TORRBN~, ------Defendants I COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNchvE RE:LJEF

Introduction

J. This is an action· for declaratory and injunctive relief seeking a declaration that

Defendant, RYAN TORRENS (hereinafter ''Torrens") &iled to properly qualify as a candidate for

the Democratic nomination for the Office of Attorney General, and requiring the Defendants to

decertify Torrens as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Office of Attorney General.

Parties

2. Defendant, KEN DBTZNBR (hereinafter •'Detzner"), is the Secretary of the State

of Florida and the head of the Departnient of State, an agency of the State of Florida crafted-by

Section 20.10(1 ), Florida Statutes. Defendant, Detzner is designated as the chief election officer of

the State of Florida pursuant to Section 97.012, Florida Statutes.

3. Defendant, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DMSION OF BLBCTIONS

(hereinafter "Division") is an agency of the Statute of Florida created under Section 20.10, Florida

Statutes. Pursuant to Secf;ion 99.061, Florida Statutes, the Division has the responsibility under law

to receive qualification papers for persons seeking nomination or election to the Office of Attorney

Geneial. The, Division, musl certify to the supervisors of elections in each county of the State, the

010150IO.I

A. 1 Sean Shaw v. Ken Detzner, et. al. Case No.: 1BD Complaint for Declaratory aitd lJUuhctlve Rellof names of all duly qualified candidates seeking nomination or election who have qualified with the

Division.

4. Plainti~ SEAN SHAW (hereinafter "Shaw"), is an elector and resident of the

State of Florida and is a duly qualified candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for election to the Office ofAttorney General.

S. Torrens is an elector and resident of the State ofFlorida who filed papers with the

Division to be qualified. as a candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for election to the

Office ofAttomey General.

6. This Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relic£

7. Venue is proper in Leon County, pursuant to Section 47.011, Florida Statutes.

Facts Regulrlnt; ~?elaratorv Ju~gment and Incorporated Memorandum of Law

8. Pursuant to Section 99.061, Florida Statutes, any person wishing to qualify as a candidate for nomination and election to the Office of Attomey General in lhe 2018 election cycle must submit his or her qualification papers and pay the qualifying fee to the Division dming the qualifying period. The qualifying period for the 2018 election conunenced at noon on June 18,

2018 and ended at noon on June 22, 2018.

9. To qualify, a prospective candidate must submit, among other documents:

a. A properly executed check drawn upon the candidate's campaign account payable to the pe11on or entity as prescribed by the filing officer in an amount not less than the fee required by §99.092, unless the candidate obtaiiled the required number of signatures on petitions punuant to §99.095 [Section 99.061(7)(a)l, Fla. Stat.] b. The candidate's oath required by §99.021, which must contain the name of the candidate as it is to appear on the bal.lot; the office sought, including the district or group number if applicable; and the signature of the candidate, which must be verified under oath or affinnatlon pursuant to §92.S2S(t)(a). [Section 99.061(7)(a)2, Fla. Stat.] c. If the office·sought is partisan, the written statement of political party affiliation required by §99.021(1) (b). [Section 99.061(7)(a)3, Fla. Stat.]

0101doao.1 Page2

A. 2 Sean Shaw v. Ken Detmer, eL al. Case No.: TBD Complaint for Dec~tory and Injunctive Relief

d. The completed form for the appointment of campaign treasurer and designation ofcampaign depository, as required by § 106.021. [Section 99.061(7)(a)4, Fla. Stat.] e. The tbll and public disclosure or statement of financial interests required by subsection (S) (Section 99.061(7) (a) S, Fla. Stat.] 'Ihe tbll and public disclosure or financial Interests required by subsection s "must be verified under oath or aflinnation pursuant to §92.525(1) (a) ••• "

§ 99.061(5). Fla. Stat

l O. In order to raise money for their election campaign, a candidate must ·file a statement with the qualifying officer within 10 days after filing notice of the appointment of a campaign treasurer and designation of a campaign depository, stating that the eandldate has read and understands the requirements o/Chapla' 106, Florida Statutes. See Section 106.023 Florida

Statutes (emphasis added). Torrens' signed statement attesting to his·reading and understanding of

~ter 106 is attached as Exlliblt "A".

11. Candidates who raise and spend funds for their election campaigns are required to report all contributions and expenditures via the ·Florida Department of State Division of Elections

Electronic Filing System ("BPS").§ 106.0705, Fla. Stat.; Rule. IS-2.017, P.A.C.

12. Bach candidate is provided an identification number and initial password to gain entry to the EFS 2018 Candidate and Campaign Treasurer Handbook pg. S9. The 2018 Candidate and Cmiipaign Treasurer Handbook is incorporated by Rule 18·2.017, Florida Administratlve

Code. Page 59 of the handbook is attached hereto as Exhibit "B". Persons given a secure sign-on to the BPS are responsible for protecting such from disclosure and are responsible for all filings using such credentials. Section 106.0705(4) Florida Statutes. Reports filed·via the EFS are considered to be under oath by both the candidate and treasurer. Id•

.t3. On June 21, 2018, Toirens submitted, and the Division accepted, a check fi'om the

Ryan Torrens for Attomey General ·campaign Account in the amount of S?,738.32 as payment for the required qualifying fee. A eopy of that check is attached as EXblblt ucn.

0101&em-1 Page 3

A. 3 Sean Shaw v. Ken Det:ner, eL al. Caso No.: TBD Complahit for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

14. On June 18, 2018, prior to submitting the qualifying check, Torrens and/or his campaign accepted a contribution of $4,000.00 ii'om Francesca Yabraian. This campaign contribution was disclosed on campaign finance report Pl. This ~ntribution was originally disclosed as a loan, and not a contribution. The Pt report was later.amended after July 11, 2018 to characterize this contn1>ution as a check contribution, and not a loan. The amended Pl report characterizing the contribution as a "check" is attached hereto as Exhibit "D".

15. Section 106.0S(l)(a)l Fla: Stat •. provides as follows:

106.08. Contributions; Imitations on.-

(l)(a) Except for political parties or aflilia~ed party committees, no person or political comi:pittee may, in any election, make contributions in excess of the following amounts:

1. To a candidate for statewide office or for retention as a justice of the Supreme Court, $3,000. Candidates for the offices ·of Governor end Lieutenant Governor on the same ticket are considered a single candidate for the purpose ofthis section.

§106.08(1 )(a) 1., Fla.Stat.

16. The BPS system includes mechanisms to ensure that candidates do not take

contributions in excess of the legal limits. When a candidate enters a contribution into the EFS

software that exceeds the legal limits, a message appears in red type informing the EFS user of

the error. This is the case whether Ute contribution from the individual is considered a loan or a

contn1>ution. Examples of the enor message received from the BPS software are attached hereto

as Exhibits "E" and "F''.

17. ~ontributioils from a candidate to the campaign that are listed as a "loan" do not

trigger the error message because candidates may contribute or loan unlimited amounts to their

own campaign. An example of the BFS system entry under this scenario is attached hereto as

Exhibit "G".

18. 0.o July 16, 2018 the treasW'er for the Torrens campaign, Jessica Vasconez,

contacted the Florida Division of Elections and disclosed that the S4,000.00 contribution

010Hoao-1 Page 4

A. 4 Sean Shaw v. Ken Detzner, eL al. Case No.: TBD Complaint tor Declaratory and Injunctive Relief received by· the campaign on June 18, 2018 was provided using a cashier's check. A copy of that

correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit "II''.

19. The Statute provides that "[a] person may not accept an aggregate cash

contribution or eontrlbudon by means of a eashler's ebeck Crom the same contributor

·In excess of SSO per electlou.n §106.0p(l)(b), Fla. Stat.

20. The EFS system requires that cashiers' checks be reported as "a cash contribution on all. campaign finance reports. Candidate BPS User's Guide pg. 15. The BPS manual is incorporated by Rule lS-2.017, Florida Administrative Code. Page 15 of the BPS manual is attached hereto as Exhibit "I".

21. Torrens' acceptance of the $4,000.00 contribution on June 18, 2018, is aprlma jacle violation ofSection 106.0S(l)(a) 1 and 106.09(1)(b) Florida Statutes. 22. During the campaign finance reporting period of Jwe 1, 2018 through June 22,

2018, Torrens reported contributions of Sl0,246.61. Tonens reported expenditures of

$1O,7J6.SO. A S!lJlllll&ry ofthct Toirens campaign CQntnoutions and expenclltun;s for all reporting cycles is attached hereto as Exhibit "J".

23. Prior to receipt of the i11ega1 $4,000.00 contribution on June 18, 2018, the Torrens campaign account did not hold epough fbnds to cover the qualifying fee. On the date that the

Torrens campaign accepted the iUegal $4,000.00 contribution, the Torrens campaign account held only $3,020.61. Between the date that the Tamms campaign. received the illegal contribution and the date that the campaign issued the qualifying check, the Torrens campaign . received only S1,008.00 in additional contributions. The qualifying check was submitted to the Division three day& later on June 21, 2018. Ifnot for the illegal $4,000.00 contn'bution, Toaens would not have qualified as a candidate under the statute by submitting a check for $7, 738.32 to the Division.

OIOl6CllO-I Pages

A. 5 Sean Shaw v. Ksn Detmer, eL al. Case No.: TBD Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

24. To~s knoWingly, purposefully, and intentionally accepted, or allowed bis

campaign to accept, an illegal campaign contribution in the amount of $4,000.00 for the express pwpose of qualifying as ~candidate and being placed on the ballot.

2S. Torrens did not act in good faith or honest purpose by accepting a contn"bution in

excess of the legal limits. If not for this willfbl ·and dishonest act, Torrens' campaign would not have had the :fbnds on band necessary to qualify Torrens as a candidate to be plaCed on the ballot.

26. Torrens' bad faith and dishonest purpose is affirmatively demonstrated by the swom campaign finance report Torrens caused to be filed, disclosing the.June 18, 2018, check in the amount of $4,000.00 as a "loan.9' After "qualifying," candidate Torrens later filed a letter with the Division ~characterizing this same "loan" as an ~c:ess campaign contribution.

27. Torrens' bad faith and dishonest purpose is filrther demonstrated by the swom campaign finanpe report Torrens caused to be filed, disclosing the June 18, 2018 check in the amount of $4,000.00 as.a "check" when it was actually a "cash" donation, See Exhibit "JI". This excessive cash donation of $3,950.00 was made for the express pmpose of ensuring that adequate funds were available to prevent Torrens• qual.ifying check in the amount of $7,738.32 from bouncing.

28. Torrens acted in bad faith and bas· attempted to qualify as a candidate through fraudulent conduct expressly designed to corrupt the ballot. 1brougb tho actions descnoed above,

Torrens succeeded in placing an otherwise unqualified candidate on the ballot

29. The court cannot ignore fraudulent conduct which is pmposefiJlly done to foul the election or co~t the ballot. Plant18 v. Planas, 937 So.2d 745, 746 (FIL 3d DCA 2006) (quoting

In re Protest ofE/(J()tlon Retunl8, 707 So.2d 1170, 1173 (Pia. 3d DCA 1998), quoting Bolden v.

Potter, 452 So.2d 564, 567 (Fla. 1984), rev. den., 725 So.2d 1108 (Fla. 1998). Where a candidate does not act with good faith and honest purpose, their name must be removed &om the ballot. Id.

OIDl&CllO.I Page6

A. 6 Sean Shaw v. Ken DelZnv, et. al. Case No.: TDD Complaint tor Declaratozy and lqjunctive Relief

Deslaratoa Judgment

30. Torrens improperly qualified for the ballot through fraudulent and dishonest means by accepting an illegal campaign contribution made via cashier's check in excess of the legal contribution limits for the clear and obvious purpose of providing tbnds to pay Tortens' qualifying fee.

31. Torrens initially submitted swom statements characterizing this contn'bution as a loan, and then, after qualifying, recanted his swom statements and re-characterized the contn"bution as an excess campaign contribution. Torrens filed a series of reports, under oath, which contain contradictory assertions. However, under either version, the funds used to cover

Torrens' qualifying fee were improper, .illegal, and were obviously made and accepted for the purpose of facilitating Torrens' qualification as a candidate. As a consequence, Defendant,

Torrens, should be decertified as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for the Office of

Attorney General.

32. To the extent that Defendant. Departmeat of State, has certified Defendant,

Torrens, as a duly qwilified candidate seeking the Democratic nomination for the Office of

Attorney General, the parties have a current, acttial and bona fide dispute as to whether Defendant,

Torrens, should be decertified as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for election to the

Office of Attomey den~. The interests present before the court present ajuatlciable controvemy that is ripe for adjudication by the Court, pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes.

33. Plaintiff bas no adequate remedy at law, and it is in the public interest that this dispute be resolved promptly.

34. Purswmt to Section 86.111, Florida Statutes, the court should order a speedy hearing OD this complaint and shpuld advance.this cause OD its calendar. The Democratic primary election is scheduled to take place on August 28, 2018. Torrens' qualification as a candidate must

0101~1 Page7

A. 7 Sean Shaw v. Ken Detzner, et. al. Case No.: TBD Complaint for Declaratory and Jqjpnctlve Relief be adjudicated prior to the election, as Florida Jaw does not recognize a challenge to a candidate's qualifications as a basis for a post-election challenge under Section 1Q2.168, Florida Statutes.

WHBRBFORE, Plaintift Sean Shaw, iequests·that this Court enter a judgment as

follows:

· A. Declare that Defendant, Ryan Torrens, is not a duly qualified candidate for the

Democratic nomination for election to tho Office ofAttomey General;

B. Enter an injunction requiring Defendants td immediately de-certify Tomms as·a

candidate for the Democratic nomination for election to the Office of Attorney General, and to

inform the supervisors of elections in the state of the decertification of Defendant, Ryan Torrens,

as a qualified candidate for the Democratic nomina\ion for the Office ofAttorney General; and

C. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

R.espectfttlly submitted this 241& day ofJuly, 2018, by:

Isl Andrew J. Baumann ANDREW J. BAUMANN Florida Bar No. 0070610 Primary email: ahawnaoncti;llw·law.oom. Secondary email: 1nlotndn

NATALIBA..KATO Florida Bar No. 87256 Primary email: nkatoC

010ZGG&0.1 Page8

A. 8 STATEMENT OF CANDIDATE (SecUon 108.023, F.S.) (Please print or type)

I, . Ryen C. Torrens

0MmQe... ~...,G candidate for the office of ....A..,.H 111111 ....e..,ne_c.,.a ... 1 ______

have been provided access to read and understand the requiremenli of

Chapter 106, Florida Statutes.

Each candidate must file a statement with the quallfylng officer within 10 days after the · : Appointment of Campaign Treasurer and DealgnaUon of campa?gn Depository Is fifed. Wiiifui failure to file this fdnn Is a first degree mtsdef!leanor and a clvll vlolaUon of the Campaign Financing Act which may result In a fine of up to $1,9CJO, (as. 108.19(1)(c), 108.285(1), Florida Statutes).

. . . DS.DI 84 (OS/I I) EXHIBJr I A

A. 9 candidate & ~mpalgn Treasurer Handbook

• All expenditures made with resped to a of Inspection may be enforced by campaign fund raiser which are made er appropriate writ Issued by any court of reimbursed. by a check $frawn ·on the competent Jurisdiction. carripalgn account shall be deemed to be (Section 106.06. F.S.} campaign expenditures to be accounted for and subject to the same restrictions • Records maintained by the campaign as other campaign expenditures. depositor; shall be subJ~ct.to Inspection {Section .206.025,. F.S.J by an agent of the Division or the Florida Elections Commission at anytime during • The campaign treasurer . shall keep normal · banking hours, and such detailed accounts of all withdrawals depository shall fumtsh certified copies made f~m any sepa~te Interest· of any such records to the Division or bearing account or certfffcate of deposit Florida Elections Commission upon to the primary depository and of an request •. Interest earned. (Section 106.0Zl6J. F.S.} · (Section Jll§J}§, F.S.J • It Is the duty of the DIVlslon to make, • The campaign treasurer shall retain the from time to time, audits. an·d fl•ld records P,ursuantto Section 106.06. F.S. Investigations with respect to reports (section 1Jl§J11, F.S.J and statements filed under the provisions of Chapter 106, F.S., and with respect to alle1ed failures to file any Preservation of Accounts report or statement required under the provisions of Chapter 10&, F.S. Accounts kept by the campaign treasurer of (Sectlop 106.22(61. F.S.) a candidate shall be preserved by the .. camP.afgn treasurer for a number of years • It Is the duty of the Division tQ conduct equal to the term of the office to whfch the random audits wlth respect. to reports candidate seeks election. and statements flied under Chapter 106, (Section Jll§J}§, F.S.J F.S., and with respect to alleged fa1iure to file any reports and statements required under Chapter 10.6, F.S. Inspections fS.ectfon 106.22l1DI. F.S.)

• Accounts kept by the campaign treasurer of a candidate, lnctudlna separate Interest-bearing accounts and certificates of deposit, may be Inspected under reasonable circumstances before, during, o~ after the election to which the accounts ,refer by any authorized representative of the Division or the Florida Elections Commission. The right .EXHIBIT 59 I /3

A. 10 4'' RECEiVEO HAND DELIVERED 2018 JUN 21 PM 4: 05 OIVISIOI> : .: tl[~ TIOH5 TALU\llASSEE ·FL

. i

~""""~_.....c,,._.~~""J •C >c;b•

r EXHIBIT n.i;I~ I c ;, ------: - __, : I~~ .. ~ :li:F:.. .~,

A. 11 -...- ..---• · -. ·-·.. .. -.

• : . . I • - ,. • •• 11 . .. •1• • c . u •'•'\ to:: • • • , •t .'.\":: ...... • • t \C ~ I ' • • ,. • • 'J , , Lo:\ ·' ·.. , ., . -"' · .. :r .- i \I ;..

...... '· 1: r ;: :. lo • • • , ". . .: :1 •. ; : ·~ r .. ~ • ,!\ • • . • ""\ • , .. ' -' H'l; ~ . • I ·1 - ' ' f f, · ... . 1t, • • • . ·. . • .. •:: • .,; 1, 11' 1• . ' ii <:r:"fo ~ Ht .,..'!· I. •. ..! .• ;• . ' .- ;, ''" " ' ~ : :: ~ . ~ t ... • •;., ~ •G , i.} • \,-, IU I ~ · ' ,( . I • . •., ll > t~·.t 11 t - 1. 'I:., . . r ;·;[: .... • II U ' l J 11' ·' •' : rf.,.f :tl.:o\ lt4 ,rH 1~~!;, '~~~ · ~ ~; I , , ~ I ~. 1 ;.., ': ,,: \, .: t~<':'•• •.·r . ::i ::g:; :·t'' . r .' •,. •. h t•.1 •••• "J . ' ... . ·- ~ · · · • ' o4 • " ~ • .·• . : 1.• • ,, , ;1 ' ' · · ~ ' . "' ...... : . :~ ,,.. . i \ .· . •\• , ...... o t n ~ ' L , ; .o -, "1t :.1 1 l ' ' ...... :. •·1 •' t • • ' • • • ·,+-! r •• ,~ . ~ - •' · ~ ,;.n ! f . ·-.. ;JI , .• : . 1 . : • : > l o f .,.'."ft. . ; , , •4 ,.hl t . , •\1; . · 1 ' '"' ·· 1..-···· ••., . .. . .r .·· .. , '! •• \ •.• o...n • • ~...: " 1'"1' ... , .. -., 1 01 • 1 ... • • • ..... t. .. "':' J . t ; u ..... ·. ,_ ...... ' : I .. '·· · ,, . • , ... t l • • . . ,,, .. I .. • . r... •o'f l , ·'--'•' t . ·· •• . . , ..,,,. ~, r 1 . , , .... ··: , I •t • ...... , ···: ;. . :I•·• ;t·. :a..:· Ir :"~ : · • t1 ': ' f ~ · . •• • "" ,.,.,I ' ''' ... ,. ' ~-:,.: '4 : •.; : • . · ... 1:·. ·.... :o . • •• I:" ; •• n ~~ : . ..· .. "- . .. ~ . ·" ••• • • •• •l ::a.u .• a• •· "'" • ... -...... ~. n , , f W t , l · ·· · -' • ...... , ' ·. .. l· ., ••·•·.•• 1.;. f"'''l.o: • .: a ...... :, . ,;.., .. : ~... , fo ~ \ > I \ ~ • ' I • •• -, ...... - - : .-.1 . ... t. : ... . :.r: : .• t ...... : ...... 4 • • ·. . .. : 1.0.-: , ~.. • • • ~ ." . -~- :. .... ,; i..: •o l .o. Po .. . ~ .. t o oo ~ . ... ,: ...... "' '"' "'"-~ ~ .. .. .~ " ... t \.~ ... • • • • :! .. . "1-.. ' t •I .... ~ t ... . , , .,. , ,. • • . I~ ••, ·~ ' ~ • t i . ,, ...... , l••r• • ., : ... ; " ' • :J • • , . ' .. .. ,, .. , ,.:;. ,,. ... ,, ...... ' • t: ~. , ~ ...... J: _:;::: 11 ...... •-I • tH1, 1 ' ...... J: :' 1 , t : ";I' , O\.', , ' • • ·: • :. .it ! t.\";". • .• .. ' ··' ' ' · - 1. · .• ..· : .. .. r.r .. 'lo • I ... ( • , .. ··-· ,,. ,r,., ' I ' "• . : ...... r:l •'J,

II,'•

• i..t- 1~ - 11 :...... \u• "-15" ,J

"',...,~ , .. .- ",...... ,. - ~ · .. T a • ' . ;·• ,' •

C.1 · : • ....J • · •• .. . -.:~ • , :U.• .. .. ,... , • M ~ .. • tf (J :;-, ' I

A. 12 , ...... - ,:... , .. .

~ ,.. ...

i .!L'··.;i I ~ I~·~ . ~ ,. ' ' ll! .... ~-~: .. f:

.....•f;

...... 4 •

•• ! ":.... t "·I!' . i• I Ir ~ •.· I . . ~'.. . ' ' ..

A. 13 r· j . ' ..

...... ,.,...... : ...... - ...... •

A. 14 .. •i . [ " j i ·i t lt .,!'- .. ;i· I "!' : '. I ~ ;...,.,-.:' .. -~ ~ l-·t j :.f ~ q \.. ...,,,.~ i • f 4'.t ~ !f j . . Ii ~~·· ;· .! i ~ ~ ' ;. ,.' i f i l' t ~ ' . la.. ~ .~ .,·~ ~ ... g. l~ ...... ~ !7.t· §: ...... ~:... ([ V'! ; f .. i: l : r;:· ~ . L• I ~ ~ I:;~ ~· . t...,;_ ' . ~ 'i 1. 1· •• . l ., : ; f 6 : .. . lJ .. : I r . J ·~ . ~ s_.n : [ ' . .: .·• .

A. 15 Ryan Torrens for Attorney General 13266 Byrd Drive Num 609 Odessa, .Florida 33556 RECEIVED www.ryanforaltomeygencral.com 2Dl8JUL 16 PH 2t 17 • rJIVISIOH IF £lECTIOHS rALLl,HASSEf. Fl July ll, 2018

Mr. Ken Detzner; Secretary of State Florida Departmenc of State R.A. Omy Building 500 South Bronough Stree1' Room 316 Tallahassee, Florida 32399.0250

Re: Cashier's Check Contribution - Francesca Yamalan

Dear Mr. Detzner:

''bus come to our attention •hat we had a donot niake a conlribution ofS4,000.00 putting that donor over their contribution limit for this election. Jhave issued a refund cheok to1hat donor Jn the umount of$3JJ2.S2 which will be ft'flected on our 2018 P2A repon. Sincerely.

;jv

EXHIBIT j II_

A. 16 '\

Contribution t: this flefd will be automatlcally populated by the system In aequentlal numbers, Date: enter date the ex>ntrlbution was received. Last Name, Suffix: enter contributor's last name and suffix (If given). Do nm use tlUes such as Dr., Colonel, Reverend, etc. NOTE: if this Is a business, the name must be placed in lhe •Last Namea field. If you put It In the •first, Middle Name 11 field, you wlll get an error message. First•.. Mlddle .Name: enter contributor's first name and middle name or lnltlal (If given)~ · · Addrea': enter contrlbutol's complete street address .or post office box number. gw: enter conbibutor's city • State: click .-·. :) arrow and choose conlr!butor's state. If the con~r resides outside the United states, choose. state: [!§§ eountrI._3 at the bottom of the drop down flsL ~: enter contributor's zip code • .Contrlb~tor Type: click f:\' arrow and choose one of the fisted contributor types. Important - you must report conlrlbutlona from the candidate using the conlrfbutor type "Candidate to Themselves• to avoid getting an error message for excessive contributions. Contrlbu.~on ~vpe: click C~ arrow and choose one of the listed contrlbuUon types. Cash - used to report the receipt of cash and cashiers' check. Check - Includes tradlUonal paper checks, wire transfers, Paypal, contifbuUons by credit card, and other types of e!ectrontc funds transfers. ln·klnd - Item of value other than money or volunteer services. Interest-money earned on campaign or Interest bearing accounts. Loan - money that ls loaned to ·the campaign rather than given outright. Money Ord~r - used to report the racefpt of contrfbuUon by money order, Refund - used to report bad ctlecks or conb1butfons retumed (In Whole or In part) to the contributor. Refunds must always be entered .as a negaUve amount. · Occupation: enter contrlbulor'a spectflc. occupation. (This fleld Is required If the contrl&utlon Is over $100.) Do not use generic occupalfona such as 11buslnessmana or"sales." Use specifics such as pharmaceutrcal salaa or fnsurance. In-kind Description: If Contribution Type Is In-kind, enter a specfflc description of the In-kind contrlbuUon. Example: Food and beverage Amendment: defaults to Not Amended. .. Amount enter exact amount of contrlbuUon (dollars and cents).

A. 17 Fiortde> 0 1:p;1 rtn1r11t or St;ilc nivisior1 of Elr.t:tio1;s

'l ~ HI (k1trr.I C:fe<;l1011 r11~r1 Tc1ttn• ( Ort~) /\fh1.t11!':yC~,,~ , ..,1

., • 'If ... , ~ ...... "" ,(1\~··l· :• .. \ • llo'. ,.,,.\_"'l-'.,f1.:•tofh .. )\1'1~·.r :":a'1 ~ .-,) ~.:- .., -•t:';' .... t , ,~~· '/~ 1• :.."< ~ · .~. lrlfj tt ••H fr 'l'°'\ \'f~ ·v lj L !tiJ • O ~J: t' ,.1,. ..,.,,II(. ·r. lv• :i l!J~f

A. 18 Filing # 75943647 E-Filed 08/03/2018 11:29:30 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

SEAN SHAW,

Plaintiff, Case No.: 2018-CA-001623

vs.

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity, as the SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, and RYAN TORRENS

Defendant(s). ______/

RYAN TORRENS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendant, Ryan Torrens, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b)(6), hereby files

his Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, and in support thereof states the

following:

INTRODUCTION

“The primary purpose of a motion to dismiss is to request the trial court to

determine whether the complaint states a cause of action upon which relief can be

granted, and, if it does not, to enter an order of dismissal.” Provence v. Palm Beach

Taverns, Inc., 676 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Here, the law is abundantly

clear that the Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action. Thus, the action

should be dismissed with prejudice.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action pursuant to Fla. Stat.

Section 106.19(4) and the applicable case law. Plaintiff alleges that Torrens violated

A. 19 Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, and that therefore, Torrens should be removed from the ballot. However, Fla. Stat. Section 106.19(4) could not be clearer when it provides: “Except as otherwise expressly stated, the failure of a candidate to comply with the requirements of this chapter has no effect upon whether the candidate has qualified for the office the candidate is seeking.” (emphasis added)

“In making a judicial effort to ascertain the legislative intent implicit in a statute, the courts are bound by the plain and definite language of the statute and are not authorized to engage in semantic niceties or speculations.” Hess v. Philip

Morris USA, Inc., 175 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 2015).

The undersigned was not able to locate a single case whereby a Florida appellate court has approved the removal of a candidate from the ballot for an alleged violation of Chapter 106. This makes perfect sense as the operative statute

(Fla. Stat. 106.19(4)) provides that violations of Chapter 106 do not affect the qualification of a candidate for office and the controlling case law makes it very clear that Chapter 106 does not confer a private right of action.

The case of Schurr v. Sanchez-Gronlier, 937 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006) is particularly instructive here. In Schurr, Sanchez-Gronlier had loaned funds to his campaign for circuit judge before submitting the appointment of treasurer. That loan constituted the only funds in the campaign account. Schurr contended that because the loan was illegal and was used to pay the filing fee, that Sanchez-

Gronlier should be removed from the ballot. The trial court found that Sanchez-

Gronlier did, in fact, commit a violation of Chapter 106, but that removal from the

A. 20 ballot was not an available remedy. Citing Goff v. Ehrlich, 776 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th

DCA 2001), the Third District affirmed, finding that Chapter 106 does not provide a private right of action: “As properly argued by Defendant Sanchez-Gronlier, 106.18 and 106.19 detail the removal of a candidate for violations of Chapter 106, with enforcement within the purview of the Florida Elections Commission. As a result, the requested injunctive relief is not warranted.” Id. at 1170.

In Schurr, the Third District notes that its conclusions “comport with the strong public interest of providing electoral choice” and that “If two equally reasonable constructions might be found, this Court in the past has chosen the one which enhances the elective process by providing voters with the greater choice in exercising their democratic rights.” Id. Torrens is one of only two Democrats running for Florida Attorney General and mail-in voting has already begun. To grant Plaintiff relief on a private cause of action which does not exist and grant a remedy which does not exist to a private litigant would completely strip Democratic primary voters of electoral choice in this Democratic primary election.

In Goff v. Ehrlich, 776 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001), a successful candidate for school board challenged his opponent for alleged campaign finance violations. The trial court dismissed the complaint and the Fifth District affirmed the dismissal, ruling that Chapter 106 does not confer a private right of action.

CONCLUSION

Schurr and Goff are binding on this Court as there is no interdistrict conflict.

See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992). Fla. Stat. 106.19(4) and the

A. 21 controlling case law are dispositive in this case, and clearly demonstrate that

Chapter 106 does not confer a private right of action and that removal from the ballot is not an available remedy to a private litigant for an alleged Chapter 106 violation. As a result, Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action, the requested relief should be denied, and the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice. Defendant also requests this Honorable Court reserve ruling for a determination as to entitlement to attorney’s fees and costs.

REQUEST FOR HEARING

Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(d), Torrens respectfully requests this Court hold a hearing on this motion and to enter its ruling on the motion prior to a final hearing on the merits.

WHEREFORE, Torrens respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant this Motion to Dismiss, dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice, reserve ruling for attorney’s fees and costs, and for any other such relief this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Ryan C. Torrens, Esq. Ryan C. Torrens, Esq. Florida Bar No. 089407 Torrens Law Group, P.A. 4016 Henderson Blvd., Suite D Tampa, FL 33629 [email protected] [email protected] Telephone No.: (813) 260-4883 Facsimile No.: (813) 354-2357

A. 22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Electronic Mail, and by Regular U.S. Mail where applicable to: Lewis, Longman, & Walker, P.A., 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected], Sean Shaw 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL, Department of State, Division of Elections, 500 S. Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 322399 at [email protected], [email protected], and all other associated parties listed on the E- Portal, dated this 3rd day of August, 2018.

/s/Ryan C. Torrens, Esq. Ryan C. Torrens, Esq.

A. 23 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SHAW, SEAN Plaintiff(s), vs. CASE NO. 2018 CA 001623

DETZNER IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE, KEN Defendant(s).

______/

ORDER DETERMINING CASE ENTITLED TO PRIORITY AND SETTING NON-JURY TRIAL/FINAL HEARING

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on [August 1,

2018] for sua sponte review and for adoption of a scheduling order and trial plan. In this case, the plaintiff candidate for the office of attorney general contends his primary opponent did not properly qualify, having allegedly used funds categorized as a loan to cover the qualifying fee, then later recharacterizing the funds as a donation, part of which exceeded the maximum contribution amount and had to be returned, which would have allegedly resulted in there not being sufficient funds to cover the qualifying check

eFiled by GIEVERS, KAREN A on BM Web Date 8/1/2018 12:27 PM A. 24 defendant Torrens sent to the Division of Elections at the Department of State.

Attorneys Kato, Baumann and Diffenderfer were present for the plaintiff, attorneys Dyer and Fugett for the Department of State and Secretary of State and attorney Wasylik was present for defendant Torrens; a court reporter was also present.

While there is no rule or statute that directly

provides priority to election cases, Rule 2.545(c)

provides discretion to the Court to determine if the

situation is one for which a case should be given

priority on the civil [non-criminal] docket. This case

involves a contest expected to be determined in the

August 28, 2018 primary, so that the Department of

State can certify the names of primary winners for

printing on the General Election ballot. See section

99.121, Florida Statutes. The certification of the

names of candidates nominated for office is expected to

be filed with the Department of State by no later than

September 4, 2018,Section 102.112(2).

A. 25 [Section 101.62(4)(a), Florida Statutes sets deadlines for mailing General Election absentee ballots to absent uniformed service personnel and overseas voters no later than 45 days before a General Election.

Thus, the mailing date is September 22, 2018, with the ballots to be printed as soon as possible after the

August 28, 2018 primary results are counted and certified [expected to be done by September 4, 2018] to facilitate compliance with the mailing deadlines.

Defendant Torrens has asked that he have the full

20 days to respond to the complaint, and asks that the case not be set for trial other than in compliance with

Rule 1.440, which would result in a trial date after the mailing deadline.

Based on the foregoing, the Court being advised that the Department of State is taking no position in this case and is deferring to the Court regarding the

relief the plaintiff is requesting, the Court being

otherwise fully advised in the premises, and aware that

time must be provided to allow the District Court of

A. 26 Appeal and the Florida Supreme Court to have time prior to the mailing deadline to review the trial order that will result from the bench trial in this case, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. The case is one for which priority advancement must be, and is, provided.

2. All parties have been served, and were represented at the August 1, 2018 case management scheduling conference, and all counsel advised that

August 22, 2018 at 1:30 is a convenient date for the hearing in this case. The defendants shall submit their responsive pleadings no later than August 17, 2018, with the parties having the right to include a challenge to whether the complaint states a cause of action. [Such motions to dismiss that may be included as affirmative defenses will be addressed and ruled on at the time of trial, as permitted in Rule 1.140(d).

Plaintiff shall file any reply in avoidance of any

A. 27 affirmative defenses asserted no later than August 20,

2018.

3. There will be no requests for admission, requests for production or interrogatories during the expedited discovery process, which shall conclude by

August 21, 2018.

4. As to depositions, counsel for the parties shall coordinate as to scheduling so that the depositions are timely completed with the transcripts available for the

August 22, 2018 hearing. Any person being deposed shall provide any specified documents within their control at the time of the deposition, and the Department shall cooperate to provide the parties with any campaign finance documents requested.

5. By 4:00 p.m. on August 21, 2018, the parties shall efile through the Clerk's efiling portal, and email to Judicial Assistant Underwood, copies to all counsel of record, their joint pretrial stipulation, identifying any stipulated issues of fact and questions

A. 28 of law for which no determination is needed from the trial court and shall identify the factual and legal matters remaining in dispute to be determined at the

August 22, 2018 hearing.

6. No later than August 17, 2018, the parties shall

exchange witness lists [with summaries of the testimony

anticipated] and shall exchange a list of their

exhibits [with a copy of the exhibits attached]. The

parties shall have a set of the exhibits and the list

of exhibits for the Clerk to facilitate the Clerk's

handling of the exhibits and record preparation as

appropriate.

7. The courtroom assignment will be provided prior

to August 22, 2018.

8. Failure to comply with this order may result in sanctions being imposed, including pleadings being stricken, the case dismissed or other appropriate sanction.

A. 29 In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities

Act, persons needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the Court

Administrator’s Office no later than seven days prior to the proceeding at (850)606-4300.

ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, on

8/1/2018 12:27 PM.

Circuit Judge Copies furnished to:

Party NATALIE ANNE KATO 315 S CALHOUN ST STE 830 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301

ROBERT DIFFENDERFER 515 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE SUITE 1500 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401

ANDREW J BAUMANN 515 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE SUITE 1500 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401

A. 30 RYAN C TORRENS 4016 HENDERSON BLVD., SUITE D TAMPA, FL 33629

KEN DETZNER IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE 500 SOUTH BRONOUGH STREET TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399

SEAN SHAW 515 N. FLAGLER DR. SUITE 1500 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS No address on file

RYAN TORRENS 13840 VANDERBILT RD. ODESSA, FL 33556

A. 31 Filing # 75943647 E-Filed 08/03/2018 11:29:30 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

SEAN SHAW,

Plaintiff, Case No.: 2018-CA-001623

vs.

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity, as the SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, and RYAN TORRENS

Defendant(s). ______/

RYAN TORRENS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

Defendant, Ryan Torrens, pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(b)(6), hereby files

his Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, and in support thereof states the

following:

INTRODUCTION

“The primary purpose of a motion to dismiss is to request the trial court to

determine whether the complaint states a cause of action upon which relief can be

granted, and, if it does not, to enter an order of dismissal.” Provence v. Palm Beach

Taverns, Inc., 676 So. 2d 1022 (Fla. 4th DCA 1996). Here, the law is abundantly

clear that the Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action. Thus, the action

should be dismissed with prejudice.

LEGAL ARGUMENT

Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action pursuant to Fla. Stat.

Section 106.19(4) and the applicable case law. Plaintiff alleges that Torrens violated

A. 32 Chapter 106, Florida Statutes, and that therefore, Torrens should be removed from the ballot. However, Fla. Stat. Section 106.19(4) could not be clearer when it provides: “Except as otherwise expressly stated, the failure of a candidate to comply with the requirements of this chapter has no effect upon whether the candidate has qualified for the office the candidate is seeking.” (emphasis added)

Morris USA, Inc., 175 So. 3d 687 (Fla. 2015).

Gronlier should be removed from the ballot. The trial court found that Sanchez-

Gronlier did, in fact, commit a violation of Chapter 106, but that removal from the

A. 33 ballot was not an available remedy. Citing Goff v. Ehrlich, 776 So. 2d 1011 (Fla. 5th

CONCLUSION

Schurr and Goff are binding on this Court as there is no interdistrict conflict.

See Pardo v. State, 596 So. 2d 665 (Fla. 1992). Fla. Stat. 106.19(4) and the

A. 34 controlling case law are dispositive in this case, and clearly demonstrate that

REQUEST FOR HEARING

Pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.140(d), Torrens respectfully requests this Court hold a hearing on this motion and to enter its ruling on the motion prior to a final hearing on the merits.

Respectfully submitted,

A. 35

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

/s/Ryan C. Torrens, Esq. Ryan C. Torrens, Esq.

A. 36 Filing # 76071014 E-Filed 08/07/2018 11:05:44 AM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEAN SHAW,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No. 2018 CA 1623

KEN DETZNER, etc. et al.,

Defendant.

ORDER DEFERRING UNTIL TRIAL THE HEARING AND DETERMINATION OF DEFENDANT TORRENS' MOTION TO DISMISS

THIS CAUSE came before the Court for sua sponte

review on August 7, 2018. The Court having reviewed the

file, having seen the defense emailed request for

hearing time on defendant Torrens' motion to dismiss,

and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it

is hereby

ORDERED, pursuant to Rule l.140(d), that the

hearing and determination of the motion must be

deferred until the trial. Defendant Torrens shall

submit his answer and any affirmative defenses no later

than August 10, 2018; the plaintiff shall submit any

Page lof2

A. 37 reply in avoidance of the affirmative defenses no later than August 14, 2018. [The case is entitled to priority pursuant to Rule 2.215 as a case relating to an election] .

ORDERED this ~ day of August, 2018 in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

~KAREN GIEVERS Circuit Judge

Copies furnished to:

Ryan C. Torrens, Esq. [email protected] [email protected]

Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

David Fugett, Esq. [email protected] [email protected]

dbl b CA \ lp1-} Page 2of2

A. 38 Filing # 76417696 E-Filed 08/14/2018 01:42:48 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION

SEAN SHAW,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, CASE NO.: 2018-CA-001623

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity, As the SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, and RYAN TORRENS,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff,

DEFENDANT RYAN TORRENS' ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Ryan Torrens, hereby files his Answer,

Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaim, and in support thereof states the

following:

1. Admitted for jurisdictional purposes only, otherwise denied.

2. Admitted.

3. Admitted.

4. Admitted.

5. Admitted.

6. Denied.

7. Admitted.

8. Admitted.

9. Admitted.

A. 39 10. Admitted.

11. Admitted.

12. Admitted.

13. Admitted.

14. Admitted.

15. Admitted.

16. Defendant is without knowledge, therefore denied.

17. Defendant is without knowledge, therefore denied.

18. Admitted. Torrens notes that labeling the check at issue as a cashier's check was a typographical error that was later corrected via written correspondence to the Division of Elections.

19. Admitted.

20. Admitted.

21. Denied.

22. Admitted.

23. Denied that Torrens would not have otherwise qualified. Torrens could have simply signed a check from the same joint account, giving a loan from himself to the campaign. The account the check was drawn from is a joint account, held by

Torrens and his wife, Francesca Yabraian.

24. Denied.

25. Denied.

26. Denied, as phrased.

A. 40 27. Denied.

28. Denied.

29. Denied. Torrens states that there was no fraudulent conduct and

Torrens states that this is not the proper forum for this matter to be heard, at this

stage. Torrens also notes that each of the cases cited by Plaintiff in Paragraph 29

are off-point as none of the cases deal with removal from the ballot for an alleged

Chapter 106 violation. This has never happened in the history of Florida because it

is not an authorized procedure, as the affirmative defenses below set forth clearly.

30. Denied.

31. Denied.

32. Denied.

33. Denied.

34. Denied. Torrens has asserted his procedural rights as afforded to him

pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440. At the Case Management Conference held in this

matter, Torrens' counsel objected to this matter being set for final hearing in

violation of Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440 and Torrens has a pending Motion to Strike Trial

Order, which has been filed with the Court. Plaintiff waited until three weeks before the election to bring this action, yet asks this Court to restrict Torrens' procedural due process rights.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

As a first affirmative defense, Torrens states that Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. Torrens has moved to dismiss this action on this basis but will

A. 41 raise the issue again now as an affirmative defense. Florida law does not confer a

private right of action for an alleged Chapter 106 violation. Fla. Stat. 106.19(4)

states: "Except as otherwise expressly stated, the failure of a candidate to comply

with the requirements of this chapter has no effect upon whether the candidate has

qualified for the office the candidate is seeking" (emphasis added) See also Schurr v.

Sanchez-Gronlier, 937 So. 2d 1166 (Fla. 3d DCA 2006); Goff v. Ehrlich, 776 So. 2d

1011 (Fla. 5th DCA 2001). Fla. Stat. 106.19 details the procedure for removal of a candidate from a ballot, with enforcement within the purview of the Florida

Elections Commission.

As a second affirmative defense, Torrens states that the contribution at issue was from a joint bank account, held by Torrens and his wife. The check was not a cashier's check, despite the allegations of the Complaint. Defendant could have simply obtained a check to draw on the account, signed it, and issued a loan from himself to the campaign. The simple, honest mistake was that Torrens did not sign the check, which he could have since it was, and remains, a joint account.

Torrens is permitted to withdraw funds from the account and issue checks from the account. Realizing that the loan placed Torrens' wife, Francesca Yabraian, over the

$3,000 contribution limit, the excess portion was returned to Mrs. Yabraian.

Plaintiff attempts to argue that the qualifying fee could not have otherwise been paid, which is simply not true. A check could have easily been signed by Torrens and deposited into the campaign account as a loan from Torrens.

A. 42 As a third affirmative defense, Torrens asserts the defense of !aches. The

contribution at issue was disclosed on the financial report filed with the Division of

Elections on July 10, 2018. Yet, Plaintiff did not bring this a~tion until July 24,

2018, three weeks before the primary election. Waiting until July 24, 2018 to bring

this action demonstrates a substantial and inexcusable delay in bringing this claim.

As a result, Torrens is prejudiced through procedural due process violations,

including under Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.440.

As a fourth affirmative defense, Torrens states that this matter has been set

for non-jury trial before the pleadings are closed in contravention of Fla. R. Civ. P.

1.440. Torrens has moved to strike the trial order on this basis, which is pending

before this Court.

As a fifth affirmative defense, Torrens asserts that the Plaintiff has failed to

exhaust his administrative remedies. A Florida Elections Commission complaint

has been filed by an individual named Max Solomon, and the $4,000 contribution at

issue here is listed as an alleged violation in the FEC Complaint. As stated in the first affirmative defense, jurisdiction lies with the Florida Elections Commission.

Torrens has yet to receive a formal copy of the FEC Complaint as there has there

has yet to even be a finding of probable cause by the FEC. Given this, Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies.

COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Ryan Torrens, sues the Plaintiff, Sean

Shaw, and alleges:

A. 43 1. This is an action for damages in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limits

of this Court. Venue is proper pursuant to Fla. Stat.§ 47.011 as the causes of action

alleged here accrued in Leon County, Florida. All conditions precedent have been

satisfied, waived, or excused.

2. Ryan C. Torrens is a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida, is sui juris,

and is an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida. He is and at all

times material hereto has been a member in good standing of the Florida Bar.

Torrens maintains a private law practice in Tampa, Florida and is currently a

candidate for the Democratic nomination for Florida Attorney General.

3. At all material times, Torrens has enjoyed a highly favorable reputation as

a consumer litigation attorney and has been named in the 2018 SuperLawyers

Magazine as a "Rising Star" in the area of consumer law.

4. Sean Shaw is a resident of Hillsborough County, Florida, is sui juris, and at

all times material hereto as been an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the

State of Florida. He is a member of the Florida House of Representatives and is currently a candidate for the Democratic nomination for Florida Attorney General.

5. On July 24, 2018, Shaw filed a lawsuit against Torrens, falsely alleging that

Torrens "knowingly, purposefully, and intentionally accepted, or allowed his campaign to accept, an illegal campaign contribution in the amount of $4,000 for the express purpose of qualifying as a candidate and being placed on the ballot." See

Complaint, Paragraph 24.

A. 44 6. In Paragraphs 24 through 31 of the lawsuit filed in this matter, Shaw

falsely alleges that Torrens acted with bad faith and dishonest purpose and alleges

that Torrens fraudulently qualified for the ballot. Shaw accuses Torrens of

"fraudulent conduct expressly designed to corrupt the ballot." See Complaint,

Paragraph 28.

7. On July 25, 2018, Michael Starr Hopkins, the spokesman and

communications director of Shaw's Attorney General campaign, with the

authorization of Shaw, published the lawsuit to the press. A true and correct copy of

this email correspondence is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."

COUNT I - LIBEL PER SE

8. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 7 are re-alleged and

incorporated herein by reference.

9. Generally, a publication is libelous per se if, when considered alone

.without innuendo, it tends to subject a person to hatred, distrust, ridicule, contempt, or disgrace, or tends to injure him in his trade or profession, Richard u.

Gray, 62 So.2d 597 (Fla.1953), or if it imputes to another conduct, characteristics, or

a condition incompatible with the proper exercise of his lawful business, trade, profession, or office.

10. These false statements made by Shaw against Torrens are injurious to

Torrens' reputation in the legal profession and as a candidate for public office and are libelous per se.

A. 45 11. Torrens has been damaged by these false statements made by Shaw,

and damages are to be presumed once libel per se has been proven.

WHEREFORE, Torrens respectfully requests this Honorable Court grant

judgment in his favor, enter judgment against Shaw for damages, including

punitive damagesI, awarding attorney's fees and costs, and for any other such relief

this Honorable Court deems just and proper.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Torrens demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

Respectfully submitted,

Is I Ryan C. Torrens. Esq. Ryan C. Torrens, Esq. Florida Bar No. 089407 TORRENS LAW GROUP, P.A. 4016 Henderson Blvd., Suite D Tampa, FL 33629 [email protected] [email protected] Telephone No.: (813) 260-4883 Facsimile No.: (813) 354-2357

1 While Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.190(f) requires leave to plead for punitive damages, with 20 days notice to the adverse party, here the matter has been expedited and the matter scheduled for trial on August 22, 2018. Compliance with Rule 1.190(f) is not possible given these circumstances. 8

A. 46 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Electronic Mail, and by Regular U.S. Mail where applicable to: Lewis, Longman, & Walker, P.A., 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, [email protected], [email protected], mlozada@llw law.com, [email protected], [email protected], Sean Shaw 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL, Department of State, Division of Elections, 500 S. Bronaugh Street, Tallahassee, FL 322399, Jared C. McCabe, Esq. at [email protected] , and all other associated parties listed on the E-Portal, dated this 14th day of August, 2018.

Is I Ryan C. Torrens. Esq. Ryan C. Torrens, Esq.

A. 47 -----·-- Forwarded message--·--·-· From: Michael Hopkins Date:'Wed, Jul 25, 2018 at 7:09 AM Subject Mr: Torrens campaign Violations To: Michael Hopkins

Reporters-

Out campaign was reccotly made aware ofpotentially d.isqual.ifyi:ig c:.amp:Ugu \~olations by out primary challenger- and so we have asked for a judge to rule. With Donald Tromp in the White House, there has OC\'Cl been a more important Attorney Gcncr.U election in Olll state's history. There is too much at stake to risk mytliiog. Scan Sbaw is ruoniog to fight aad wi.a for the people of Florida.

Please sec the an ached fawsuit filed in the Circuit Court of the Second Judici21 Circuit in Lcoa County, Florida.

Michael Starr Hopkins

Spokesman & Communication Director

Sean Shaw For Attorney General

Exhibit "A"

A. 48 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEAN SHAW,

Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO: 2018 CA 001623

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State; DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; and RY AN TORRENS,

Defendants. I

JOINT PRE-TRIAL STIPULATION

Plaintiff, SEAN SHAW, and Defendant, RYAN TORRENS, by and through their respective undersigned counsel, hereby jointly file this pre-trial stipulation in accordance with this

Court's Order Determining Case Entitled to Priority and Setting Non-Jury Trial/Final Hearing dated August 1, 2018.

I. Stipulated Issues of Fact and Questions of Law

1. All parties stipulate that Defendant KEN DETZNER and Defendant DEPARTMENT

OF ST A TE are the chief elections officer of the state and the Division responsible for

the administration of elections _in the state. All parties stipulate that these entities must

certify to the supervisor of elections of each county in the state the names of duly

qualified candidates and must, if appropriately directed by a circuit court, remove the

names of candidates who have been de-certified from the ballot or take other action as

required by law.

2. All parties stipulate that Plaintiff SEAN SHAW and Defendant RYAN TORRENS are

electors and residents of the state of Florida who have filed papers with the Division of

0 10280 10- 1 A. 49 Shaw v. Detzner, et al. Case No.: 2018-CA-001623 Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation

Elections and are candidates seeking the Democratic nomination to the office of

Attorney General.

3. All parties stipulate that venue is proper in Leon County, Florida.

4. All parties stipulate that the relevant portions of Chapter 99, Florida Statutes which

relate to the manner in which candidates qualify for office and the documents required

to qualify for office will apply in this case.

s. All parties stipulate that Candidates who raise and spend funds for their election

campaign are required to report all contributions and expenditures via the Florida

Department of State Division of Elections Electronic Filing System ("EFS"), pursuant

to § 106.0705, Fla. Stat. and Rule 1s-2 .017, F.A.C.

6. All parties stipulate that each candidate is provided an identification number and initial

password to gain entry to the EFS. The 2018 Candidate and Campaign Treasurer

Handbook is incorporated by Rule lS-2.017, Florida Administrative Code. Persons

given a secure sign-on to the EFS are responsible for protecting such from disclosure

and are responsible for all filings using such credentials. Section 106.0705( 4) Florida

Statutes. Reports filed via the EFS are considered to be under oath by both the candidate

and treasurer.

7. All parties stipulate that on June 21 , 2018, Defendant Torrens submitted, and the

Division accepted, a check from the Ryan Torrens for Attorney General Campaign

Account in the amount of $7,738.32.

8. All parties stipulate that candidates for statewide office are subject to contributions

limits of $3 ,000 from persons or political committees.

0 1028010- 1 2 A. 50 Shaw v. Detzner, et al. Case No.: 2018-CA-001623 Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation

9. All parties stipulate that the $4,000 check attributed to Francesca Yabraian that was

written to the Ryan Torrens Campaign for Attorney General on or about June 18, 2018

was a personal check and not a cashier's check.

II. Factual and Legal Matters To Be Determined

A. DISPUTED ISSUES OF LAW

a. Whether Plaintiff has a private cause of action to challenge Defendant

Torrens' qualifications to seek the Democratic nomination for the

Office of Attorney General

b. Whether or not the complaint at issue in this case is barred by the

doctrine of laches

c. Whether or not Plaintiff has failed to exhaust administrative remedies

d. Whether a declaration that Defendant Torrens is not a qualified

candidate to seek the Democratic nomination to the Office of Attorney

General and subsequent direction to the Department of State, Division

to Elections to de-certify Defendant Torrens as a nominee seeking the

Democratic nomination to the Office of Attorney General is a remedy

available to Plaintiff from the Circuit Court.

e. Whether the Circuit Court may direct the de-certification and removal

of Defendant Torrens from the ballot if it is detennined that Defendant

Torrens qualified from the ballot through bad faith and dishonest

purpose.

B. DISPUTED ISSUED OF FACT

0 1028010- 1 3 A. 51 Shaw v. Detzner, et al. Case No.: 2018-CA-001623 Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation

i. Whether the account the $4,000 check written to the Ryan Torrens for

Attorney General Campaign attributed to Francesca Y abraian that was

written on or about June 18, 2018 was drawn on a joint account held by

Ryan Torrens and Francesca Yabraian.

ii. Whether the June 18, 2018 check written to the Ryan Torrens for Attorney

General Campaign was a "loan" or a "contribution."

iii. Whether Defendant Torrens' acceptance of the $4,000 contribution on June

18, 2018 is a prima facie violation of 106.08, Florida Statutes.

iv. Whether Defendant Torrens knowingly, purposefully, and intentionally

accepted, or allowed his campaign to accept, an illegal campaign

contribution in the amount of $4,000 for the express purpose of qualifying

as a candidate and being placed on the ballot.

v. Whether Defendant Torrens did not act in good faith or honest purpose by

accepting a contribution in excess of the legal limits.

vi. Whether, Defendant Torrens have had the funds on hand necessary to

qualify for the ballot, but for his acceptance of a contribution in excess of

the legal limits during the week of qualifying.

III. Exhibit Lists

Parties do not stipulate to the admissibility of any exhibits provided in Plaintiffs Amended

Exhibit List, attached hereto as exhibit "A", or Defendant's Exhibit List, attached hereto as Exhibit

"B'', with the following exceptions:

010280 10- 1 4 A. 52 Shaw v. Detzner, et al. Case No. : 2018-CA-001623 Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation

1. A copy of check no. 1233 f9r, $4,QOO, payable to Ryan Torrens for ~J\~o'.Xi-~~ µ/>S- 15~ Attorney General and tsigned by Francesca Yabraian dated 6/18/18,

as listed in Plaintiffs Amended Exhibit List as exhibit number 15.

2. A copy of the state of Florida Marriage record as listed in Plaintiffs

Amended Exhibit List as exhibit number 23.

IV. Witness Lists

1. Plaintiffs Witness List is attached as Exhibit "C."

2. Defendant's Witness List is attached as Exhibit "D."

V. Names of Attorneys to Try Case

1. Counsel for the Plaintiff: Andrew Baumann, Esq., Robert Diffenderfer, Esq., and

Natalie Kato, Esq., Lewis Longman & Walker, P.A. , 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 1500, West Palm

Beach, Florida 33401.

2. Counsel for Defendant Detzner and Florida Department of State: David A. Fugett,

Esq., General Counsel, Jesse C. Dyer, Esq., Assistant General Counsel, Florida Department of

State, R.A. Gray Building, Suite 100, 500 South Bronough Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-

0250.

3. Counsel for Defendant Torrens: Ryan Torrens, Esq., Torrens Law Group, P.A. ,

4016 Henderson Blvd, Suite D, Tampa, FL 33629.

4. Co-Counsel for the Defendant Torrens: Jared J. McCabe, Esq., The McCabe Law

Firm, 8751 North Himes Avenue, Tampa, FL 33614.

0 1028010- 1 5 A. 53 Shaw v. Detzner, et al. Case No.: 2018-CA-001623 Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation

5. Co-Counsel for the Defendant Torrens: Thomas F. Baker, II, 2002 E. 5th Avenue,

Jared J. McCabe, Esq.

Natalie A. Kato

Counsel for the Department ofStat e have waived answering in this case and have expressed to the court that they will not be participating in the hearing. Th erefore they were not consulted in this pretrial stipulation.

Respectfully submitted this 21 51 day of August, 2018, by:

/s/ Andrew J. Baumann ANDREW J. BAUMANN Florida Bar No. 0070610 Primary email: [email protected] Secondary email: [email protected] ROBERT P. DIFFENDERFER Florida Bar No. 434906 Primary email: [email protected] Secondary email: [email protected] Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Telephone: (561) 640-0820

NATALIE A. KATO Florida Bar No. 87256 Primary email: [email protected] Secondary email: [email protected] Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 830 Tallahassee, FL 32202 Telephone: (850) 222-5702 Counsel for Plaintiff

010280 10-1 6 A. 54 Shaw v. Detzner, et al. Case No.: 2018-CA-001623 Joint Pre-Trial Stipulation

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the email on this 21 st day of August, 2018 unto:

Jared J. McCabe, Esq. Ryan Torrens, Esq. The McCabe Law Finn Torrens Law Group, P.A. 8751 North Himes Avenue 4016 Henderson Blvd, Suite D Tampa, FL 33614 Tampa, FL 33629 Phone: 813-489-9211 Telephone: 813-260-4883 Primary: [email protected] Fax: 813-354-2357 Secondary: [email protected] Primary: [email protected] Co-Counsel for Ryan Torrens Secondary: [email protected] Counsel for Ryan Torrens

David A. Fugett, Esq. Thomas F. Baker, II General Counsel 2002 E. 5th A venue, Suite 103 Jesse C. Dyer, Esq. Tampa, FL 33605 Assistant General Counsel (813) 906-8634 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE (813) 906-2066 R.A. Gray Building, Suite 100 Primary: [email protected] 500 South Bronaugh Street Secondary: [email protected] Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Co-Counsel for Defendant Ryan Torrens Office: (850) 245-6511 Facsimile: (850) 245-6127 David. Fu [email protected] [email protected] Counsel/or Ken Detzner & Department of State, Division ofElections

Isl Andrew J. Baumann ANDREW J. BAUMANN Florida Bar No. 0070610

0 10280 10- 1 7 A. 55 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEAN SHAW,

Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO: 2018 CA 001623

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State; DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; and RYAN TORRENS,

Defendants. /

PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED EXHIBIT LIST

Plaintiff, SEAN SHAW, by and through his undersigned counsel, files its Amended Exhibit

List in conformance with this Court’s Order Determining Case Entitled to Priority and Setting

Non-Jury Trial/Final Hearing dated August 1, 2018, and identifies exhibits as follows:

1. Statement of Candidate (Oath) dated 5/19/17

2. Candidate & Campaign Treasurer Handbook (pg. 59)

3. Ryan Torrens for Attorney General Campaign Account check no. 1090 in the amount of $7,738.32 dated 6/20/17

4. Screenshot of Campaign Contributions – Division of Elections – Florida Department of State

5. Florida Department of State, Division of Elections – Example of EFS error message when transaction date is either before or after the Report Coverage Period and contributions exceed legal limits of $3,000 (Check)

6. Florida Department of State, Division of Elections – Example of EFS error message when transaction date is either before or after the Report Coverage Period and contributions exceed legal limits of $3,000 (Loan)

7. Florida Department of State, Division of Elections – Example of EFS when no error message is triggered (Loan)

EXHIBIT "A" A. 56 8. Jessica Vasconez Letter to Mr. Ken Detzner re: Cashier’s Check Contribution – Francesca Yabraian dated 7/13/18 and 7/26/18 Letter from Jessica Vasconez to Mr. Detzner re: Over Contribution Limit

9. Candidate EFS User’s Guide, Page 15

10. Campaign Finance Reporting for period June 1, 2018 – June 22, 2018

11. Francesca Yabraian Deposition Transcript with Exhibits dated 8/6/18

12. Duces Tecum List attached to Subpoena Notice of Francesca Yabraian

13. AgFed Statement of Account (Joint) for period 6/1/18 – 6/30/18 (Redacted)

14. AgFed Credit Union Member Services Request dated 10/23/17

15. Copy of check no. 1233 for $4,000, payable to Ryan Torrens for Attorney General and signed by Francesca Yabraian dated 6/18/18

16. Florida Department of State, Division of Elections – Contributions Query Results dated 8/10/18

17. Florida Department of State, Division of Elections – List of Mr. Ryan Torrens’ contributions to his campaign account

18. 2017 Florida Profit Corporation Annual Report (Torrens Law Group) Document #P12000029246 dated 3/8/17

19. Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests of Ryan Torrens

20. Instructions for Completing and Filing Form 6 Full and Public Disclosure of Financial Interests

21. Florida Department of State, Division of Elections Campaign Treasurer’s Report Summary (P1 Report) covering 6/1/18 through 6/22/18

22. Ryan Torrens Deposition Transcript dated 8/16/18

23. State of Florida Marriage Record

24. AgFed Credit Union Loan Application 13 (Redacted as attached to Torrens Deposition Transcript)

25. Ryan Torrens Attorney General Campaign Account (Duplicate of Exhibit 3)

A. 57 26. DE93-10 Contributions from Joint Checking Accounts; Clarification of DE 82-16

27. Ryan Torrens Attorney General Campaign Account Check No. 1096

28. 6/19/18 e-mail string (Vasconez to Torrens)

29. Deposition Transcript of Jessica Vasconez dated 8/16/18

30. 6/1/18 – 6/29/18 Ryan Torrens for Attorney General Campaign Account Activity Detail

31. 6/10/16 Opinion DE16-06 from Division of Elections

32. Constitutional Eligibility Requirement

Respectfully submitted this 20th day of August, 2018, by:

A. 58 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the email on this 20th day of August, 2018 unto:

Jared J. McCabe, Esq. Ryan Torrens, Esq. The McCabe Law Firm Torrens Law Group, P.A. 8751 North Himes Avenue 4016 Henderson Blvd, Suite D Tampa, FL 33614 Tampa, FL 33629 Phone: 813-489-9211 Telephone: 813-260-4883 Primary: [email protected] Fax: 813-354-2357 Secondary: [email protected] Primary: [email protected] Co-Counsel for Ryan Torrens Secondary: [email protected] Counsel for Ryan Torrens

David A. Fugett, Esq. Thomas F. Baker, II General Counsel 2002 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 103 Jesse C. Dyer, Esq. Tampa, FL 33605 Assistant General Counsel (813) 906-8634 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE (813) 906-2066 R.A. Gray Building, Suite 100 Primary: [email protected] 500 South Bronough Street Secondary: [email protected] Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Co-Counsel for Defendant Ryan Torrens Office: (850) 245-6511 Facsimile: (850) 245-6127 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Ken Detzner & Department of State, Division of Elections

/s/ Andrew J. Baumann ANDREW J. BAUMANN Florida Bar No. 0070610

A. 59 Filing # 76650451 E-Filed 08/18/2018 06:44:06 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEAN SHAW, CASE NO: 2018-CA-001623 Plaintiff, vs.

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State; DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; and RYAN TORRENS,

Defendants. /

DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT LIST

Defendant, Ryan Torrens, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to this Court’s Order Determining Case Entitled to Priority and Setting Non-Jury Trial/Final Hearing dated August 1, 2018, list the following exhibits it expects to use at the final hearing in this matter currently scheduled for August 22, 2018.

1. All exhibits listed by the Plaintiff in its exhibit list. 2. Exhibits listed below the Defendants anticipates using at the final non-jury trial or hearing: a. Document(s) listing or indicating and / or showing the bank account used to write the $4,000.00 check in question was a joint bank account held by Ryan Torrens and his wife. b. The deposition transcript of Michael Starr Hopkins and attached exhibits. c. Questions certified from Michael Starr Hopkins Deposition wherein he was directed by counsel to not answer several questions. d. The transcript from the continuation of Mr. Hopkins suspended deposition. (If needed, after the court rules on the certified questions in Mr. Hopkin’s deposition). e. The transcript and exhibits from Sean Shaw’s deposition. (If taken). f. The transcript and exhibits from Max Jordon Solomon’s deposition. (If taken).

EXHIBIT "B" A. 60 g. The transcript and exhibits from Kevin Cate’s deposition. (If taken). h. Documentation from Ryan Torren’s personal bank account showing money transfers to the AgFed joint account in question. Documentation will likely be best presented in the form of records of transactions using the mobile phone application “Square”.

The Defense reserves the right to amend this list based on the large pending discovery demands by the Plaintiff or if previously unknown evidence or testimony is presented to counsel or The Court.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Electronic Mail, and by Regular U.S. Mail where applicable to: Lewis, Longman, & Walker, P.A., 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and jbullock@llw- law.com, Sean Shaw 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL, Department of State, Division of Elections, 500 S. Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 322399 at [email protected], [email protected], and all other associated parties listed on the E-Portal, dated this 18th day of August, 2018.

Jared J. McCabe

JARED J. MCCABE, ESQUIRE Bar No.: 96675 The McCabe Law Firm 8751 N. Himes Avenue Tampa, FL 33614 Telephone: (813) 489-9211 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

A. 61 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEAN SHAW,

Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO: 2018 CA 001623

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State; DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; and RYAN TORRENS,

Defendants. /

PLAINTIFF’S WITNESS LIST

Plaintiff, SEAN SHAW, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to this

Court’s Order Determining Case Entitled to Priority and Setting Non-Jury Trial/Final Hearing dated August 1, 2018, list the following testimonial witnesses it expects to call at the final hearing in this matter currently scheduled for August 22, 2018, as follows:

1. Ryan Torrens, Esq. Torrens Law Group, P.A. 4016 Henderson Blvd, Suite D Tampa, FL 33629

Mr. Torrens is the defendant in this matter and will testify as a fact witness regarding the facts surrounding the submission of a check written for the amount of $4,000 from Francesca Yabraian to the Ryan Torrens Campaign; facts concerning the submission of the required qualifying fee for Mr. Torrens to qualify as a candidate for Attorney General of the State of Florida; facts concerning the reporting of the nature and character of the $4,000 check received by the campaign account as either a loan or as a campaign contribution; facts concerning the partial refund of the monies given to the campaign account by separate check dated June 18, 2018; will also testify to general knowledge of the contribution; testify as to his eligibility to hold office; and testify as to submission of qualifying paperwork for qualifying as a candidate for Attorney General for the State of Florida.

EXHIBIT "C" A. 62 2. Francesca Perla Yabraian 13840 Vanderbilt Road Odessa, Florida 33556

Ms. Yabraian is a third-party witness and will testify as to the bank account used to write the $4,000 check provided to and received by the Ryan Torrens Campaign on or about June 18, 2018; the circumstances surrounding the creation and modification of said bank account; the facts surrounding the issuance of the $4,000 check and the facts and circumstances surrounding the issuance and receipt of a partial refund from the Ryan Torrens Campaign to Ms. Yabraian on or about July 13, 2018.

3. Jessica Vasconez Campaign Treasurer Ryan Torrens for Attorney General 13266 Byrd Drive Num 609 Odessa, Florida 33556

Ms. Vasconez is Ryan Torrens’ Campaign Treasurer and she will testify as to the financial status of the Ryan Torrens Campaign Account during the months of June and July 2018; the facts concerning the receipt of a $4,000 check from Ms. Yabraian into the Ryan Torrens Campaign Account; the facts and circumstances surrounding the reporting of the $4,000 check to the State Division of Elections as either a loan or a campaign contribution; facts and circumstances surrounding the payment of the qualifying fee; facts concerning the recognition of the receipt of the $4,000 check as improper campaign contribution; and facts concerning the partial refund of monies to Ms. Yabraian.

4. Employee of the Division of Elections who may testify to technical use of EFS system. Name to be provided after August 20, 2018 consultation with counsel for Department of State.

5. Any experts or factual witnesses listed or called by any other party, or identified during pretrial discovery.

6. Any witness necessary to establish predicates for introduction of documents, reports or other records, necessary for impeachment, or necessary for rebuttal.

Respectfully submitted this 17th day of August, 2018, by:

/s/ Andrew J. Baumann ANDREW J. BAUMANN Florida Bar No. 0070610

A. 63 Primary email: [email protected] Secondary email: [email protected] ROBERT P. DIFFENDERFER Florida Bar No. 434906 Primary email: [email protected] Secondary email: [email protected] Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 1500 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Telephone: (561) 640-0820 and NATALIE A. KATO Florida Bar No. 87256 Primary email: [email protected] Secondary email: [email protected] Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 830 Tallahassee, FL 32202 Telephone: (850) 222-5702 Counsel for Plaintiff

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the email on this 17th day of August, 2018 unto:

David A. Fugett, Esq. General Counsel Jesse C. Dyer, Esq. Assistant General Counsel FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE R.A. Gray Building, Suite 100 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250

A. 64 Office: (850) 245-6511 Facsimile: (850) 245-6127 [email protected] [email protected] Counsel for Ken Detzner & Department of State, Division of Elections

/s/ Andrew J. Baumann ANDREW J. BAUMANN Florida Bar No. 0070610

A. 65 Filing # 76650277 E-Filed 08/18/2018 05:18:05 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEAN SHAW,

Plaintiff, vs. CASE NO: 2018-CA-001623

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State; DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; and RYAN TORRENS,

Defendants. /

DEFENDANT'S WITNESS LIST

Defendant, Ryan Torrens, by and through his undersigned counsel and pursuant to this Court’s Order Determining Case Entitled to Priority and Setting Non-Jury Trial/Final Hearing dated August 1, 2018, list the following testimonial witnesses it expects to call at the final hearing in this matter currently scheduled for August 22, 2018.

1. All persons whom the Plaintiff Sean Shaw expects to call as witnesses at the trial and hearing(s). A. All witnesses listed by the Plaintiff in its witness list. B. Witnesses listed below whom the Defendant expects to call as witnesses at trial or hearing: 1. Max Jordon Solomon 2626 E. Park Ave. 13107 Tallahassee, FL 32301

Mr. Solomon filed the complaint with the Florida Election Commission against the Defendant, Ryan Torrens for the $4,000.00 check alleged to be an illegal campaign finance donation. He will testify as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the reporting of the $4,000 check to the State Division of Elections as either a loan or a campaign contribution; facts and circumstances surrounding his complaint, how he obtained the information to file the complaint, and his involvement with Sean Shaw’s campaign as it relates to the alleged illegal campaign contribution.

EXHIBIT "D" A. 66

2. Michael Starr Hopkins CATECOMM 4640 Grove Park Dr, Tallahassee, Fl 32311

Mr. Hopkins is the press secretary / public relations officer for Sean Shaw’s campaign, and he will testify about his communications with the press and emailing Sean Shaw’s complaint to the media.

3. Kevin Cate CATECOMM 4640 Grove Park Dr, Tallahassee, Fl 32311

Mr. Cate is Michael Starr Hopkins supervisor. He will testify about Sean Shaw’s communications with the press and emailing Sean Shaw’s complaint to the media.

4. Any experts or factual witnesses listed or called by any other party, or identified during pretrial discovery.

5. Any witness necessary to establish predicates for introduction of documents, reports or other records, necessary for impeachment, or necessary for rebuttal.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Electronic Mail, and by Regular U.S. Mail where applicable to: Lewis, Longman, & Walker, P.A., 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], and jbullock@llw- law.com, Sean Shaw 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL, Department of State, Division of Elections, 500 S. Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 322399 at [email protected], [email protected], and all other associated parties listed on the E-Portal, dated this 15th day of August, 2018.

Jared J. McCabe

JARED J. MCCABE, ESQUIRE Bar No.: 96675 The McCabe Law Firm 8751 N. Himes Avenue Tampa, FL 33614 Telephone: (813) 489-9211 Email: [email protected] [email protected]

A. 67 Filing # 76984563 E-Filed 08/24/2018 10:10:52 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEAN SHAW,

Plaintiff,

-vs- CASE NO: 2018-CA-001623

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State; DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; and RYAN TORRENS,

Defendants, ______/

NOTICE OF APPEAL

NOTICE IS GIVEN that RYAN TORRES, appeals to the First District Court of Appeals the Order of this Court rendered (See Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.020(g)), on August 24, 2018. This nature of order is an final judgment. A copy of the Judgment is attached.

TFB LAW, P.A.

By: /s/ Thomas F. Baker II Thomas F. Baker II, Esq. Fla. Bar No. 90877 2002 E. 5th Ave., Suite 103 Tampa, FL 33605 Tel. (813) 906-8634 Fax. (813) 906-2066 [email protected] Co-counsel for Defendant Ryan Torrens

A. 68 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished to Lewis, Longman, & Walker, P.A., 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], nkato@llw- law.com, and [email protected], Sean Shaw 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL, Department of State, Division of Elections, 500 S. Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 322399 at [email protected], [email protected], and to all other associated emails through Florida’s E-portal, on this 24th day of Aug, 2018.

TFB LAW, P.A.

A. 69 Filing # 76974343 E-Filed 08/24/2018 04:13:14 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEAN SHAW,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No.: 2018 CA 1623

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State; DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; and RYAN TORRENS,

Defendants.

FINAL JUDGEMENT GRANTING DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

THIS CAUSE involves plaintiff Shaw's request for

declaratory relief that defendant Torrens d id not

properly qualify as a candidate for att orney general,

and for injunctive relief decertifying defendan t

Torrens as a candidate. The case came before the Court

on August 22, 2018 for a final hearing and trial.

Attorneys Kato and Baumann were present for t he

plaintiff, attorneys McCabe and Baker were present wit h

Mr . Torrens for the defense.

A. 70 Summary of Issues

1. Unlike Wright v. City of Miami Gardens, 200 So.

3d 765 (Fla. 2016), adopting Judge Makar's dissent in

Levey v. Detzner, 146 So. 3d 1224 (Fla. 2014), this case does not involve a completely blame- free candidate caught in a qualification problem due to impropriety by the bank which maintains the candidate's campaign account. Candidate Torrens' relevant actions were intentional, and wrong.

2. Mr . Torrens intentionally acted contrary to the campai gn finance and qualifying laws relevant to his campaign for attorney general, then claimed he is entitled to stay on the ballot because he has not yet been criminally convicted pursuant to section 106.18

Fla. Stat. The law does not shelter such wrongdoing to allow an improperly acting candidate such as Mr.

Torrens to stay on the ballot.

3. Plaintiff properly seeks a declaration that Mr.

Torrens did not properly qualify under the

A. 71 circumstances present here, and an injunction directing

Secretary Detzner to decertify Mr. Torrens as a qualified candidate and remove him from the ballot, as a consequence the bad faith and improper conduct Mr.

Torrens demonstrated during qualifying week and for several weeks thereafter.

Summary

Background

4. In Florida the period to qualify for statewide

elections ran from Monday June 18, 2018, to noon on

Friday June 22, 2018. Prior to the end of the

qualifying period all candidates must submit the

necessary documents, including the statutorily mandated

filing fee, to the Florida Division of Elections.

Section 99.061, Florida Statutes (2017).

5. Bank of Tampa records show that the Torrens

campaign account [Ryan Torrens for Attorney General],

as of Friday June 15, 2018, had a balance of $913.36.

A. 72 The amount needed to pay the qualifying fee was

$7,738.32.

The Evidence

6. In 2017, Mr. Torrens [an attorney since 2011] filed initial candidate paperwork to allow him to open a campaign account and begin his campaign for the

Democratic Party nomination for the statewide office of attorney general. Plaintiff's exhibit 1, candidate statement signed 5/19/17.

7. As with all candidates, Mr. Torrens signed the

form confirming he had received, read, and understood

Chapter 106 [the campaign financing statute] .

Plaintiff's exhibit 1.

8. During the trial, Mr. Torrens' attorneys objected on authenticity grounds to a summary campaign

contribution report [Exhibit 21] regarding Mr. Torrens'

fundraising [when asked, Mr. Torrens said he did not

remember specifics regarding the document] . They and

plaintiff's counsel agreed the Court could look at the

A. 73 Division of Elections website regarding Mr. Torrens' filings. [The plaintiff had subpoenaed or tried to make arrangements for a Division witness, but any who might have been appropriate were unavailable due to other court cases]. The Department of State, of which the

Division of Elections is part, is taking no position in this case but is in as a party to facilitate implementation of the ruling.

9. The information on Exhibit 21 [covering the June

1 through June 22, 2018 reporting period] was, in fact, contained on the Division's website; Exhibit 2 1 is therefore admitted into evidence as authenticated.

Monday of Qua.lifying Week

June 18, 2018

10. On Monday of qualifying week, June 18, 2018,

Mr . Torrens took a check from a checkbook on a credit union account at Ag-Fed under the name of Francesca

Yabraian. The account-re lated checks showed only one name and address printed on the checks, that of

A. 74 account owner [Francesca Yabrain]. Mr. Torrens' name did not appear on the face of the check as having any connection to the account.

11. Mr. Torrens filled in the amount of $4,000 on the check.

12. Mr. Torrens made the check payable to "Ryan

Torrens for Attorney General."

13. Mr. Torrens wrote "campaign loan" on the check's memo line.

14. Mr. Torrens signed the check, but not with his name; instead, Mr. Torrens signed the name of Francesca

Yabraian [te stifying at the trial that she had authori zed him to do so] .

Information Mr. Torrens Knew on

Monday of Qua.li£ying Week

15. Only candidates can make loans to their campaigns.

A. 75 16. No one but a candidate can give more than

$3,000.00 to a candidate running for a statewide cabinet office.

17. Before June 18, 2018, Francesca Yabraian had already contributed $2,332.52 to Mr. Torrens' campaign, meaning she could not contribute more than an additional $667.48.

18. Mr. Torrens testified he became a co-owner of the Ag-Fed account in Francesca Yabraian's name on

October 23, 2017, and he testified that made the account a ''joint account . " [Mr. Torrens' marriage record [in evidence as plaintiff's exhibit 23] shows a date of marriage of January 25, 2018 and a Clerk's recording date of February 12, 2018].

19. As Mr. Torrens acknowledged, Florida law makes clear that when a joint account is used for a contribution, the contribution is presumed to be from the person whose name is signed on the check, unless

A. 76 all of the joint account holders sign the check. See

Division of Elections Opinion 93-10.

20. When a campaign treasurer or candidate inputs contribution information into the mandatory Electronic

Filing System [EFS], the system provides a red flag warning/error message to indicate a contribution that is an excessive one as to a particular contributor. The

EFS also provides a red flag warning/error message as to a type of contribution inappropriate to a contributor, such as a loan from someone not the candidate.

Tuesday 0£ Qua1i£ying Week

JWle 19, 2018

21. Jessica Vasconez, treasurer for Mr. Torrens' campaign, entered the deposit into the EFS system, she received the red flag warning error message.

Plaintiff's exhibit 29, pp. 7-8,19.

A. 77 22. Before the June 18, 2018 deposit, Mr. Torrens had not told Ms. Vasconez the account was a joint one.

Plaintiff's exhibit 29, pp. 18-19, 26.

23. Before the June 18, 2018 deposit, treasurer

Vasconez knew Ms. Yabraian had made other contributions. Plaintiff's exhibit 29, p. 18.

24. When treasurer Vasconez processed the June 18,

2018 deposit, she entered Ms. Yabraian's name, characterized the check as a loan, and the amount as

$4,000.00 as written on the face of the check. An error message appeared on the screen. Plaintiff's exhibit 29, p.19.

25. When that happened, treasurer Vasconez emailed

Mr. Torrens at 3:03 PM regarding "Reimburse Personal

Loan":

I am almost positive we are going to have to reimburse part of Francesca's loan contribution. The only person that is not subject to contribution limitations concerning loans is the candidate.

26. At 3:15 PM, Mr. Torrens responded to treasurer

Vasconez:

A. 78 Hey just called and left you a message. Call when you can. My mistake. I just looked up the rule. She is owed a refund then of $2,432.00 [sic]. I just looked up how much she had given previously. I could come get a check from you tomorrow and then deposit it in her account to refund her for that. Let me know if you'll be around.

Plaintiff's exhibit 28. [Mr. Torrens does not refer to the account being jointly owned in the June 19, 2018 email, but to "her" account, referring to Ms. Yabraian.

Mr. Torrens's email also understated the amount Ms.

Yabraian had previously contributed; the refund amount should be $3,332.52 rather than $2,432.00].

27. Mr. Torrens and treasurer Vasconez knew there would not be enough money for him to qualify if the

$4,000.00 had not been deposited. Plaintiff's exhibit

29, p.16.

28. Mr. Torrens and treasurer Vasconez discussed that there needed to be a refund, Mr. Torrens mentioned looking into whether it could be reclassified, did some independent research. Plaintiff's exhibit 29, pp.15-16.

A. 79 Wednesday 0£ Quali£ying Week

June 20, 2018

29. Mr. Torrens did not tell treasurer Vasconez to issue the necessary refund check.

Thursday 0£ Qual.i£ying Week

June 21, 2018

30. Mr. Torrens did not tell Treasure Vasconez to issue the necessary refund check. Mr. Torrens took the qualifying check treasurer Vasconez signed and the qualifying papers to Tallahassee, and submitted them to

The Division of Elections.

Friday of Qual.i£ying Week

June 22, 2018

31. Qualifying ended at noon. Neither treasurer

Vasconez nor Mr. Torrens took action to refund the illegal funds, and neither of them contacted the

Division of Elections to get clarification regarding any possible reclassification, although treasurer

Vasconez had called for guidance on other matters. Mr.

A. 80 Torrens' testimony during the trial, Exhibit 29, p. 16 as to treasurer Vasconez.

A£ter Q!Ja1ifying Week

32. While Mr. Torrens was supposedly doing research into reclassification of the loan, treasurer Vasconez did not prepare the refund check to Ms. Yabraian for the $3,332.52. It was not until July 13, 2018, nearly a month after the improper deposit on June 18, when the refund was prepared. Plaintiff's exhibit 27.

33 . Mr. Torrens took the refund check, personally endorsed Ms. Yabraian's name and deposited it on July

19, 2018, six days after the refund check was prepared.

34. The result of the illegal excessive deposit Mr.

Torrens wrote and made was that he and his campaign knowingly had the use of unlawful funds for more than a month.

35 . The highest daily balance through June 29,

2018, the last business day of the month, was

$10,519.64, again not enough to cover a refund of

A. 81 $3,332.52 plus the $7,738.32 qualifying fee, which would have taken $11,070.84. But for the presence of the Yabraian $4,000.00 remaining in the account from

June 18, 2018 and beyond, the qualifying check would not have cleared and Mr. Torrens would not have qualified for the ballot.

Discussion

36. Thus, this case involves a candidate who chose to deposit an improper excess contribution in his campaign account on Monday of qualifying week, acknowledged on Tuesday of qualifying week that he knew a refund would have to be provided, intentionally chose not to issue the refund, and knowingly used the illegal funds to pay the qualifying fee on Thursday of qualifying week.

37. The Court must determine, under the facts of this case, whether the candidate can be found to have properly met the qualifying criteria in section 99.061

Fla. Stat.

A. 82 38. Stated differently, the question is whether a candidate for a party's nomination for a statewide office [specifically for attorney general, the highest law enforcement officer in the State] who intentionally ignores campaign contribution laws to use unlawfully accepted and deposited excess contributions to cover campaign expenses, such as payment of the qualifying fee, while delaying the mandatory refund must be viewed as a validly qualified candidate who may be left on the ballot unless he has first been criminally convicted, or whether the court has the authority to declare the candidate unqualified and require his removal from the ballot.

Findings

For the reasons set for below, the Court finds that candidate Torrens must be declared not qualified and his name must be removed from the ballot.

39. Totaling all of the contributions reported prior to June 21, 2018 and subtracting all expenditures

A. 83 reported prior to June 21, 2018 showed inadequate funds available to cover the $7,738.32 qualifying check if the $4,000 Mr. Torrens deposited on June 18, 2018 were ignored.

40. As to the $4,000 Mr. Torrens deposited into his campaign account on June 18, 2018, the only account owner shown on the check is Francesca Yabraian. Mr.

Torrens testified he filled in all of the information on the check, including the $4,000.00 amount, the payee

[Ryan Torrens for Attorney General], the words

"campaign loan" on the memo line, and he testified he signed Ms. Yabraian's name to the check. [Mr. Torrens testified that, even though he considered the accoun t to be a joint account, it was his practice when writing checks on the account not to sign any name on the payor line other than Ms. Yabraian's; he testified he had written several checks on the account but never signed his own name, always Ms. Yabraian's].

41. Qualifying for the attorney general candidacy took place between June 18, 2018 and noon on June 22,

A. 84 2018. Mr. Torrens turned in his qualifying papers and the $7,738.32 campaign check for the qualifying fee on

June 21, 2018 in person, at the Division of Elections

Office. Plaintiff's exhibit 3 is a copy of the campaign check.

42. The publicly avai lable information relating to candidate Torrens on the Department of State/Division of Elections site showed that at the time he submitted his qualifying paperwork at 4:08 p.m. on June 21, 2018,

Mr. Torrens requested public matching funds. On that form [marked as Court Exhibit 2 and provided to the

Deputy Clerk for filing as an exhibit] certified his familiarity with various subsections of chapter 106.

43. The undisputed evidence shows that at the time defendant Torrens provided the qualifying paperwork and campaign qualifying check to the Division of Elections on June 21, 2018, Mr. Torrens knew the due date for the qualifying fee was approaching and the campaign account probably contained insufficient legal contribution amounts to cover the qualifying fee check of $7,738.32.

A. 85 44. The evidence clearly and without dispute demonstrated that Mr. Torrens knew his campaign was always short of money, it was a grassroots compaign.

45. Mr. Torrens wrote a check on an account he described as a joint account he shared with his wife, indicated the check was for a loan, and signed his wife's name to the check. 1

46. Mr. Torrens knew at the time he wrote and deposited the check that his wife was subject to a

$3,000 limit on contributions. The campaign records

showed Ms. Yabraian had already contributed some

$2,332.52, and so could not contribute more than

$667.48.

47. Mr. Torrens also knew his wife could not make a

loan to the campaign.

48. The evidence contained an unrebutted email

exchange between Mr. Torrens and campaign treasurer

1 Division of Elections guidance indicated that a check on a joint account signed by only one of the owners would be attributed as coming from the person whose name was on the check. See D.E. Opinion 93-10. 17

A. 86 Vasconez, dated on June 19, 2018 [the day after Mr.

Torrens personally deposited the $4,000 "loan" check from Ms. Yabraian], reflecting that the contribution was not legal and the treasurer encountered problems when the transaction was entered into the EFS

[Electronic Filing System] . There were two problems flagged: the amount exceeded the limit applicable to

Ms. Yabraian, and the "loan" was not a proper categorization applicable to Ms. Yabraian.

49. Thus, Mr. Torrens knew prior to travelling to

Tallahassee that what there were not sufficient, legal, funds in the campaign account, yet he took no corrective action and inappropriately just continued with his non-compliant course.

50. Based on the foregoing, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:

1. Mr. Torrens' selective memory at trial about the campaign account balance is not credible, nor is his

A. 87 testimony about Ms. Yabraian's account being a joint one.

2. As an attorney for some seven years, as a candidate for public office, as an applicant for public financing to help with his campaign, and as a candidate to serve as the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the state, Mr. Torrens is charged with knowledge of the law. Mr. Torrens clearly acted contrary to the law, knowingly.

3. Mr. Torrens acted improperly in filling out the campaign "loan" check for $4,000.00 and should never have deposited it. He compounded his disregard for the law by not immediately refunding the excess amount and by not taking other corrective action, if he wished to qualify, to do so lawfully.

4. Mr. Torrens has proven himself not to be properly qualified, and is hereby declared to not be qualified as a candidate for the Democratic nomination for attorney general.

A. 88 5. Secretary Detzner shall promptly notify all 67 of Florida's supervisors of elections that Mr. Torrens has been decertified as a candidate, and may not be certified as the attorney general nominee for the

Democratic Party regardless of what the vote totals are on Tuesday, August 28, 2018.

6. Mr. Torrens' motion to dismiss the complaint is not legally sound, and ignores the obligation of the

Court to review a candidate's qualifying efforts as set forth in section 99.061 Fla. Stat. The motion to dismiss the complaint is denied.

7. Like Mr. Boatman in Boatman v. Hardee, 1018-2872

(Fla. 1st DCA 8/23/18), and Ms. Hoover in Hoover v.

Mobley, 1018-2638 (Fla. 1st DCA 8/8/18), Mr. Torrens could have done things correctly. He clearly and convincingly chose not to, and he must be deemed removed from the ballot.

A. 89 8. Mr. Shaw's motion to dismiss the Torrens amended counterclaim for libel based on the contents of the complaint is granted.

9. Ruling upon the August 24, 2018 motion to dismiss the amended counterclaim is def erred until

August 30, 2018, Mr. Torrens may submit a response no later than 5:00 p.m. on August 29, 2018.

10. The Court retains jurisdiction to consider any timely filed motion to tax costs.

DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, Tallahassee, Leon

County, Florida, this ~ht,.... day of August, 2018.

KAREN GIEVERS Circuit Judge Copies to:

Jared J. McCabe, Esq. [email protected] [email protected]

Ryan Torrens, Esq. [email protected] [email protected]

21 <>o l ~ CA Jl.. 2-J A. 90 David A. Fugett, Esq. [email protected]

Jesse C. Dyer, Esq. [email protected]

Andrew J. Baumann, Esq. [email protected] [email protected]

Robert P. Diffenderfer, Esq [email protected] [email protected]

Natalie A. Kato, Esq. [email protected] [email protected]

A. 91 Filing # 76984563 E-Filed 08/24/2018 10:10:52 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEAN SHAW,

Plaintiff,

-vs- CASE NO: 2018-CA-001623

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State; DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; and RYAN TORRENS,

Defendants, ______/

NOTICE OF APPEAL

TFB LAW, P.A.

A. 92 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

TFB LAW, P.A.

A. 93 Filing # 76974343 E-Filed 08/24/2018 04:13:14 PM

A. 94 A. 95 A. 96 A. 97 A. 98 A. 99 A. 100 A. 101 A. 102 A. 103 A. 104 A. 105 A. 106 A. 107 A. 108 A. 109 A. 110 A. 111 A. 112 A. 113 A. 114 A. 115 A. 116 A. 117 A. 118 A. 119 A. 120 A. 121 A. 122 A. 123 Filing # 77484357 E-Filed 09/05/2018 05:29:17 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SEAN SHAW,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant CASE NO: 2018-CA-001623 vs.

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State; DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS; and RYAN TORRENS,

Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff /

PLAINTIFF/COUNTER-DEFENDANT SEAN SHAW’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT/COUNTER-PLAINTIFF RYAN TORRENS’ VERIFIED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY JUDGE

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, SEAN SHAW (hereinafter “Shaw”), pursuant to Fla. R. Jud.

Admin. 2.330 and §38.10 Fla. Stat (2018), responds in opposition to the disqualification of the

Honorable Karen Gievers, Circuit Judge (hereinafter “Judge Gievers”), and states as follows:

1. On August 22, 2018, Judge Gievers conducted a bench trial in the underlying

declaratory judgment action in this case.

2. During the trial, Judge Gievers inquired on the record whether either party objected to

the Judge accessing the Florida Division of Elections’ official website and look at the information

contained therein. See, Transcript of August 22, 2018 Bench Trial (hereinafter “Transcript”), at p.

118:21-119:12. Attached hereto as Exhibit A.

3. Counsel for Torrens specifically stated in response to Judge Gievers: “No objection

to The Court going on the website to see what’s there.” Id.

4. Counsel for Shaw also did not object. Id.

01036373-1 A. 124 Shaw v. Ken Detzner, et. al. Case No. 2018 CA 001623 Response to Motion to Disqualify Judge

5. Judge Gievers entered an order in the underlying declaratory judgment action on

August 24, 2018, and on page 16 of that order made reference to Torrens’ request for public matching campaign funds. Judge Gievers entered this publicly-available document evidencing Torrens’ request for public matching campaign funds into evidence as “Court Exhibit 1.”

6. Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff Torrens’ Verified Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge was filed on September 4, 2018 at 11:47 pm.

7. Torrens’ Motion was not filed within the strictly required time limits imposed by Fla.

R. Jud. Admin 2.330(e). The rules states that “(a) motion to disqualify shall be filed within a reasonable period of time not to exceed 10 days after the discovery of the facts constituting the grounds for the motion and shall be promptly presented to the court for an immediate ruling.”

(Emphasis added).

8. Torrens, who has claimed authorship of the Motion, and two members of his legal team were present in the courtroom on August 22, 2018 and heard Judge Gievers ask whether there was any objection to the Judge accessing the Florida Division of Elections website. They affirmatively stated they had no objection. They also presumably read Judge Gievers order issued August 24th,

2018. One or both of these events are the “discovery of facts” that constitute grounds for Torrens

Motion, and the time period for filing the motion was thus tolled no later than 5:00 pm on September

4, 2018.

9. Even if The Court finds that Torrens’ Motion was timely filed, Torrens failed to assert legally sufficient grounds demonstrating a well-founded fear that he will not receive a fair trial at the hands of Judge Gievers.

10. As is demonstrated in the record, Torrens, his counsel, and counsel for Shaw were all asked, in open court, by Judge Gievers whether they objected to the Judge accessing the Florida

01036373-1 2

A. 125 Shaw v. Ken Detzner, et. al. Case No. 2018 CA 001623 Response to Motion to Disqualify Judge

Division of Elections official website. No objection was made, nor was any attempt made by Torrens or his counsel to limit what Judge Gievers could view or consider on the Florida Division of Elections’ official website. Thus, Torrens and his counsel waived any right to disqualify the Judge for viewing the website and relying on its content when they consented to the same.

11. Accordingly, Torrens has doubly failed to support disqualification of the Judge. First,

Torrens failed to file his Motion within the strict ten (10) day period, thus barring relief sought.

Second, notwithstanding the time-barred nature of his Motion, Torrens failed to submit a legally sufficient motion.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW

The disqualification of a trial judge requires two separate determinations. Initially, the trial judge must determine whether the motion meets the procedural requirements of the rule; that is, whether the motion is timely filed and submitted in the proper form. Second, the motion must set forth legally sufficient grounds justifying disqualification of the presiding judge.

A. Torren’s Failure to Follow Procedural Requirements Requires Denial of the Motion.

Florida Statute §31.10 creates the substantive right to request disqualification of a trial judge.

The procedures for disqualification are governed exclusively by the provisions of Fla.R.Jud.Admin.

2.330. A motion for disqualification that does not meet all of the requirements set forth in the rule is legally insufficient and must be denied on that ground even if the moving party could have asserted a substantive right to disqualification. While Torrens’ Motion satisfies most of the procedural requirements, was not made within 10 days of the date the moving party discovered the alleged ground for disqualification, and therefore must fail.

In Fischer v. Knuck, 487 So.2d 240, 243 (Fla. 1986), the Florida Supreme Court considered whether the filing of a motion for judicial disqualification eleven days following the discovery of the

01036373-1 3

A. 126 Shaw v. Ken Detzner, et. al. Case No. 2018 CA 001623 Response to Motion to Disqualify Judge facts was timely. The court found it was not, holding that the purpose of the timeliness requirement is to avoid adverse effects on the opposing party, and the resulting costs and delay created by a disqualification.

Torrens and his counsel were present on August 22, 2018, and were aware of the Judge’s intent to review the Florida Division of Election’s official website and the forms filed by Torrens therein. Torrens did not act to recuse the Judge. Torrens did not even object to the Judge’s request to access the website and review the official forms associated with Torrens’ campaign. Torren’s motion is untimely.

Torrens and his counsel presumably read the order issued by Judge Gievers on August 24,

2018. Torrens should have mounted any bid to remove Judge Gievers by 5:00 pm on September 4th, instead of waiting until nearly almost midnight. The delay is inexcusable, given the extended response period afforded them by the holiday weekend.

In addition, Torrens attempted to grant himself extra time artificially, by stating that he was not aware of “Court’s Exhibit 1” until August 30th. This is disingenuous. Torrens and his counsel were aware of the Court’s Order on August 24, 2018, and presumably read that order, as they promptly filed with this court a notice of appeal and motion for stay of the court order at 4:44 pm on

August 24, 2018. Torrens and his counsel had already been aware that the Judge intended to review the Torrens campaign filing forms on the website for more than two days.

Because Torrens waited until after the 10-day time period had run, he has procedurally defaulted and his Motion must be denied.

B. Torrens has Failed to Present a Legally Sufficient Claim for Judicial Disqualification

If a motion for disqualification complies with the applicable procedural requirements, the court may determine whether the facts alleged are legally sufficient to require disqualification. The

01036373-1 4

A. 127 Shaw v. Ken Detzner, et. al. Case No. 2018 CA 001623 Response to Motion to Disqualify Judge term ‘legal sufficiency’ means more than mere technical compliance with the rule and statute; the court must also determine if the facts alleged, when taken as true, would prompt a reasonably prudent person to have a well-founded fear that he could not receive a fair and impartial trial. Hayslip v.

Douglas 400 So.2d 553, 556 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981). The facts and reasons given for the disqualification of a judge must tend to show personal bias or prejudice. Levine v. State, 650 So.2d 666 (Fla. 4th DCA

1995). Torrens cannot point to any evidence on the record that shows personal bias or prejudice by

Judge Gievers.

The only evidence Torrens cites in support of his motion is Judge Gievers’ entry into the trial record of publicly available information. Torren neglects to mention that during the trial on August

22, 2018, Judge Gievers specifically asked Torrens’ counsel if he had any objection to the Court looking at the forms filed on the Division of Elections website. Counsel stated that he did not. Judge

Gievers acted on Torrens consent accordingly. Ultimately, the Court admitted into evidence a publicly-available form created pursuant to Florida Statute 106.33 and 1S-2.047, F.R.C. that was viewable on the official Division of Elections website as a matter of law. Judge Gievers was required to take judicial notice of this document pursuant to Florida Statute 90.201.

Instead, it now appears that Torrens, having found himself on the other side of an adverse ruling, has filed this Motion is a last-ditch effort to shop for a judge who may be more amendable to

Torrens’ frivolous counterclaim. A trial judge’s prior adverse ruling is not a legally sufficient ground upon which to base a motion to disqualify. Thompson v. State, 759 So.2d 650 (Fla. 2000).

Questionable rulings are also not a grounds for disqualification. Pilkington v. Pilkington, 182 So. 3d

776, 779 (Fla. 5th DCA 2015).

Whether a trial judge committed reversible error by entering a document into evidence, followed proper judicial notice procedure, or improperly relied on a document in their ruling is an

01036373-1 5

A. 128 Shaw v. Ken Detzner, et. al. Case No. 2018 CA 001623 Response to Motion to Disqualify Judge issue on appeal, and is not grounds for disqualification. Torrens has cited several cases where the appellate court reversed a trial court’s ruling after a judge conducted their own independent research.

However, Torrens only cites a single case where a judge was disqualified for “conducting an independent investigation.” That case, In re Guardianship of O.A.M, 124 So.3d 1031 (Fla. 3rd 2013), involved a judge conducting an interview of a key witness, outside the presence of the parties, and improperly obtained financial records from a bank account of the minor child without involving the parties. Those sort of facts are not present here. Judge Gievers gained the consent of the parties in advance of accessing the Division of Elections website. Having received no objection, she acted accordingly.

Even if all of the allegations made in Torrens’ motion are true, he has failed to allege specific facts that would objectively lead to the conclusion that he would not receive a fair trial. He has articulated no facts evidencing personal bias or prejudice of the judge. His Motion is therefore insufficient and must be denied. See Barnhill v. State, 834 So.2d 836 (Fla. 2002); Williams v. State,

689 So.2d 393 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1997) (motion for recusal is legally sufficient only if it shows that the movant has a well-grounded fear that a fair trial would be impossible under the presiding judge; motion must be well-founded and contain facts germane to the judge’s undue bias, prejudice, or sympathy). Torrens’ subjective, inchoate fears are not legally sufficient, nor has he pled any facts, to create any well-founded fear of judicial bias.

This Motion is devoid of support in the facts and the law, and because it has been brought outside the ten day period provided for by the Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.330, the court must find that

Torren’s Verified Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge was not brought in good faith, and was brought solely for the purpose of unduly delaying this action and imposing further financial burden upon his opponent.

01036373-1 6

A. 129 Shaw v. Ken Detzner, et. al. Case No. 2018 CA 001623 Response to Motion to Disqualify Judge

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant Shaw respectfully requests that this Court deny

Torrens’ Verified Motion to Disqualify Trial Judge and award Shaw his costs and attorneys fees incurred in defending against it.

Respectfully submitted this 5th day of September, 2018, by:

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the email on this 5th day of September, 2018 unto:

01036373-1 7

A. 130 Shaw v. Ken Detzner, et. al. Case No. 2018 CA 001623 Response to Motion to Disqualify Judge

Counsel for Ryan Torrens

Jesse C. Dyer, Esq. Thomas F. Baker, II Assistant General Counsel 2002 E. 5th Avenue, Suite 103 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Tampa, FL 33605 R.A. Gray Building, Suite 100 (813) 906-8634 500 South Bronough Street (813) 906-2066 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Primary: [email protected] Office: (850) 245-6511 Secondary: [email protected] Facsimile: (850) 245-6127 Co-Counsel for Defendant Ryan Torrens [email protected] Counsel for Ken Detzner & Department of State, Division of Elections

/s/ Andrew J. Baumann ANDREW J. BAUMANN Florida Bar No. 0070610

01036373-1 8

A. 131 SEAN SHAW vs. KEN DETZNER · TRIAL 118

·1· · · · that got hung up.· Are you moving that in at ·2· · · · this point? ·3· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· No, Your Honor. ·4· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Do you want it marked for ID, for

·5· · · · identification? ·6· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Yes, please. ·7· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Did you get that, ·8· · · · Ms. Allen? ·9· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· Yes.

10· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· That's the multi-page one. 11· · · · You used them on authentication and then 12· · · · Mr. Torrens didn't recognize it. 13· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· And what was the number

14· · · · that she -- 15· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Could it be 21? 16· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· It was Exhibit 21, 17· · · · Your Honor.

18· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· 21, for ID purposes only. 19· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 21 was marked 20· ·for identification.) 21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And Mr. McCabe, with respect 22· · · · to your objection to 21, which was the summary

23· · · · of the financial reports, to the extent those 24· · · · are in line and you had an objection because 25· · · · you couldn't tell if it had been signed or

Orange Legal

800-275-7991 YVer1f A. 132 EXHIBIT "A" SEAN SHAW vs. KEN DETZNER · TRIAL 119

·1· ·authenticated by the treasurer or Mr. Torrens, ·2· ·is there any objection to The Court going on ·3· ·the division website and looking at what's ·4· ·there?

·5· · · · MR. MCCABE:· No objection to The Court ·6· ·going on the website to see what's there. ·7· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· And that takes care of ·8· ·the authentication objection. ·9· · · · Is there any objection from the Plaintiff

10· ·if The Court looks at the division website, 11· ·Ms. Kato, any objection? 12· · · · MS. KATO:· No, Your Honor. 13· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Cross-examination,

14· ·Mr. McCabe or Mr. Baker? 15· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor.· May I have one 16· ·moment to confer with counsel? 17· · · · (Pause.)

18· · · · THE COURT:· If you want to stand and stretch, 19· ·Mr. Torrens, you may do that. 20· · · · THE WITNESS:· Thank you, Judge. 21· · · · THE COURT:· And anyone else that wants to do 22· ·that while we're waiting.

23· · · · MR. MCCABE:· May I proceed? 24· · · · THE COURT:· Of course. 25· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Thank you, Your Honor.

Orange Legal

800-275-7991 YVer1f A. 133 A. 134 A. 135 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

SHAW, SEAN Plaintiff(s), vs. CASE NO. 2018 CA 001623

DETZNER IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE, KEN Defendant(s).

______/

ORDER SETTING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

THIS CAUSE came before the Court on September 25,

2018 for sua sponte review. The Court having reviewed the court file, having seen the defense response to the plaintiff's motion for attorney fees, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby:

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this case is set for Case

Management Conference on October 10, 2018, at 8:15 a.m.

E.T. before the Honorable Karen Gievers, Leon County

Courthouse, 301 South Monroe Street, Room 365-D,

Tallahassee, FL 32301 for the purpose of considering and determining the entitlement claim. If counsel are not able to appear in person, they may make

eFiled by GIEVERS, KAREN A on BM Web Date 9/25/2018 4:37 PM A. 136 arrangements with Judicial Assistant Underwood to appear telephonically. Fifteen minutes are set aside.

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities

Act, persons needing special accommodation to participate in this proceeding should contact the Court

Administrator’s Office no later than seven days prior to the proceeding at (850)606-4300.

ORDERED in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida, on

9/25/2018 4:37 PM.

Circuit Judge

A. 137 Copies furnished to:

Party NATALIE ANNE KATO 315 S CALHOUN ST STE 830 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301

DAVID A FUGETT 500 SOUTH BRONOUGH STREET SUITE 100 R A GRAY BUILDING TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399

ROBERT DIFFENDERFER 515 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE SUITE 1500 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401

ANDREW J BAUMANN 515 NORTH FLAGLER DRIVE SUITE 1500 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401

KEN DETZNER IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF STATE 500 SOUTH BRONOUGH STREET TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399

SEAN SHAW 515 N. FLAGLER DR. SUITE 1500 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS No address on file

A. 138 RYAN TORRENS 13840 VANDERBILT RD. ODESSA, FL 33556

RYAN C TORRENS 4016 HENDERSON BLVD., SUITE D TAMPA, FL 33629

JARED J MCCABE ESQUIRE 8751 N. HIMES AVENUE TAMPA, FL 33614

RYAN C TORRENS 4016 HENDERSON BLVD., SUITE D TAMPA, FL 33629

RYAN TORRENS 13840 VANDERBILT RD. ODESSA, FL 33556

RYAN C TORRENS 4016 HENDERSON BLVD., SUITE D TAMPA, FL 33629

SEAN SHAW 515 N. FLAGLER DR. SUITE 1500

A. 139 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401

LEE SEGAL 18167 U.S. HIGHWAY 19 N. SUITE 100 CLEARWATER, FL 33764

FRANCESCA YABRAIAN 18167 US HWY 19 N STE 100 CLEARWATER, FL 33764

THOMAS F BAKER II 2002 E 5TH AVE., SUITE 103 TAMPA, FL 33605

JESSE DYER 500 SOUTH BRONOUGH STREET TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399

A. 140 Filing # 77251537 E-Filed 08/30/2018 01:28:14 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA, CIVIL DIVISION

SEAN SHAW, Higher Tribunal Case Number: 1D18-3600 CASE NO: 2018-CA-001623 Plaintiff/Appellee vs.

KEN DETZNER, in his official capacity as the Secretary of State; DEPARTMENT OF STATE, DIVISION OF ELECTIONS, Defendants, and RYAN TORRENS, Defendant / Appellant.

NOTICE OF FILING

Defendant / Appellant, RYAN TORRENS, by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby files the following documents:

1. Transcript of the bench trial held on August 23, 2018. (2018-CA-001623).

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served via the email on this 30th day of August, 2018 unto:

ANDREW J. BAUMANN THOMAS F. BAKER, II Florida Bar No. 0070610 Bar Number: 90877 Primary email: [email protected] Primary Email: [email protected] Secondary email: [email protected] Secondary Email: [email protected] ROBERT P. DIFFENDERFER TFB Law, P.A. Florida Bar No. 434906 2002 E 5th Ave Unit 103 Primary email: [email protected] Tampa, FL 33605-5233 Secondary email: [email protected] United States Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Office: 813-906-8634 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 1500 Fax: 813-906-2066 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Co-Counsel for Ryan Torrens Telephone: (561) 640-0820 and and NATALIE A. KATO RYAN TORRENS, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 87256 Florida Bar Number: 89407 Primary email: [email protected] Primary: [email protected] Secondary email: [email protected] Secondary: [email protected] Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A. Torrens Law Group, P.A. 4016 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 830 Henderson Blvd, Suite D Tampa, Tallahassee, FL 32202 FL 33629 Telephone: (850) 222-5702 Telephone: 813-260-4883 Counsels for Plaintiff / Appellee Sean Shaw. Fax: 813-354-2357 Co-Counsel for Ryan Torrens A. 141 Jesse C. Dyer, Esq. Assistant General Counsel FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE R.A. Gray Building, Suite 100 500 South Bronough Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0250 Office: (850) 245-6511 Facsimile: (850) 245-6127 [email protected] Counsel for Ken Detzner & Department of State, Division of Elections

Respectfully submitted this 30th day of August, 2018.

/s/Jared McCabe, Esq. JARED MCCABE, ESQ. FLORIDA BAR NO. 96675 THE MCCABE LAW FIRM 8751 N. Himes Ave. Tampa, FL 33614 Ph: 813-489-9211 Fax: 813-315-6646 [email protected] Appellate Counsel for Ryan Torrens

A. 142 Filing # 77252144 E-Filed 08/30/2018 01:34:02 PM

A. 143 ·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN ·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

·3· ·SEAN SHAW,

·4· · · · Plaintiff,· · · · · · · · · CASE NO. 2018 CA 001623 · · ·vs. ·5 · · ·KEN DETZNER, in his official ·6· ·capacity as Secretary of State, · · ·et al., ·7 · · · · · Defendants, ·8 · · ·and ·9 · · ·FRANCESCA YABRAIAN, 10 · · · · · Third-Party Defendant. 11· ·______/

13· · · · · · · · ·TRANSCRIPT OF TRIAL PROCEEDINGS

14· · · · · Held Before:· The Honorable Karen A. Gievers

15· · · · · · ·DATE:· · ·August 22, 2018

16· · · · · · ·TIME:· · ·1:30 p.m. - 4:50 p.m.

17· · · · · · ·PLACE:· · Leon County Courthouse · · · · · · · · · · · · ·301 South Monroe Street 18· · · · · · · · · · · ·Courtroom 3G · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Tallahassee, Florida 19 · · · · · · · ·This cause came on to be heard at the time and 20· ·place aforesaid, when and where the following proceedings · · ·were stenographically reported by: 21 · · · · · · · · · · DEBORAH ALFF, COURT REPORTER 22

A. 144 ·1· ·APPEARANCES:

·2· ·On behalf of the PLAINTIFF SEAN SHAW:

·3· · · · NATALIE ANNE KATO, ESQUIRE · · · · · ANDREW J. BAUMANN, ESQUIRE ·4· · · · Lewis, Longman and Walker · · · · · 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 830 ·5· · · · Tallahassee, Florida· 32301-1872 · · · · · Phone:· 850-692-5160 ·6· · · · Emails:· [email protected] · · · · · · · · · ·[email protected] ·7 · · ·On behalf of the DEFENDANT RYAN TORRENS: ·8 · · · · · JARED J. MCCABE, ESQUIRE ·9· · · · The McCabe Law Firm · · · · · 8751 North Himes Avenue 10· · · · Tampa, Florida· 33614-1624 · · · · · Phone:· 813-489-9211 11· · · · Email:· [email protected]

12· · · · THOMAS F. BAKER, II, ESQUIRE · · · · · TFB Law, P.A. 13· · · · 2002 East 5th Avenue, Unit 103 · · · · · Tampa, Florida· 33605-5233 14· · · · Phone:· 813-906-8634 · · · · · Email:· [email protected] 15 · · ·Also present:· Ryan Torrens 16

A. 145 ·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · I N D E X · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE ·2 · · ·PROCEEDINGS· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 5 ·3 · · ·Motion to Dismiss by Mr. Baker· · · · · · · · · · · 11 ·4 · · ·Opening Statements ·5· · · · By Ms. Kato· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 23 · · · · · By Mr. McCabe· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 26 ·6 · · ·JENA KINGERY ·7· · · · Direct Examination by Ms. Kato· · · · · · · · ·35

·8· ·RYAN TORRENS · · · · · Direct Examination by Ms. Kato· · · · · · · · ·60 ·9· · · · Cross-Examination by Mr. McCabe· · · · · · · ·120 · · · · · Redirect Examination by Ms. Kato· · · · · · · 124 10 · · ·Motion for Directed Verdict 11· · · · By Mr. Baker· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 130

12· ·RYAN TORRENS · · · · · Direct Examination by Mr. McCabe· · · · · · · 134 13· · · · Cross-Examination by Ms. Kato· · · · · · · · ·143 · · · · · Recross-Examination BY Mr. McCabe· · · · · · ·147 14 · · ·Closing Statements 15· · · · By Ms. Kato· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·150 · · · · · By Mr. McCabe· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·152 16 · · ·Certificate of Reporter· · · · · · · · · · · · · · 158 17

A. 146 ·1· · · · · · · · · · · · ·E X H I B I T S

·2· ·PLAINTIFF'S· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · PAGE

·3· ·Exhibit 1· · · Statement of Candidate (Admitted)· ·63

·4· ·Exhibit 3· · · 6/20/17 Check for $7,738.32 · · · · · · · · · · (Admitted)· · · · · · · · · · · · · 69 ·5 · · ·Exhibit 5· · · EFS Screenshot Check Contribution ·6· · · · · · · · · (Admitted)· · · · · · · · · · · · · 39

·7· ·Exhibit 6· · · EFS Screenshot Loan Contribution · · · · · · · · · · (Admitted)· · · · · · · · · · · · · 42 ·8 · · ·Exhibit 15· · ·Check for $4,000 (Admitted)· · · · ·50 ·9 · · ·Exhibit 19· · ·Form 6 (Admitted)· · · · · · · · · ·65 10 · · ·Exhibit 21· · ·Summary of Financial Reports 11· · · · · · · · · (For Identification)· · · · · · · ·118

12· ·Exhibit 23· · ·(Admitted)· · · · · · · · · · · · · 50

13· ·Exhibit 26· · ·DE 93-10 Advisory Opinion · · · · · · · · · · (Admitted)· · · · · · · · · · · · ·117 14 · · ·Exhibit 27· · ·Refund Check· (Admitted)· · · · · ·106 15 · · ·Exhibit 28· · ·Vasconez Deposition (Admitted)· · · 49 16 · · ·Exhibit 29· · ·Vazconez Deposition Excerpts 17· · · · · · · · · (Admitted)· · · · · · · · · · · · · 58

18· ·Exhibit 30· · ·Campaign Bank Account Records · · · · · · · · · · (Referenced)· · · · · · · · · · · · 72 19· ·______

20· ·DEFENDANT'S

21· ·Exhibit 1· · · Bank change request form · · · · · · · · · · (For Identification)· · · · · · · ·136 22· · · · · · · · · (Admitted)· · · · · · · · · · · · ·137

23· ·NOTE:· Due to the expedited nature of transcription, · · ·the court reporter defers to official court records 24· ·regarding the above-listed exhibit list.

A. 147 ·1· · · · · · · · P R O C E E D I N G S ·2· · · · THE COURT:· Good afternoon, everyone. ·3· ·Go ahead and take your seats, please. ·4· · · · We're missing a couple people it looks like, ·5· ·but we have our court reporter, we have our deputy, ·6· ·we have our clerk.· And are you Ms. Kato? ·7· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, Your Honor. ·8· · · · THE COURT:· That was purely a guess on my ·9· ·part. 10· · · · MS. KATO:· I'm sorry, Your Honor, what did 11· ·you say? 12· · · · THE COURT:· I said that was purely a guess. 13· ·Do you know where the opposition is? 14· · · · MS. KATO:· I do not know where the opposition 15· ·is, Your Honor.· With me today is my Co-Counsel, 16· ·Mr. Andrew Baumann. 17· · · · THE COURT:· Good afternoon, Mr. Baumann. 18· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Good afternoon, Your Honor. 19· ·My apologies.· There was a little problem getting 20· ·through security with all this. 21· · · · THE COURT:· Not in Tallahassee.· We wouldn't 22· ·do that.· And no apology needed. 23· · · · Ms. Allen, will you check with my judicial 24· ·assistant and have her see if there's anyone 25· ·out there in the reception area?

A. 148 ·1· · · · DEPUTY CLERK:· Remind me of her extension? ·2· · · · THE COURT:· 4312.· Hold on.· That may not ·3· ·be necessary.· It looks like we may have someone ·4· ·from the other side.· Tell me your name, sir. ·5· · · · MR. TORRENS:· Yes.· Hi, good afternoon, ·6· ·Your Honor.· Ryan Torrens.· My two attorneys are ·7· ·en route.· I apologize.· I think they're parking ·8· ·right now.· I know you're eager to get started so ·9· ·I apologize, but they should be here momentarily, 10· ·Judge. 11· · · · THE COURT:· We don't have to be on the record 12· ·just yet. 13· · · · (Off the record from 1:32 p.m. to 1:34 p.m.) 14· · · · THE COURT:· And I see some other folks have 15· ·joined Mr. Torrens.· Identify yourselves for the 16· ·record, please. 17· · · · MR. MCCABE:· I'm Jared McCabe, Your Honor. 18· · · · THE COURT:· Say again? 19· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Jared McCabe. 20· · · · THE COURT:· M-C-C-A-B-E? 21· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. 22· · · · THE COURT:· Okay. 23· · · · MR. BAKER:· Thomas F. Baker, II. 24· · · · THE COURT:· Thomas F. Baker, II. 25· · · · MR. BAKER:· Yes.

A. 149 ·1· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· And are your witnesses here? ·2· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. ·3· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· There was a preliminary ·4· ·matter -- and you all can have a seat, you don't ·5· ·have to stand -- an emergency motion regarding ·6· ·quashing a subpoena that wasn't served yet or for ·7· ·protective order regarding Mr. Torrens' spouse, ·8· ·Ms. Yabraian.· Am I saying that correctly? ·9· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor.· I believe 10· ·her attorney isn't present today.· I believe 11· ·he filed -- we don't -- I don't represent her, 12· ·and neither does Mr. Baker.· So she's represented 13· ·by an independent, another attorney that she 14· ·retained to protect her interests, and so I 15· ·believe he filed some documents with The Court. 16· · · · THE COURT:· I saw something that was filed 17· ·yesterday saying "I'm the attorney, I can't be 18· ·there, and here's our emergency motion." 19· · · · MR. MCCABE:· I saw that as well, 20· ·Your Honor. 21· · · · THE COURT:· What I didn't see was any 22· ·indication that there had been contact with 23· ·Plaintiff's counsel to see if there was any 24· ·attempt to work things out in good faith. 25· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Your Honor, no.· We've not heard

A. 150 ·1· ·anything from this attorney or seen anything other ·2· ·than the filing that Your Honor is referring to. ·3· · · · THE COURT:· And of course, if you haven't ·4· ·gotten service on a witness then there is nothing ·5· ·that would cause you to expect the witness to be ·6· ·here in person, right? ·7· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Correct, Your Honor.· We did ·8· ·obtain service on the witness, but we've been ·9· ·advised that the witness is greater than one 10· ·hundred miles of the jurisdiction of The Court. 11· · · · THE COURT:· Did you perfect service on the 12· ·witness? 13· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· I believe it was Monday, 14· ·Your Honor. 15· · · · THE COURT:· And today is Wednesday. 16· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Yes. 17· · · · THE COURT:· And the motion that was filed 18· ·yesterday said there hadn't been service, so now 19· ·I have a factual question.· Do you have the 20· ·deposition transcript that would allow you to 21· ·go forward? 22· · · · MS. KATO:· We do, Your Honor, however, we 23· ·do not anticipate calling Ms. Yabraian as a 24· ·witness. 25· · · · THE COURT:· So it sounds like the matter need

A. 151 ·1· ·no intervention by The Court. ·2· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· I would agree, Your Honor. ·3· · · · THE COURT:· What we thought we would do that ·4· ·made the most sense since each side has a motion, ·5· ·defense has a motion to dismiss the complaint for ·6· ·failure to state a cause of action, and the ·7· ·counter-defendant, Ms. Shaw's side has a motion ·8· ·to dismiss the counter-claim.· So let's go ahead ·9· ·and hear your legal arguments on that, and then 10· ·we'll go ahead with the trial. 11· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Thank you, Your Honor. 12· · · · THE COURT:· I won't rule immediately on the 13· ·motions to dismiss.· I'll just take them under 14· ·advisement so we'll have the entire record, 15· ·and I'll be ready to do my order upon the 16· ·conclusion of the evidence. 17· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Thank you, Your Honor. 18· · · · MS. KATO:· Thank you. 19· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. 20· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· So first up would be -- 21· ·and Mr. Torrens, are you going to be -- you're 22· ·going to be leaving it to your attorneys, right? 23· · · · MR. TORRENS:· Yes, I will, Judge, I promise. 24· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· And as between Mr. McCabe 25· ·and Mr. Barker, who's going to handle the motion to

A. 152 ·1· ·dismiss? ·2· · · · MR. BAKER:· I'll handle both motions to ·3· ·dismiss, Your Honor.· It's Thomas Baker just ·4· ·for the -- ·5· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· And you can argue from ·6· ·the table there or you can come up to the podium ·7· ·in the middle of the floor there, whichever you ·8· ·prefer. ·9· · · · MR. BAKER:· I'll stay where I'm at right now. 10· · · · THE COURT:· Okay. 11· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Your Honor, we do have copies of 12· ·all the documents for the case for opposing counsel 13· ·as well as for The Court.· Would you like them at 14· ·this time? 15· · · · THE COURT:· Right now I'm waiting to hear 16· ·argument on a motion to dismiss. 17· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. 18· · · · MR. BAKER:· Yes, Your Honor. 19· · · · MR. MCCABE:· And it does have case law on 20· ·the motion to dismiss. 21· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Then, good, you can 22· ·bring that forward. 23· · · · MR. MCCABE:· May I approach? 24· · · · THE COURT:· You may. 25· · · · MR. MCCABE:· In addition, Your Honor, we did

A. 153 ·1· ·have a preliminary motion regarding media video ·2· ·recording if we're discussing potential confidential ·3· ·topics, especially bank records. ·4· · · · THE COURT:· Well, we've addressed the bank ·5· ·records prior to the trial.· And as I indicated, ·6· ·we'll take up any issues regarding maintaining ·7· ·confidentiality as exhibits are offered, but right ·8· ·now I would really like to hear argument on the ·9· ·motion to dismiss. 10· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor.· I'll sit down. 11· · · · MR. BAKER:· Your Honor, the tab five is the 12· ·case law that has to do with the motion to dismiss 13· ·as well as the response to that motion.· The 14· ·motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint, well, 15· ·first of all, I'll like to discuss the complaint 16· ·itself. 17· · · · Basically, the complaint, we narrowed down 18· ·the issue to its ultimate form.· We find that the 19· ·complaint has to do with money that was transferred 20· ·from Mr. Torrens' joint bank account with his wife 21· ·to his campaign bank account which was then used to 22· ·qualify as a candidate.· The complaint alleges that 23· ·that was an unlawful campaign contribution. 24· · · · So we filed a motion to dismiss based on that, 25· ·on the fact that there is no private right of

A. 154 ·1· ·action in this for the claims that they're making. ·2· · · · The -- excuse me, Your Honor.· Okay. ·3· · · · THE COURT:· And I have read everything that ·4· ·was either available online or e-mailed to my ·5· ·judicial assistant through the close of business ·6· ·yesterday, so you don't have to read chapter and ·7· ·verse of things that were already provided.· And ·8· ·I did see the parties' joint stipulation, as ·9· ·directed by The Court, identifying the issues that 10· ·remain. 11· · · · MR. BAKER:· Thank you, Your Honor. 12· · · · So basically what it comes down to is there's 13· ·no private right of action for this case.· And the 14· ·reason is because under Florida Statute 106.08 is 15· ·the statute that they're relying on to say that 16· ·the $4,000 that was transferred from one account to 17· ·another was an unlawful campaign contribution, 18· ·exceeding the campaign caps under 106.08. 19· · · · When looking at the statutes, 106.18 states 20· ·the only way a candidate can be removed from the 21· ·ballot is upon conviction of certain crimes.· Then 22· ·it turns to 106.19. 23· · · · 106.19 states that the crime of the unlawful 24· ·campaign contribution, which would be under the 25· ·fifth tab and it's the second document.· 106.18

A. 155 ·1· ·states you have to be convicted of a crime under ·2· ·106.19.· Subsection one states that any person who ·3· ·accepts a contribution in excess of the limits ·4· ·prescribed by 106.08 is guilty of a misdemeanor ·5· ·as long as they commit that crime knowingly and ·6· ·willfully.· That's the crux of their entire ·7· ·argument in their complaint is that there was ·8· ·an improper campaign contribution. ·9· · · · Case law which is under the next tab, 10· ·starting with Goff v. Ehrlich which is at 11· ·776 So. 2d 1011.· It's a Fifth District Court of 12· ·Appeals case out of 2001.· And it specifically 13· ·states that there is no private right of action 14· ·for a violation of chapter 106, which is what 15· ·the entire complaint is resting on. 16· · · · In addition to that, Schurr v. 17· ·Sanchez-Gronlier at 937 So. 2d 1166, a 18· ·Third District Court of Appeals case and it 19· ·comes up in 2006.· This case specifically 20· ·states the same thing and then cites to 21· ·Goff v. Ehrlich. 22· · · · So at the end of the day, what we have is a 23· ·complaint that states that there's a private right 24· ·of action requesting that a person be removed from 25· ·the ballot because of an unlawful campaign

A. 156 ·1· ·contribution. ·2· · · · The case law and the statutes clearly state ·3· ·that there is no private right of action.· In fact, ·4· ·it falls squarely upon the Department of Elections ·5· ·to determine whether or not a violation has ·6· ·occurred. ·7· · · · And, as Your Honor knows, only a state ·8· ·attorney can bring any criminal action anyway. ·9· ·Since there's no conviction, there's not even an 10· ·information or allegation from the State that a 11· ·crime has been committed, there is no private 12· ·right of action, this case should be dismissed. 13· · · · THE COURT:· Thank you. 14· · · · MR. BAKER:· Thank you, Your Honor. 15· · · · THE COURT:· Response, Ms. Kato? 16· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, Your Honor.· And I may use 17· ·the podium? 18· · · · THE COURT:· You may. 19· · · · MS. KATO:· Thank you, Your Honor. 20· · · · Good afternoon, Your Honor.· Natalie 21· ·Kato on the behalf of the Plaintiff Sean Shaw. 22· · · · As a preliminary matter, when reviewing a 23· ·motion to dismiss, The Court must look to the 24· ·four corners of the complaint and determine whether 25· ·the facts in this complaint, taken as true, whether

A. 157 ·1· ·that pleading is insufficient. ·2· · · · We have brought this claim under an action ·3· ·pursuant to chapter 106 and there are, under the ·4· ·Florida Supreme Court case May v. Holley, prongs ·5· ·that you have to prove in order to properly bring ·6· ·a chapter 106 six claim. ·7· · · · You stated that you had reviewed our motions, ·8· ·so I can go over those prongs if you'd like me ·9· ·to, or in the interest of time I can move forward 10· ·with the rest of the argument. 11· · · · THE COURT:· Move forward as you think 12· ·appropriate. 13· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, Your Honor. 14· · · · Civil remedies including those under 15· ·chapter 86 are available to challenge when a 16· ·candidate has properly qualified for the ballot. 17· ·It's important to note that challenges to 18· ·qualifications are only available pre-election, so 19· ·this time frame right now, prior to the primary 20· ·election day on August 28, is the appropriate 21· ·time to bring this action. 22· · · · The Court has jurisdiction in this case 23· ·because this is a question about qualifying. 24· ·It is not a case about a 106 violation.· We are 25· ·not asking this Court to impose chapter 106

A. 158 ·1· ·sanctions.· We are asking The Court to determine ·2· ·whether Mr. Torrens' acceptance of a campaign ·3· ·contribution that on its face is in excess of ·4· ·the statutory contribution limits, a mere four ·5· ·days before the qualifying period, and his use ·6· ·of those improper funds to cover his ·7· ·statutorily-required campaign qualifying fee are ·8· ·bad faith and dishonest purpose when he qualified. ·9· · · · The Court has jurisdiction here because as 10· ·noted in the case Planas v. Planas, a court 11· ·cannot ignore fraudulent conduct which has been 12· ·purposely done to foul the election and corrupt 13· ·the ballot as is the case here. 14· · · · Questions concerning whether a candidate 15· ·properly qualified for the ballot can only be 16· ·determined by The Court.· The Division of Elections 17· ·performed a ministerial function and cannot look 18· ·beyond the four corner of the documents that they 19· ·are given.· Basically all they can do is dot i's 20· ·and cross t's.· Therefore, the only available 21· ·avenue to challenge qualifications is the circuit 22· ·court as we have done in this action. 23· · · · Allowing this case to be dismissed today 24· ·in the face of Mr. Torrens' brazen conduct would 25· ·set a precedent that a candidate can qualify for

A. 159 ·1· ·the ballot using any means necessary, accepting ·2· ·contribution limits from a foreign national, even ·3· ·if those contribution are in excess of the ·4· ·contribution limits, lying about their residency ·5· ·or any other fraudulent avenue, and still be ·6· ·allowed to seek public office, and that there would ·7· ·be nothing that an elector or their opponent could ·8· ·do about it. ·9· · · · The Defendant's case brings up Goff v. Ehrlich. 10· ·We are aware of this case and we have reviewed it. 11· ·This case is highly distinguishable from this 12· ·action because in that case a candidate sought 13· ·post-election to hold his opponent accountable for 14· ·violations under section 106.· This was improper 15· ·for two reasons. 16· · · · First, as Your Honor is likely aware, the only 17· ·available challenges post-election are those under 18· ·statute 102.168.· Pre-election challenges such as 19· ·this one are allowed under common law.· Again, we 20· ·are not asking The Court to impose Section 106 21· ·sanctions. 22· · · · Second, the Defendant relies on 23· ·Schurr v. Sanchez-Gronlier, and in that case the 24· ·court believed that a 106 violation was de minimis. 25· ·And in fact, the facts in that case show the

A. 160 ·1· ·candidate was really trying to make a good faith ·2· ·effort to qualify and abide by the campaign ·3· ·finance statutes, but because they were running ·4· ·for judicial office, and the last-minute way that ·5· ·you qualify for a judicial race, they weren't able ·6· ·to open the qualifying -- they didn't have their ·7· ·qualifying account, their campaign account open, ·8· ·you know, 48 hours before they had to qualify.· So ·9· ·there's a very clear distinction there. 10· · · · At the end of the day, chapter 106 says that 11· ·if you violate chapter 106, that is the end of 12· ·the story, but that is not the end of the story 13· ·here.· The violation of chapter 106 that we have 14· ·alleged as a condition precedent to this action is, 15· ·in fact, only the beginning of the story.· And what 16· ·we are really talking about in this case are the -- 17· ·are Mr. Torrens' actions after his acceptance of 18· ·that contribution, and his use of that contribution 19· ·to improperly qualify for the ballot. 20· · · · Thank you. 21· · · · THE COURT:· Thank you. 22· · · · And who's going to argue the Shaw motion to 23· ·dismiss the counterclaim, is that you? 24· · · · MS. KATO:· I will, Your Honor. 25· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Ms. Kato, Your Honor.

A. 161 ·1· · · · THE COURT:· Okay. ·2· · · · MR. BAKER:· Your Honor, before moving ·3· ·forward with the motion to dismiss, this Court ·4· ·previously stated that it would like to bifurcate ·5· ·the two trials. ·6· · · · If The Court is inclined to bifurcate the ·7· ·two trials, we would ask that The Court continue ·8· ·the motion to dismiss on the -- motion to dismiss ·9· ·the counterclaim, continue that until a later date 10· ·prior to the trial on the counterclaim. 11· · · · THE COURT:· Are you saying that the -- 12· ·because of the high-priority status that's given 13· ·to the election piece of the case and the resulting 14· ·short time frames mean that you are not as 15· ·prepared as you'd like to be regarding matters 16· ·pertaining to the counterclaim? 17· · · · MR. BAKER:· For the most part, yes, Your Honor. 18· ·The motion to dismiss was filed late yesterday. 19· ·Obviously, we've been preparing for trial on the 20· ·issues of campaign election issues rather than 21· ·on the defamation issues. 22· · · · Based on the fact that The Court previously 23· ·stated that it was more inclined to bifurcate the 24· ·trial, we would ask that the motion then be 25· ·continued until a later date, so that it can be

A. 162 ·1· ·heard in the timeline and the sequence of events ·2· ·that make more sense with the case. ·3· · · · THE COURT:· Do you have any objection to ·4· ·that, Ms. Kato: ·5· · · · MS. KATO:· Well, Your Honor, we are ready ·6· ·to argue this motion to dismiss today.· We did ·7· ·have a pretrial stipulation conference with ·8· ·opposing counsel yesterday.· They did not indicate ·9· ·at that time that they would be asking us to move 10· ·this to a later date, and so we absolutely came 11· ·prepared to argue this today. 12· · · · MR. BAKER:· And, Your Honor, the motion was 13· ·actually filed after I had left their office and 14· ·while the meeting was occurring, so that's kind 15· ·of a strange comment to make. 16· · · · THE COURT:· Here's what we'll do.· I have 17· ·read the motion, and it seems pretty inclusive 18· ·and cites case law that stands for the proposition 19· ·that things that are stated in court papers are 20· ·generally privileged and cannot be the basis of a 21· ·defamation claim, but if you haven't had a chance 22· ·to prepare your response, Mr. Barker, I'll give you 23· ·some time.· And then what we'll do is, I'll just 24· ·address that on the face of the papers without 25· ·further argument unless there's some objection.

A. 163 ·1· ·Is that acceptable to you, Ms. Kato, on behalf of ·2· ·Mr. Shaw? ·3· · · · MS. KATO:· Your Honor, that is acceptable to ·4· ·us.· However, I do want to point out since it was ·5· ·brought up by opposing counsel, that our motion was ·6· ·filed on the date specified by The Court.· And that ·7· ·to this date Mr. Shaw's team has complied with ·8· ·every single deadline set by this Court and has not ·9· ·asked for an extension, so I'm a little unclear why 10· ·we're bringing up the time a motion was filed, but 11· ·that's fine. 12· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Good.· I hear no objection 13· ·from the Shaw team.· Is there any objection from 14· ·Mr. Torrens' team? 15· · · · MR. BAKER:· No, Your Honor. 16· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· And if I give you until 17· ·Friday, today is Wednesday, and I'm talking Friday 18· ·two days from now to get your response in, is that 19· ·a sufficient amount of time, Mr. Barker and 20· ·Mr. McCabe? 21· · · · MR. BAKER:· Yes, Your Honor. 22· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. 23· · · · THE COURT:· And please remember to e-mail 24· ·that to my judicial assistant in addition to 25· ·sending it through the e-filing portal because

A. 164 ·1· ·we get it faster that way. ·2· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. ·3· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· So that takes care of ·4· ·the arguments that we're going to hear today. ·5· ·And I will take note that because of the very tight ·6· ·time frame, namely, next Tuesday is election day ·7· ·as far as the primary, the ballots we are told ·8· ·need to be finalized by September 4 so they can ·9· ·get to the printers for all of the various 10· ·precincts across our state, so they can come back 11· ·from the printers and be mailed to out-of-country 12· ·personnel, including those in the military and 13· ·those who are citizens not in the military living 14· ·overseas, there's a 45-day requirement. 15· · · · And so, of course, what we do here, there 16· ·needs to be time for the district court to review 17· ·and potentially the Florida Supreme Court.· So we 18· ·have all the time we need, and yet we're not going 19· ·to let things go slowly.· We'll just keep moving 20· ·forward as best we can. 21· · · · And with that, do you-all want an opening 22· ·statement before we start the official trial? 23· · · · MR. BAKER:· Yes, Your Honor. 24· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, Your Honor. 25· · · · THE COURT:· We'll start with the Plaintiff

A. 165 ·1· ·first. ·2· · · · MS. KATO:· I probably could have just ·3· ·stayed up here. ·4· · · · THE COURT:· Your choice. ·5· · · · MS. KATO:· Your Honor, this is a case ·6· ·about acts of bad faith and dishonest purpose. ·7· ·It's about the intent behind those acts, the ·8· ·dishonest effort surrounding those acts, and the ·9· ·intent to qualify for the ballot using those acts. 10· · · · The evidence will show that Mr. Torrens 11· ·opened a campaign account seeking the democratic 12· ·nomination for the Office of Attorney General in 13· ·May of 2017. 14· · · · On June 18, 2018, five days before the end 15· ·of the qualifying period, the campaign account 16· ·did not have enough money to cover the 17· ·statutorily-required qualifying check. 18· · · · Knowing that he was short, Mr. Torrens 19· ·proceeded to sign his wife's name to a check to 20· ·his campaign in the amount of $4,000.· He deposited 21· ·the check and he told his campaign treasurer to 22· ·disclose the check as a loan. 23· · · · The next day his treasurer made him aware 24· ·that there was a problem.· He told his treasurer 25· ·that he would take care of it and refund the

A. 166 ·1· ·money.· Instead, on June 20, the campaign wrote a ·2· ·qualifying check using that illegal $4,000. ·3· · · · The campaign waited almost a month until ·4· ·July 13, 2018 to refund the money.· In essence, ·5· ·they knowingly floated the qualifying fee using ·6· ·illegal funds. ·7· · · · In the end they only issued a partial refund. ·8· ·Why?· Because at the time the campaign accepted the ·9· ·$4,000 check, Ms. Yabraian had already contributed 10· ·$2,332.52, and so her $4,000 contribution 11· ·exceeded the statutory contribution limits set by 12· ·the State of Florida by $3,332.52.· In the end this 13· ·$3,332.52 was refunded on July 13, 2018. 14· · · · Mr. Torrens knew all of this when he accepted 15· ·the check, that he knew that it would be in excess 16· ·of the limits.· He did it anyway.· And he knew that 17· ·he needed that money in order to qualify. 18· · · · This is what the facts will show.· This is 19· ·evidence of bad faith and dishonest purpose.· And 20· ·that is the crux of our case today. 21· · · · THE COURT:· I noted in your complaint the 22· ·money was originally characterized as a loan.· And 23· ·I noted in the pretrial stipulation that the 24· ·parties agreed it was not a cashier's check, 25· ·which would be treated like cash and have a lower

A. 167 ·1· ·limit, but was a personal check, not a cashier's ·2· ·check which was a little different than what was ·3· ·alleged in the complaint. ·4· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, Your Honor.· It was a personal ·5· ·check.· At the time that we wrote the complaint, ·6· ·we were basing that on information that was a ·7· ·correspondence from the Torrens Campaign to the ·8· ·Division of Elections.· And in that correspondence ·9· ·they had categorized it as a cashier's check. 10· ·Upon review it was, indeed, a personal check, and 11· ·so we have stipulated with opposing counsel that 12· ·it was a personal check. 13· · · · THE COURT:· And the information in the 14· ·complaint did not indicate that it was Mr. Torrens 15· ·who signed someone else's name to the check.· And 16· ·did I hear you in your opening statement making 17· ·that statement? 18· · · · MS. KATO:· Your Honor, that is also covered 19· ·in the pretrial stipulation, and that is 20· ·information that came out in the course of 21· ·discovery. 22· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Opening, is that you, 23· ·Mr. Barker? 24· · · · (Reporter requests clarification.) 25· · · · MR. BAKER:· It's Baker.

A. 168 ·1· · · · THE COURT:· Baker.· Thank you for correcting ·2· ·me.· I'll try and get it right. ·3· · · · MR. BAKER:· Thank you, Your Honor. ·4· · · · Your Honor, in an effort to avoid obfuscation ·5· ·of the issues in this case, I'm going to boil the ·6· ·issue down to really simply one factual issue, ·7· ·which was brought up in Plaintiff's opening. ·8· · · · It's simply that the question in this case is ·9· ·whether money that was transferred by Mr. Torrens 10· ·from his personal joint bank account with his wife 11· ·to his campaign bank account for the purposes of 12· ·qualifying is a violation under Florida Statute 106 13· ·or it's not.· And in this case you're going to hear 14· ·testimony and see evidence that's going to show you 15· ·that it was not a violation of any campaign finance 16· ·laws. 17· · · · What you're hearing from the Plaintiff is that 18· ·obfuscation of the issues.· It's an attempt to take 19· ·what this case was really about, money transferred 20· ·from one account to another, and turn that into 21· ·some sort of bad faith argument that doesn't have 22· ·anything to do with campaign contributions.· And at 23· ·the end of this case, I believe Your Honor will 24· ·find that there was no campaign finance violation, 25· ·there is no violation at all on the part of

A. 169 ·1· ·Mr. Torrens, and that you'll find that he cannot ·2· ·be removed from the ballot, and that without -- ·3· ·since he's made no error, no campaign finance ·4· ·violations and, according to the law, cannot be ·5· ·removed from the ballot, I believe Your Honor ·6· ·will find in favor of the Defendant, Ryan Torrens. ·7· ·Thank you very much. ·8· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Call your first witness, ·9· ·please, Ms. Kato or Mr. Baumann. 10· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes.· Good afternoon, Your Honor. 11· ·We call Jena Kingery.· And just so we are clear, 12· ·Ms. Kingery was not specifically listed in our 13· ·witness list.· She is being used to introduce 14· ·exhibits into the record only. 15· · · · THE COURT:· Is she one of the folks from 16· ·the department that was referenced in a general 17· ·way? 18· · · · MS. KATO:· Your Honor, unfortunately, when we 19· ·contacted the department, they told us that given 20· ·that they have a federal trial, that they have 21· ·another trial in Sarasota, that they would be 22· ·unable to produce anybody from the department.· And 23· ·so we found someone else who has knowledge of the 24· ·election finance system.· We understand this is 25· ·unusual, and if Your Honor would prefer for us to

A. 170 ·1· ·dispense with this, we could do this. ·2· · · · MR. MCCABE:· We object, Your Honor. ·3· · · · THE COURT:· And the legal basis of your ·4· ·objection is what? ·5· · · · MR. MCCABE:· It's not listed on the witness ·6· ·list for one.· They're not covered under any ·7· ·categories described in the witness list.· This is ·8· ·the first time I've even heard about this ·9· ·individual right now. 10· · · · THE COURT:· And which exhibits, Ms. Kato, 11· ·are you planning to offer through the 12· ·not-previously-disclosed witness? 13· · · · MS. KATO:· Your Honor, we will be listing 14· ·Plaintiff's Exhibits 5 and 6, which are the EFS 15· ·system.· These exhibits had been shared with 16· ·opposing counsel.· We did attempt to get a 17· ·stipulation to the admissibility of these documents 18· ·yesterday.· We were told they would not stipulate 19· ·and that is why we had called Ms. Kingery as a 20· ·witness. 21· · · · And further in our witness list it says, under 22· ·number six, any witness necessary to establish 23· ·predicates or introduction of documents.· That is 24· ·what Ms. Kingery is being called for. 25· · · · THE COURT:· Was there any disclosure as to

A. 171 ·1· ·what testimony would be offered by anyone with ·2· ·respect to 5 and 6, so that we can tell ·3· ·Mr. Torrens' folks, look at what the Plaintiff ·4· ·disclosed as to witness so-and-so? ·5· · · · MS. KATO:· No, Your Honor. ·6· · · · THE COURT:· And spell the witness's last ·7· ·name for me? ·8· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes.· K-I-N-G-E-R-Y. ·9· · · · THE COURT:· And is she affiliated with the 10· ·Shaw campaign? 11· · · · MS. KATO:· She does do compliance with 12· ·the Shaw campaign, that is correct. 13· · · · THE COURT:· Does she have a separate 14· ·employment? 15· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, she does. 16· · · · THE COURT:· And what's her occupation? 17· · · · MS. KATO:· I don't want to mischaracterize 18· ·it, but I know that part of what she does is 19· ·finance tracking and compliance, so -- 20· · · · THE COURT:· For the Shaw campaign and 21· ·others? 22· · · · MS. KATO:· And others, that's correct. 23· · · · THE COURT:· So she's like an expert witness, 24· ·but you're not using her in that regard? 25· · · · MS. KATO:· Right.

A. 172 ·1· · · · THE COURT:· So you're bringing her in or you ·2· ·want to explain to The Court and put on the record ·3· ·how the -- what you refer to as the EFS system ·4· ·works? ·5· · · · MS. KATO:· Correct. ·6· · · · THE COURT:· And my understanding is anyone ·7· ·who runs for office these days has to file ·8· ·reports through the EFS system? ·9· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, Your Honor. 10· · · · MR. MCCABE:· That's our understanding, as 11· ·well.· However, this is actually the first time 12· ·we've heard of this witness.· This witness is 13· ·biased because they're affiliated, they're working 14· ·for Mr. Shaw, the Plaintiff.· And they haven't 15· ·been previously disclosed. 16· · · · THE COURT:· How long do you need to conduct 17· ·a deposition of Ms. Kingery? 18· · · · MR. MCCABE:· I would say 40 minutes.· We might 19· ·be able to get it done in a half an hour. 20· · · · THE COURT:· The purpose is to authenticate 21· ·Exhibits 5 and 6? 22· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, Your Honor. 23· · · · THE COURT:· And are those documents that were 24· ·attached to the complaint? 25· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, Your Honor.· Your Honor,

A. 173 ·1· ·I believe they've also been admitted in the ·2· ·Defendant's answers. ·3· · · · THE COURT:· Is that right, Mr. McCabe? ·4· · · · MR. MCCABE:· I'm reviewing the complaint ·5· ·right now, so I can make a qualified answer here. ·6· ·Yes, they're attached, they're lettered on the ·7· ·complaint.· The complaint has exhibits attached ·8· ·as letters, so I'm trying to compare the numbers. ·9· · · · THE COURT:· Ms. Kato, which letters of the 10· ·exhibits attached to your complaint correspond 11· ·with 5 or 6? 12· · · · MS. KATO:· E and F, Your Honor.· And for 13· ·The Court, that is associated with paragraph 16 in 14· ·our complaint, and Mr. Torrens in his answers 15· ·stated that he is without knowledge, therefore 16· ·denied. 17· · · · MR. MCCABE:· They're sort of eligible with 18· ·the complaint, Your Honor.· However, I believe 19· ·these are examples, these are samples of what 20· ·could potentially -- what the system could 21· ·potentially throw up as a flag, but they're 22· ·basically demonstrative.· I mean, essentially, 23· ·they're not -- they have no relevance to the facts 24· ·to the case.· They're not evidence in the case. 25· ·They're frankly just samples that counsel used in

A. 174 ·1· ·deposition to question witnesses, but they're not, ·2· ·they're not actual -- they're not actual FEC ·3· ·documents regarding my client.· It's just Bob ·4· ·Smith and Bob Smith. ·5· · · · THE COURT:· FEC as opposed to Florida Election ·6· ·Commission.· Is that what you were -- ·7· · · · MR. BAKER:· Yes, Your Honor.· I meant the ·8· ·Florida Election Commission.· Forgive me. ·9· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· I'm just trying to make 10· ·sure I have the right set of initials.· So are you 11· ·saying you don't have any objection to them coming 12· ·into evidence without Ms. Kingery testifying? 13· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Well, I definitely object. 14· ·I mean, I object to them coming into evidence. 15· ·I don't believe I can object to Plaintiff using 16· ·them as a demonstrative aid for The Court.· However, 17· ·I do object to them coming into evidence because 18· ·they have no relevance to the case. 19· · · · THE COURT:· You say they were used in 20· ·depositions taken of other people? 21· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, I believe they were used 22· ·in questioning Mr. Torrens during his deposition. 23· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Here's what we'll do. 24· ·We'll go ahead with the testimony of Ms. Kingery, 25· ·and I hope I'm saying the name correctly.· At the

A. 175 ·1· ·end of direct, if you feel a need to conduct ·2· ·discovery before you do your cross, I'll give you ·3· ·a brief recess.· Fair enough? ·4· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. ·5· · · · THE COURT:· Okay. ·6· · · · DEPUTY CLERK:· Do you want them to give them ·7· ·to me as they admit to be legal before they come ·8· ·to a witness? ·9· · · · THE COURT:· That would be great. 10· · · · DEPUTY CLERK:· I just wanted to get some 11· ·clarification. 12· · · · THE COURT:· Ms. Allen is one of our most 13· ·experienced deputy clerks and is very adept at 14· ·handling large numbers of exhibits.· So if you 15· ·will bring your exhibits up to her while your 16· ·witness is coming forward, Ms. Kato, then 17· ·Ms. Allen can go ahead and premark the exhibits 18· ·and we'll keep track of them that way. 19· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, Your Honor.· May I approach? 20· · · · THE COURT:· Yes, you may. 21· · · · And Ms. Kingery, if you'll come forward. 22· ·Right over here, ma'am, to the witness box.· Since 23· ·we've got Ms. Allen busy, before you sit down, 24· ·raise your right hand, please. 25· · · · Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're

A. 176 ·1· ·about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, ·2· ·and nothing but the truth, so help you God? ·3· · · · THE WITNESS:· I do. ·4· · · · THE COURT:· Have a seat and please pull ·5· ·yourself forward by the microphone. Ms. Allen, ·6· ·I took part of your job and swore the witness. ·7· · · · DEPUTY CLERK:· Thank you, Judge. ·8· · · · THE COURT:· And Ms. Kato, if you're going ·9· ·to question from the podium, pull it back so that 10· ·counsel have a line of site with the witness. I 11· ·don't know that where you'll be standing will be 12· ·a problem, but just let's make sure. 13· · · · And Mr. McCabe, if you and Mr. Baker will, 14· ·is that position of the podium okay?· Can you 15· ·see the witness? 16· · · · MR. MCCABE:· That elbow of the electronic 17· ·device is slightly in the way, so if you could 18· ·just move it slightly one way or the other. 19· · · · THE COURT:· It should roll to your left, 20· ·Mr. Baumann, toward the west. 21· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· It seems to want to roll in 22· ·a straight line, Your Honor. 23· · · · MR. MCCABE:· I can see the witness now. 24· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Can you, Mr. Baker? 25· · · · MR. BAKER:· I'm fine, yes.

A. 177 ·1· ·WHEREUPON, ·2· · · · · · · · · · · · ·JENA KINGERY, ·3· ·herein called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, ·4· ·testified as follows: ·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·DIRECT EXAMINATION ·6· ·BY MS. KATO: ·7· · · · Q.· ·Good afternoon.· Could you please state your ·8· ·name for the record? ·9· · · · A.· ·Yes.· My name is Jena Kingery. 10· · · · Q.· ·Could you spell both your first and last name 11· ·for the court reporter, please? 12· · · · A.· ·Yes.· Jena, J-E-N-A, last name Kingery, 13· ·K-I-N-G-E-R-Y. 14· · · · Q.· ·Ms. Kingery, are you familiar with the Florida 15· ·Election Finance System, affectionately known as the EFS? 16· · · · A.· ·Yes. 17· · · · Q.· ·And how are you familiar with that system? 18· · · · A.· ·That is the system that I have used for the 19· ·last five years in all campaign -- local committee 20· ·campaign finance reporting that I have done. 21· · · · Q.· ·Have you done campaign finance reporting for 22· ·any state parties? 23· · · · A.· ·Yes, both for the democratic party. 24· · · · Q.· ·And you said that you have also done reporting 25· ·for candidates and with both committees, is that correct?

A. 178 ·1· · · · A.· ·Yes. ·2· · · · Q.· ·Do all candidates in Florida use the EFS ·3· ·system? ·4· · · · A.· ·No.· Federal candidates use the FEC federal ·5· ·system, and different municipalities would use their ·6· ·local filing systems as appropriate. ·7· · · · Q.· ·Do all political committees in Florida use the ·8· ·EFS system? ·9· · · · A.· ·Yes. 10· · · · Q.· ·Is the only way to file statutorily-required 11· ·campaign finance reports in the State of Florida the EFS 12· ·system? 13· · · · A.· ·Yes. 14· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· I'm showing the witness what has 15· · · · been premarked as Exhibit 5.· May I approach? 16· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may, but first give a copy 17· · · · to defense counsel so they know. 18· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, we shared our exhibits 19· · · · with defense counsel on the 17th per The Court 20· · · · order, but I'm happy to show them again just to 21· · · · make sure we're all on the same page. 22· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Excellent. 23· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· May I approach? 24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 25· ·BY MS. KATO:

A. 179 ·1· · · · Q.· ·Ms. Kingery, do you recognize this document? ·2· · · · A.· ·Yes. ·3· · · · Q.· ·How do you recognize this document? ·4· · · · A.· ·This document is a contribution prepared in ·5· ·the EFS system provided by the Division of Elections. ·6· · · · Q.· ·It's a screenshot of the EFS system? ·7· · · · A.· ·Yes. ·8· · · · Q.· ·Is it a true and correct copy of the -- ·9· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection.· It's 10· · · · mischaracterizing the evidence.· This isn't 11· · · · a filing.· It says Bob Smith on it.· It's not, 12· · · · it's not a filing. 13· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I thought she said it was 14· · · · a contribution form from the EFS system, a 15· · · · screenshot.· That's as far as I've got. 16· · · · · · ·And what I'd like, I'm going to overrule 17· · · · that objection, but, when you state your objection, 18· · · · if you just state your legal objection, I'll take 19· · · · it from there. 20· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor.· I apologize. 21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You can finish answering the 22· · · · question. 23· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, this is a screenshot of 24· · · · a contribution form in the EFS system. 25· ·BY MS. KATO:

A. 180 ·1· · · · Q.· ·And this is the contribution form that someone ·2· ·filling out a statutorily-required finance report would ·3· ·use, is that correct? ·4· · · · A.· ·Correct. ·5· · · · Q.· ·Is this a true and correct copy of a ·6· ·screenshot for the EFS system? ·7· · · · A.· ·Yes. ·8· · · · Q.· ·Has it is been altered in any way? ·9· · · · A.· ·No. 10· · · · Q.· ·And it is your testimony that this is software 11· ·that is developed by the Florida Division of Elections, 12· ·is that correct? 13· · · · A.· ·Yes. 14· · · · Q.· ·Per Florida statute? 15· · · · A.· ·Yes. 16· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, Plaintiff moves this 17· · · · exhibit into evidence. 18· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· This is the one with Bob Smith, 19· · · · the exemplar, is that correct? 20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, Your Honor. 21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Any objection, Mr. McCabe, for 22· · · · whatever value it has? 23· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor.· I would 24· · · · object on based on authentication lacking and 25· · · · relevance.

A. 181 ·1· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled to the extent the ·2· · · · objection is based on authentication.· And to ·3· · · · the extent it's not relevant, The Court will not ·4· · · · rely on it. ·5· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. ·6· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· But by doing it this way we have ·7· · · · a complete record for any reviewing court, and ·8· · · · they don't have to send it back because I didn't ·9· · · · get enough in the record. 10· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 5 was admitted 11· ·into evidence.) 12· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Go ahead, ma'am. 13· ·BY MS. KATO: 14· · · · Q.· ·Ms. Kingery, would you mind walking us through 15· ·what information is contained in this screenshot? 16· · · · A.· ·Yes.· So this screenshot includes a sequence 17· ·number as all items in the EFS system use; first and 18· ·last name of contributor; the address, city and state, 19· ·ZIP code; the contributor type, this is listed as 20· ·an individual; the contribution type which is listed 21· ·here as check; occupation; and the amount of the 22· ·contribution. 23· · · · Q.· ·And so you noted that for this screenshot the 24· ·contributor type is an individual and the contribution 25· ·type is a check, and you know that the amount is

A. 182 ·1· ·$4,000.· Is there -- what happens when you entered a ·2· ·$4,000 contribution into the EFS system? ·3· · · · A.· ·A four-thousand-dollar contribution would ·4· ·trigger an error message which is additionally listed on ·5· ·this exhibit. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Where is the error message on this exhibit? ·7· · · · A.· ·That is in a text box below the amount of the ·8· ·contribution. ·9· · · · Q.· ·And what does the error message read? 10· · · · A.· ·Contribution amounts are limited to $3,000 for 11· ·this contributor type.· Written explanation required. 12· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Let the record show that I am 13· · · · showing opposing counsel what has been premarked 14· · · · and disclosed to opposing counsel as Plaintiff's 15· · · · Exhibit 6. 16· · · · · · ·Your Honor, may I approach the witness? 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 18· ·BY MS. KATO: 19· · · · Q.· ·Ms. Kingery, do you recognize that document? 20· · · · A.· ·Yes. 21· · · · Q.· ·How do you recognize that document? 22· · · · A.· ·This is also a screenshot from the EFS system, 23· ·a contribution form. 24· · · · Q.· ·Is it a true and correct copy of that document? 25· · · · A.· ·Yes.

A. 183 ·1· · · · Q.· ·Does it appear to have been altered in any way? ·2· · · · A.· ·No. ·3· · · · Q.· ·And just like the exhibit before it, this is ·4· ·the form that is created under Florida statute, is that ·5· ·correct? ·6· · · · A.· ·Correct. ·7· · · · Q.· ·What is different about this exhibit from ·8· ·Exhibit 5? ·9· · · · A.· ·The contribution type is listed as a loan on 10· ·Exhibit 6. 11· · · · Q.· ·Is the contributor type the same? 12· · · · A.· ·Yes. 13· · · · Q.· ·Is there an error message on this exhibit? 14· · · · A.· ·Yes. 15· · · · Q.· ·What does the error message say? 16· · · · A.· ·Contribution amounts are limited to $3,000 for 17· ·this contributor type.· Written explanation required. 18· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Thank you.· I have no further 19· · · · questions for this witness. 20· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Did you move that into evidence? 21· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Oh, and I admit Exhibit 6 into 22· · · · evidence.· Thank you. 23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Let's see if there's an objection. 24· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. 25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And the legal basis?

A. 184 ·1· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor.· Authentication ·2· · · · as well as foundation and hearsay. ·3· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, would you like me to ·4· · · · address the hearsay objection? ·5· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· No. ·6· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Okay. ·7· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I'll take it into evidence and ·8· · · · admit it subject to relevance as I indicated ·9· · · · before. 10· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 6 was admitted 11· ·into evidence.) 12· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And what I do when I have questions 13· · · · for witnesses in a bench trial, if there's no 14· · · · objection, I'll ask a question.· If anybody voices 15· · · · an objection at that point I'll withdraw the 16· · · · question so there's no problem.· And then I'll 17· · · · allow an opportunity for followup questioning 18· · · · based on whatever information The Court gets in 19· · · · an answer, if an answer is given without objection, 20· · · · which is a long, convoluted way of saying I'm 21· · · · trying to clarify something and I want to make 22· · · · sure that's okay with the parties. 23· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· That's fine, Your Honor. 24· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Understood, Your Honor 25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You said the error message on

A. 185 ·1· · · · Exhibit 6 indicated that there was an explanation ·2· · · · required as to the contributor, did I get that ·3· · · · right? ·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· A written explanation required ·5· · · · for the contribution as it stands, regardless. ·6· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And is that because there's a ·7· · · · limit on who can make loans? ·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Correct. ·9· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, may I clarify? 10· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 11· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Thank you. 12· ·BY MS. KATO: 13· · · · Q.· ·Ms. Kingery, is there any scenario in which 14· ·someone could make a loan to a campaign in excess of 15· ·$3,000? 16· · · · A.· ·The only person that can make a loan to a 17· ·campaign in excess of $3,000 is the candidate. 18· · · · Q.· ·And is the candidate listed as an individual 19· ·in the contributor type or is there a different way to 20· ·list a candidate? 21· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, improper -- 22· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Rephrase the question. 23· ·BY MS. KATO: 24· · · · Q.· ·If you were listing a loan from a candidate, 25· ·would you list that as an individual in the contributor

A. 186 ·1· ·type? ·2· · · · A.· ·No. ·3· · · · Q.· ·How would you list a candidate? ·4· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, improper expert ·5· · · · opinion or improper lay testimony. ·6· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled.· You may answer. ·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The contributor type for that ·8· · · · would be the candidate? ·9· ·BY MS. KATO: 10· · · · Q.· ·And that is, I know it's not on this sheet 11· ·right now, but that is an option in the drop-down 12· ·menu? 13· · · · A.· ·Yes, that is an option, the candidate, that is 14· ·an option in that drop-down menu. 15· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Thank you.· I have no further 16· · · · questions. 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And with that, Mr. McCabe and 18· · · · Mr. Baker, I promised that I would give you 19· · · · an opportunity if you felt a need to adjourn 20· · · · for a brief deposition before you do your 21· · · · cross-examination.· Do you want to talk with each 22· · · · other or Mr. Torrens to see if -- what your 23· · · · preference is, if you have any cross-examination 24· · · · or if you want to take a hallway deposition? 25· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· May we have like just one

A. 187 ·1· ·or two minutes to consult? ·2· · · · THE COURT:· Sure. ·3· · · · (Pause.) ·4· · · · MR. MCCABE:· No deposition needed, Your Honor, ·5· ·and no cross. ·6· · · · THE COURT:· Thank you. ·7· · · · And Ms. Kato, can Ms. Kingery be excused? ·8· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, she may, Your Honor. ·9· · · · THE COURT:· Thank you very much, ma'am. 10· ·Have a nice afternoon.· I'll take the exhibits 11· ·and give them to the clerk. 12· · · · MR. MCCABE:· And at this time, Your Honor, 13· ·I don't believe we've invoked the rule, so we'd 14· ·like to invoke the rule at this time. 15· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· The Defense having 16· ·invoked the rule of witness sequestration, anyone 17· ·who is in the courtroom, who is not a party, who is 18· ·going to testify, will need to wait outside, other 19· ·than Ms. Kingery who's been excused.· She may 20· ·remain in the courtroom, but will not be called 21· ·back again. 22· · · · Who's your next witness, Ms. Kato? 23· · · · MS. KATO:· Your Honor, we -- go ahead, 24· ·Mr. Baumann. 25· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Your Honor, we would move

A. 188 ·1· ·portions of the deposition of Jessica Vasconez ·2· ·into evidence, currently on the exhibit list as ·3· ·Plaintiff's Exhibit 29. ·4· · · · THE COURT:· Spell the last name. ·5· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Jessica, J-E-S-S-I-C-A, last ·6· ·name is V-A-S-C-O-N-E-Z. ·7· · · · THE COURT:· And do you have any witnesses ·8· ·remaining in the courtroom at this time? ·9· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· No, Your Honor.· Our only 10· ·remaining witness is Mr. Torrens. 11· · · · THE COURT:· And he's a party so he may stay. 12· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· And he's a party. 13· · · · THE COURT:· And you want to publish excerpts 14· ·from the deposition or you just want to -- 15· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· We'll be happy to do that, 16· ·Your Honor.· We will be happy to publish excerpts 17· ·from the deposition or submit it to Your Honor, 18· ·realizing that time is short, and leave it to 19· ·Your Honor to read whatever Your Honor's pleasure 20· ·is. 21· · · · THE COURT:· So you're offering into evidence 22· ·the entire deposition of Ms. Vasconez? 23· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· We can certainly offer it in, 24· ·in its entirety, if that is the preference of 25· ·The Court.

A. 189 ·1· · · · THE COURT:· I just want to know what parts ·2· ·you think I should read. ·3· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Understood, Your Honor. ·4· · · · THE COURT:· Or hear as the case may be. ·5· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· For the record, the exhibit that ·6· ·I've prepared includes obviously the cover pages ·7· ·and whatnot.· It commences on page 10 of the ·8· ·deposition through -- let's see.· Page 10 of the ·9· ·deposition, page 15 of the deposition through, 10· ·I believe it's 24, yes, through page 24, inclusive. 11· ·And page 26 and 27 of the deposition, plus the 12· ·certificate of the court reporter.· And then it 13· ·includes exhibits, I believe it's 3 and 5 of the 14· ·deposition.· I am happy to submit the entire 15· ·deposition. 16· · · · THE COURT:· Let me just find out the 17· ·position of Mr. Torrens' team. 18· · · · Mr. McCabe, any objection to The Court reading 19· ·pages 10, 15 through 24, 26, 27, the certificate of 20· ·the court reporter, and Exhibits 3 and 5 of the 21· ·deposition? 22· · · · MR. MCCABE:· I believe I do, Your Honor. 23· ·And I'll -- 24· · · · THE COURT:· Is there any part that you want 25· ·to offer consistent with the rule of completeness?

A. 190 ·1· · · · MR. MCCABE:· If you'll indulge me a moment, ·2· ·I'm reviewing the transcript to make sure I answer ·3· ·correctly, Your Honor. ·4· · · · THE COURT:· Take your time.· We want to get ·5· ·this right the first time. ·6· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. ·7· · · · You said page 10, and then page 15 through 24? ·8· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Yes.· It begins, Mr. McCabe -- ·9· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, sir. 10· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· -- with the appearances page. 11· ·It includes the first page of the depo just for 12· ·reference, the court reporter swears in the witness. 13· · · · MR. MCCABE:· No objection to that. 14· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· It commences then to include 15· ·page 10 and page 10 only.· It then picks up on page 16· ·15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, through 24. 17· ·And then page 26 and 27, but 27 is really just the 18· ·conclusion of the deposition.· And then it includes 19· ·the certificate of oath, the errata sheet, 20· ·certificate of the court reporter. 21· · · · MR. MCCABE:· I have no objection to 28 and 29 22· ·which is the certificate of oath and certificate of 23· ·the court reporter, no objection to that.· The 24· ·errata sheet is essentially blank so I don't object 25· ·to that.

A. 191 ·1· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· And then Exhibits 3 and 5 to the ·2· · · · deposition. ·3· · · · · · ·(Handing documents.) ·4· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Thank you. ·5· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· And also for the record, ·6· · · · Your Honor, Exhibits 28 and 30 on Plaintiff's ·7· · · · exhibit list are the same as Exhibits 3 and 5 ·8· · · · from Ms. Vasconez' deposition.· And Ms. Vasconez' ·9· · · · deposition itself is listed as Exhibit 29. 10· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Let me try that one more 11· · · · time.· Exhibits 28 and 30 on the Plaintiff's 12· · · · exhibit list are the same as Exhibits 3 and 5 to 13· · · · the deposition? 14· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· Yes, Your Honor.· And the 15· · · · deposition itself is Exhibit 20. 16· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Nine. 17· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· I'm sorry, 29.· Thank you. 18· · · · We were advised -- 19· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· I don't have an objection to 20· · · · Exhibit 3. 21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· So that's without 22· · · · objection. 23· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 28 was admitted 24· ·into evidence.) 25· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· We stipulated to Exhibit 4.

A. 192 ·1· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I think there were two that were ·2· · · · stipulated to.· Exhibit B and A, which are the ·3· · · · check for $4,000 payable to Ryan Torrens for ·4· · · · Attorney General, signed by -- apparently signed by ·5· · · · Francesca Yabraian dated June 18, and then the ·6· · · · other one is, according to the stipulation, a copy ·7· · · · of the marriage record? ·8· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes. ·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Which is on the amended exhibit 10· · · · list as Exhibit 23, so those two are stipulated 11· · · · into evidence.· Did you get that Ms. Allen? 12· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· Those last two numbers again? 13· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Plaintiff's 23 and 15. 14· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Exhibits 15 and 23 were admitted 15· ·into evidence.) 16· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· Your Honor, may I approach 17· · · · the clerk with Exhibits 15 and 23 while Mr. McCabe 18· · · · reviews the deposition portions? 19· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Of course. 20· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· Thank you, Your Honor. 21· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· We're going to object to 22· · · · Exhibit 5. 23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I'm sorry, you're what? 24· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Exhibit 5, Your Honor. 25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· What about Exhibit 5?

A. 193 ·1· · · · MR. MCCABE:· We're objecting to that. ·2· · · · THE COURT:· Does somebody have a copy of ·3· ·Exhibit 5 to the deposition for The Court to ·4· ·look at? ·5· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Of course, Your Honor. ·6· · · · THE COURT:· That would be great.· And the ·7· ·legal basis of your objection is what, Mr. McCabe? ·8· · · · MR. MCCABE:· It's going to be relevance, ·9· ·really relevance and hearsay, Your Honor. 10· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· To the extent there's a 11· ·relevance objection, I determine that at the 12· ·conclusion of everything.· And with respect to 13· ·hearsay, I need to see what Exhibit 5 is.· Bring 14· ·it forward, please. 15· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· First, Your Honor, I'm going 16· ·to approach the clerk with the two exhibits which 17· ·were stipulated in, and then I'll go back and 18· ·I'll get the other exhibits for Your Honor. 19· · · · THE COURT:· That's fine.· The clerk is 20· ·definitely more important. 21· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Thank you, Your Honor. 22· · · · MR. MCCABE:· And also as far as Exhibit 5, 23· ·there's a rule of completeness issue because 24· ·there's a voicemail reference which none of us 25· ·have a copy of, and the witness could not

A. 194 ·1· ·produce, and which I did give a summary of the ·2· ·reason why, and I did send that over to opposing ·3· ·counsel, the witness's summary of explaining ·4· ·things, essentially explaining Exhibit 5, and I ·5· ·did send that to opposing counsel to review. ·6· · · · THE COURT:· And I still didn't see Exhibit 5. ·7· ·I'm good, but without seeing something I'll ask -- ·8· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· I apologize, Your Honor. ·9· · · · THE COURT:· -- for somebody to give me a 10· ·coin I can flip. 11· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Your Honor, may I approach? 12· · · · THE COURT:· That would be great.· Thanks. 13· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· I just wanted to get the other 14· ·exhibits in first, Your Honor. 15· · · · (Handing documents.) 16· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· That is Exhibit 5 to the 17· ·deposition in front of you. 18· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· And Mr. Baumann, you're the 19· ·one offering this in evidence? 20· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Yes, Your Honor. 21· · · · THE COURT:· A few questions.· I take it from 22· ·the e-mail that Ms. Vasconez is someone who has a 23· ·connection to the Torrens' campaign. 24· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Yes, Your Honor.· Ms. Vasconez' 25· ·deposition is what's ultimately being offered in.

A. 195 ·1· ·Ms. Vasconez is the campaign treasurer for ·2· ·Mr. Torrens' campaign. ·3· · · · THE COURT:· And this e-mail? ·4· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Between Ms. Vasconez and ·5· ·Mr. Torrens. ·6· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· And Mr. Torrens is a ·7· ·Defendant.· Which part are you saying is hearsay, ·8· ·Mr. McCabe, or both? ·9· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Well, they're both being used to 10· ·prove the truth of the matter asserted, but, I mean, 11· ·Mr. Torrens is here and can rebut that -- 12· · · · THE COURT:· And of course general -- 13· · · · MR. MCCABE:· -- the portion of the e-mail 14· ·that Ms. Vasconez is not. 15· · · · And so if -- if The Court finds that it's 16· ·admissible, I would ask that The Court also include 17· ·the explanation from the witness regarding the 18· ·voicemail, so that The Court has a complete record 19· ·of what transpired, because the voicemail is 20· ·referenced here in the exhibit, and I did send that 21· ·summary to opposing counsel. 22· · · · THE COURT:· And is the voicemail referenced in 23· ·the part of the deposition that you've stipulated 24· ·going in, or is it in the other part? 25· · · · MR. MCCABE:· I have not stipulated to that

A. 196 ·1· ·part coming in. ·2· · · · THE COURT:· But you're asking me to admit ·3· ·that part? ·4· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Well, I'm not sure if -- I'm ·5· ·reading through it to see what -- I'm trying to ·6· ·find the page. ·7· · · · THE COURT:· Well, let's do this one thing ·8· ·at a time.· The hearsay objection is overruled. ·9· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Thank you, Your Honor. 10· · · · THE COURT:· To the extent there's a relevance 11· ·objection, I don't rule on those as we go.· I do 12· ·those at the end. 13· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Understood, Your Honor. 14· · · · THE COURT:· And so now, is there some other 15· ·part of the deposition that for the rule of 16· ·completeness you want The Court to consider? 17· · · · (Pause.) 18· · · · MR. MCCABE:· I'm not sure Ms. Vasconez was 19· ·questioned on the voicemail during the deposition. 20· ·I think she was asked if she could -- I know I 21· ·was asked to produce it. 22· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Your Honor, if I may, we 23· ·questioned Mr. McCabe about the production of 24· ·the voicemail.· It is referenced in Exhibit 5 25· ·of the deposition --

A. 197 ·1· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, sir. ·2· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· -- as to whether or not he ·3· ·could get a copy of that voicemail.· The ·4· ·explanation we received back from Ms. Vasconez ·5· ·through Mr. McCabe is that Ms. Vasconez receives ·6· ·her voicemails and deletes them as she receives ·7· ·them, as many people do. ·8· · · · And we accept Mr. McCabe's representation on ·9· ·that point as an officer of The Court, and inquire 10· ·no further on the subject of the voicemail. 11· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· So -- 12· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· So I don't know even what the 13· ·voicemail contained, Your Honor. 14· · · · THE COURT:· That leaves The Court with a 15· ·reference to voicemail that itself is not in 16· ·evidence, but the Exhibit 5 to the deposition is. 17· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· And if Your Honor would prefer, 18· ·we can strike the portion of the exhibit that 19· ·references the voicemail, if that will solve 20· ·the issue.· The voicemail apparently -- 21· · · · THE COURT:· I see no -- 22· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· -- does not exist. 23· · · · THE COURT:· -- unresolved issue at this 24· ·point, but I was waiting to hear from Mr. McCabe, 25· ·if he thought of anything else he wanted to raise

A. 198 ·1· ·as to Ms. Vasconez' deposition or the exhibits. ·2· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Thank you, Your Honor. ·3· · · · THE COURT:· Anything else, Mr. McCabe? ·4· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor.· Pages -- the ·5· ·bottom of actually page six. ·6· · · · THE COURT:· So you're asking The Court to ·7· ·consider page six? ·8· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Page six, yes, Your Honor, page ·9· ·seven, page eight and page nine. 10· · · · THE COURT:· Any objection to that, 11· ·Mr. Baumann? 12· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· No, Your Honor.· I believe 13· ·it's Mr. McCabe's right to, if Your Honor is 14· ·inclined to accept portions of the deposition 15· ·into evidence, to admit other portions of the 16· ·deposition.· That's how the rule works, so I 17· ·don't think I have a basis for an objection. 18· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· That takes care of that. 19· ·Anything else regarding this deposition, 20· ·Mr. McCabe? 21· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Not at this time, Your Honor. 22· · · · THE COURT:· Okay. 23· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Do you want to add those 24· ·pages?· I can have her do that. 25· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes.· Thank you.

A. 199 ·1· · · · (Handing documents.) ·2· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Judge, for the record, I gave ·3· ·the pages to Mr. Baumann to that, so he's going ·4· ·to supply them to The Court. ·5· · · · THE COURT:· And Mr. Baumann, you had handed ·6· ·me Exhibit 29, so if you want to go ahead, insert ·7· ·them in the Exhibit 29 so I will have it all in ·8· ·one place, that will be excellent. ·9· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Thank you, Your Honor.· If 10· ·you just give me one moment, I will substitute 11· ·that exhibit in. 12· · · · THE COURT:· Ms. Allen, here's the now 13· ·incomplete 29 that's about to be supplemented. 14· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· May I approach the clerk, 15· ·Your Honor? 16· · · · THE COURT:· You may, my deputy clerk -- 17· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Deputy clerk. 18· · · · THE COURT:· -- who works for a separate 19· ·constitutional office.· And the court system 20· ·takes many constitutional officers to run, 21· ·including our sheriff who provides us with our 22· ·courtroom security.· We have Deputy Parker with 23· ·us.· Thank you, Deputy Parker, here on behalf 24· ·of Sheriff McNeal, another constitutional 25· ·officer.

A. 200 ·1· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· So, Mr. McCabe and Your Honor, ·2· · · · I'm adding pages 6, 7, 8 and 9 into the ·3· · · · deposition. ·4· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I presume you're putting ·5· · · · them in there right before number 10, is ·6· · · · that right? ·7· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· Yes, Your Honor, let's hope. ·8· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay. ·9· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· All right.· And that will be 10· · · · 29.· I'll go ahead and staple it for you. 11· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· Thank you. 12· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 29 was admitted 13· ·into evidence.) 14· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Any other witness for 15· · · · the Plaintiff or any other exhibits?· There was a 16· · · · reference to calling Mr. Torrens, so I guess that's 17· · · · left to do. 18· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· If Your Honor is -- if the 19· · · · Exhibit 29 is entered into evidence, then I believe 20· · · · our remaining witness is Mr. Torrens. 21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Exhibit 29 is in, subject to the 22· · · · relevance objection I indicated earlier. 23· · · · · · ·Mr. Torrens, come on up. 24· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· Thank you, Your Honor. 25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And Ms. Allen, I'll let you do

A. 201 ·1· ·your job this time. ·2· · · · If you'll pause over there by the witness ·3· ·box before you sit down? ·4· · · · MR. TORRENS:· (Complies.) ·5· · · · DEPUTY CLERK:· Do you solemnly swear or affirm ·6· ·that the evidence you shall give in this matter ·7· ·shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing ·8· ·but the truth? ·9· · · · MR. TORRENS:· I do. 10· · · · THE COURT:· Have a seat and pull yourself up 11· ·in front of the microphone. 12· · · · MR. TORRENS:· Will do, Judge.· Thank you. 13· · · · THE COURT:· You may proceed. 14· · · · And you still have a line of sight, Mr. McCabe, 15· ·with the witness? 16· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. 17· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Good. 18· · · · MS. KATO:· Your Honor, before I begin, we 19· ·request permission to treat Mr. Torrens as a hostile 20· ·witness pursuant to Florida Rules of Evidence 21· ·90.612, as he is an adverse party to this action. 22· · · · THE COURT:· Which means you can ask him 23· ·leading questions.· Sure.· He would -- you would 24· ·expect nothing else. 25· · · · MR. TORRENS:· Correct.

A. 202 ·1· ·WHEREUPON, ·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · RYAN TORRENS, ·3· ·a Defendant herein, called as a witness, having been ·4· ·first duly sworn, testified as follows: ·5· · · · · · · · · · · ·DIRECT EXAMINATION ·6· ·BY MS. KATO: ·7· · · · Q.· ·Good afternoon.· Can you state your name for ·8· ·the record? ·9· · · · A.· ·Yes, my name is Ryan Torrens. 10· · · · Q.· ·And you are married to Francesca Yabraian? 11· · · · A.· ·I am. 12· · · · Q.· ·And you are an attorney licensed in the state 13· ·of Florida? 14· · · · A.· ·I am. 15· · · · Q.· ·You have been a licensed attorney in the state 16· ·of Florida since 2011? 17· · · · A.· ·Correct. 18· · · · Q.· ·You are currently a candidate for the 19· ·democratic nomination for the Office of Attorney General? 20· · · · A.· ·Correct. 21· · · · Q.· ·The primary election that will designate the 22· ·democratic nominee for the Office of Attorney General is 23· ·August 28, 2018? 24· · · · A.· ·Correct. 25· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, you opened a campaign account

A. 203 ·1· ·associated with your candidacy for the Office of ·2· ·Attorney General on May 22, 2017, is that correct? ·3· · · · A.· ·I don't remember the date. ·4· · · · Q.· ·Do you remember opening a campaign account for ·5· ·the Office of Attorney General? ·6· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do. ·7· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Let the record show that I am ·8· · · · showing opposing counsel what has been premarked ·9· · · · as Exhibit 1. 10· · · · · · ·Your Honor, may I approach your clerk? 11· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 12· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Thank you, Your Honor. 13· · · · · · ·(Handing documents.) 14· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· May I approach the witness? 15· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 16· ·BY MS. KATO: 17· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, do you recognize this document? 18· · · · A.· ·I do. 19· · · · Q.· ·What is this document? 20· · · · A.· ·This appears to be the Statement of Candidate 21· ·that I apparently signed on May 19, 2017. 22· · · · Q.· ·That is your signature on this document? 23· · · · A.· ·It is. 24· · · · Q.· ·In order to qualify as a candidate for the 25· ·Office of Attorney General, you were required by law to

A. 204 ·1· ·submit this form to the Division of Elections, is that ·2· ·correct? ·3· · · · A.· ·Correct. ·4· · · · Q.· ·And this statement is, it is a true and ·5· ·correct statement of that document, is that correct? ·6· · · · A.· ·It looks like it to me. ·7· · · · Q.· ·Has it been altered in any way? ·8· · · · A.· ·It doesn't look like it.· Of course I don't ·9· ·remember it word for word, it's been over a year, but it 10· ·looks, it looks similar at least. 11· · · · Q.· ·You would agree that this was accepted by the 12· ·Division of Elections Secretary of State on May 17th, 13· ·22nd, that's in the upper right-hand corner is that 14· ·correct? 15· · · · A.· ·Yes, it was accepted. 16· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Is it May 17 or -- 17· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· I'm sorry.· May 22, 2017. 18· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, that appears to be 19· · · · correct. 20· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Plaintiff moves this exhibit 21· · · · into evidence. 22· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Any objection? 23· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· No, Your Honor. 24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Without objection, Exhibit 1 is 25· · · · admitted.

A. 205 ·1· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 1 was admitted ·2· ·into evidence.) ·3· ·BY MS. KATO: ·4· · · · Q.· ·Sir, Mr. Torrens' submission of this statement ·5· ·of candidacy form, well, this form provides you were ·6· ·provided access to read and understand the requirements ·7· ·of Chapter 106 of the Florida Statutes, is that correct? ·8· · · · A.· ·That's correct. ·9· · · · Q.· ·And before you submitted this form, had you 10· ·read and understood the requirements of Chapter 106? 11· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did. 12· · · · Q.· ·You would agree that the submission of this 13· ·candidacy form along with the form appointing a campaign 14· ·treasurer is what allowed you to begin raising money for 15· ·your campaign, is that correct? 16· · · · A.· ·Correct. 17· · · · Q.· ·And you appointed Jessica Vasconez to be your 18· ·campaign treasurer? 19· · · · A.· ·Yes.· Jessica Vasconez, yes. 20· · · · Q.· ·So you filed your statement of candidacy and 21· ·appointed your campaign treasurer in May of 2017, and, 22· ·but these documents alone do not allow you to be placed 23· ·on the ballot for the Office of Attorney General, is 24· ·that right? 25· · · · A.· ·I believe that's correct.

A. 206 ·1· · · · Q.· ·In addition, you have to submit a financial ·2· ·disclosure form, is that correct? ·3· · · · A.· ·Actually, I believe I submitted the financial ·4· ·disclosure form well after qualifying.· I don't remember ·5· ·the date, but I know I did submit a financial disclosure. ·6· ·I just can't tell you when I did it. ·7· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Let the record show that I am ·8· · · · showing opposing counsel what has been premarked ·9· · · · as Plaintiff's Exhibit 19.· May I approach your 10· · · · clerk? 11· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 12· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Just for the record, the clerk 13· · · · had to cover up part of the form, but there's 14· · · · nothing that's disclosed on that, so I just want 15· · · · to make sure that we're clear what happened 16· · · · there. 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You're referring to the sticker 18· · · · that Ms. Allen put on the lower left corner? 19· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Yes, I am. 20· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Perfect. 21· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· May I approach the witness? 22· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 23· ·BY MS. KATO: 24· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, do you recognize this document? 25· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do.

A. 207 ·1· · · · Q.· ·What is this document? ·2· · · · A.· ·This is a financial disclosure that I filed, ·3· ·Form 6. ·4· · · · Q.· ·And you filed this document on June 21, 2018, ·5· ·is that correct? ·6· · · · A.· ·It looks to be correct, yeah. ·7· · · · Q.· ·Is that your signature on the back of this ·8· ·document? ·9· · · · A.· ·Yes, it is. 10· · · · Q.· ·That signature is made under oath, is that 11· ·correct? 12· · · · A.· ·That is correct. 13· · · · Q.· ·And this is a form that you were statutorily 14· ·required to submit in order to qualify for the 15· ·Office of Attorney General, is that right? 16· · · · A.· ·Yes, that is, yes, that is correct. 17· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Plaintiff moves Exhibit 19 into 18· · · · evidence. 19· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Any objection? 20· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· No objection, Your Honor. 21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Without objection, 19 is 22· · · · admitted. 23· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 19 was admitted 24· ·into evidence.) 25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And is June 21 the date of

A. 208 ·1· · · · qualifying? ·2· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· That's the final day of ·3· · · · qualifying, Your Honor. ·4· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· And I know it's a ·5· · · · qualifying week, I just -- ·6· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Right. ·7· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· -- was looking for the bookend. ·8· · · · Thank you. ·9· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I thought it was June 22 was 10· · · · the last day for qualifying.· I may be wrong, but 11· · · · you might want to check on that. 12· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Do you want to take judicial 13· · · · notice of the days of qualifying? 14· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I'd love to if I know for sure. 15· · · · I will say that June 22 is a Friday. 16· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, I know it was a Friday. 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· It would not be -- June 22, 18· · · · that's the last day of qualifying with the 22nd 19· · · · being Friday, because the qualifying week starts 20· · · · on Monday and goes to noon Friday. 21· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Noon Friday, so noon on the 22nd 22· · · · would be the last day. 23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you. 24· ·BY MS. KATO: 25· · · · Q.· ·So in addition to Form 6, you also have to

A. 209 ·1· ·submit another oath of office, is that right? ·2· · · · A.· ·I honestly don't remember what else I had ·3· ·filed. ·4· · · · Q.· ·You don't remember the documents that you ·5· ·filed to qualify for the Office of Attorney General? ·6· · · · A.· ·I don't remember each of them.· I think there ·7· ·were several ones and I don't remember each of them. ·8· ·I remember Form 6, but -- ·9· · · · Q.· ·So you're not sure if you signed the state and 10· ·local candidate oath of office? 11· · · · A.· ·I know I have at some point, I filed an oath 12· ·of office in the very beginning, but I can't remember if 13· ·they had me re-sign one when I qualify. 14· · · · Q.· ·You also had to write a campaign check, is 15· ·that right? 16· · · · A.· ·That's correct. 17· · · · Q.· ·And you submitted that check to the Division 18· ·of Elections on June 21, is that correct? 19· · · · A.· ·I believe it was -- I don't remember the date 20· ·but, yes, I did submit it to the Division of Elections. 21· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Let the record show that I am 22· · · · showing opposing counsel what has been previously 23· · · · marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 3. 24· · · · · · ·May I approach your clerk, Your Honor? 25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may.· She's our clerk, not

A. 210 ·1· · · · just mine. ·2· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· "Our clerk." ·3· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may refer to her as that ·4· · · · or Ms. Allen. ·5· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· May I approach the witness? ·6· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. ·7· ·BY MS. KATO: ·8· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, do you recognize this document? ·9· · · · A.· ·Yes, yes, I do. 10· · · · Q.· ·How do you recognize this document? 11· · · · A.· ·This is the check made out by my campaign 12· ·treasurer for the qualifying payment. 13· · · · Q.· ·And is this check drawn under Ryan Torrens for 14· ·Attorney General Campaign account? 15· · · · A.· ·Yes, it is. 16· · · · Q.· ·Is this the check that you delivered, and it 17· ·states on this document, by hand, to the Division of 18· ·Elections on June 21, 2018, is that correct? 19· · · · A.· ·Yes, this looks like a true and accurate copy. 20· · · · Q.· ·And you believe this check to be signed by 21· ·your campaign treasurer? 22· · · · A.· ·Correct. 23· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Plaintiff moves Exhibit 3 into 24· · · · evidence. 25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Any objection?

A. 211 ·1· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· No, Your Honor. ·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· It will be admitted without ·3· · · · objection. ·4· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 3 was admitted ·5· ·into evidence.) ·6· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I'll take those exhibits that are ·7· · · · piling up there. ·8· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sure. ·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you. 10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you, Judge. 11· ·BY MS. KATO: 12· · · · Q.· ·So we spent a couple minutes here admitting 13· ·documents, and we were going back and forth on the 14· ·qualifying dates, but you would agree that the campaign 15· ·check that I just showed you and moved into evidence, 16· ·the Form 6 that I just filed and moved into evidence, at 17· ·a minimum -- 18· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, compound. 19· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled.· I haven't heard 20· · · · the whole question yet. 21· ·BY MS. KATO: 22· · · · Q.· ·-- that those two documents are required to be 23· ·accepted by the Division of Elections during the 24· ·qualifying period, which this year was noon on June 18 25· ·through noon on June 22, in order to qualify for the

A. 212 ·1· ·ballot, is that correct? ·2· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, compound. ·3· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled. ·4· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, that's correct. ·5· ·BY MS. KATO: ·6· · · · Q.· ·And you submitted those documents, and you ·7· ·submitted your campaign check for $7,738.32? ·8· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct. ·9· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Okay.· Let the record show that 10· · · · I am showing opposing counsel what has been 11· · · · previously -- or I already showed opposing 12· · · · counsel, I'm sorry -- the witness what has been 13· · · · previously entered into evidence as Plaintiff's 14· · · · Exhibit 30. 15· · · · · · ·I said "Exhibit 30."· I'm sorry.· That was 16· · · · Exhibit 3. 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· So, 3, not 30? 18· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Three, not 30.· I'm sorry.· We had 19· · · · a deposition, exhibits that have now been entered 20· · · · into evidence. 21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· So this is Trial Exhibit 3? 22· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Trial Exhibit 3. 23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Got it.· Thank you. 24· ·BY MS. KATO: 25· · · · Q.· ·And just to be clear, these documents that we

A. 213 ·1· ·just discussed, the check and the Form 6, you traveled ·2· ·to Tallahassee and hand delivered those to the Division ·3· ·of Elections, is that correct? ·4· · · · A.· ·That is correct. ·5· · · · Q.· ·You physically walked into the building and ·6· ·handed them to the clerk, is that right? ·7· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did. ·8· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· May I approach the witness? ·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 10· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· If I can get Exhibit 3. 11· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· Right on top.· (Indicating.) 12· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· And Your Honor, if you can tell me 13· · · · how you want to do this with -- 14· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· That was the check to the division? 15· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· No, I'm sorry.· Mr. Baumann is 16· · · · confusing me.· So we have an Exhibit 3 and we 17· · · · moved -- 18· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· 29 in. 19· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· -- 29 into evidence.· And attached 20· · · · to 29 is Deposition Exhibit 3, which is also 21· · · · Plaintiff's Exhibit 30. 22· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· 3 or 30? 23· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· 30. 24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· So Deposition Exhibit 3 is the 25· · · · same as Plaintiff's Exhibit 30?

A. 214 ·1· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Yes. ·2· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· That is correct, Your Honor. ·3· · · · That is what I was trying to clarify.· I didn't ·4· · · · mean to run Ms. Kato off the rails. ·5· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· If we could, that I probably ·6· · · · want to show opposing counsel so that we can be ·7· · · · clear that that's the same. ·8· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· Go ahead. ·9· · · · · · ·(Handing documents.) 10· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Thank you. 11· · · · · · ·So let the record show that I'm showing 12· · · · opposing counsel what has been premarked as 13· · · · Exhibit 30.· This has already been moved into 14· · · · evidence as part of Ms. Visconez' deposition 15· · · · transcript. 16· · · · · · ·May I approach the witness? 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may, but tell us, are you 18· · · · going to show the witness 3 or 30? 19· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· 30.· Let the record show that 20· · · · I am showing the witness what has been marked as 21· · · · Exhibit 30, and what was previously moved into 22· · · · evidence as part of Exhibit 29. 23· ·BY MS. KATO: 24· · · · Q.· ·This is a copy of your campaign bank account 25· ·records for the dates of June 1, 2018 through June 29,

A. 215 ·1· ·2018, is that correct? ·2· · · · A.· ·To be honest, I mean, we use Bank of Tampa, ·3· ·but I don't maintain these bank statements, so I don't ·4· ·know that I've ever even seen this.· My campaign ·5· ·treasurer maintains all of the campaign bank records, ·6· ·so, but we do use Bank of Tampa. ·7· · · · Q.· ·Do you agree that it says, on the front page, ·8· ·the Ryan Torrens for Attorney General Campaign Account? ·9· · · · A.· ·Yes.· I'm just saying I don't have personal 10· ·knowledge of this document. 11· · · · Q.· ·You are aware that under Florida Statute, you 12· ·submit your campaign finance reports under oath, is that 13· ·correct? 14· · · · A.· ·Yes, of course, that's correct. 15· · · · Q.· ·And so is it your testimony today that you 16· ·don't know, you have no idea what is in your bank 17· ·account or what your bank account records look like for 18· ·your campaign account? 19· · · · A.· ·I'm not required to maintain the bank 20· ·statements.· And in fact, my campaign treasurer is the 21· ·one who maintains the log-in to keep the candidate, us 22· ·separate.· The candidate isn't even allowed to sign a 23· ·check from the campaign account so we always kept that 24· ·separate. 25· · · · Q.· ·But you deposit checks into this account,

A. 216 ·1· ·isn't that right? ·2· · · · A.· ·Yes, I have deposited checks in that account ·3· ·when my treasurer is not available, but the everyday ·4· ·bank statements, I just don't recognize the document. ·5· · · · Q.· ·So you agree that your -- that this says the ·6· ·Ryan Torrens for Attorney General Campaign Account, is ·7· ·that correct? ·8· · · · A.· ·I think the document speaks for itself. ·9· · · · Q.· ·Please answer my question:· You agree that 10· ·this is the bank account for the Ryan Torrens for 11· ·Attorney General Campaign Account for the dates of 12· ·June 1, 2018 through June 29, 2018? 13· · · · A.· ·All I can agree is that the document said 14· ·Ryan Torrens for Attorney General Campaign Account, but 15· ·I cannot testify under oath that this is a true and 16· ·correct copy of this particular bank statement.· I just 17· ·can't do that. 18· · · · Q.· ·So at any given time, you don't know how much 19· ·money you have in your bank account, is that correct 20· ·statement? 21· · · · A.· ·Unless I've had a discussion with my treasurer 22· ·about the balance, no.· I don't know on an everyday 23· ·basis what the balance of our account is.· I have 24· ·conversations with my treasurer from time to time to see 25· ·how things are going.· I have a general idea of how much

A. 217 ·1· ·money is being raised, but on a daily basis, no, I don't ·2· ·monitor my -- the campaign account.· That's the duty of ·3· ·my campaign treasurer. ·4· · · · Q.· ·So you were not aware that on June 15, 2018 ·5· ·your campaign account had a balance of $913.36, is that ·6· ·correct? ·7· · · · A.· ·No, I was not aware of that. ·8· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I'm sorry, say that date again a ·9· · · · little more slowly, please? 10· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· June 15, 2018. 11· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Of nine hundred, you said? 12· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· $913.36. 13· ·BY MS. KATO: 14· · · · Q.· ·So you were unaware, at 9:00 a.m. on the first 15· ·day of qualifying, that your campaign was approximately 16· ·$6,824.96 short for your qualifying fee, is that right? 17· · · · A.· ·That's correct.· I did not even know what the 18· ·balance was.· My treasurer confirms whether there's 19· ·adequate funds, but in terms of what the actual balance 20· ·is, I don't, I usually don't know that. 21· · · · Q.· ·And she didn't speak to you?· You knew, on 22· ·June 21, 2018, that you were going to have to submit by 23· ·noon on the 22nd, that you were going to have to submit 24· ·a qualifying check in the amount $7,738.32, is that 25· ·correct?

A. 218 ·1· · · · A.· ·Yes, I knew that. ·2· · · · Q.· ·And so you had no conversation with your ·3· ·campaign treasurer four days before about whether you ·4· ·would have the adequate funds to cover that, is that ·5· ·correct? ·6· · · · A.· ·My campaign treasurer and I speak frequently, ·7· ·but I can't remember the days that we talk.· We talk ·8· ·from time to time about the campaign and the account, ·9· ·but I don't remember what conversations are on what 10· ·dates.· I just can't testify under oath for that. 11· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, could you please turn to page 12· ·three of these records? 13· · · · A.· ·Sure. 14· · · · Q.· ·Would you look under the daily balance next to 15· ·6-15-18? 16· · · · A.· ·Okay. 17· · · · Q.· ·And you would agree that on 6-15-18, 18· ·this document that has already been authenticated by 19· ·Ms. Vasconez' deposition and entered into evidence shows 20· ·that you had a balance of $913.36, is that correct? 21· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's what this document says. 22· · · · Q.· ·So it's a correct statement that at 9:00 a.m. 23· ·on the first day of qualifying, June 18 or thereabouts, 24· ·your campaign was $6,824.96 short for the qualifying fee? 25· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, asked and answered.

A. 219 ·1· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled. ·2· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.· The issue is that at ·3· · · · that time, I was not aware of that. ·4· ·BY MS. KATO: ·5· · · · Q.· ·But you decided on the morning of the 18th to ·6· ·put some more money in the bank account anyway, didn't ·7· ·you? ·8· · · · A.· ·That's correct.· To be honest, our campaign ·9· ·usually doesn't have a whole lot of money.· We are a 10· ·very grass roots campaign, so, whenever we can chip in, 11· ·we try to do that. 12· · · · Q.· ·So you discussed with your wife putting some 13· ·additional funds into the campaign account, isn't that 14· ·right? 15· · · · A.· ·That is correct. 16· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, may I approach 17· · · · our clerk so I can obtain a previously-entered 18· · · · exhibit? 19· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Of course. 20· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Thank you.· May I approach 21· · · · the witness? 22· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 23· ·BY MS. KATO: 24· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, you recognize this document, 25· ·right?

A. 220 ·1· · · · A.· ·Yes, I do. ·2· · · · Q.· ·This is a check that was written on ·3· ·June 18, 2018 from an AgFed Credit Union bank account ·4· ·associated with Francesca Yabraian, and it was written ·5· ·for $4,000 to the Ryan Torrens for Attorney General ·6· ·Campaign, is that correct? ·7· · · · A.· ·This is a check from our joint banking account ·8· ·payable to Ryan Torrens for Attorney General Campaign in ·9· ·the amount of $4,000. 10· · · · Q.· ·Does it say anywhere in the address block that 11· ·this is a joint account? 12· · · · A.· ·No, but I can testify that it is. 13· · · · Q.· ·Does it list your name in the address block? 14· · · · A.· ·No, but that's my previous address in 15· ·Westchase. 16· · · · Q.· ·The signature on the line reads Francesca 17· ·Yabraian, is that correct? 18· · · · A.· ·That is correct. 19· · · · Q.· ·But that's not actually Ms. Yabraian 20· ·signature, is it? 21· · · · A.· ·No, because she was in wash DC.· And I called 22· ·her, we had a discussion about it, and on her express 23· ·authorization, she authorized me to sign the check on 24· ·her behalf. 25· · · · Q.· ·So you signed your wife's name to this check,

A. 221 ·1· ·is that correct? ·2· · · · A.· ·Only with her authorization, that is correct. ·3· · · · Q.· ·You did not sign your name? ·4· · · · A.· ·No.· No, I signed her name. ·5· · · · Q.· ·The only place on this check where your name ·6· ·appears is next to where it says pay to the order of, is ·7· ·that correct? ·8· · · · A.· ·That's correct. ·9· · · · Q.· ·You didn't even endorse this check, did you? 10· · · · A.· ·Doesn't look like it from what I'm seeing, 11· ·doesn't look like it, no. 12· · · · Q.· ·This check is for $4,000? 13· · · · A.· ·Oh, that's correct.· Yes. 14· · · · Q.· ·This check was written on June 18, 2018? 15· · · · A.· ·Correct. 16· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Just for the record since I 17· · · · don't have a copy in front of me, read exactly 18· · · · what it says as to who is the money to be paid to? 19· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· The check reads to be paid to 20· · · · the order of Ryan Torrens for Attorney General 21· · · · Campaign. 22· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you. 23· ·BY MS. KATO: 24· · · · Q.· ·And this is characterized as a campaign loan, 25· ·is that correct?

A. 222 ·1· · · · A.· ·That is correct. ·2· · · · Q.· ·Now, you characterize this as a joint account, ·3· ·but you've never signed your name to a check from this ·4· ·AgFed Credit Union account, isn't that right? ·5· · · · A.· ·That's correct.· Usually my wife, my wife does ·6· ·it.· It's one of the reasons is the bank is up -- the ·7· ·credit union is up in Washington, D.C., where she works, ·8· ·usually. ·9· · · · Q.· ·But you have on at least one occasion signed 10· ·your wife's name to checks from this account? 11· · · · A.· ·That is correct. 12· · · · Q.· ·You've actually -- 13· · · · A.· ·But only with, I'm sorry, with her approval. 14· · · · Q.· ·You've actually signed other checks in 15· ·your -- with your wife's name, is that correct? 16· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection. 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Legal basis? 18· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Relevance and speculation. 19· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Relevance objections, I 20· · · · determine later. 21· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· I understand. 22· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And speculation as to what? 23· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· It calls for the witness to 24· · · · speculate on -- 25· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, we're not asking the

A. 223 ·1· · · · witness to speculate. ·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I don't need argument.· I'm ·3· · · · just trying to make sure I understand the ·4· · · · objection. ·5· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· To speculate on specificities ·6· · · · that he may not -- that calls for the witness ·7· · · · to guess on the amount or number or dates of ·8· · · · checks. ·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· That's a speaking objection. 10· · · · It's overruled. 11· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry, can you ask me 12· · · · the question again? 13· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Of course. 14· ·BY MS. KATO: 15· · · · Q.· ·You have signed other checks with your wife's 16· ·name, is that correct? 17· · · · A.· ·Yes, that is correct, but only with her 18· ·permission. 19· · · · Q.· ·You signed her name to checks when she is not 20· ·in town? 21· · · · A.· ·That is correct. 22· · · · Q.· ·You have signed checks from your wife's 23· ·account to your law firm? 24· · · · A.· ·I believe so.· I believe I have, yes, with 25· ·her, with her permission.

A. 224 ·1· · · · Q.· ·You have signed your wife's name to checks to ·2· ·you personally? ·3· · · · A.· ·Correct, again with her permission. ·4· · · · Q.· ·So this is allegedly a joint bank account, but ·5· ·you never sign your name to any of these checks, you ·6· ·use her name? ·7· · · · A.· ·The reason, like I said, the bank is up in ·8· ·Washington.· She uses it often, she works in Washington. ·9· ·I have a separate bank that I use exclusively in the 10· ·Tampa area, so they're jointly held funds but that's why 11· ·we've always done it like that.· We don't have to. I 12· ·could just sign the check just as well, but that's just 13· ·kind of what we've always, what we've done. 14· · · · Q.· ·But you don't sign those checks, do you, you 15· ·do not use your name, you use your wife's name? 16· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· No, I was just saying, though, that I 17· ·could if any chose to do so.· It's a joint bank account. 18· · · · Q.· ·So why don't you?· So you make a choice to 19· ·sign your wife's name and not yours to checks on what is 20· ·allegedly a joint bank account? 21· · · · A.· ·Yeah.· I don't know, we just usually do that 22· ·instead of me writing my name up at the top left, which 23· ·I could and then sign it.· You know, we're in a very 24· ·close marriage, we're very close with each other and 25· ·this is just how we -- how we've done things, but they

A. 225 ·1· ·are, you know, jointly, jointly held funds.· I've made ·2· ·withdrawals from this account, I've made thousands of ·3· ·dollars in deposits into this account from my own bank ·4· ·account.· And that's just the way we do things to cover ·5· ·our bills and so forth. ·6· · · · Q.· ·You make withdrawals in your name or in your ·7· ·wife's name? ·8· · · · A.· ·I just go to a shared credit union here and do ·9· ·the withdrawals.· I think usually I just give them the 10· ·account number, and honestly I can't remember whose 11· ·name, but I usually go to a shared credit union around 12· ·here.· And again, I've made thousands and thousands of 13· ·dollars deposit into this account. 14· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You say "around here," do you mean 15· · · · in Tampa or Tallahassee? 16· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry, Judge.· Let me 17· · · · clarify, I mean in the Tampa area. 18· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· That's what I thought you 19· · · · meant. 20· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, let the record show 21· · · · that I am showing opposing counsel what has been 22· · · · premarked as Exhibit 21. 23· · · · · · ·Your Honor, may I approach our clerk? 24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 25· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, Exhibit 21 is a

A. 226 ·1· ·Florida Department of State Division of Elections ·2· ·Campaign Treasurer Report Summary.· This is a ·3· ·self-authenticating document under rule 90.902. ·4· ·It is a copy of an official public record and ·5· ·campaign finance report.· It's required to be filed ·6· ·with the state pursuant to Florida Statute 106.073 ·7· ·and 106.075, and it's considered to be attested ·8· ·to under oath by Mr. Torrens pursuant to 106.075(4). ·9· ·Therefore, this is a self-authenticating document. 10· ·And it also meets the hearsay exception for public 11· ·records under Florida Statute 90.803(8).· And 12· ·pursuant to Israel v. State, this document is 13· ·self-authenticating and thus no custodian is 14· ·required, so I would now move this document into 15· ·evidence. 16· · · · THE COURT:· And I'm guessing there's an 17· ·objection? 18· · · · MR. MCCABE:· There is an objection. 19· · · · THE COURT:· And what is the objection? 20· · · · MR. MCCABE:· The objection would be that 21· ·the document is certified -- well, it's not 22· ·certified.· It's not under seal.· Yeah, it's 23· ·not under seal.· It doesn't have the signature 24· ·of a custodian attesting to a seal. 25· · · · THE COURT:· I'd like to see a copy, please.

A. 227 ·1· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· May I approach, Your Honor? ·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Of course. ·3· · · · · · ·(Handing documents.) ·4· · · · · · ·(Pause.) ·5· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Go ahead and lay a foundation ·6· · · · with Mr. Torrens. ·7· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Thank you, Your Honor.· May I ·8· · · · approach the witness? ·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 10· ·BY MS. KATO: 11· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, do you recognize this document? 12· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· What's the date on that 13· · · · document again? 14· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· The date on this document is 15· · · · 7-31.· It was reviewed on 7-17. 16· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you. 17· · · · · · ·The question is, do you recognize the 18· · · · document, sir? 19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· You know, this, this may have 20· · · · been shown to me, but honestly I don't remember. 21· · · · I can't, I don't remember this document. 22· ·BY MS. KATO: 23· · · · Q.· ·So you don't know if this is a copy of a 24· ·document produced by the Florida EFS system? 25· · · · A.· ·No, no, I don't.· I honestly don't, don't

A. 228 ·1· ·recognize this document.· I mean, you could imagine how ·2· ·many documents I review on a daily basis.· So I just ·3· ·don't remember seeing this document, no, I don't. ·4· · · · Q.· ·So is that your name at the top of this ·5· ·document? ·6· · · · A.· ·Yes. ·7· · · · Q.· ·Over the word candidate? ·8· · · · A.· ·Yes, it is. ·9· · · · Q.· ·And is that your campaign address on this 10· ·document? 11· · · · A.· ·Yes, although we usually use the P.O. box, and 12· ·I see the P.O. box is not there. 13· · · · Q.· ·This is an amendment, and on every page of 14· ·this document is says Ryan Torrens, is that correct? 15· · · · A.· ·Yes, on every page it says Ryan Torrens. 16· · · · Q.· ·So you are aware that campaign finance reports 17· ·are to be filed with the state pursuant to statute, is 18· ·that correct? 19· · · · A.· ·Yes, I'm familiar with that. 20· · · · Q.· ·And we've established through previous 21· ·testimony that the EFS system is the mechanism by which 22· ·those statements are filed, is that correct? 23· · · · A.· ·Correct. 24· · · · Q.· ·And you are aware that when you filed to open 25· ·your campaign account, they provided you and your

A. 229 ·1· ·campaign treasurer with a PIN, is that correct? ·2· · · · A.· ·I believe that was the case, although I ·3· ·honestly can't remember.· That was in, I think, May ·4· ·of 2017. ·5· · · · Q.· ·So you don't, you have no idea about your ·6· ·campaign finances from May, 2017 until today, is that ·7· ·correct? ·8· · · · A.· ·Well, no.· All I'm saying is that -- ·9· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection. 10· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Hold on.· What's the legal 11· · · · basis of the objection? 12· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Misquoting the witness. 13· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled.· You may answer, sir. 14· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.· No, all I'm saying is 15· · · · I don't remember this specific document. 16· ·BY MS. KATO: 17· · · · Q.· ·So you don't know what's being submitted on 18· ·your behalf, under oath, to the state regarding your 19· ·campaign finances, is that your testimony? 20· · · · A.· ·No, that's not my testimony.· What I'm saying 21· ·is you showed me, for both Exhibit 21 and -- and I don't 22· ·remember this document.· That's all I'm telling you. 23· · · · Q.· ·Let's go to page two of this document. 24· · · · A.· ·Okay. 25· · · · Q.· ·On line 11, do you see line 11?· There's

A. 230 ·1· ·actually two line 11's on that document. ·2· · · · A.· ·Yes, I see both, both lines 11. ·3· · · · Q.· ·Do both of those lines 11 say the name ·4· ·Francesca Yabraian? ·5· · · · A.· ·Yes, they do. ·6· · · · Q.· ·Do both of those list the address at ·7· ·Montague Street, where you've previously testified that ·8· ·you and Ms. Yabraian live? ·9· · · · A.· ·Yes.· We used to live there in Westchase, 10· ·correct. 11· · · · Q.· ·Is that the same address that is on the check 12· ·for $4,000 that you accepted for your campaign, that was 13· ·signed by you pretending to be Ms. Yabraian? 14· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection. 15· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Legal basis? 16· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· The basis is -- 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· The legal basis.· I don't want 18· · · · a speaking objection. 19· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Argumentative.· Misquoting 20· · · · the witness. 21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled. 22· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· And improper character 23· · · · evidence. 24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled. 25· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Or I would say counsel

A. 231 ·1· · · · testifying, or, I'm sorry, argumentative. ·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Counsel can lead, ·3· · · · and the argumentative objection is overruled. ·4· · · · · · ·You may answer. ·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.· Yes, it looks to be ·6· · · · the same address that was on the check, that's ·7· · · · correct. ·8· ·BY MS. KATO: ·9· · · · Q.· ·And this document discloses that on June 18, 10· ·2018, the campaign accepted $4,000 from Ms. Yabraian, is 11· ·that correct? 12· · · · A.· ·Yes, that is correct. 13· · · · Q.· ·So, Mr. Torrens, that $4,000 check was 14· ·deposited by you, into your campaign account on June 18, 15· ·2018, is that corrects? 16· · · · A.· ·That's correct. 17· · · · Q.· ·And you have testified that you are required 18· ·to familiarize yourself with campaign finance laws, is 19· ·that right? 20· · · · A.· ·That's correct. 21· · · · Q.· ·The legal limit for statewide candidates 22· ·is $3,000? 23· · · · A.· ·Correct. 24· · · · Q.· ·So it's clear -- 25· · · · A.· ·Except for myself if it's a --

A. 232 ·1· · · · Q.· ·It's clear that that $4,000 check, that four ·2· ·thousand is more than three thousand, is that right? ·3· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct. ·4· · · · Q.· ·And after the deposit of this $4,000, your ·5· ·bank, your campaign bank account had a balance of ·6· ·6,992 dollars, is that right? ·7· · · · A.· ·I don't know that -- ·8· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Say it more slowly, please. ·9· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· I'm sorry, Your Honor. 10· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· We have a court reporter who's 11· · · · excellent.· I am not in her category, so a little 12· · · · more slowly, please. 13· ·BY MS. KATO: 14· · · · Q.· ·So after the deposit of the $4,000 check into 15· ·your campaign account, your campaign bank account had a 16· ·balance of six thousand nine hundred dollars and 92 17· ·cents on June 18, 2018, is that correct? 18· · · · · · ·That's the wrong document, Mr. Torrens. 19· ·(Indicating.)· I can provide you with the bank records 20· ·if you would like. 21· · · · A.· ·Okay.· Yes, if you could. 22· · · · Q.· ·So you will have those in front of you. 23· · · · A.· ·Yes, if you could please direct me, this is 24· ·Exhibit 30? 25· · · · Q.· ·Yes.

A. 233 ·1· · · · A.· ·Okay.· Give me one minute. ·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And again, that number was $6,992 ·3· · · · and how many cents? ·4· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· 92 cents. ·5· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· 92 cents. ·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, that's what this bank ·7· · · · statement seems to reflect. ·8· ·BY MS. KATO: ·9· · · · Q.· ·So as of June 18, after you transferred $4,000 10· ·from a check signed by a name that reads Francesca 11· ·Yabraian, you were still short the qualifying fee in 12· ·your bank account, is that right? 13· · · · A.· ·Yes.· If that was the balance on June 18, then 14· ·that's not, that's not high enough. 15· · · · Q.· ·So, on June 19, your campaign treasurer 16· ·advised you that the $4,000 check that you had 17· ·deposited the day before was an illegal campaign 18· ·contribution, isn't that right? 19· · · · A.· ·I think there's an e-mail correspondence if 20· ·you want to direct my attention to that. 21· · · · Q.· ·Yes. 22· · · · · · ·(Pause.) 23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Ms. Allen, let's see if they 24· · · · stay with you this time. 25· · · · · · ·(Handing documents.)

A. 234 ·1· · · · THE COURT:· You doing all right, ·2· ·madam reporter? ·3· · · · REPORTER:· Your Honor, I will need ·4· ·to change paper in about five minutes. ·5· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· The court reporter is ·6· ·going to need a paper-change break in about five ·7· ·minutes.· Rather than waiting, is this a good ·8· ·opportunity to take a break? ·9· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, that would be good. 10· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· We'll be in recess for 11· ·nine minutes, until 3:30 by the courtroom clock. 12· · · · (Recess observed from 3:21 p.m. to 3:29 p.m.) 13· · · · THE COURT:· Go ahead and take your seats and 14· ·as soon as Mr. Torrens is back in the room we'll 15· ·have him come back up. 16· · · · MR. MCCABE:· I can retrieve him, Your Honor. 17· · · · THE COURT:· Well, let him know we're ready. 18· ·I don't know that he needs to be "retrieved." 19· · · · (Pause.) 20· · · · (Mr. Torrens returns.) 21· · · · THE WITNESS:· May I approach, Your Honor? 22· · · · THE COURT:· Of course, have a seat.· And 23· ·there was no pending question so you may continue, 24· ·Ms. Kato, with a new question. 25· · · · MS. KATO:· Yes, Your Honor.

A. 235 ·1· · · · · · ·So you are correct, there's no pending ·2· · · · question.· However we are in this where we've ·3· · · · moved some documents into evidence with the ·4· · · · deposition, so I just want to make sure that ·5· · · · our numbers are correct. ·6· · · · · · ·I'm showing opposing counsel what has been ·7· · · · marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 28.· May I approach ·8· · · · the clerk? ·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 10· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Madam Clerk, this and Exhibit 5 11· · · · from Exhibit 29 are the same exhibit.· Do we all 12· · · · follow that? 13· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· There you go.· I'm sorry. 14· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· That's fine. 15· · · · · · ·May I approach the witness? 16· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 17· ·BY MS. KATO: 18· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, I am showing you what was moved 19· ·into evidence as Exhibit 5 as part of Exhibit 29.· It 20· ·has now been marked into evidence as Plaintiff's 21· ·Exhibit 28. 22· · · · On June 19, 2018, your campaign treasurer advised 23· ·you that the $4,000 check you just deposited the day 24· ·before was an illegal campaign contribution, is that 25· ·correct?

A. 236 ·1· · · · A.· ·She advised me that she believed it was in ·2· ·excess and that we're most likely going to have to ·3· ·refund it. ·4· · · · Q.· ·And to be clear, we're talking about the ·5· ·$4,000 check that was signed by you, using your wife's ·6· ·name, is that correct? ·7· · · · A.· ·That's correct. ·8· · · · Q.· ·And so Ms. Vasconez e-mailed you and stated, ·9· ·"I am almost positive we are going to have to reimburse 10· ·part of Francesca's loan contribution," is that correct? 11· · · · A.· ·Correct. 12· · · · Q.· ·Twelve minutes later you agreed, is that right? 13· · · · A.· ·Just give me one moment to review the e-mail. 14· ·Yes, in my e-mail I stated that it looked like that was 15· ·the case, that we would need to do a refund. 16· · · · Q.· ·That's right.· You said that she, meaning, 17· ·your wife is owed a refund of 2,432 dollars, is that 18· ·right? 19· · · · A.· ·That's correct. 20· · · · Q.· ·But that's actually not the amount of money 21· ·she was owed, is that right? 22· · · · A.· ·That's correct.· I miscalculated the amount. 23· ·I had not gone far back enough when I looked at her 24· ·prior contributions. 25· · · · Q.· ·She actually was owed more money, is that

A. 237 ·1· ·right? ·2· · · · A.· ·That is correct. ·3· · · · Q.· ·And you said, "I could come get a check from ·4· ·you tomorrow and then deposit it into her account to ·5· ·refund her for that," is that correct? ·6· · · · A.· ·That is correct. ·7· · · · Q.· ·So you claim that this is a joint account, ·8· ·right? ·9· · · · A.· ·Correct, it is. 10· · · · Q.· ·But you, in this e-mail, refer to it as "her 11· ·account," meaning, your wife's, is that right? 12· · · · A.· ·Yes, the Agricultural Credit Union. 13· · · · Q.· ·And you didn't actually get a check from your 14· ·campaign treasurer on June 20, did you? 15· · · · A.· ·No. 16· · · · Q.· ·You did not get a check from her on June 19, 17· ·did you? 18· · · · A.· ·No. 19· · · · Q.· ·What you did is that you, instead, had your 20· ·campaign write a qualifying check to the Division of 21· ·Elections on June 20, 2018, isn't that right? 22· · · · A.· ·Well, they did write a check, but what also 23· ·needs to be noted is that, at that time, we were trying 24· ·to determine how we could handle this because we were 25· ·looking to see if we could reclassify it as a loan from

A. 238 ·1· ·myself, because the issue was that her name was on the ·2· ·check, and so we were trying to figure out what we need ·3· ·to do with it, so there was some, there was some lapsed ·4· ·time there. ·5· · · · Q.· ·So on June 20, when you wrote the qualifying ·6· ·check or your campaign treasurer wrote the qualifying ·7· ·check for $7,738.32, you knew that you had illegal funds ·8· ·in your bank account that you might have to refund, and ·9· ·yet you wrote your check to qualify anyway, is that 10· ·right? 11· · · · A.· ·Well, what I did is -- 12· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, compound. 13· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Break it down. 14· ·BY MS. KATO: 15· · · · Q.· ·Well, on June 19, you said that you looked up 16· ·the rule, is that right? 17· · · · A.· ·That is correct, but what I had not looked up 18· ·at that time was possibly reclassifying as a loan from 19· ·myself. 20· · · · Q.· ·But on June 19, after you looked up the rule, 21· ·you knew that contributions from a joint account only 22· ·signed by one party must be credited to that party, is 23· ·that correct? 24· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection. 25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· The legal basis?

A. 239 ·1· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Calls -- conclusion. ·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled. ·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, but, again, we were ·4· · · · trying to figure out how to rectify it.· And at ·5· · · · this time I was not sure if we were going to end ·6· · · · up having to do the refund or not before the ·7· · · · research or if we could simply do a ·8· · · · reclassification. ·9· · · · · · ·When I sent this e-mail, I only looked up 10· · · · the one rule that states if it's from the one 11· · · · spouse only for the joint account, then it's 12· · · · proper to do a refund, so that's why I sent the 13· · · · email that says that. 14· ·BY MS. KATO: 15· · · · Q.· ·You didn't try very hard to find a solution, 16· ·did you? 17· · · · A.· ·Well, I actually did.· I started -- I had 18· ·several conversations with Jessica, my campaign 19· ·treasurer, and I started looking up different rules to 20· ·see if we would be allowed to reclassify it, and I was 21· ·not able to find much guidance in the Florida Elections 22· ·Commission advisory opinions on whether we could 23· ·reclassify it or not.· And so, out of an abundance of 24· ·caution, we decided to go ahead and issue a refund 25· ·instead of trying to reclassify it as a loan for myself.

A. 240 ·1· · · · Q.· ·But you didn't call the Division of Elections ·2· ·on June 19, did you? ·3· · · · A.· ·No.· I'm not sure if my campaign treasurer ·4· ·did, but what I did do was research a whole litany of ·5· ·those advisory opinions to see if I could find anything ·6· ·on reclassification, and I really didn't find, couldn't ·7· ·find -- ·8· · · · Q.· ·You didn't call the Division of Elections on ·9· ·June 20, did you? 10· · · · A.· ·No, I did not call the Division of Elections. 11· · · · Q.· ·So you were unsure what to do with that 12· ·contribution on June 20, and yet you still used those 13· ·funds to cover the qualifying check that you wrote on 14· ·June 20, is that correct? 15· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, asked and 16· · · · answered. 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled.· It wasn't 18· · · · answered earlier because I had Ms. Kato 19· · · · break the question down.· You may answer now. 20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you, Judge. 21· · · · No, but again, at that time I wasn't even aware 22· · · · of what the balance was.· I wasn't sure if we 23· · · · were going to have to take the money out of our 24· · · · account or not, and that's what we were -- we were 25· · · · trying to figure out.· So as far as I was concerned,

A. 241 ·1· · · · that was also still in limbo and I didn't even know ·2· · · · what the actual balance was at that time. ·3· ·BY MS. KATO: ·4· · · · Q.· ·So you're running for attorney general which ·5· ·is the highest legal officer in the land, and you were ·6· ·wholly unconcerned whether illegal funds were going to ·7· ·be used for your qualifying check, is that right? ·8· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, argumentative. ·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled. 10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I disagree with your 11· · · · characterization that I was "wholly unconcerned." 12· · · · I simply did not know how we needed to handle this. 13· · · · I wasn't "wholly unconcerned."· I just didn't know 14· · · · if a reclassification would be possible and 15· · · · that's what we were looking into.· I certainly 16· · · · wouldn't characterize it as somehow being "wholly 17· · · · unconcerned." 18· ·BY MS. KATO: 19· · · · Q.· ·Did you ask your campaign treasurer if you had 20· ·enough money in the account to cover it without that 21· ·$4,000? 22· · · · A.· ·No, because I know my campaign treasurer would 23· ·never issue me a check that was going to bounce. 24· · · · Q.· ·That's not my question. 25· · · · · · ·Did you ever ask your campaign treasurer if,

A. 242 ·1· ·without the $4,000 from the illegal contribution, that ·2· ·you would have enough money to issue your qualifying ·3· ·check for $7,732.38? ·4· · · · A.· ·No.· I don't think I even knew what the ·5· ·balance was, to be honest. ·6· · · · Q.· ·You weren't concerned about the balance even ·7· ·though you knew that $4,000 was there and that you might ·8· ·have to give it back? ·9· · · · A.· ·Well, like I said before, our campaign almost 10· ·always needs more money.· And what you can also see is 11· ·that I had loaned, from my other bank account, personal 12· ·loans into my campaign around the same time period, not 13· ·withstanding the qualifying fee.· A campaign usually 14· ·needs money.· And when we were able to provide a $4,000 15· ·loan or a contribution, whatever you want to classify it 16· ·as at that time, our campaign always needs resources and 17· ·so we are willing, we were willing to do that. 18· · · · Q.· ·So you said that you didn't issue the refund 19· ·right away because you were doing research, is that 20· ·right? 21· · · · A.· ·That is correct.· I was looking to see if we 22· ·could reclassify it, which would mean we didn't have to 23· ·take the money out of our account. 24· · · · Q.· ·It took you a really long time to do research, 25· ·is that right?

A. 243 ·1· · · · A.· ·I don't know if you classify it as a "long ·2· ·time" or not.· Obviously, I am running for statewide ·3· ·office and trying to handle this situation, as well, and ·4· ·I was getting to it as quickly as I can, and also ·5· ·traveling and so forth.· So I got to it as quickly as I ·6· ·could.· I was getting a little bit frustrated because I ·7· ·was not finding much information on whether you could ·8· ·reclassify this or not.· So we didn't find anything ·9· ·conclusive and we just figured, out of a sense of 10· ·caution, let's refund the money. 11· · · · Q.· ·You waited until after qualifying to refund 12· ·the money, didn't you? 13· · · · A.· ·Yeah, the refund check was after qualifying, 14· ·that is correct. 15· · · · Q.· ·And so you weren't that cautious about it, 16· ·were you? 17· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, argumentative. 18· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Rephrase. 19· ·BY MS. KATO: 20· · · · Q.· ·Well, if you were trying to be cautious, you 21· ·would have refunded it right away, isn't that right? 22· · · · A.· ·Well, no, because again our campaign needed 23· ·the funds.· Our campaign always needs funds.· And if we 24· ·could reclassify it, I would prefer to do that.· And so 25· ·I was trying to find a way in order to do that, but it

A. 244 ·1· ·looked like that was not going to be an available ·2· ·option.· The only remedy was to refund it, but if there ·3· ·was any legal way to simply do a reclassification, we ·4· ·much preferred to do that. ·5· · · · Q.· ·That's right.· So by your testimony today, you ·6· ·needed that $4,000 to qualify, is that correct? ·7· · · · A.· ·Again, like I have testified already, I didn't ·8· ·know what the balance was.· I didn't know if that was ·9· ·critical or not.· Our campaign on a daily basis needs 10· ·resources.· We are very grass roots.· We always have 11· ·money problems in my campaign, so it's not just with 12· ·qualifying.· And my wife and I were in a position to 13· ·help a little bit with the campaign, and just like I had 14· ·given a $7,000 loan from my own account, my own separate 15· ·account previous, we were trying to do whatever we could 16· ·to help the campaign in general because it's usually 17· ·struggling for resources. 18· · · · Q.· ·You asked your wife for the $4,000 on the 18th 19· ·because you had your qualifying deadline, is that right? 20· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, hearsay. 21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled. 22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· No, it was actually, we had a 23· · · · conversation about it and I told her that I 24· · · · believed if we did it, if we did it as a loan, 25· · · · that the $3,000 limit didn't apply.· And so she

A. 245 ·1· · · · agreed, she had some money coming in.· I don't ·2· · · · even know from where or from what resources.· And ·3· · · · between the two of us, we were able to contribute ·4· · · · the $4,000, but, honestly, I didn't know if that -- ·5· · · · if we needed that or not for the qualifying fee. ·6· · · · Our campaign always needs resources. ·7· ·BY MS. KATO: ·8· · · · Q.· ·So you stated that you talked -- you told her ·9· ·that the $4,000, because it was a loan, the finance 10· ·limit would not apply; that was just your testimony, is 11· ·that correct? 12· · · · A.· ·That is correct.· We were trying to do it as a 13· ·loan from our joint account and I signed it on her 14· ·behalf.· And it was, again, a loan from our joint 15· ·account.· And then when the issue came up that, well, 16· ·her signature is the only signature on it, despite the 17· ·fact that it's a joint account, you're going to either 18· ·need to refund or reclassify it, and it looked like the 19· ·refund was the only allowable remedy, but that is why it 20· ·says "loan" instead of a contribution because that was 21· ·my understanding of it. 22· · · · Q.· ·So before you wrote this $4,000 check and 23· ·signed your wife's name to it, you could have called the 24· ·Division of Elections and asked how they treat joint 25· ·bank accounts, is that right?

A. 246 ·1· · · · A.· ·Sure, I could have called them. ·2· · · · Q.· ·You could have called the Division of ·3· ·Elections and asked how they treat loans generally, is ·4· ·that right? ·5· · · · A.· ·Sure. ·6· · · · Q.· ·You could have done the research on the ·7· ·Division of Elections website to determine how you treat ·8· ·joint bank accounts, is that right? ·9· · · · A.· ·Sure. 10· · · · Q.· ·But you didn't do any of that, did you? 11· · · · A.· ·No.· Again, like I already testified, I 12· ·researched all the advisory opinions instead because I 13· ·figured we would need some kind of a legal basis if we 14· ·were going to reclassify the -- 15· · · · Q.· ·But you stated that you did that research 16· ·after you accepted the $4,000 contribution, is that 17· ·right? 18· · · · A.· ·That's correct. 19· · · · Q.· ·So you accepted the $4,000 contribution 20· ·without making sure that it was a legal way to accept 21· ·that check, isn't that right? 22· · · · A.· ·Well, no, because I believed at the time that 23· ·I deposited the check that it was a legal loan.· And 24· ·that's why we put "loan" because my understanding was, 25· ·if it was a loan from our joint account it was

A. 247 ·1· ·permissible. ·2· · · · · · ·So when I deposited the funds, I did not know ·3· ·or realize that it was some kind of an illegal campaign ·4· ·contribution or any issue at all.· And I specifically ·5· ·told my wife that we would want to do it as a loan for ·6· ·that reason. ·7· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, you're an attorney, is that right? ·8· · · · A.· ·That's correct. ·9· · · · Q.· ·You are running for the highest legal office 10· ·in the land, is that right? 11· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, asked and answered. 12· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Sustained. 13· ·BY MS. KATO: 14· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, as an attorney and as a 15· ·candidate for attorney general, you would agree that 16· ·simply believing that you were complying with the 17· ·law is not actually complying with the law, right? 18· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, calls for 19· · · · legal speculation or legal conclusion. 20· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled. 21· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I mean, anyone could always 22· · · · be mistaken, you know.· Like I said, when I 23· · · · made the deposit, my understanding was, if we 24· · · · did it as a loan that it was -- that there was 25· · · · no issue with it, so that's why we structured

A. 248 ·1· · · · it that way. ·2· ·BY MS. KATO: ·3· · · · Q.· ·And then you found out about your mistake a ·4· ·day later, right? ·5· · · · A.· ·Correct. ·6· · · · Q.· ·And it took you a month to research? ·7· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, asked and ·8· · · · answered. ·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled. 10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't remember, I don't 11· · · · remember the dates.· If you have the dates of 12· · · · the refund check, I don't remember off the top 13· · · · of my head. 14· ·BY MS. KATO: 15· · · · Q.· ·You waited until July 13 to refund this check, 16· ·is that right? 17· · · · A.· ·Honestly, I don't remember.· You can show me 18· ·the check if you'd like, but -- 19· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Let the record show that I'm 20· · · · showing opposing counsel what has been premarked 21· · · · as Exhibit 27.· May I approach our clerk, 22· · · · Your Honor? 23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 24· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· May I approach the witness? 25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may.

A. 249 ·1· ·BY MS. KATO: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, do you recognize this document? ·3· · · · A.· ·Yes, this is the refund check. ·4· · · · Q.· ·And that is the Ryan Torrens for Attorney ·5· ·General Campaign account in the upper left address ·6· ·block, is that right? ·7· · · · A.· ·That's correct. ·8· · · · Q.· ·There's a signature on this account that to ·9· ·the best of your knowledge is your campaign treasurer, 10· ·is that correct? 11· · · · A.· ·Yes, that would be the treasurer. 12· · · · Q.· ·And on the back of this check, it appears to 13· ·be endorsed by you, once again signing your wife's name, 14· ·is that correct? 15· · · · A.· ·Correct.· Again, she was out of town at the 16· ·time. 17· · · · Q.· ·And this check was issued on July 13, 2018, is 18· ·that correct? 19· · · · A.· ·Yes, it looks like it.· That's correct. 20· · · · Q.· ·But, actually, it was not deposited in the 21· ·credit union account until July 19, 2018, isn't that 22· ·right? 23· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct.· I believe my treasurer 24· ·had dropped off the check and I -- I don't know if I was 25· ·traveling or what, but, yes, according to this check, it

A. 250 ·1· ·was the 19th of July. ·2· · · · Q.· ·So your campaign had use of illegal campaign ·3· ·funds that were contributed in your wife's name for over ·4· ·a month, is that right? ·5· · · · A.· ·Again, we did not know if it was an issue or ·6· ·not.· We were trying to figure out if we could, if we ·7· ·could reclassify the funds.· So at the time I did not ·8· ·know how we were going to handle it, but, yes, the money ·9· ·was deposited on July 19. 10· · · · Q.· ·You knew by July 13 that it was an issue, 11· ·right? 12· · · · A.· ·Yes.· Yes, by that time we had realized that 13· ·reclassifying it was not going to be, you know, a viable 14· ·option. 15· · · · Q.· ·And you had your treasurer issue this refund 16· ·check? 17· · · · A.· ·Correct. 18· · · · Q.· ·And you didn't have her mail it to your wife 19· ·in Washington, D.C., did you? 20· · · · A.· ·No. 21· · · · Q.· ·You had her give it to you? 22· · · · A.· ·Correct. 23· · · · Q.· ·And then you kept it for another six days 24· ·until you deposited it, is that right? 25· · · · A.· ·I mean, I wouldn't say that I "kept it."

A. 251 ·1· ·Again, I think it was dropped off at my office and I ·2· ·wasn't around, so by the time I got to it, to take it to ·3· ·the bank, some days had lapsed, but I wasn't like ·4· ·running around with this check. ·5· · · · Q.· ·But you certainly weren't in any hurry to make ·6· ·sure this refund check, with these improper funds, were ·7· ·removed from your campaign account, were you? ·8· · · · A.· ·I don't know what I had going on with my ·9· ·schedule.· Obviously, if a check like this has been 10· ·issued, my treasurer is going to make sure that money 11· ·remains in the account, that the check is good.· So, you 12· ·know, it was not like it was going to be a bad check or 13· ·anything like that. 14· · · · Q.· ·Well, but you had to wait until July 13 to 15· ·refund this check because you needed time to raise the 16· ·funds to issue the refund, isn't that right? 17· · · · A.· ·I honestly don't know what was going on with 18· ·that.· I don't know what the daily balance is.· My role 19· ·was more researching how we were going to handle this, 20· ·whether we had to do a refund or reclassify it.· That 21· ·was pretty much the extent of my involvement. 22· · · · Q.· ·Did you tell your campaign treasurer -- well, 23· ·let's back up.· Give me one moment. 24· · · · · · ·So just so I'm clear, you were in Tallahassee 25· ·on July 21, is that right?

A. 252 ·1· · · · A.· ·Yes, I believe that's correct. ·2· · · · Q.· ·It was previously your testimony that you ·3· ·hand-delivered your qualifying paperwork to the Division ·4· ·of Elections, is that right? ·5· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· July or June? ·6· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I think it was June. ·7· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Did you say July? ·8· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· June, I'm sorry.· June 21. ·9· · · · My apologies. 10· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I'm just trying to keep up 11· · · · with you all. 12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· That's correct, June 21. 13· ·BY MS. KATO: 14· · · · Q.· ·So you were physically in the Division of 15· ·Elections office, is that right? 16· · · · A.· ·Yes, I was. 17· · · · Q.· ·And you didn't bother to ask anybody then? 18· · · · A.· ·No, because -- no, I didn't ask anybody at 19· ·the counter, no. 20· · · · Q.· ·You didn't ask them if there was an attorney 21· ·you could speak to? 22· · · · A.· ·No. 23· · · · Q.· ·Or if they had anybody else you could speak to 24· ·about how to reclassify that money to make sure it was 25· ·legal?

A. 253 ·1· · · · A.· ·No. ·2· · · · Q.· ·You just whistled past that graveyard, ·3· ·didn't you? ·4· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· (Indicating.) ·5· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Sustained. ·6· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, may I approach the ·7· · · · witness? ·8· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· For what purpose? ·9· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· I have a Division of Elections 10· · · · opinion to share with him, that I believe he has 11· · · · seen before.· We can enter it into the evidence 12· · · · if you would like. 13· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I thought that would be what 14· · · · you would do.· Yes, you may approach the 15· · · · witness. 16· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Let's go ahead and keep it 17· · · · clean and enter it into evidence.· What was 18· · · · this previously?· I had disclosed it. 19· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· We had disclosed it. 20· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Let the record show that I 21· · · · am showing opposing counsel what has been 22· · · · previously marked as 26. 23· · · · · · ·May I approach our clerk, Your Honor? 24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 25· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, may I approach

A. 254 ·1· · · · the witness? ·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. ·3· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Thank you. ·4· ·BY MS. KATO: ·5· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, do you recognize this document? ·6· · · · A.· ·I recognize the first one, DE 93-10, but I do ·7· ·not remember the 82 dash (inaudible) --- ·8· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Wait, say the numbers again, ·9· · · · 92 what? 10· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· 92-10, this first one has 11· · · · that at the top left corner.· And then there's 12· · · · an attachment that says 82-16, I don't remember 13· · · · that one. 14· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· For the record, Your Honor, it's 15· · · · DE 93-10, not 92. 16· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, just for clarity of the 17· · · · record.· The one that I recognize is DE 93-10, and 18· · · · the one that I do not recognize is DE 82-16. 19· ·BY MS. KATO: 20· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, you have reviewed opinion 21· ·DE 93-10, is that correct? 22· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct. 23· · · · Q.· ·When did you review this opinion? 24· · · · A.· ·I believe that I had reviewed it during that 25· ·period when I was trying to figure out how to handle the

A. 255 ·1· ·check, and I believe that we also went over this in my ·2· ·deposition. ·3· · · · Q.· ·When you say that you were reviewing it during ·4· ·the period trying to figure out how to handle the check, ·5· ·was it on June 19 that you looked up this opinion? ·6· · · · A.· ·I have no idea what day I looked it up. ·7· · · · Q.· ·Did you look it up before the qualifying ·8· ·period ended? ·9· · · · A.· ·I honestly -- I do not remember. 10· · · · Q.· ·So it's your testimony, right now, that you 11· ·don't know what you did before you submitted your 12· ·qualifying check on June 21 to make sure that that check 13· ·was legal, is that correct? 14· · · · A.· ·My testimony is that I do not remember the 15· ·date that I accessed this advisory opinion online.· I do 16· ·not remember that date. 17· · · · Q.· ·Do you think it was before the end of the 18· ·qualifying period? 19· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, speculation, calls 20· · · · for speculation. 21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled.· You can answer if 22· · · · you know. 23· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I don't remember and I'm not 24· · · · going to speculate. 25· ·BY MS. KATO:

A. 256 ·1· · · · Q.· ·Well, you stated in your e-mail that you had ·2· ·looked up the rule on June 19, is that right? ·3· · · · A.· ·That is correct, but I don't remember if that ·4· ·was a statute or if that was this.· I saw something ·5· ·which showed me that, but I don't remember if it was ·6· ·this particular advisory opinion. ·7· · · · Q.· ·If you didn't find it in the statute, would ·8· ·you have looked up this advisory opinion? ·9· · · · A.· ·I mean, I don't know what I would do.· I mean, 10· ·I knew that there were advisory opinions so I started 11· ·looking at them, but, you know, it just kind of depends 12· ·on what comes to my mind.· I don't remember if I went to 13· ·the statute first, so I don't want to speculate on that. 14· · · · Q.· ·So is it your testimony today that you did not 15· ·do your due diligence before the qualifying period 16· ·ended, to make sure that the check that you submitted 17· ·was legal, is that correct? 18· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, calls for a 19· · · · legal conclusion. 20· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled on that basis. 21· · · · You may answer. 22· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I mean, whether I did my 23· · · · due diligence, I was doing due diligence, in that 24· · · · I was trying to figure out how to handle this check 25· · · · by doing my research.· It's just that I can't

A. 257 ·1· · · · remember the specific dates I accessed specific ·2· · · · materials such as this advisory opinion. ·3· ·BY MS. KATO: ·4· · · · Q.· ·So either you accessed this advisory opinion ·5· ·prior to the qualifying date and just didn't do anything ·6· ·about it, or you waited until after the qualifying ·7· ·period so that you would have plausible deniability, ·8· ·isn't that right? ·9· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, argumentative. 10· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Sustained. 11· ·BY MS. KATO: 12· · · · Q.· ·Let's talk about this opinion that you have 13· ·testified that you're aware of.· This opinion states 14· ·that the division, in keeping with the intent of full 15· ·disclosure with regard to Florida's campaign finance 16· ·laws has consistently interpreted both the law and 17· ·DE 82-16 to require that a contribution by a check 18· ·drawn on a joint account must be signed by each owner 19· ·of the account when the contribution is intended to be a 20· ·contribution from each owner, is that right? 21· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, counsel testifying. 22· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled.· That's what she can do 23· · · · when she's asking the other party a question. 24· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Can you point me to where 25· · · · you're reading from because I'm struggling to

A. 258 ·1· · · · find it. ·2· ·BY MS. KATO: ·3· · · · Q.· ·If you look on paragraph four. ·4· · · · A.· ·Okay.· You're reading from paragraph four? ·5· · · · Q.· ·Not yet.· Would you like to read paragraph ·6· ·four?· That would be helpful, thank you.· Aloud? ·7· · · · A.· ·Sure, I can read it aloud. ·8· · · · · · ·"The Division, in keeping with the intent of ·9· ·full disclosure with regard to Florida's campaign 10· ·finance laws, has consistently interpreted both the law 11· ·and DE 82-16 to require that a contribution by a check 12· ·drawn on a joint account must be signed by each owner of 13· ·the account when the contribution is intended to be a 14· ·contribution from each owner." 15· · · · · · ·"To the extent that DE 82-16 is in need of 16· ·clarification, we reaffirm the need for all required 17· ·signatures as discussed above." 18· · · · · · ·"As a result, if the check is drawn on a 19· ·jointly-owned account and is signed by only one owner, 20· ·it is presumed that the contribution is from that 21· ·person only." 22· · · · Q.· ·That's right.· So the Division of Elections' 23· ·position is, and has consistently been, that if a check 24· ·is drawn on a jointly-owned account and is signed by 25· ·only one owner, it is presumed that the contribution is

A. 259 ·1· ·from that person only, is that right? ·2· · · · A.· ·That's correct. ·3· · · · Q.· ·There is no wiggle room in that law, is that ·4· ·right? ·5· · · · A.· ·Not from what I read here, no. ·6· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Anything else, Ms. Kato? ·7· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· No, Your Honor. ·8· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Any cross-examination, ·9· · · · Mr. Baker or Mr. McCabe? 10· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. 11· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· I'm sorry, Your Honor, just 12· · · · before we finish, Exhibit 26, since this is a 13· · · · Division of Elections opinion similar to 14· · · · an Attorney General opinion, do you want me to 15· · · · move this into evidence or can we take judicial 16· · · · notice of this as we would -- 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· If you're moving this into 18· · · · evidence, let me ask if there's any objection. 19· · · · Mr. McCabe? 20· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· No objection. 21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Without objection, 26 is in. 22· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 26 was admitted 23· ·into evidence.) 24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And there was one that you 25· · · · asked about earlier, the campaign report, and

A. 260 ·1· · · · that got hung up.· Are you moving that in at ·2· · · · this point? ·3· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· No, Your Honor. ·4· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Do you want it marked for ID, for ·5· · · · identification? ·6· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Yes, please. ·7· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Did you get that, ·8· · · · Ms. Allen? ·9· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· Yes. 10· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· That's the multi-page one. 11· · · · You used them on authentication and then 12· · · · Mr. Torrens didn't recognize it. 13· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· And what was the number 14· · · · that she -- 15· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Could it be 21? 16· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· It was Exhibit 21, 17· · · · Your Honor. 18· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· 21, for ID purposes only. 19· · · · · · ·(Plaintiff's Trial Exhibit 21 was marked 20· ·for identification.) 21· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And Mr. McCabe, with respect 22· · · · to your objection to 21, which was the summary 23· · · · of the financial reports, to the extent those 24· · · · are in line and you had an objection because 25· · · · you couldn't tell if it had been signed or

A. 261 ·1· ·authenticated by the treasurer or Mr. Torrens, ·2· ·is there any objection to The Court going on ·3· ·the division website and looking at what's ·4· ·there? ·5· · · · MR. MCCABE:· No objection to The Court ·6· ·going on the website to see what's there. ·7· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· And that takes care of ·8· ·the authentication objection. ·9· · · · Is there any objection from the Plaintiff 10· ·if The Court looks at the division website, 11· ·Ms. Kato, any objection? 12· · · · MS. KATO:· No, Your Honor. 13· · · · THE COURT:· Okay.· Cross-examination, 14· ·Mr. McCabe or Mr. Baker? 15· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor.· May I have one 16· ·moment to confer with counsel? 17· · · · (Pause.) 18· · · · THE COURT:· If you want to stand and stretch, 19· ·Mr. Torrens, you may do that. 20· · · · THE WITNESS:· Thank you, Judge. 21· · · · THE COURT:· And anyone else that wants to do 22· ·that while we're waiting. 23· · · · MR. MCCABE:· May I proceed? 24· · · · THE COURT:· Of course. 25· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Thank you, Your Honor.

A. 262 ·1· · · · · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION ·2· ·BY MR. MCCABE: ·3· · · · Q.· ·Good afternoon, Mr. Torrens. ·4· · · · A.· ·Good afternoon. ·5· · · · Q.· ·There's a lot of questions about the check you ·6· ·wrote, that $4,000 check that you wrote? ·7· · · · A.· ·Sure. ·8· · · · Q.· ·You signed that, you wrote the whole check, ·9· ·right? 10· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did. 11· · · · Q.· ·And you signed it? 12· · · · A.· ·I did. 13· · · · Q.· ·And that was with your wife's authorization? 14· · · · A.· ·That is correct. 15· · · · Q.· ·And the bank account, that's a joint account? 16· · · · A.· ·Yes, it is. 17· · · · Q.· ·And was that a joint account -- when was that 18· ·joint account opened, roughly? 19· · · · A.· ·I believe, in October of 2017. 20· · · · Q.· ·So you've been -- 21· · · · A.· ·I'm sorry, let me clarify.· I believe, 22· ·October of 2017 is when my wife and I added myself on 23· ·there as, you know, to make it a joint account.· It had 24· ·previously just been my wife's account. 25· · · · Q.· ·And you and your wife both contributed money

A. 263 ·1· ·to that account? ·2· · · · A.· ·Yes.· I contributed, I think, somewhere around ·3· ·$23,000 to that account. ·4· · · · Q.· ·All right.· Why didn't you sign your name ·5· ·on the check? ·6· · · · A.· ·Really, I think I was just in a great ·7· ·hurry, you know, and just running around and doing ·8· ·campaign stuff and just, you know, didn't really ·9· ·think much of it, and signed her name instead of mine. 10· ·I could have just as easily signed my name.· It's a 11· ·joint account so -- 12· · · · Q.· ·And so do you have -- for example, could you 13· ·walk up to the credit union and withdraw money? 14· · · · A.· ·Yes, I've done that before. 15· · · · Q.· ·So you could walk up and withdraw cash? 16· · · · A.· ·That's correct. 17· · · · Q.· ·And you don't need her with you to do that? 18· · · · A.· ·That's correct. 19· · · · Q.· ·Do you have to ask your wife's permission 20· ·every time you access the bank account? 21· · · · A.· ·No, I do not. 22· · · · Q.· ·And does she have to ask your permission every 23· ·time she accesses the bank account? 24· · · · A.· ·No, she does not. 25· · · · Q.· ·And you agreed that you are married, correct?

A. 264 ·1· · · · A.· ·Yes, we are married. ·2· · · · Q.· ·All right.· And this check was a loan from ·3· ·you to your campaign, is that correct? ·4· · · · A.· ·Yes.· Yes, we were doing it as a loan, that's ·5· ·correct. ·6· · · · Q.· ·That's what I'm -- so I'm asking, it was you, ·7· ·not you and your wife, correct, it was you? ·8· · · · A.· ·That is correct. ·9· · · · Q.· ·Obviously, your wife gave you permission, of 10· ·course? 11· · · · A.· ·Yes. 12· · · · Q.· ·We talked about that earlier? 13· · · · A.· ·Yes, she did. 14· · · · Q.· ·But you didn't need permission, her 15· ·permission, did you? 16· · · · A.· ·No.· No, absolutely not. 17· · · · Q.· ·So you could have written a check, signed your 18· ·name at any time without her permission? 19· · · · A.· ·That is correct. 20· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· May I approach madam clerk 21· · · · to get Exhibit 26? 22· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Sure. 23· · · · · · ·DEPUTY CLERK:· There it is. 24· · · · · · ·(Handing documents.) 25· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Thank you.

A. 265 ·1· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· May I approach the witness, ·2· · · · Your Honor? ·3· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. ·4· ·BY MR. MCCABE: ·5· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, I'm showing you what's been ·6· ·premarked, well, it's been admitted into evidence as ·7· ·Plaintiff's Exhibit 26. ·8· · · · A.· ·Okay. ·9· · · · Q.· ·Opposing counsel questioned you, you had to 10· ·read aloud paragraph four, is that correct? 11· · · · A.· ·That's correct. 12· · · · Q.· ·Why don't you read for me paragraph five? 13· · · · A.· ·Okay.· Paragraph five reads, "Your second 14· ·question is answered as follows: 15· · · · · · ·"If a candidate receives a check written on a 16· ·joint account in an amount in excess of the statutory 17· ·limits, and the check bears only one signature, the 18· ·check should be returned to the contributor and not 19· ·deposited into the campaign account." 20· · · · Q.· ·Did you -- well, this was, this check was 21· ·written by you from your account, correct? 22· · · · A.· ·Correct, from my joint account. 23· · · · Q.· ·And you signed it? 24· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did. 25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Mr. Torrens, when you signed

A. 266 ·1· · · · the check, you signed not your name but your ·2· · · · wife's name, is that correct? ·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, Judge. ·4· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· That was my ·5· · · · recollection.· I just wanted to make sure ·6· · · · I was remembering correctly. ·7· · · · · · ·(Pause.) ·8· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Anything else, Mr. McCabe? ·9· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor.· Just one 10· · · · moment if you would, I'm conferring with counsel. 11· · · · · · ·(Pause.) 12· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· I have no further questions 13· · · · on cross-examination, Your Honor.· Obviously, 14· · · · I would reserve the right to call Mr. Torrens 15· · · · as a witness in Defense's case. 16· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· That's true.· Any redirect? 17· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Just a couple things, 18· · · · Your Honor. 19· · · · · · · · · · · REDIRECT EXAMINATION 20· ·BY MS. KATO: 21· · · · Q.· ·So you said you were in a great hurry, but, it 22· ·would have been much faster to sign your own name to 23· ·that check, right? 24· · · · A.· ·Yes, that's correct.· And that's what I was 25· ·saying.· Sometimes when you're in a hurry you're not --

A. 267 ·1· ·you're not thinking straight.· And obviously, when ·2· ·you're in the middle of a statewide campaign you're in ·3· ·a hurry every day, all day. ·4· · · · Q.· ·But you were not in so much of a hurry that ·5· ·you didn't stop to call your wife and get her permission ·6· ·to sign her name to the check, right? ·7· · · · A.· ·No, I did.· We had a discussion and she ·8· ·authorized it. ·9· · · · Q.· ·The paragraph five of the DE 93-10 opinion 10· ·doesn't just say that the check has to be attributed to 11· ·the person who signed it.· It also says that if it's in 12· ·excess of the limits, you should never accept that 13· ·check, is that right? 14· · · · A.· ·That's correct. 15· · · · Q.· ·And you would also agree that there's no 16· ·provision on the Division of Elections campaign finance 17· ·website to indicate when an account is a joint account 18· ·or not, for a particular contributor, is that right? 19· · · · A.· ·You mean, are you asking me, is there any 20· ·guidance as to how the joint account is classified? 21· · · · Q.· ·No.· What I'm asking you is that if a member 22· ·of the public were to go to the website and look at that 23· ·contribution from your wife, they would not know that it 24· ·was a joint account, right? 25· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Objection, calls for

A. 268 ·1· · · · speculation. ·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled. ·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· By just looking at the check ·4· · · · alone, I don't think so, no. ·5· ·BY MR. MCCABE: ·6· · · · Q.· ·Right.· And that is what is disclosed publicly ·7· ·on the Division of Elections website through the EFS ·8· ·system, is that correct? ·9· · · · A.· ·I believe so, yeah, I believe so.· Because I 10· ·don't think that system notes what type of account. 11· ·Yeah, it definitely doesn't note what type of account it 12· ·came from, so -- 13· · · · Q.· ·Exactly.· All that system notes is the name of 14· ·the contributor, whether it was an individual, and how 15· ·much that person gave, isn't that right? 16· · · · A.· ·That's correct. 17· · · · Q.· ·And so, when you put your check into -- when 18· ·your treasurer submitted that $4,000 check, the EFS 19· ·system told her that it was in excess of the limits, 20· ·right? 21· · · · A.· ·I don't know what it told her. 22· · · · Q.· ·You have never signed your name to a check 23· ·from that AgFed Credit Union account, isn't that right? 24· · · · A.· ·I don't think so, but I can't say for sure. 25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Hold on, hold on.· You don't

A. 269 ·1· · · · think that was right or you don't think you ever ·2· · · · signed your name to a check? ·3· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, well, let me clarify, ·4· · · · I don't believe that I have.· I may have, but, ·5· · · · off the top of my head, I do not remember ever ·6· · · · signing one, that's correct, under my name. ·7· ·BY MS. KATO: ·8· · · · Q.· ·But you do sign your wife's name? ·9· · · · A.· ·Yes, I have signed her name before. 10· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Thank you.· No further questions. 11· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Well, if that completes 12· · · · the Plaintiff's case, any other witnesses? 13· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· No, Your Honor. 14· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· So you may step down, 15· · · · Mr. Torrens, unless now that we're on the 16· · · · defense case, the defense wants to recall you. 17· · · · Do you want Mr. Torrens to step down and come 18· · · · back? 19· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Is the Plaintiff resting? 20· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Yes, Your Honor. 21· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· Yes. 22· · · · · · ·MR. BAKER:· Your Honor, I'd like to make 23· · · · a motion for a directed verdict at this time. 24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Briefly? 25· · · · · · ·MR. BAKER:· Yes, Your Honor.

A. 270 ·1· · · · THE COURT:· You can step down for now, ·2· ·Mr. Torrens. ·3· · · · MR. BAKER:· Judge, earlier I handed you ·4· ·a packet that under section five has certain ·5· ·documents.· The fifth, beginning with the ·6· ·fifth tab, I believe, starts the various law. ·7· · · · I wanted to go to 106, Florida Statute ·8· ·106.19(4), which states, "Except as otherwise ·9· ·expressly stated, failure to comply with the 10· ·requirements of this chapter has no effect upon 11· ·whether a candidate is qualified for the office 12· ·that the candidate is seeking." 13· · · · Now, it's a very important point.· Earlier, 14· ·in opening statements, Plaintiffs wanted to 15· ·explain to The Court that this is something 16· ·other than a campaign finance issue, but the 17· ·entire case in chief for the Plaintiff has to do 18· ·with a check and money being transferred from a 19· ·joint checking account over to a campaign account 20· ·for purposes of qualifying.· It has everything to 21· ·do with money. 22· · · · They're trying to recharacterize their case 23· ·because they know there is no private right of 24· ·action for the violations of 106, if there even 25· ·is one.· This is an attempt to remove the

A. 271 ·1· ·requirement that a person be convicted of a ·2· ·crime beyond a reasonable doubt.· And they're ·3· ·trying to basically reduce their burden of proof ·4· ·and transfer it from what the state attorney ·5· ·would have to do in order to remove him from ·6· ·the ballot and bring it to this court, and then ·7· ·recharacterize it into something that it's just ·8· ·plainly not. ·9· · · · What this case has to do is campaign finance 10· ·rules.· That's it.· It's a question of whether or 11· ·not Mr. Torrens loaned money to his own campaign 12· ·or the money came from his wife. 13· · · · The money is obviously from a checking 14· ·account based on the testimony, that both of them 15· ·own, that they are joint holders of.· It has to do 16· ·with the money. 17· · · · If we look at the case law, the statutes 18· ·that -- 106.18 states that you have to be convicted 19· ·of a crime under 106.19.· And 106.19 describes that 20· ·you must knowingly and willfully accept 21· ·contributions in excess of the limits.· That's all 22· ·regarding criminal acts.· And that's not what we're 23· ·here for today. 24· · · · The case law that we cited to in the motion 25· ·to dismiss earlier, which is Goff v. Ehrlich,

A. 272 ·1· ·discusses documents that had to do with campaign ·2· ·finance, and that there is no private right of ·3· ·action for a violation of specifically 106, ·4· ·Chapter 106 of the Florida Statutes. ·5· · · · If we look to Schurr v. Sanchez-Gronlier, ·6· ·which we cited to earlier as well, in that case ·7· ·it absolutely has something to do with money, ·8· ·campaign finance.· And they specifically stated ·9· ·in that case and cited back to Goff, stating 10· ·that there is no private right of action here. 11· ·The entire case in chief had to do with money. 12· ·It had nothing to do with any other kind of 13· ·issues in the case. 14· · · · One thing that the Plaintiff was relying on 15· ·is Planas v. Planas.· That case had to do with a 16· ·candidate that filed under a similar name to the 17· ·name of an incumbent that had long and widely 18· ·been known, and had nothing to do with this type 19· ·of case in terms of money, campaign finance. 20· · · · There's a plethora of cases that the 21· ·Plaintiff is using to make their argument and, 22· ·you know, just going through them very quickly, 23· ·not one of them -- 24· · · · THE COURT:· Well, you're on your motion 25· ·for --

A. 273 ·1· · · · MR. BAKER:· Directed verdict. ·2· · · · THE COURT:· -- judgment at the conclusion ·3· ·of the Plaintiff's case.· You've got the case ·4· ·law that's in your notebook.· You've already ·5· ·argued your motion to dismiss.· It's not ·6· ·appropriate for you to argue what the Plaintiff's ·7· ·are arguing to distinguish them. ·8· · · · MR. BAKER:· Yes, Your Honor. ·9· · · · THE COURT:· Just go ahead and finish 10· ·arguing your motion, please. 11· · · · MR. BAKER:· Then going back to the statutes 12· ·and the case law that have to do with the State's 13· ·case, which has everything to do with money, is not 14· ·an appropriate -- first of all, it's not an 15· ·appropriate remedy for the Defendant to be taken 16· ·off of the ballot. 17· · · · There is no private cause of action based on 18· ·the case law and the statutes.· And the right to 19· ·pursue this issue rests solely with the Department 20· ·of Elections.· So I'm asking for a directed 21· ·verdict at this time, Your Honor. 22· · · · THE COURT:· Brief response, please? 23· · · · MR. BAUMANN:· Yes, very briefly, Your Honor. 24· · · · The motion for directed verdict is nothing 25· ·more than a motion to dismiss warmed over.

A. 274 ·1· ·Your Honor has heard the testimony, has heard the ·2· ·arguments.· The case is not about the violation of ·3· ·campaign finance law.· It's about the conduct ·4· ·surrounding it. ·5· · · · We've just heard lengthy testimony, we have ·6· ·testimony in deposition, not about a check, but ·7· ·about a check signed with someone else's name on ·8· ·it, under questionable circumstances, submitted to ·9· ·the Department of Elections as a qualifying fee, 10· ·even after there's an acknowledgment that it is a 11· ·problem, and essentially floating a qualifying fee 12· ·check for about 30 days and then refunding it. 13· · · · It is not a question of Mr. Torrens violated 14· ·campaign finance statutes and that's the end of 15· ·the story.· It's what he did in order to both 16· ·violate and what he did afterward that this case 17· ·is about. 18· · · · He knew there was a problem.· He had days to 19· ·fix it.· He did not.· He made a conscious choice. 20· ·And that is what our case is about.· We believe 21· ·that we have provided more than enough evidence 22· ·to support our claim, and would request that the 23· ·motion be denied. 24· · · · THE COURT:· Taking the evidence in the light 25· ·most favorable to the non-moving party, The Court

A. 275 ·1· · · · finds there is sufficient evidence to warrant ·2· · · · the denial of the motion. ·3· · · · · · ·Any witnesses or exhibits for your side, ·4· · · · Mr. Torrens, Mr. Baker or Mr. McCabe? ·5· · · · · · ·And of course, I haven't ruled on the motion ·6· · · · to dismiss yet.· As I indicated at the beginning, ·7· · · · I was reserving on that until we were done. ·8· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Understand, Your Honor. ·9· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· Yes, Your Honor. 10· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes, we'd like to begin 11· · · · presenting our case.· The defense would like 12· · · · to begin presenting our case, if we may, 13· · · · Your Honor. 14· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Let's move along. 15· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Very good.· So we're going 16· · · · to recall Ryan Torrens as our first witness. 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Mr. Torrens, you are still 18· · · · under oath.· You will not be sworn in again 19· · · · because Ms. Allen swore you in and it still 20· · · · applies. 21· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Okay.· Thank you, Judge. 22· ·WHEREUPON, 23· · · · · · · · · · · · · RYAN TORRENS, 24· ·called as a witness, having been first duly sworn, 25· ·testified as follows:

A. 276 ·1· · · · · · · · · · · ·DIRECT EXAMINATION ·2· ·BY MR. MCCABE: ·3· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, did you fill out an application ·4· ·with your wife for the AgFed Credit Union account, for ·5· ·you to be added on that? ·6· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did. ·7· · · · Q.· ·And did you sign that account, did you sign ·8· ·that paperwork? ·9· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did. 10· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· And let me, if I may approach 11· · · · the witness to -- well, if I can have a premarked 12· · · · exhibit? 13· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, can we see a copy 14· · · · of that first? 15· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes. 16· · · · · · ·(Handing document.) 17· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Thank you. 18· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· I actually sent them an 19· · · · updated copy along with the letter, as well. 20· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· This is the updated copy? 21· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· No, it's not.· That's the one 22· · · · that you've had for what, a couple weeks from 23· · · · the deposition. 24· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· So this is the one that 25· · · · you're using?

A. 277 ·1· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes. ·2· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Okay. ·3· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· Because we couldn't open ·4· · · · the file. ·5· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Okay. ·6· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· If you recall yesterday, ·7· · · · I was trying to open the PDF. ·8· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes.· Okay.· Understood. ·9· · · · Let me lay a little more foundation, Your Honor. 10· ·BY MR. MCCABE: 11· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, did you have your deposition 12· ·taken by Ms. Kato? 13· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did. 14· · · · Q.· ·And during that deposition, were you asked 15· ·about the status of your bank account at AgFed? 16· · · · A.· ·Yes, I was. 17· · · · Q.· ·And your deposition was about three hours 18· ·long? 19· · · · A.· ·I believe, about four hours. 20· · · · Q.· ·I'm showing this to your opposing counsel. 21· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· May I approach the clerk to 22· · · · have her premark it? 23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 24· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Thank you.· And it will be 25· · · · Defense Trial Exhibit 1.

A. 278 ·1· · · · · · ·(Defense Trial Exhibit 1 was marked for ·2· ·identification.) ·3· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Your Honor, may I approach ·4· · · · the witness? ·5· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. ·6· ·BY MR. MCCABE: ·7· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, I'm showing you what's been ·8· ·premarked as Defense Exhibit 1.· Do you recognize that ·9· ·document? 10· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Wait. 11· · · · · · ·MR. BAUMANN:· We're good, Your Honor. 12· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· I'm sorry. 13· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, I do.· I believe this 14· · · · is the document I signed to be added to the 15· · · · account for the joint bank account. 16· ·BY MR. MCCABE: 17· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· I was going to ask you if you 18· ·recognize it. 19· · · · A.· ·I'm sorry, I'm skipping ahead. 20· · · · Q.· ·That's okay.· How do you recognize it? 21· · · · A.· ·This is the document that my wife brought to 22· ·me to sign to be added to the account. 23· · · · Q.· ·Did you sign it? 24· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did.· That's my signature. 25· · · · Q.· ·And what is the date?

A. 279 ·1· · · · A.· ·October 23, 2017. ·2· · · · Q.· ·Is that a true and accurate representation of ·3· ·these documents that you signed? ·4· · · · A.· ·Yes, it is. ·5· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· At this time we'd move Defense ·6· · · · Exhibit 1 into evidence. ·7· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, we would object ·8· · · · to improper foundation. ·9· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled. 10· · · · · · ·(Defense Trial Exhibit 1 was admitted 11· ·into evidence.) 12· ·BY MR. MCCABE: 13· · · · Q.· ·So, Mr. Torrens, I'm going to ask you 14· ·about Defense Exhibit 1.· So are you listed on that 15· ·paperwork? 16· · · · A.· ·Yes, I am. 17· · · · Q.· ·And specifically how are you listed on that 18· ·paperwork, what is your characterization in relation to 19· ·the bank account? 20· · · · A.· ·As a joint owner. 21· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And that is your -- you looked at the 22· ·signature on that, on Defense Exhibit 1? 23· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did. 24· · · · Q.· ·And is that your actual signature? 25· · · · A.· ·Yes, it is.

A. 280 ·1· · · · Q.· ·And you signed it? ·2· · · · A.· ·Yes. ·3· · · · Q.· ·And above that, is there another signature? ·4· · · · A.· ·Yes. ·5· · · · Q.· ·And whose signature is that? ·6· · · · A.· ·My wife's. ·7· · · · Q.· ·And was that paperwork rejected by the bank? ·8· · · · A.· ·No, it was accepted. ·9· · · · Q.· ·Did the bank have you as a joint owner of the 10· ·account? 11· · · · A.· ·Yes, they did. 12· · · · Q.· ·And what's the name of that account, can you 13· ·describe it for me? 14· · · · A.· ·Sure.· It's AgFed, A-G-F-E-D, Credit Union. 15· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· And may I approach the clerk 16· · · · to get an exhibit, the stipulated exhibit for the 17· · · · $4,000 check?· I forget which number. 18· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· 15. 19· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· 15, I believe. 20· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Sure. 21· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Thank you, Your Honor. 22· · · · · · ·May I approach the witness, Your Honor? 23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 24· ·BY MR. MCCABE: 25· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, I'm showing you what's been

A. 281 ·1· ·marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 15. ·2· · · · A.· ·Okay. ·3· · · · Q.· ·Will you please just read that, take a look ·4· ·at it? ·5· · · · A.· ·Okay.· I reviewed it. ·6· · · · Q.· ·And what is that? ·7· · · · A.· ·That is the $4,000 check that we've been ·8· ·discussing dated June 18, 2018. ·9· · · · Q.· ·And what bank account was that written from? 10· · · · A.· ·This joint account held at Agricultural 11· ·Federal Credit Union with my wife and I. 12· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· And, Your Honor, I'd ask if 13· · · · we can publish Defense Exhibit 1, so that The Court 14· · · · can review it while I question the witness? 15· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· I'm happy to do that.· I did not 16· · · · ask when you got started if you could give us 17· · · · an estimate of the time you anticipate for your 18· · · · case? 19· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Probably, I assume, I think 20· · · · testimony and objections and such will be maybe 21· · · · another half an hour, at tops.· And then of course 22· · · · we'll have legal argument afterwards.· I would 23· · · · assume that The Court wants opposing arguments. 24· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Well, we want to finish today 25· · · · because time is of the essence.· And I don't

A. 282 ·1· · · · think it's necessary to keep going over things ·2· · · · by having them repeated multiple times.· So let ·3· · · · me see Defense Exhibit 1.· I've looked at ·4· · · · Plaintiff's Exhibit 15. ·5· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· (Handing documents.) ·6· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you. ·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry, Judge.· I left ·8· · · · off a page. ·9· · · · · · ·(Handing document.) 10· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Go ahead. 11· ·BY MR. MCCABE: 12· · · · Q.· ·All right.· So I don't want to beat a dead 13· ·horse, Mr. Torrens, so let me just -- 14· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· That would be cruelty 15· · · · The Court would not allow.· Could we move along? 16· · · · · · ·(Laughter.) 17· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Indeed, Your Honor, forgive 18· · · · me.· That was rhetoric -- 19· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Just move along. 20· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor. 21· ·BY MR. MCCABE: 22· · · · Q.· ·So, Mr. Torrens, to recap, the check that that 23· ·was drawn from was the same account that it is on the 24· ·exhibit, Defense Exhibit 1, is that correct? 25· · · · A.· ·That is correct.

A. 283 ·1· · · · Q.· ·And to your knowledge, since the date you ·2· ·signed that and the bank processed that application, ·3· ·have you been a joint account holder? ·4· · · · A.· ·Yes, I have. ·5· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, when you signed the check, was ·6· ·it your intent to deceive the Florida Elections ·7· ·Commission? ·8· · · · A.· ·No. ·9· · · · Q.· ·Was it your intent to deceive the general 10· ·public? 11· · · · A.· ·No. 12· · · · Q.· ·Was it your intent to deceive anyone? 13· · · · A.· ·No. 14· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Your Honor, may I 15· · · · approach the clerk for a moment to retrieve 16· · · · Exhibit 26? 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 18· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Or you may have it. 19· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I only have 15.· I think 20· · · · The Court has 26, or the clerk. 21· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· May I approach the witness, 22· · · · Your Honor? 23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· You may. 24· ·BY MR. MCCABE: 25· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, I'm showing you Plaintiff's

A. 284 ·1· ·Exhibit 26.· Can you please read the second to last ·2· ·paragraph here on the last page? ·3· · · · A.· ·Sure. ·4· · · · Q.· ·Can you read it aloud? ·5· · · · A.· ·Yes.· It states, "Based on the above ·6· ·discussion, you may use funds from a joint account with ·7· ·your husband as a contribution or a loan to your ·8· ·campaign as long as the attribution is indicated and the ·9· ·check or accompanying documents is signed by you." 10· · · · Q.· ·And you testified earlier that you did sign 11· ·the check? 12· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did sign the check. 13· · · · Q.· ·And, Mr. Torrens, on the memorandum line, the 14· ·check was attributed to your campaign? 15· · · · A.· ·Yes. 16· · · · Q.· ·On the memorandum, so you wrote on the 17· ·memorandum line that it is attributable to your campaign? 18· · · · A.· ·That is correct. 19· · · · Q.· ·And that it was a campaign loan? 20· · · · A.· ·Yes. 21· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· And you signed it yourself? 22· · · · A.· ·Yes. 23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Wait.· Is this the one he 24· · · · signed himself with his wife's name? 25· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes.

A. 285 ·1· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Correct, Judge. ·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· I'm just trying to ·3· · · · make sure I keep the record straight. ·4· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor.· I don't ·5· · · · have any further questions at this time for the ·6· · · · witness, Your Honor. ·7· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you. ·8· · · · · · ·Any cross-examination, Mr. Baumann or ·9· · · · Ms. Kato? 10· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Very brief, Your Honor. 11· · · · · · · · · · · · CROSS-EXAMINATION 12· ·BY MS. KATO: 13· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, this AgFed Credit Union document 14· ·that's been entered into evidence, this member services 15· ·request, do you have a copy of that in front of you? 16· · · · A.· ·No. 17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· The Court has it, if I may? 18· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Yes. 19· · · · · · ·(Handing document.) 20· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you, Judge. 21· · · · · · ·I do now. 22· ·BY MS. KATO: 23· · · · Q.· ·So you testified that you signed this document? 24· · · · A.· ·Yes, I did. 25· · · · Q.· ·And that is your wife's actual signature,

A. 286 ·1· ·that's not the signature that you used to sign for her? ·2· · · · A.· ·No, that is her signature.· She signed this ·3· ·document. ·4· · · · Q.· ·Can you tell me where on this document it ·5· ·indicates that the bank actually accepted this document ·6· ·and processed it? ·7· · · · A.· ·I don't know if it says it on this document. ·8· ·I just know that they did because our statements show ·9· ·that we're joint owners, and have received checks and a 10· ·debit card and all that.· So I know at some point it was 11· ·accepted, but I don't know if this document is -- 12· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· Your Honor, I may have to move 13· · · · to strike that testimony as hearsay because the 14· · · · bank records reference an out-of-court statement. 15· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Overruled. 16· · · · · · ·Had you finished your answer? 17· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, Your Honor. 18· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Move along. 19· ·BY MS. KATO: 20· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, if you look on the first page of 21· ·this, this isn't actually a joint account; it's a 22· ·multiple-party account, is that right? 23· · · · A.· ·My understanding is that it is a joint account. 24· · · · Q.· ·But that's your signature next to this line 25· ·where it says "multiple party," is that correct, with

A. 287 ·1· ·right of survivorship and POD designation? ·2· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· "POD," meaning, payable on ·3· · · · death, I presume. ·4· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· I believe so.· It just says ·5· · · · POD on here, so I don't want to mischaracterize ·6· · · · what it says. ·7· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes, those are my initials. ·8· ·BY MS. KATO: ·9· · · · Q.· ·And so you initialed next to the line where 10· ·it says that the parties to the account own the account 11· ·in proportion to the parties' net contributions unless 12· ·there's clear and convincing evidence of a different 13· ·intent, is that right? 14· · · · A.· ·I'm sorry, can you ask that question again? 15· · · · Q.· ·Well, you could read it.· And it says that the 16· ·parties to the account own the account in proportion to 17· ·the parties' net contributions unless there is clear and 18· ·convincing evidence of a different intent, is that right? 19· · · · A.· ·That's what that says, correct. 20· · · · Q.· ·And you testified earlier that you had given 21· ·$23,000 to this account? 22· · · · A.· ·That is correct. 23· · · · Q.· ·Or approximately that, and, but we don't know 24· ·how much money your wife has given, we haven't heard 25· ·testimony on that, is that right?

A. 288 ·1· · · · A.· ·That's correct. ·2· · · · Q.· ·So is this designation the reason that you ·3· ·continue to sign your wife's name to checks and don't ·4· ·use your own name when you sign checks? ·5· · · · A.· ·No, because like I testified earlier, that at ·6· ·the top of this document it states Ryan Torrens joint ·7· ·owner.· And also like I testified earlier, I do not have ·8· ·to get permission from my wife to make withdrawals from ·9· ·that account.· We would discuss it, but it's a marriage. 10· ·It's a real marriage.· And that's how we pay our bills. 11· ·So, no, I've never even -- I didn't even pay much 12· ·attention that, to be honest with you, because it's -- 13· ·it's a joint account.· We treat it as such. 14· · · · Q.· ·So sitting here in court today, you don't have 15· ·any proof that they accepted this document, do you, the 16· ·bank did? 17· · · · A.· ·I mean, no, I don't know.· I mean, I don't 18· ·know. 19· · · · Q.· ·Well, there's no check with your name on it 20· ·in the address block, is there? 21· · · · A.· ·No, there's not. 22· · · · Q.· ·There's no check from this account that you 23· ·signed that was accepted by the bank, signed in your 24· ·name, is there? 25· · · · A.· ·No.

A. 289 ·1· · · · Q.· ·And you had previously testified that you ·2· ·always contacted your wife before you take out money, is ·3· ·that correct? ·4· · · · A.· ·That's correct. ·5· · · · Q.· ·So you do need your wife's permission before ·6· ·you take money out of this account? ·7· · · · A.· ·No, I -- I just do it as a courtesy, we always ·8· ·talk about it, but I don't really need to. ·9· · · · Q.· ·And then you sign her name on the checks? 10· · · · A.· ·The way -- if she's out of town, I have done 11· ·that in the past, that's correct. 12· · · · · · ·MS. KATO:· No further questions. 13· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Any redirect? 14· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Briefly, Your Honor. 15· · · · · · · · · · · REDIRECT EXAMINATION 16· ·BY MR. MCCABE: 17· · · · Q.· ·Mr. Torrens, I'm going to direct your 18· ·attention to the first, the first page that opposing 19· ·counsel asked you about, where it indicates 20· ·multiple-party account by the registered POD 21· ·designation. 22· · · · A.· ·Okay. 23· · · · Q.· ·What was your intent when you initialed that 24· ·with your wife? 25· · · · A.· ·To make this a joint account.

A. 290 ·1· · · · Q.· ·So it's your testimony that your intent when ·2· ·you initialed that, that you initialed it intending it ·3· ·to be a joint account? ·4· · · · A.· ·Correct. ·5· · · · Q.· ·And can you just -- can you read that, that ·6· ·line for me again where it says multiple accounts with ·7· ·rights of survivorship? ·8· · · · A.· ·Yes.· "The parties to the account own the ·9· ·account in proportion to the parties' net contributions 10· ·unless there is clear and convincing evidence of a 11· ·different intent.· On the death of the last surviving 12· ·party, ownership of the account passes to the POD 13· ·beneficiaries and is not part of the surviving parties' 14· ·estate.· POD beneficiaries are listed in the POD 15· ·beneficiaries section." 16· · · · Q.· ·I'm going to direct your attention to the POD 17· ·beneficiary section. 18· · · · A.· ·Okay. 19· · · · Q.· ·I believe that's on the bottom of page two. 20· · · · A.· ·The bottom of page two? 21· · · · Q.· ·Yes, where it says POD beneficiaries. 22· · · · A.· ·I'm sorry, I'm not seeing it. 23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Look at the other page. 24· · · · It may have gotten out of order. 25· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Oh, yes, I see it now.

A. 291 ·1· ·BY MR. MCCABE: ·2· · · · Q.· ·Okay.· Under name of beneficiary, who's ·3· ·listed? ·4· · · · A.· ·My name is listed. ·5· · · · Q.· ·So you are the Ryan Torrens that's listed ·6· ·under here? ·7· · · · A.· ·That's correct. ·8· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· Thank you, Your Honor. ·9· · · · I have no further questions for the witness. 10· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you.· You may step 11· · · · down.· I'll take the exhibits. 12· · · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Thank you, Judge. 13· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Thank you.· Here you go, 14· · · · Ms. Allen. 15· · · · · · ·Any other witnesses from the Defense? 16· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· No witnesses, Your Honor. 17· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· And other exhibits? 18· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· I just want to consult with 19· · · · counsel.· We may want to enter some deposition 20· · · · testimony. 21· · · · · · ·(Pause.) 22· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· No further witnesses to call. 23· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Any other exhibits? 24· · · · · · ·MR. MCCABE:· No, Your Honor. 25· · · · · · ·THE COURT:· Okay.· Any rebuttal case from

A. 292 ·1· ·the Plaintiff? ·2· · · · MS. KATO:· I'm sorry? ·3· · · · THE COURT:· Any rebuttal witnesses or ·4· ·exhibits? ·5· · · · MS. KATO:· No, Your Honor. ·6· · · · THE COURT:· All right.· And how long do ·7· ·you want for closing, five minutes a side? ·8· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Sure, Your Honor, that should be ·9· ·sufficient. 10· · · · THE COURT:· Go ahead, Plaintiffs. 11· · · · MR. BAKER:· Your Honor, before, I'd like 12· ·to renew the motion for directed verdict. 13· · · · THE COURT:· Thank you.· Same ruling. 14· · · · MS. KATO:· Closing arguments? 15· · · · THE COURT:· Yes.· And you don't have to 16· ·repeat legal arguments or things that you already 17· ·said. 18· · · · MS. KATO:· Your Honor, this is a case about 19· ·bad faith and dishonest purpose.· The facts in 20· ·evidence show today that Mr. Torrens' acted with 21· ·dishonest purpose when he signed a name that was 22· ·not his to a check, that he deposited that check 23· ·under a name that was not his, into his campaign 24· ·bank account, that that check was clearly in 25· ·excess of the contribution limits, and that that

A. 293 ·1· ·money allowed him to qualify for the ballot and ·2· ·issued a qualifying check in the amount of ·3· ·$7,738.32. ·4· · · · Opposing counsel has stated multiple times ·5· ·that this is a case about a campaign finance ·6· ·violation.· It is anything but.· It is about the ·7· ·story of what happened after a campaign finance ·8· ·violation and how those ill-gotten funds were used ·9· ·to allow this candidate for statewide office, for 10· ·the highest legal office in the land, to 11· ·improperly qualify for the ballot. 12· · · · We've heard a lot of testimony today.· We've 13· ·all cited to a lot of case law so I'm not going 14· ·to belabor any of that.· And so, instead I would 15· ·leave you with this. 16· · · · Our State has set forth clear contribution 17· ·limits for a reason.· And the State expects that 18· ·everyone will abide by those limits.· The State 19· ·further expects, when it comes to campaign finance, 20· ·that people will be clear and that they will truly 21· ·and honestly communicate who is giving money to 22· ·campaigns.· This is because, quite frankly, our 23· ·democracy demands it. 24· · · · The Division of Elections has always stood 25· ·on the side of transparency and honesty.· And once

A. 294 ·1· ·again, Mr. Torrens demonstrated today anything but ·2· ·transparency and honesty. ·3· · · · What he is trying to do is game the system. ·4· ·He is trying to exploit a loophole and claim that ·5· ·there is no basis for this Court to rule on ·6· ·qualifications.· The law is clear that a circuit ·7· ·court has ample opportunity to rule on ·8· ·qualifications. ·9· · · · The law is also clear in the case of 10· ·Planas v. Planas, that when courts see bad faith 11· ·and dishonest purpose, and when they see someone 12· ·acting fraudulently to corrupt the ballot, that 13· ·cannot stand and that person must be removed. 14· ·That is the crux of our case, Your Honor, and 15· ·that is the case that we have proved today. 16· ·Thank you. 17· · · · THE COURT:· Thanks, Ms. Kato. 18· · · · Defense? 19· · · · MR. MCCABE:· Yes, Your Honor.· I'll be 20· ·brief. 21· · · · Opposing counsel discussed transparency 22· ·and honesty and indicated that my client, 23· ·Mr. Torrens, was anything but in this courtroom 24· ·today.· That is completely unsupported by the 25· ·evidence and testimony.

A. 295 ·1· · · · Mr. Torrens came in, was frank, was candid ·2· ·with the Tribunal, was candid about how he was ·3· ·in a hurry, candid about how he signed his wife's ·4· ·name.· He's been candid.· He answered the questions ·5· ·candidly of The Court and of opposing counsel, ·6· ·and of his own counsel. ·7· · · · So he has been -- Your Honor was able to -- ·8· ·I don't need to recite to Your Honor his testimony ·9· ·and demeanor because Your Honor was here to observe 10· ·it as the fact-finder. 11· · · · So to say that he was anything but transparent 12· ·and honest is actually -- it's just absolutely 13· ·false.· It's wrong.· He came in here and was very 14· ·honest with The Court. 15· · · · And this is, see, the Plaintiff is harping on 16· ·and is really trying to beat in this dishonest 17· ·purpose and bad faith.· What they don't want to 18· ·talk about is the fact that, as a condition 19· ·precedent, there has to be a campaign violation 20· ·and Mr. Torrens has to be convicted of it. 21· · · · They don't want to talk about that because 22· ·frankly they don't have the evidence.· They haven't 23· ·proven it.· And they have to prove that in order to 24· ·prove that this is a case about bad faith and 25· ·dishonest purpose or that my client acted --

A. 296 ·1· · · · They quote here from their complaint the ·2· ·sort of brazenly deceptive comment is thankfully ·3· ·rare -- (inaudible) -- that's not -- ·4· · · · THE COURT:· Redo that last part because ·5· ·you were reading more quickly than -- ·6· · · · MR. MCCABE:· I apologize. ·7· · · · THE COURT:· -- some of us could understand. ·8· · · · MR. MCCABE:· This is in paragraph A on ·9· ·page four, the Plaintiff Sean Shaw's response 10· ·and memoranda in opposition to Ryan Torrens' motion 11· ·to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint.· On page 12· ·four, paragraph A, and -- well, I should say, 13· ·letter A, paragraph two. 14· · · · They describe this sort of brazen deceptive 15· ·conduct is thankfully rare in the arena toward 16· ·our elections, but when faced with evidence the 17· ·candidate is not acting in good faith and with 18· ·dishonest purpose, the courts have not hesitated to 19· ·remove the ballot.· And The Court cannot ignore 20· ·fraudulent conduct which is purposely done to 21· ·foul the election or corrupt the ballot. 22· · · · My client took money out of his own account 23· ·and loaned money to himself.· His only error was 24· ·in signing his wife's name so it wasn't clear, 25· ·which he then remedied by writing letters to

A. 297 ·1· ·the Department of Elections, refunding the money ·2· ·and being candid about the whole situation. ·3· · · · So to say that he -- that there's some sort ·4· ·of brazenly dishonest conduct, that's just -- it's ·5· ·simply untrue, Your Honor, and the Plaintiff has ·6· ·not proven that. ·7· · · · Essentially, the Plaintiff really does not ·8· ·want to talk about the campaign finance issue, ·9· ·which they have to prove before they can make this 10· ·argument about bad faith and dishonest purpose. 11· · · · They don't want to talk about it because they 12· ·haven't proven it and they can't prove it, because 13· ·my client took money out of his own account, that 14· ·he owns, that the law indicates he owns, and used 15· ·it to give himself a loan.· The error was not 16· ·signing his own name to it.· That's it. 17· · · · And it would have actually been far easier 18· ·if he was trying to be deceptive, it would have 19· ·been much wiser and much smarter to actually sign 20· ·his own name.· And that would actually -- if he 21· ·was trying to give himself some sort of illegal 22· ·contribution from his wife, that would be the way 23· ·to do it, not to sign her name, with her 24· ·permission, and then come and testify in court and 25· ·in his deposition, yes, that is what I did with her

A. 298 ·1· ·permission. ·2· · · · That's not bad faith when he's been completely ·3· ·honest about that fact, about how it was a simple ·4· ·error.· And that's really the only thing that he ·5· ·did wrong.· And he readily admitted it, readily ·6· ·admitted it to The Court. ·7· · · · And frankly, it's questionable whether -- I ·8· ·don't think they have proven a campaign finance ·9· ·violation.· And even if they did, they couldn't 10· ·prove bad faith, which as we've seen from the 11· ·evidence, from the testimony, from the exhibits, 12· ·they can't prove bad faith, but they have proven a 13· ·campaign violation and they don't want to talk 14· ·about it because they can't prove it.· And they 15· ·have to prove it, and they have to have it 16· ·prosecuted and convicted for it, before they can 17· ·go on to even address this bad faith. 18· · · · And so we'd ask The Court to -- after 19· ·reviewing all the facts and evidence, to find in 20· ·favor of Mr. Torrens. 21· · · · THE COURT:· Thank you.· And I want to 22· ·thank counsel for both sides.· I know we've been 23· ·on a short time frame and that's not something 24· ·that is ideal, but it is what it is.· And we are 25· ·mindful here in the Second Circuit of the

A. 299 ·1· · · · importance of doing things quickly, so there can ·2· · · · be time for appellate review and so forth. ·3· · · · · · ·I will get my order out as quickly as I ·4· · · · can, recognizing I've given Mr. Torrens' team ·5· · · · until Friday.· And let's say 10:00 o'clock Friday ·6· · · · morning, please, to get their response to the ·7· · · · Shaw motion to dismiss the counterclaim so I ·8· · · · have everything. ·9· · · · · · ·And I do have another hearing Friday 10· · · · afternoon that involves a high-priority case, so 11· · · · if you could e-mail that to Ms. Lynn by 10:00, 12· · · · that would be very helpful. 13· · · · · · ·Thank you very much.· I have it under 14· · · · advisement.· Have a lovely evening.· And we're 15· · · · adjourned. 16· · · · · · ·(Whereupon, the proceedings were adjourned at 17· ·approximately 4:50 p.m.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

A. 300 A. 301 A. 302 A. 303 A. 304 A. 305 A. 306 A. 307 A. 308 A. 309 A. 310 A. 311 A. 312 A. 313 A. 314 A. 315 A. 316 A. 317 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by Electronic Mail, and by Regular U.S. Mail where applicable to: Lewis, Longman, & Walker, P.A., 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, [email protected], [email protected], mlozada@llw- law.com, [email protected], and [email protected], Sean Shaw 515 N. Flagler Dr., Suite 1500, West Palm Beach, FL, Department of State, Division of Elections, 500 S. Bronough Street, Tallahassee, FL 322399, Jared C. McCabe, Esq. at [email protected] , the Honorable Karen Gievers, 301 S. Monroe St., Tallahassee, FL 32301, and all other associated parties listed on the E-Portal, dated this 2nd day of October, 2018.

/s/Ryan C. Torrens, Esq. Ryan C. Torrens, Esq.