Steven Brown 12-13-2013 Fullprint

·1· · · · · · · · · · IN THE CIRCUIT COURT· · · · · · · · OF THE THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT·2· · · · · ·IN AND FOR HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA· · · · · · · · · · · CASE NO. 11-CA-015545·3

·4· · ·ATHEISTS OF FLORIDA, INC.,·5· ·ELLENBETH WACHS,

·6

·7· · · · · · · · Plaintiffs,

·8· ·-vs-

·9· ·ATHEISTS OF FLORIDA, INC., et al.,

10

11· · · · · · · · Defendants.

12· ·---------------------------------/

13

14

15· · · · · · · · · DEPOSITION OF STEVEN BROWN

16· · · · · · · · · Friday, December 13, 2013· · · · · · · · · · · 10:00 a.m. - 3:40 p.m.17

18· · · · · · TRENAM, KEMKER, SCHARF, BARKIN, FRYE,· · · · · · · · · · · O'NEILL & MULLIS, P.A.19· · · · · · · · 101 East Kennedy - Suite 2700· · · · · · · · · · · · · Tampa, Florida20· · · · · · · · · --------------------------

21

22· ·Reported by:

23· ·GERRILYNN MEHL, RPR· · ·Notary Public, State of Florida24· ·Esquire Deposition Solutions - Tampa, Florida· · ·813-221-2535· (800-838-2814)25· ·Job No. 52174

http://www.esquiresolutions.com

·1· ·APPEARANCES:

·2· · · · · ROBERT BUESING, ESQUIRE·3· · · · TRENAM, KEMKER, SCHARF, BARKIN, FRYE, O'NEILL· · · · · & MULLIS, P.A.·4· · · · 101 East Kennedy Boulevard· · · · · Suite 2700·5· · · · Tampa, Florida 33601· · · · · (813)202-7862·6· · · · · ·Attorney for ELLENBETH WACHS

·7

·8· · · · R. GALE PORTER, ESQUIRE· · · · · PORTER LAW GROUP·9· · · · 4730 West Kennedy Boulevard· · · · · Suite 47510· · · · Tampa, Florida· 33609-2564· · · · · · ·(813)405-310011· · · · · ·Attorney for Nine Defendants in consolidated· · · · · · ·Action12

13· · · · DAVID B. HOFFMAN, ESQUIRE· · · · · PARWANI LAW, P.A.14· · · · 9905 Alambra Avenue· · · · · Tampa, Florida· 3361915· · · · (813)514-8280· · · · · · · Attorney for ROBERT CURRY16

17· · · · · JOHN KIEFFER, Pro Se18· · · · 3327 Cheviot Drive· · · · · Tampa, Florida 3361819

20· ·ALSO PRESENT:· · · · · ELLENBETH WACHS21· · · · ROBERT CURRY· · · · · ED GOLLY22

23

24

25


·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · INDEX

·2· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·PAGE

·3· · ·Direct Examination By Mr. Buesing· · · · · · · · ·5

·4· · ·Deposition Errata Sheet· · · · · · · · · · · · ·177

·5· · ·Certificate of Oath· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·180

·6· · ·Certificate of Reporter· · · · · · · · · · · · ·181

·7

·8· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS

·9· · ·NO.· ·PAGE· · · · DESCRIPTION

10· ·1· · · ·48· · ·Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the· · · · · · · · · · Board of Directors of Atheists of11· · · · · · · · · Florida 2007

12· ·2· · · ·72· · ·Bank of America check from Atheists of· · · · · · · · · · Florida to Walters Law Group, $25,00013· · ·3· · · ·79· · ·E-mail from Mr. Brown to Mr. Golly,14· · · · · · · · · August 2, 2011

15· ·4· · · ·83· · ·E-mail from Mr. Kieffer to Mr. Golly,· · · · · · · · · · et al., October 8, 201116· · ·5· · · ·86· · ·E-mail from Mr. Kieffer to Ms. Wachs,17· · · · · · · · · et al, October 15, 2011

18· ·6· · · ·89· · ·E-mail from Christos to Golly, et al,· · · · · · · · · · October 30, 201119· · ·7· · · ·90· · ·E-mail from Mr. Brown to Mr. Peterson,20· · · · · · · · · November 1, 2011

21· ·8· · · 100· · ·E-mail from Mr. Brown to Mr. Peterson,· · · · · · · · · · November 1, 201122

23· ·9· · · 117· · ·E-mail from Mr. Brown to Mr. Peterson,· · · · · · · · · · November 1, 201124

25


·1

·2· · · · · · · · · · · ·EXHIBITS (Continued)

·3· · ·NO.· ·PAGE· · · · DESCRIPTION

·4

·5· ·10· · ·118· · ·E-mail from Ms. Wachs to Mr. Golly,· · · · · · · · · · November 1, 2011·6· · ·11· · ·123· · ·E-mail from Mr. Peterson to Mr. Brown,·7· · · · · · · · · November 5, 2011

·8· ·12· · ·127· · ·E-mail from Alan Oravec to Ms. Owens,· · · · · · · · · · et al, November 6, 2011·9· · ·13· · ·155· · ·E-mail from Mr. Golly to Mr. Peterson10· · · · · · · · · with attachment, January 15, 2013

11· ·15· · ·168· · ·Letter to Ms. Wachs from Mr. Golly,· · · · · · · · · · November 7, 201112

13· ·16· · ·173· · ·Letter from Ryan Carey to John· · · · · · · · · · McKnight, November 6, 201114

15· ·14· · ·164· · The Action on Complaint by Tracy

16· · · · · · · · ·Thomas against Ellenbeth Wachs and John

17· · · · · · · · ·Kieffer, November 6, 2011

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


·1· · · · · · The deposition taken before GERRILYNN MEHL,

·2· ·Registered Professional Reporter and Notary Public

·3· ·in and for the State of Florida at Large in the

·4· ·above cause.

·5· · · · · · · · · · · · · · ******

·6· · · · · ·COURT REPORTER:· Do you affirm that

·7· · · the testimony you are about to give will

·8· · · be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

·9· · · but the truth?

10· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Yes.

11· · · · · ·STEVEN BROWN, having been first duly

12· ·affirmed, was examined and testified as follows:

13· · · · · · · · · · · DIRECT EXAMINATION

14· ·BY MR. BUESING:

15· · · Q· · Good morning, Mr. Brown.· I'm the attorney

16· ·for Ellenbeth Wachs.· Let me know if you need me

17· ·to speak up more loudly for you; I will be glad

18· ·to.

19· · · A· · I will.

20· · · Q· · Could you state your name and address for

21· ·the record, sir.

22· · · A· · My name is Steven Lee Brown, or Steve

23· ·Brown, at 5090 Bay Street Northeast, Unit No. 226,

24· ·St. Petersburg, Florida 33703-4047.

25· · · Q· · Mr. Brown, would you agree with me that an


·1· ·allegation that somebody is an embezzler and a

·2· ·thief is a serious allegation likely to damage

·3· ·that person's reputation?

·4· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Object to the form.

·5· · · · · ·You can answer.

·6· · · A· · To the first part I answer yes.· To the

·7· ·second part I would respond no.· That was a

·8· ·two-part question.

·9· ·BY MR. BUESING:

10· · · Q· · So you would view it as a serious

11· ·allegation?

12· · · A· · Yes.

13· · · Q· · But not one likely to damage somebody's

14· ·reputation?

15· · · A· · On proof of truth, no.

16· · · Q· · Well, sir, irrespective of whether it's

17· ·true or false, it would damage someone's

18· ·reputation; would it not?

19· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Object to the form.

20· · · A· · Contingently.


22· · · Q· · Contingent on what, sir?

23· · · A· · Contingent on evidence produced to affirm

24· ·that description.

25· · · Q· · You, sir, are an atheist; correct?


·1· · · A· · Yes.

·2· · · Q· · And you believe that that evidence should

·3· ·be consulted before drawing conclusions?

·4· · · A· · No.· One forms hypotheses and then seeks

·5· ·for evidence to confirm the hypotheses, and one

·6· ·acts on the hypothesis.

·7· · · Q· · Once it is confirmed by evidence, sir?

·8· · · A· · No.· One acts on the hypothesis and seeks

·9· ·to confirm the evidence.· In other words, I don't

10· ·say "I think I've been robbed". "I've been

11· ·robbed."· And then we seek for evidence of the

12· ·thief, evidence in this case of the robbery.· I'm

13· ·getting beyond my capacity as a legal analyst, so.

14· · · Q· · But if I understand your belief system,

15· ·you do not wish to go on faith, you instead wish

16· ·to make your life decisions based on evidence?

17· · · A· · I would advise you not to assume anything

18· ·about my belief system.

19· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· I was going to object

20· · · there.· You need to wait until he finishes

21· · · answering a question, I have an

22· · · opportunity to object and then, and only

23· · · then, you start your answer, please, sir.

24· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Sorry.

25



·2· · · Q· · Well, you tell me, what is the role of

·3· ·faith as opposed to evidence in your view?


·5· · · A· · Faith is subject to my definition.· I have

·6· ·faith, for example, that what is good in humans

·7· ·may -- not will -- but may ultimately prevail over

·8· ·what is harmful to our own survival as a species.

·9· ·That good things will prevail.· That's a form of

10· ·faith.· There is some evidence for it, there is

11· ·some evidence against it.· But I rather not get

12· ·into a philosophical discussion.

13· · · Q· · Have you, sir, ever been falsely accused

14· ·of being a thief?

15· · · A· · Pardon me?

16· · · Q· · Have you, sir, ever been falsely accused

17· ·of being a thief?

18· · · A· · No.

19· · · Q· · So you don't know what that feels like?

20· · · A· · I could imagine what that feels like.

21· · · Q· · What do you think it feels like?


23· · · A· · Well, if I were a lawyer -- you're asking

24· ·me to speculate because I have never been in that

25· ·situation.



·2· · · Q· · No, I'm asking you a specific question.

·3· ·What do you think it feels like to be falsely

·4· ·accused of being a thief?


·6· · · A· · If I were falsely accused -- this is not a

·7· ·general question -- if I were falsely accused of

·8· ·being a thief, I would feel hurt and angry.

·9· · · Q· · So if you have never been falsely accused,

10· ·you never had the experience of trying to restore

11· ·your reputation after being falsely accused of

12· ·being a thief?


14· · · A· · Could you repeat that.


16· · · Q· · Having never been falsely accused of being

17· ·a thief, you have never had the experience of

18· ·trying to restore your reputation after being

19· ·falsely accused?


21· · · A· · I think in -- well -- I believe I am in

22· ·the position of being falsely accused in this

23· ·case, so I have had the experience of feeling

24· ·falsely accused.

25· · · Q· · What is the false accusation in this case,


·1· ·sir?

·2· · · A· · That I engaged in part of the campaign to

·3· ·defame person or persons.

·4· · · Q· · Assume for the moment that Ellenbeth Wachs

·5· ·was fully authorized to take the $18,000 and apply

·6· ·it to her legal defense and the allegations

·7· ·against her with respect to that money turn out to

·8· ·be untrue, how would we make that right?

·9· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Improper

10· · · hypothetical question.· Asks for an

11· · · opinion from a lay witness.

12· · · A· · Ask for forgiveness.· I don't know.

13· ·Apologize.


15· · · Q· · How would an apology restore her

16· ·reputation?

17· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Same objection.

18· · · A· · You're asking me to speculate on all sorts

19· ·of things.· I wish that you would ask me about my

20· ·experience in these matters and not on the future

21· ·or hypotheticals that you keep throwing at me.

22· ·Ask me about my role in this, ask me about --

23· ·well, so forth, so on.


25· · · Q· · I will; don't worry.


·1· · · A· · It hurts to be falsely accused of

·2· ·anything.

·3· · · Q· · I agree, sir.

·4· · · A· · It also is the role of people acting

·5· ·honestly in their capacities either as Citizens or

·6· ·as members of an organization such as Atheists of

·7· ·Florida to pursue the best interest of that

·8· ·organization as they see them.

·9· · · Q· · Why, sir, was it necessary to share the

10· ·allegation of financial misappropriation with the

11· ·full membership, the public, and the press?· Why

12· ·was that necessary, sir?

13· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Calls for a

14· · · compound question.

15· · · A· · Yeah, it was a compound -- it was not

16· ·necessary and it was not done by us as a party.

17· ·We shared that information with our membership.

18· ·We owed it to them.· And the circumstances where

19· ·we had two people, one prominently among them

20· ·having, one, a certain kind of notoriety.

21· · · Q· · She was popular with the membership?

22· · · A· · Notoriety.

23· · · Q· · So it was necessary to make sure the

24· ·membership heard the allegation --

25· · · A· · A serious charge --


·1· · · Q· · Let me finish my question.

·2· · · · · ·It was necessary for the membership to

·3· ·hear the allegation of financial misappropriation

·4· ·because --

·5· · · A· · It was necessary for the membership to

·6· ·know the act that had been performed, the

·7· ·expulsion from membership, and the reasons for it.

·8· ·The reasons for it, repeated provision in the

·9· ·bylaws for expulsion from membership and based

10· ·essentially on a mystery about the application of

11· ·previously-approved funds disbursed toward the

12· ·interest of Wachs and Kieffer, their respective

13· ·litigations.

14· · · Q· · Sir, why was it necessary to say there was

15· ·irrefutable evidence of financial

16· ·misappropriation?


18· · · Lack of foundation.

19· · · A· · Yes.· No one said there was irrefutable

20· ·evidence.· I never said it.


22· · · Q· · Well, we agree it's a very serious

23· ·allegation; is it not?


25· · · A· · I agree that I personally would take


·1· ·seriously any false accusation.


·3· · · Q· · Of financial misappropriation?

·4· · · A· · Any false acquisition.

·5· · · Q· · So why not keep this issue inside the

·6· ·boardroom?· Why was it necessary to tell the

·7· ·membership or the Lakeland newspaper --

·8· · · A· · Articles --

·9· · · Q· · Let me finish.

10· · · A· · I'm sorry.· I thought that was your

11· ·question.· I heard a question.

12· · · Q· · Or the Lakeland newspaper or people in

13· ·other organizations, why was it necessary to not

14· ·just keep it in the boardroom?

15· · · A· · To my knowledge --

16· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Lack of

17· · · foundation.

18· · · A· · To my knowledge we were not responsible

19· ·for any direct information to the press, provided

20· ·to the press.


22· · · Q· · You were certainly responsible for

23· ·providing information to the membership?

24· · · A· · Yes.

25· · · Q· · Why not just keep it in the boardroom?


·1· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Calls for

·2· · · speculation.· Lacks foundation.

·3· · · A· · From my point of view, because articles of

·4· ·incorporation and bylaws provide the board is

·5· ·responsible to the members in the same way that

·6· ·the officers of the organization are responsible

·7· ·to the board.


·9· · · Q· · Are you aware that Mr. Cooper had listed a

10· ·concern that she was so popular that she would

11· ·just win?

12· · · A· · Who is "she"?

13· · · Q· · Ellenbeth Wachs.· Would just win another

14· ·election?

15· · · A· · I was not aware that was his opinion and I

16· ·would have disagreed with it had I known.

17· · · Q· · What level of investigation did you

18· ·personally perform before participating in

19· ·declarations that Ms. Wachs had misappropriated or

20· ·embezzled funds?

21· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection to the form.

22· · · Improper foundation.

23· · · A· · Would you repeat that.


25· · · Q· · What level of investigation did you


·1· ·personally perform before participating in public

·2· ·declarations that Ms. Wachs had misappropriated or

·3· ·embezzled funds?


·5· · · A· · Participation and full discussion at board

·6· ·meetings and e-mail exchanges.


·8· · · Q· · Would you agree with me, sir, that you did

·9· ·not ask Ms. Wachs for her response to these

10· ·allegations?


12· · · A· · Not directly or personally, but as a

13· ·member of the board of directors, I voted for the

14· ·same provision for expulsion of membership that

15· ·was originally initiated by Ms. Wachs and allowed

16· ·for a 90-day appeal before the board, 90 days,

17· ·three months, of availability to her to confront

18· ·the board and fully explain herself.· She did not

19· ·seize that opportunity.


21· · · Q· · Would you agree with me, sir, that at the

22· ·November 6, 2011, board meeting she was not

23· ·allowed to speak?

24· · · A· · She left the meeting.· How could she speak

25· ·if she wasn't there?


·1· · · Q· · There was a motion, a second, and the

·2· ·question was called before any discussion could be

·3· ·had on motion.

·4· · · A· · I don't recall specifically without

·5· ·looking at the minutes.

·6· · · Q· · But you do recall that she did not present

·7· ·a defense, as it were?· She was not given an

·8· ·opportunity to give her defense?

·9· · · A· · You're confusing the expulsion with a

10· ·removal from office which could be done at will.

11· · · Q· · You did not answer my question.

12· · · · · ·The fact is she did not present any

13· ·defense before she was --

14· · · A· · We have been talking about the expulsion

15· ·from membership.· She was not present to provide a

16· ·defense.· That was a personal -- that was

17· ·following the process Ms. Wachs, herself,

18· ·originated and modified to be somewhat less easy

19· ·to expel a member.

20· · · Q· · I want to take a minute and talk about the

21· ·$18,000 for a second.

22· · · · · ·At the time of the November 6th board

23· ·meeting and the time of the expulsion, had anyone

24· ·told you that the funds that she was accused of

25· ·misappropriating were, in fact, donated for the


·1· ·express purpose of paying her legal bills?

·2· · · A· · No, no one told me of that.· And, no.

·3· · · Q· · So you did not know that?

·4· · · A· · I don't know that that is even today a

·5· ·fact.· In fact, I would tend to dispute that

·6· ·notion.

·7· · · Q· · On what evidence, sir, would you dispute

·8· ·that notion?

·9· · · A· · I have been exposed to such a flurry of

10· ·legal documentation back and forth, I can't

11· ·specify.· But I know that I have seen sufficient

12· ·evidence.· I attended a deposition of

13· ·Mr. McKnight, for example, Barrister McKnight, and

14· ·I have seen no evidence that those funds were

15· ·directly contributed for Ms. Wachs.

16· · · Q· · That's not my question.

17· · · · · ·What evidence do you have that they were

18· ·not?



21· · · Q· · If the answer is none, then say none.


23· · · A· · We have been looking for the evidence ever

24· ·since.· We have been seeking for a

25· ·year-and-a-half.



·2· · · Q· · As of today you have no such evidence;

·3· ·correct?


·5· · · A· · I don't know that.

·6· · · Q· · Well, do you have evidence or don't you?

·7· ·It's a yes or no question.


·9· · · · · ·Don't answer the question until I

10· · · have an opportunity to object, please.


12· · · Q· · Do you want me to repeat the question?

13· · · A· · Sure.

14· · · Q· · Do you have the evidence today, yes or no,

15· ·that the money that was donated, this $18,000, was

16· ·not for the purpose of supporting the legal

17· ·expenses?

18· · · A· · I personally do not.


20· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· I'm sorry.


22· · · Q· · Do you know anybody who does?

23· · · A· · I think part of our legal exchanges are

24· ·bent specifically on securing that evidence

25· ·against strenuous efforts to keep that evidence


·1· ·from us.

·2· · · Q· · I'm talking about the $18,000 --

·3· · · A· · $18,060.42 --

·4· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Are you talking before I

·5· · · get a chance to object?· I appreciate if

·6· · · you wouldn't.· He asks a question, I get a

·7· · · chance to object, then you start your

·8· · · answer.· You guys are having a

·9· · · conversation here.· That's not the purpose

10· · · of a deposition.


12· · · Q· · I want to focus on the $18,000, just that

13· ·amount.

14· · · A· · Okay.

15· · · Q· · What strenuous objection has prevented you

16· ·from figuring out the intent of this money that

17· ·was -- that aggregate to that $18,000 fee?


19· · · A· · That is a complex question.· Repeat it

20· ·slowly.


22· · · Q· · I don't intend it to be a complex

23· ·question.

24· · · · · ·You said something about --

25· · · A· · Evidence.


·1· · · Q· · -- that there was a vigorous effort to

·2· ·prevent you from figuring out where that money

·3· ·came from and what it was for.· I'm trying to get

·4· ·specifics from you on that.


·6· · · A· · As a board of directors we have been

·7· ·strenuously seeking evidence of what contributions

·8· ·constituted that $18,000.· And even more so as to

·9· ·the refusal of the parties in question, your

10· ·clients, to follow provisions of the bylaws that

11· ·were newly created by the board of directors

12· ·because of the reckless behavior of our two

13· ·leaders in defiance of the restraints on spending,

14· ·that $18,000 in the Atheists of Florida treasury

15· ·was removed without the approval of a committee

16· ·that had been set up specifically to prevent such

17· ·removals.

18· · · Q· · How do you know that, sir?

19· · · A· · How do I know?· I was on the board that

20· ·voted to create this financial oversight

21· ·committee.

22· · · Q· · How do you know there was not such an

23· ·approval?· Who told you that?· Was that Ed

24· ·Gollobith that told you that?

25· · · A· · All members of the financial oversight


·1· ·committee told me that.· Nan Owens, Ed Golly, Joe

·2· ·Reinhardt.· There is not a member of it.

·3· · · Q· · How about Matt Cooper?

·4· · · A· · I did not talk to Matt Cooper about that,

·5· ·but I -- directly.

·6· · · Q· · Are you aware that Matt Cooper testified

·7· ·in a deposition in this case that he couldn't

·8· ·remember?


10· · · That misstates his prior testimony.

11· · · A· · I did not talk with Matt Cooper about this

12· ·specific occurrence.· Matt Cooper, as you know, is

13· ·deathly ill and he couldn't abide any further

14· ·involvement in this matter which was distressing

15· ·him considerably.

16· · · Q· · Do you understand the concept of a

17· ·restricted donation to a nonprofit?

18· · · A· · I have no legal familiarity, no

19· ·familiarity with it at all.

20· · · Q· · Do you understand the concept of a

21· ·pass-through entity?

22· · · A· · A concept, yes.

23· · · Q· · Do you have any evidence, sir, that the

24· ·$18,000 was not, in fact, restricted for the

25· ·purpose of paying for the legal expenses of


·1· ·Ms. Wachs and others?


·3· · · A· · I personally have no evidence either way.


·5· · · Q· · Do you know if the financial reports of

·6· ·Atheists of Florida, Inc., indicates that this

·7· ·$18,000 was revenue of the organization?

·8· · · A· · It's my belief that the $18,000 was

·9· ·revenue of the organization.

10· · · Q· · Well, are there documents to that effect,

11· ·sir?

12· · · A· · All the material provided to me by our

13· ·treasurer leads me to believe that.

14· · · Q· · When the board allowed funds to be

15· ·collected for these legal defense costs, did the

16· ·board create a separate segregated bank account

17· ·for this purpose?


19· · · Lack of foundation.

20· · · A· · Whether the board created it, the

21· ·webmaster did organize -- and I not being very

22· ·proficient, being the opposite of proficient with

23· ·these matters -- a tab specifically for donations

24· ·to the Ellenbeth Wachs' legal fund.· To my

25· ·knowledge the $18,000 was not deposited there.


·1· · · Q· · Do you know if Nan Owens, the treasurer,

·2· ·was asked to set up a separate bank account?

·3· · · A· · I don't know.

·4· · · Q· · Would that have been a better practice?


·6· · · A· · I have no grounds for determining whether

·7· ·it would or would not be.


·9· · · Q· · Did you as a board member call for an

10· ·independent outside investigation into this

11· ·serious allegation of misappropriation and

12· ·embezzlement?

13· · · A· · No.

14· · · Q· · Did you call the police on or about

15· ·November 6, 2011, and say that a theft had

16· ·occurred?

17· · · A· · No.

18· · · Q· · Did anybody on the board, to your

19· ·knowledge, do that?

20· · · A· · To my knowledge, no.

21· · · Q· · Did you at any time ever call the police

22· ·and say a theft has occurred?

23· · · A· · In this context?

24· · · Q· · That what mean in this context.

25· · · A· · No.


·1· · · Q· · When you said "in this context", you lost

·2· ·me.

·3· · · A· · Someone broke into my home in Santa

·4· ·Monica, California, once; I called the police.

·5· · · Q· · I'm talking about this alleged

·6· ·embezzlement and misappropriation of the $18,000.

·7· · · A· · I thought you were.· I wanted to be sure.

·8· · · Q· · Do you know who did call the police, if

·9· ·anybody?


11· · · A· · No.


13· · · Q· · Do you know if it was a plan to call the

14· ·police?


16· · · A· · To my knowledge there was no plan to call

17· ·the police.


19· · · Q· · Do you know if the police were called

20· ·this year for the first time in an effort to put

21· ·pressure on in this lawsuit?

22· · · A· · No.

23· · · Q· · You said you were at the McKnight

24· ·deposition?

25· · · A· · Yes.


·1· · · Q· · You recall that the $18,000 was put into

·2· ·his trust account and it's still sitting there;

·3· ·right?

·4· · · A· · Yes.

·5· · · Q· · So would you agree with me that Ellenbeth

·6· ·Wachs has never taken possession of this $18,000?

·7· · · A· · I don't know.

·8· · · Q· · And you understand the money has been

·9· ·sitting safely in this attorney's trust account

10· ·pending court order?



13· · · Q· · Is that your understanding, sir?

14· · · A· · Pardon me?

15· · · Q· · Is it your understanding that the money

16· ·has been sitting safely in that attorney's trust

17· ·account pending court order?

18· · · A· · I can't respond to the adverb "safely",

19· ·but it's this escrow account, to my knowledge.

20· · · Q· · If you thought Atheists of Florida, Inc.,

21· ·was the victim of embezzlement, was it not your

22· ·responsibility to contact the police immediately?

23· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Lacks


25· · · A· · The term "embezzlement" has never entered


·1· ·my mind until you bring it up.


·3· · · Q· · How about financial misappropriation?

·4· · · A· · Yes.

·5· · · Q· · You think you should call the police if

·6· ·there has been a financial misappropriation in a

·7· ·business in an operation?

·8· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.

·9· · · A· · It should be clear by the 90-day provision

10· ·for expulsion of members that we wanted to allow

11· ·the two persons who were expelled to state their

12· ·case to us.


14· · · Q· · So you were not confident that a theft had

15· ·occurred?

16· · · A· · We were accusing -- I'm sorry.

17· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.

18· · · Argumentative.

19· · · A· · We were accusing, not convicting.


21· · · Q· · So your personal state of mind at the time

22· ·of the expulsion was that you did not have a firm

23· ·conviction?


25· · · A· · That would have been my state of mind.


·1· ·Please come talk to us, you got 90 days to do it.


·3· · · Q· · And you felt it was important, however, to

·4· ·publicly state the accusation?

·5· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Misstates

·6· · · his prior testimony.

·7· · · A· · Not at all.· It was important to let our

·8· ·members know that we had removed the president and

·9· ·vice president from office, we also expelled them

10· ·from membership for these grounds as specified,

11· ·and we had given them the opportunity to explain

12· ·their actions to us over the next three months.


14· · · Q· · You used the word "member", can you define

15· ·for us who are the members?

16· · · A· · Paid members on an annual membership basis

17· ·or life membership basis of Atheists of Florida.

18· · · Q· · And how would you describe Atheists of

19· ·Florida as an organization?· What is its mission?

20· · · A· · It's mission -- we have --



23· · · A· · We have a statement of mission that is

24· ·organizational, it dates back to 1992.· Then my

25· ·own personal views.· I would like to see it do


·1· ·what it can to maintain roles of separation

·2· ·between church and state as it applies to local

·3· ·and state matters within Florida.

·4· · · Q· · Would you agree with me that Atheists of

·5· ·Florida, Inc., is a member-based organization?


·7· · · A· · Yes, it is.


·9· · · Q· · Is it up to the members to vote for the

10· ·members of the board of directors?

11· · · A· · Yes, it is.

12· · · Q· · This is not supposed to be a

13· ·self-perpetuating board where the board members,

14· ·themselves, act without the members voting them

15· ·into the board?


17· · · A· · Yes.


19· · · Q· · Do you recall there ever being a contested

20· ·election in which there were more candidates than

21· ·open board seats?

22· · · A· · Yes.

23· · · Q· · When did that occur?

24· · · A· · 2011 and 2012.

25· · · Q· · Any other years that you can remember?


·1· · · A· · Now, my participation in Atheists of

·2· ·Florida does not go back to 1992.· It goes back

·3· ·possibly to 2005, something like that.· My

·4· ·membership on the board from 2007.· The problem

·5· ·was finding enough people who were willing to

·6· ·serve on the board, not allowing a competitive --

·7· · · · · ·THE COURT REPORTER:· Can you repeat

·8· · · what you just said.

·9· · · A· · The problem was --

10· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Just restate what you

11· · · said.· Competitive what?

12· · · A· · There were not sufficient number of people

13· ·willing or desiring to serve on the board for

14· ·there to be a necessity for competitive elections.


16· · · Q· · So at least before 2011 you don't recall

17· ·there ever being even the process of going out to

18· ·the membership to fill the board seats?

19· · · A· · I have a vague -- but I entered the board

20· ·the same time Mr. Kieffer did.· Ms. Wachs had

21· ·never been elected to the board.· We had processes

22· ·for advancing people to the board.· When they

23· ·become chapter directors on nomination from any

24· ·members or from members of the board.· So few

25· ·people have been involved in active direction.· As


·1· ·a board member I would simply like to attend board

·2· ·meetings, for example, every three months, twice a

·3· ·year, whatever it is.· But most of the board

·4· ·members are also the active workers.· We may have

·5· ·150, 130, 180, whatever it is, members.· But you

·6· ·have a very small group that is actually directing

·7· ·the affairs of the organization and carrying them

·8· ·out.

·9· · · Q· · I take it this organization does not have

10· ·a paid CEO or president?

11· · · A· · For one year we had a paid executive

12· ·director.· To my knowledge that's the only time.

13· ·It might have been done in the years prior to my

14· ·affiliation, but I don't think so.

15· · · Q· · And in the other years that you know of

16· ·the board would select one of its members as the

17· ·president of the organization?

18· · · A· · Yes.

19· · · Q· · To actually run the day to day?

20· · · A· · Yes.

21· · · Q· · And the president would be empowered to do

22· ·the normal operation of the organization?

23· · · A· · Yes.

24· · · Q· · Would there also be a vice president?

25· · · A· · Yes.


·1· · · Q· · And I assume a treasurer?

·2· · · A· · Yes.

·3· · · Q· · So you would expect these officers to, I

·4· ·guess, on a volunteer basis to basically run the

·5· ·day-to-day operations of the organization?

·6· · · A· · Yes.

·7· · · Q· · So in your experience if you joined the

·8· ·board in 2007, the 2011 election was the first

·9· ·time that there were more candidates than open

10· ·seats?

11· · · A· · I believe so.

12· · · Q· · Now, during October of 2011 did you become

13· ·aware that Mr. Gollobith was going to change the

14· ·lock on the PO box and lock out the officers from

15· ·the business office?

16· · · A· · You mean Ed Golly?

17· · · Q· · Ed Golly.

18· · · A· · No, I was only aware in retrospect.

19· · · Q· · That's pretty extraordinary, isn't it,

20· ·that he would do something like that?

21· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection to form.


23· · · A· · He made the mail unavailable to anyone,

24· ·including himself.· The post office was not at

25· ·liberty to release that mail during that period.


·1· ·That's what I meant by the phrase "locking the

·2· ·box".

·3· · · Q· · Well, was that act done with your

·4· ·participation or permission?

·5· · · A· · Without my knowledge, fore knowledge.

·6· · · Q· · When did you first learn of it?

·7· · · A· · I couldn't say.

·8· · · Q· · Well, it was apparent in October of 2011,

·9· ·was it not, that Ms. Wachs had her own slate of

10· ·candidates for the board?

11· · · A· · She preferred -- I don't know if in my own

12· ·mind if I would call it a slate, but she had

13· ·preferred candidates.

14· · · Q· · And Mr. Peterson was not one of them;

15· ·right?

16· · · A· · Correct.

17· · · Q· · Mr.· Gollobith was not one of them?

18· · · A· · Yes.

19· · · Q· · Mr. Cooper was not one of them?

20· · · A· · Yes.

21· · · Q· · You were not one of them?

22· · · A· · Yes, correct.

23· · · Q· · So if the election were to go forward and

24· ·if the members, a majority of the members accepted

25· ·her recommended list of candidates, at least the


·1· ·four of you would be off the board; right?

·2· · · A· · I wasn't running.· I had no further desire

·3· ·to be on the board.· I'm on the board now

·4· ·expressly because of this outrageous opposition.

·5· · · Q· · I'll agree with the outrageous part, but

·6· ·we'll talk about that later.

·7· · · · · ·Did you intend to nominate yourself and

·8· ·then forget to do that?

·9· · · A· · Absolutely not.

10· · · Q· · It was your decision that you were done

11· ·for now?

12· · · A· · Yes, I prefer to be done right now.· But I

13· ·feel committed to stay through to see the end of

14· ·this litigation.

15· · · Q· · When did you learn that at least Peterson,

16· ·Gollobith, and Cooper wanted to scuttle the

17· ·election?


19· · · Lacks foundation.

20· · · A· · I never learned that Peterson, Cooper and

21· ·Golly collectively like the three musketeers were

22· ·engaged in this.· At some point I became aware

23· ·that Matt Cooper felt that there was a political

24· ·pooch involving, unfortunately, a corrupt election

25· ·process.


·1· · · Q· · We'll get to that as we get through the

·2· ·documents.

·3· · · · · ·So when did you first hear that Mr. Cooper

·4· ·described the democracy process as a pooch as

·5· ·opposed to a change of leadership through

·6· ·democracy?

·7· · · A· · Pooch is my term, not Cooper's.

·8· · · Q· · What term did he use?

·9· · · A· · I don't recall specifically what term he

10· ·used.· It's clear that having different points of

11· ·view in an organization, to me it's clear, is

12· ·helpful.

13· · · Q· · I agree, sir.

14· · · A· · And in having opposing candidates is a

15· ·great thing.

16· · · Q· · I agree, sir.

17· · · A· · But on the other hand corrupting the

18· ·election process to further the ends of any

19· ·opposition, if, indeed, that is the case

20· ·because -- well, that's another thing.

21· · · Q· · Well, let me just ask you your honest

22· ·opinion as of, say, October 2011, if there had

23· ·been a pristine election process, Jimmy Carter in

24· ·to supervise this election process, wouldn't

25· ·Ms. Wachs' candidates have won?


·1· · · A· · I have no idea.· Her candidates included a

·2· ·Frank Prawl (phonetic), who is now vice president

·3· ·of Atheists of Florida.· It puzzled me why he was

·4· ·on her list of candidates.

·5· · · Q· · That's not my question, sir.

·6· · · · · ·Would you agree with me that the number of

·7· ·members had increased dramatically during the time

·8· ·period that Ms. Wachs was one of the officers?

·9· · · A· · I couldn't agree with you because our

10· ·membership records were in disarray, to put it

11· ·mildly, at that time.· Only to lapses on the part

12· ·of the person we had hired as executive director

13· ·for that time.· In addition, there was confusion

14· ·on who was a member and who simply was on the -- a

15· ·paid member and who was on the various meet-up

16· ·lists.

17· · · Q· · Well, setting that aside, whoever the real

18· ·members were, remember, Jimmy Carter has set up a

19· ·perfect election exactly the way you would want,

20· ·is it not a fact that Ms. Wachs and her preferred

21· ·candidates were elected to win?

22· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Asked and

23· · · answered.· Calls for speculation.

24· · · A· · I don't think so.· I think it would have

25· ·been a toss up.· Indeed on the following election


·1· ·Ms. Wachs did supply, in effect, a slate of her

·2· ·own candidates.· Only one of them won.

·3· · · Q· · A toss up.· That's 50/50?


·5· · · A· · That's just a guess on my part.· I think

·6· ·there is no sure thing involved.


·8· · · Q· · Well, do you think Mr. Peterson,

·9· ·Mr. Gollobith, or Mr. Cooper viewed this as just a

10· ·toss up?

11· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Speculation.

12· · · A· · I never met anybody -- Mr. Cooper has

13· ·politics in his background and I personally would

14· ·not have gone as far as Mr. Cooper's judgment in

15· ·the inevitability of the victory of that slate of

16· ·candidates.

17· · · Q· · But he may have perceived it that way;

18· ·correct?

19· · · A· · He may have.

20· · · Q· · In fact, he expressed that along the way

21· ·to you?

22· · · A· · No, not specifically to me.

23· · · Q· · When you say has politics in his

24· ·background?

25· · · A· · He was a paid political -- I'm sorry.


·1· · · Q· · He was a paid political consultant of some

·2· ·type?

·3· · · A· · Yeah.· Managed campaigns.

·4· · · Q· · Are you telling me that he sort of viewed

·5· ·things through the lens of a political person?

·6· · · A· · Probably.

·7· · · Q· · And winning and losing was all very

·8· ·important to him.

·9· · · A· · That's my guess, yes.

10· · · Q· · Wouldn't you agree with me that it's not

11· ·unhealthy for this organization to have some young

12· ·enthusiastic, creative, energetic members join the

13· ·board?

14· · · A· · Wholeheartedly agree with that.

15· · · Q· · Are you aware of an event called the

16· ·Festival of Books?

17· · · A· · Yes.

18· · · Q· · Did you attend that in --

19· · · A· · Well, it's a yearly event.

20· · · Q· · -- November of 2011?

21· · · A· · No.· I don't believe so.· I might have

22· ·dropped in.

23· · · Q· · The Festival of Reading.

24· · · · · ·And were you aware that a number of the

25· ·board members were at this Festival of Reading in


·1· ·October of 2011?

·2· · · A· · Because of this litigation, I'm familiar

·3· ·with the fact that Ed Golly and, I believe, Tracy

·4· ·Thomas were there.· So I was not, definitely I was

·5· ·not.

·6· · · Q· · So you of your own personal knowledge

·7· ·don't know what discussions were held among these

·8· ·board members about what to do next, how to handle

·9· ·this election, how to change the lock, how to --

10· · · A· · No, I did not -- was not.

11· · · Q· · By the way, was the lock on the PO box

12· ·changed before anybody said anything about $18,000

13· ·had been stolen?

14· · · A· · I don't have as firm a grip on that

15· ·timeline as some may.· I don't know.

16· · · Q· · Have you heard the concept of a pretext?

17· ·Do you know what a pretext is?

18· · · A· · Yes.· I don't know legally, I know

19· ·generally the definition of pretexts.

20· · · Q· · That you want to, for example, stop an

21· ·election and make sure she can't run again so as a

22· ·pretext you come up with the financial

23· ·misappropriation idea?

24· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· I object to

25· · · the form.


·1· · · A· · I don't concur with the example you

·2· ·rendered, but I know what the context of pretext

·3· ·is.

·4· · · Q· · Mr. Brown, I have a serious question for

·5· ·you.· Let me go back to my hypothetical.

·6· · · · · ·Assume for the moment there is not any

·7· ·truth to the statement that she was a financial

·8· ·misappropriator, assume that as a statement.· You

·9· ·mentioned earlier an apology, and I appreciate

10· ·that.· What else can we do to make it right if

11· ·that's what happened?


13· · · Improper hypothetical.· Calls for a legal

14· · · conclusion.

15· · · A· · I personally would attempt to make it

16· ·right by inviting them back into the organization

17· ·and into board membership, if there was room on

18· ·the board for them to be appointed to the board.

19· ·That would make good any wrongful actions on our

20· ·part.· Or to make them available for elections if,

21· ·indeed, the board was full.


23· · · Q· · What about the reputational impact beyond

24· ·the boardroom, how can we make that right?



·1· · · Speculation.· Calls for legal conclusion.

·2· · · A· · Aside from our notifying the membership on

·3· ·the website, which, of course, on the web is open

·4· ·to others as well.· We had no role in publicizing

·5· ·this incident or any litigation part of it.

·6· ·Usually that was done in a fairly heavy public

·7· ·relations effort on the part of Ms. Wachs,

·8· ·Mr. Kieffer, Mr. Curry through Facebook, which I

·9· ·rarely visit, and other social media and websites.

10· · · Q· · Well, are you aware, sir, that a release

11· ·was prepared on November 2nd saying that on

12· ·November 6th we have today on November 6th

13· ·expelled Ms. Wachs, Mr. Kieffer?

14· · · A· · A release?· What do you mean by a release?

15· ·You mean a news release, a press release sent to

16· ·newspapers, wire services, television stations?

17· · · Q· · We'll get into it.· Were you part of a

18· ·process of writing up anything before November 6th

19· ·describing how you're going to handle this

20· ·publicly?

21· · · A· · No.· Not aware of anything done in that,

22· ·resembling what you described, before November

23· ·6th.

24· · · Q· · Do you think if she were removed under

25· ·false pretenses both as an officer and as a member


·1· ·and that her reputation has been damaged, how much

·2· ·money do you think she should be paid to make

·3· ·things right?


·5· · · legal conclusion.

·6· · · A· · Zero dollars.


·8· · · Q· · Are you saying her reputation is worth

·9· ·nothing, sir?· Is your reputation worth nothing,

10· ·sir?


12· · · A· · All our reputations as atheists could be

13· ·considered defamatory to begin with in the

14· ·public -- to much of the general public.· To be

15· ·called an atheist is not generally a, considered

16· ·admirable --

17· · · Q· · You think being --

18· · · A· · So just starting from that point of view,

19· ·what I was involved in was an internal struggle

20· ·made external largely through the efforts of

21· ·Ms. Wachs, Mr. Curry and possibly Mr. Kieffer.

22· · · Q· · We'll get to the documents because I'm

23· ·going to contest that point, just so you know.

24· ·It's actually the opposite, but we'll get to that.

25· · · · · ·Do you think paying her a million dollars


·1· ·might make it right?



·4· · · Q· · I'll withdraw it.

·5· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Did he withdraw the

·6· · · question?

·7· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Yes, he did.

·8· · · · · ·She's asking for a hundred thousand,

·9· · · by the way.

10· · · · · ·MR. BUESING:· But it's not enough.


12· · · Q· · Now, you are one of nine individuals,

13· ·defendants, plus the organization in this case.

14· ·Who is paying the legal bills for these

15· ·consolidated cases?

16· · · A· · Mr. Golly has guaranteed the legal bills.

17· · · Q· · You're saying they're coming out of the

18· ·corporation for now?

19· · · A· · I believe some of those expenses are, he

20· ·is reimbursing.

21· · · Q· · And some he is not reimbursing?

22· · · A· · I don't think there are any that he is not

23· ·or will not reimburse.

24· · · Q· · Would you view that as a misappropriation

25· ·of the corporation's assets --


·1· · · A· · I would not.

·2· · · Q· · -- if he did not reimburse the

·3· ·corporation?

·4· · · A· · If he did not?


·6· · · Calls for a legal conclusion.

·7· · · A· · I don't know that -- I'm not sure of the

·8· ·term misappropriation as that's how it would

·9· ·apply.


11· · · Q· · What term would you use, sir?

12· · · A· · I would feel betrayed.· I personally did

13· ·not use that term.· That term was dropped into our

14· ·bylaws a long time ago, the bylaws of Atheists of

15· ·Florida, and was applied to the dismissal, the

16· ·expulsion of these parties.

17· · · Q· · In order to expel a member, you couldn't

18· ·just do it without cause, you have to meet the

19· ·bylaw requirements; correct?

20· · · A· · Exactly.

21· · · Q· · And one of those in the list was

22· ·misappropriation of funds; correct?

23· · · A· · Yeah.

24· · · Q· · So you backed into that because you had to

25· ·meet what is in the bylaws; is that fair?



·2· · · Argumentative.

·3· · · A· · I personally did not.· The

·4· ·misappropriation certainly applies to the $18,000

·5· ·unless shown otherwise.

·6· · · Q· · So in this country it's guilty until

·7· ·proven innocent?

·8· · · A· · We're not a court.· We offered the court

·9· ·90-day court of appeals.· But we accused -- we

10· ·sincerely believed in the expulsion process and

11· ·the removal from office.· We simply lost trust.

12· · · Q· · In preparing for today's deposition did

13· ·you meet with Mr. Gollobith?

14· · · A· · No.

15· · · Q· · Other than your attorney have you met with

16· ·anybody else?

17· · · A· · No.

18· · · Q· · Mr. Peterson, for example?

19· · · A· · No.

20· · · Q· · What is your education, sir?

21· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Can we take a quick

22· · · break.

23· · · · · ·[Brief recess taken.]


25· · · Q· · Mr. Brown, can you briefly give us your


·1· ·educational background.

·2· · · A· · Starting where, what level?

·3· · · Q· · College.

·4· · · A· · I attended the University of Chicago as an

·5· ·undergraduate, and also graduate study in

·6· ·interdisciplinary committee on the study of ideas

·7· ·and analysis of methods that was based in the

·8· ·philosophy department but allowed you to choose an

·9· ·area of concentration, and mine was social

10· ·sciences, sociology, economics, political science,

11· ·psychology.

12· · · Q· · And so this lead to a BA or master's?

13· · · A· · Only a bachelor's.

14· · · Q· · And can you briefly give us your

15· ·professional career history.

16· · · A· · Oh, I wouldn't call it a career.

17· · · Q· · Okay.

18· · · A· · But I have been a newspaper reporter and

19· ·editor, I have been an investment manager, I have

20· ·been a financial public relations, now called

21· ·investor relations executive.· I have been the

22· ·No. 2 man in a one-man publicly-owned corporation.

23· ·I have been a proofreader.· I have been a

24· ·cabdriver.

25· · · Q· · From your newspaper reporter days, what


·1· ·are the three most important things for a

·2· ·newspaper reporter?

·3· · · A· · Pay, good hours, and good supervisors.

·4· · · Q· · How about accuracy, accuracy, accuracy?

·5· ·Have you ever heard that before, sir?



·8· · · A· · I heard it but it's largely passe.


10· · · Q· · You don't believe in accuracy?

11· · · A· · Oh, I do.· But --

12· · · Q· · Do you believe in accuracy with respect to

13· ·anything that is published by Atheists of Florida,

14· ·Inc.?


16· · · A· · I do.


18· · · Q· · Now, you mentioned earlier that

19· ·Mr. Gollobith is paying or guaranteeing all the

20· ·legal bills.· This would be for all nine

21· ·defendants and the organization?

22· · · A· · Yes.

23· · · Q· · Has he also guaranteed that he would pay

24· ·any judgment that is entered against all nine

25· ·defendants and the organization?


·1· · · A· · Not to my knowledge.

·2· · · Q· · Do you have an understanding or an

·3· ·agreement among the nine defendants as to how a

·4· ·judgment would be divided?

·5· · · A· · I have no agreement with any other

·6· ·defendants individually or collectively.· I have

·7· ·no awareness of any such agreement.

·8· · · Q· · Out of curiosity have you checked with

·9· ·your homeowner's insurance carrier to see if they

10· ·would defend you in this?

11· · · A· · I don't own my home.

12· · · Q· · You don't have any kind of homeowner's

13· ·policy?

14· · · A· · I don't own a home.

15· · · Q· · How did you first learn about Atheists of

16· ·Florida?

17· · · A· · Probably classified advertising in what

18· ·was called the Weekly Planet, now it's called

19· ·Creative Loafing.

20· · · Q· · Approximately when was that?

21· · · A· · Probably 2001, 2002.

22· · · Q· · When did you first become a member?

23· · · A· · 2002 or 2003.· It took a long time for

24· ·them to reply to me.

25· · · Q· · Have you continuously been a member from


·1· ·2002/2003 to the present?

·2· · · A· · Yes.

·3· · · Q· · So as to whether or not there were

·4· ·elections held among the members for the board

·5· ·seats, you could only remember 2011 and 2012 for

·6· ·contested elections?

·7· · · A· · Yes.

·8· · · Q· · And the 2011 election was never concluded

·9· ·for the reasons we're going to talk about?

10· · · A· · Yeah.

11· · · Q· · When did you join the board of directors?

12· · · A· · 2007, I believe.· January of 2007.

13· · · Q· · I think I already asked you this, but this

14· ·was not through an election by the members?

15· · · A· · No.

16· · · Q· · You just showed up at the board meeting

17· ·and they voted you in as a member?

18· · · A· · Yes.

19· · · · · ·MR. BUESING:· Let's go ahead and mark

20· · · this as Brown Exhibit 1.

21· · · · · ·[ The Minutes of the Annual Meeting

22· · · of the Board of Directors of Atheists of

23· · · Florida 2007 was hereby marked as Brown

24· · · Exhibit 1 for identification, as of this

25· · · date.]



·2· · · Q· · Sir, I'm showing you Brown Exhibit 1 which

·3· ·is entitled Minutes of Annual Meeting and Board of

·4· ·Directors for the year 2007.

·5· · · · · ·Do you recognize that?

·6· · · A· · I can't guarantee you it's an accurate

·7· ·reproduction, but certainly looks like the minutes

·8· ·of that meeting.

·9· · · Q· · Under Item 3, Roll Call, there is a

10· ·section entitled Board Vacancies, Rob Curry

11· ·nominated, John Kieffer nominated, and Steven

12· ·Brown nominated.

13· · · · · ·You're the Steven Brown listed there?

14· · · A· · Yes.

15· · · Q· · And then a motion by Young, seconded to

16· ·elect all nominees, all elected unanimously.

17· · · · · ·You see that?

18· · · A· · Uh-huh.

19· · · Q· · This would be an election by the board

20· ·members themselves?

21· · · A· · Yes.

22· · · Q· · Were you asked to leave the room during

23· ·that vote?

24· · · A· · I don't recall.

25· · · Q· · What orientation were you given to become


·1· ·a board member?

·2· · · A· · None.

·3· · · Q· · Were you provided with any bylaws?

·4· · · A· · I don't recall.

·5· · · Q· · Are you aware from the lawsuit papers that

·6· ·we served on you, that there seem to be different

·7· ·versions of the bylaws over the years?

·8· · · A· · Yes.

·9· · · Q· · Do you know which version, if any, was

10· ·being used in 2007?

11· · · A· · No, I don't.· All I had in my possession

12· ·are the original bylaws from 1992 both for the

13· ·board and the organization, and that I now have

14· ·only the June and September 2011 editions.

15· · · Q· · And when did you get all those?

16· · · A· · The original bylaws, I recall in the last

17· ·few years; and the others as they were published.

18· ·I received earlier versions, which I discarded not

19· ·anticipating litigation that might involve them.

20· · · Q· · We'll get to it later, but you actually

21· ·served on a committee to redraft the bylaws?

22· · · A· · Exactly.

23· · · Q· · That was after all this came up?

24· · · A· · Yes.

25· · · Q· · And people understood there were problems


·1· ·with the bylaws?

·2· · · A· · Oh, yes.

·3· · · Q· · What were the problems that were

·4· ·identified that needed to be addressed?

·5· · · A· · Well, the ones most prominent in my

·6· ·mind -- and this problem came to our awareness

·7· ·even earlier with an incident involving other

·8· ·persons -- but the almost unlimited power given to

·9· ·the president, particularly on the expenditure of

10· ·funds.· That was the most prominent flaw.· And

11· ·confusion about the role of the chairman, was he

12· ·an officer of the board?· Certain -- well, just --

13· ·terribly imprecise language or language that was

14· ·referential in the bylaws but with nothing

15· ·substantive it referred to.

16· · · · · ·For example, the bylaws have always

17· ·required that the president is extremely powerful

18· ·president in the context of our treasury and other

19· ·abilities has to inform the chairman of any

20· ·important actions, decisions on his part.· Why,

21· ·why must the president inform the chairman?· The

22· ·chairman's only role has to do with the meetings

23· ·of the board according to the rest of the bylaws.

24· ·I think there is an implied guardianship function

25· ·there and I wanted to correct for that, either


·1· ·make it explicit or wipe out that language.

·2· · · · · ·And there are other confusions.· And there

·3· ·were in the last bylaws all sorts of standing

·4· ·committees that were prescribed and it needed a

·5· ·thorough going reassessment.

·6· · · Q· · Were you aware that originally it was set

·7· ·up with a dual set of bylaws?

·8· · · A· · Yes.

·9· · · Q· · One for the board and one for the

10· ·organization?

11· · · A· · Yes.

12· · · Q· · An did you learn the history of how those

13· ·got merged?

14· · · A· · No.

15· · · Q· · You were not told that Mr. Gollobith did

16· ·that on his own at one point?

17· · · A· · I don't know that as a fact what you just

18· ·suggested to me.· I became aware in recent years

19· ·since this flurry of litigation commenced that was

20· ·a question of mind.· One, it seemed like -- it

21· ·seemed to me that that board of directors bylaws

22· ·had never been amended.· And the question has just

23· ·arisen in my mind, was it ever merged into the

24· ·organization of bylaws.· And that's a question yet

25· ·unanswered.


·1· · · Q· · Even as of today you don't have the full

·2· ·history on it?

·3· · · A· · As of today I don't know.

·4· · · Q· · What is the right word to put on this,

·5· ·would you find them -- you said they were

·6· ·confusing.· Are they sloppy, are they incomplete?

·7· · · A· · The bylaws as they exist today?

·8· · · Q· · Yes.

·9· · · A· · Sloppy.

10· · · Q· · Do you know if the bylaws were ever

11· ·adopted by the membership?

12· · · A· · I haven't -- I studied in serving on these

13· ·bylaws review committee, I reviewed all of the

14· ·statutory requirements.· But they're not

15· ·prominent, they're neither public or definite in

16· ·my mind.· Well, they could be one of those.

17· · · · · ·Repeat your question again about them.

18· · · Q· · Do you know if any of the bylaws were

19· ·adopted by a vote of the membership as opposed to

20· ·the board members themselves?

21· · · A· · Any of the sets of bylaws --

22· · · Q· · Yes, sir.

23· · · A· · -- rather than individual bylaws presented

24· ·for approval?

25· · · Q· · Well, I'm talking about the originals and


·1· ·everything that has been changed since.

·2· · · A· · I'm not aware of the history of the

·3· ·bylaws.

·4· · · Q· · Well, is it possible --

·5· · · A· · History of the development of the bylaws

·6· ·prior to my affiliation with the board.

·7· · · Q· · Is it your conclusion having served on

·8· ·this committee that the members need to approve

·9· ·bylaws?· Not the members of the board but the

10· ·actual members?

11· · · A· · You mean approve amendments of the bylaws?

12· · · Q· · Amendments or the original set.

13· · · A· · The current membership needs to approve

14· ·the original set of bylaws?

15· · · Q· · Let me back up.

16· · · · · ·In 1992 did the original members approve

17· ·the first set of bylaws?

18· · · A· · I do not know.

19· · · Q· · Do you know if the members have approved

20· ·any change to the bylaws from 1992 to the present?

21· · · A· · I do not know that.· I do not know that

22· ·there is not a theft, either.

23· · · Q· · You served as a member since 2002/2003, so

24· ·that's maybe ten years as a member.· Did you ever

25· ·vote on a bylaw change?


·1· · · A· · Not that I recall.

·2· · · Q· · In your research as part of this committee

·3· ·do you have any -- did you reach a conclusion that

·4· ·bylaws that are not approved by the membership are

·5· ·not enforceable?

·6· · · A· · No, I did not.

·7· · · Q· · Did you look at that issue?

·8· · · A· · I did.· It was clear in the sets of bylaws

·9· ·I have seen and that we were working under all the

10· ·years I was a member, only a majority vote of the

11· ·board of directors was required to amend the

12· ·bylaws.

13· · · Q· · Did you read the amended complaint, sir,

14· ·that you're one of the defendants --

15· · · A· · I read it but it's not embedded in my

16· ·memory.· I couldn't reproduce it for you.

17· · · Q· · Did you see that at one point that was

18· ·changed between the years --

19· · · A· · Whose amended complaint?

20· · · Q· · Mine.

21· · · · · ·-- that they had previously provided that

22· ·the members would amend the bylaws and then just

23· ·by magic --

24· · · A· · Every version --

25· · · Q· · -- now the board members could now amend


·1· ·the bylaws?

·2· · · A· · Every set of the bylaws I have seen,

·3· ·including the originals, provided by amendment by

·4· ·a majority vote of the board of directors. I never

·5· ·seen a set of bylaws -- doesn't mean they don't

·6· ·exist, perhaps they do -- I never seen a set of

·7· ·bylaws that provided for membership amendment of

·8· ·the bylaws only by membership.

·9· · · Q· · But you have seen the amended complaint we

10· ·prepared in this case?

11· · · A· · Yes.

12· · · Q· · And you saw that there is attached to it a

13· ·series of bylaws?

14· · · A· · I haven't seen those.

15· · · Q· · Okay.· You got the complaint without the

16· ·attachments?

17· · · A· · It's possible or, perhaps, I couldn't open

18· ·the attachment.

19· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Could be he hasn't had

20· · · enough time yet to read the whole darn

21· · · thing.

22· · · A· · I have no idea when they were sent to me.

23· · · · · ·MR. BUESING:· I'll be glad to read it

24· · · to him if that will help you.



·1· · · Q· · Was it your understanding when you became

·2· ·a board member that Robert's Rules of Order would

·3· ·govern how board meetings should operate?

·4· · · A· · No.

·5· · · Q· · What, if any, rules would apply?


·7· · · A· · It was never made clear we were operating

·8· ·according to any specified protocol.


10· · · Q· · And having now served on this bylaws

11· ·committee, do you think that is something that

12· ·should be made clear?

13· · · A· · It wasn't paramount in my concerns orderly

14· ·meetings, but ultimately we would get to that.

15· ·Someone else on the committee would have that as a

16· ·primary concern.· I didn't.

17· · · Q· · Did you ever finish your process of

18· ·redrafting the bylaws?

19· · · A· · No, we didn't.

20· · · Q· · And why not?

21· · · A· · Because we weren't sure what kind of

22· ·organization would result after whatever period of

23· ·time it devoted to this dispute.

24· · · Q· · And also waiting for the Court to rule on

25· ·really who is in charge of this organization?


·1· · · A· · That -- well -- that was a mechanism to

·2· ·allow us to determine what kind of organization we

·3· ·are going to be.

·4· · · Q· · Now, were you aware when you joined the

·5· ·board that Atheists of Florida, Inc., is a

·6· ·not-for-profit 501(C)(3) corporation?

·7· · · A· · Yes.

·8· · · Q· · Do you know what a 501(C)(3) corporation

·9· ·is?

10· · · A· · I couldn't give you any legal definition

11· ·but we're not allowed to endorse political

12· ·candidates and some other restrictions on

13· ·political advocacy.

14· · · Q· · These are under IRS guidelines and rules?

15· · · A· · Yes.

16· · · Q· · And that allows donations to your

17· ·organization to be tax deductible to the donor?

18· · · A· · Yes.

19· · · Q· · Do you know if the IRS guidelines require

20· ·a 501(C)(3) corporation to follow certain

21· ·guidelines on due process and corporate deposits?

22· · · A· · I don't know.· I imagine that's possible.

23· · · Q· · When you were working on that committee

24· ·did you look at the IRS guidelines for a 501(C)(3)

25· ·corporation?


·1· · · A· · I believe I did but not with any

·2· ·intensity.· No intense scrutiny.

·3· · · Q· · As of today Atheists of Florida continues

·4· ·to be a 501(C)(3) organization?

·5· · · A· · So far as I know.

·6· · · Q· · How many times a year did the board

·7· ·generally meet?

·8· · · A· · That has varied.· In recent years we tried

·9· ·to meet at least on a quarterly basis.

10· · · Q· · Were there points in time where it was

11· ·only once a year?


13· · · Q· · And I think as we discussed earlier, the

14· ·board would elect officers and these officers

15· ·would actually run the operation?

16· · · A· · Yes.

17· · · Q· · And I think we also talked that the bylaws

18· ·give the officers substantial discretion to

19· ·operate the operation?

20· · · A· · Not all officers, but the president.

21· · · Q· · Let's turn in Exhibit 1 to Item 10, New

22· ·Business.

23· · · · · ·Now, this appears to be a motion from

24· ·somebody named Tzanetakos.

25· · · · · ·And who did you understand to be


·1· ·Mr. Tzanetakos?

·2· · · A· · The founder of Atheists of Florida.

·3· · · Q· · And was he a board member at the time?

·4· · · A· · I believe so, yeah.

·5· · · Q· · Did he, during the time period that you

·6· ·served on the board, did he ever express concern

·7· ·that maters are being handled in a childish and

·8· ·unprofessional way?

·9· · · A· · Not in my presence.

10· · · Q· · Let's take a look at this motion which

11· ·asks the board to approve a policy that the

12· ·minutia of bible criticism should not be

13· ·encouraged because it is childish and

14· ·unprofessional.

15· · · · · ·Do you see that, sir?

16· · · · · ·Is this refreshing your recollection about

17· ·this discussion?

18· · · A· · "Childish" is not the term that sticks out

19· ·in my mind.· I see it here.· I was aware this is

20· ·Christos' position.

21· · · Q· · What was his concern?

22· · · A· · Well, I don't know what was going on in

23· ·his head but it's a very confrontational tactic

24· ·that we were indulging in.· Largely some of us --

25· ·I never participated -- parading around with signs


·1· ·like sandwich boards, "Jesus isn't coming" and

·2· ·stuff like that.· He thought it was unnecessarily

·3· ·provocative.· It was rather like a sideshow to

·4· ·what we should be doing.

·5· · · Q· · Is this something that was being

·6· ·encouraged by Ed Golly?


·8· · · A· · I don't know specifically.· I don't know

·9· ·who encouraged it.· I know Jim Young, I thought,

10· ·who had been a past president, this is primarily

11· ·Jim Young's child.

12· · · Q· · Now, it indicates here that first there

13· ·was a motion to amend to strike all the wording

14· ·except for the last sentence and then the whole

15· ·thing fails.

16· · · · · ·Do you recall whether you voted for or

17· ·against this motion?

18· · · A· · I don't recall.· I might have abstained

19· ·even.· It was not my fight.· See, we were fairly

20· ·permissive.· We didn't have a lot of people

21· ·agitating us to do things.· We didn't have a lot

22· ·of money at that time.· So a few signs and if

23· ·people wanted to do this, whatever people wanted

24· ·to do, got done.· Whoever wanted to serve on the

25· ·board apparently got to serve on the board.


·1· · · Q· · You say you don't have a lot of money.· It

·2· ·looks like there is $75,000, if I'm looking at the

·3· ·treasurer's report?

·4· · · A· · You know what you charge.· That's not a

·5· ·lot of money if you're confronting state-church.

·6· · · Q· · I mean, actually confronting church-state

·7· ·separation, that can be an expensive proposition?

·8· · · A· · Exactly.

·9· · · Q· · It would require much better fundraising

10· ·techniques than what AOF had in the past?

11· · · A· · I agree.

12· · · Q· · Now, if you look at Section 11 of

13· ·Exhibit 1 where it says Election of Chairman and

14· ·Officers.

15· · · A· · Uh-uh.

16· · · Q· · Is this just a disclosure of the next

17· ·year's officers or was there some type of actual

18· ·motion and election?· Do you remember?

19· · · A· · No.· I have no specific recollection but I

20· ·assume that we all wrote it.

21· · · Q· · Do you know why the minutes don't say

22· ·there was a vote?

23· · · A· · I have no idea.

24· · · Q· · When did you first meet Ellenbeth Wachs?

25· · · A· · I couldn't specify a date, but when she


·1· ·first showed up at the board meeting.

·2· · · Q· · She became a member of the board --

·3· · · A· · I don't know if she was a member of the

·4· ·board at the first board meeting but that's where

·5· ·I first met her, I believe.

·6· · · Q· · Did you learn and begin to understand that

·7· ·she was much better at fundraising than what AOF

·8· ·had been in the past?

·9· · · A· · Well, AOL (sic) had raised $200,000 mainly

10· ·through bequests.· So that's a judgment I wouldn't

11· ·make.

12· · · Q· · So that was money that had been sitting in

13· ·the account for a while and used over a long

14· ·period of time?

15· · · A· · No, no.· It had been not sitting there

16· ·very long at all.

17· · · Q· · Okay.· So that's a bequest --

18· · · A· · When our treasury expanded to $200,000,

19· ·that's when the board began to think that it could

20· ·invest something in pursuing church-state

21· ·litigation.

22· · · Q· · Which is really a higher goal than wearing

23· ·sandwich boards and being confrontational; right?

24· · · A· · It's a different role.

25· · · Q· · Well, but, if you're trying to stop a lack


·1· ·of respect for church-state separation, you have

·2· ·to be willing to do what is necessary to challenge

·3· ·governmental officials; correct?

·4· · · A· · Yes.

·5· · · Q· · When you got to know Ellenbeth Wachs,

·6· ·would you agree with me that she was energetic?

·7· · · A· · Yes.

·8· · · Q· · And was very devoted to the cause?


10· · · A· · I couldn't specify what her cause was, but

11· ·she was devoted to church-state, to opposing

12· ·integration of church and state.


14· · · Q· · And were you aware that she was using in

15· ·some cases her own financial resources to do

16· ·promotions?

17· · · A· · No, I was not aware.

18· · · Q· · Would it be fair to say that she was able

19· ·to put more time and energy into it than, for

20· ·example, you were able to put in?

21· · · A· · I wouldn't agree with that.· I was able to

22· ·put in more time and energy.· Willing, no.

23· · · Q· · Well, was there a point in time where you

24· ·became an officer?

25· · · A· · Yes.


·1· · · Q· · When did you become an officer?

·2· · · A· · 2010, 2011.

·3· · · Q· · What office?

·4· · · A· · Vice president.

·5· · · Q· · Did you at some point suggest that

·6· ·Ellenbeth should be the vice president?

·7· · · A· · I did.

·8· · · Q· · Because you had no real desire to be the

·9· ·vice president?

10· · · A· · Exactly.

11· · · Q· · And she was far more deserving of the

12· ·post?

13· · · A· · Yes.



16· · · Q· · And that if the bylaws permitted it, you

17· ·would be glad to resign the post so that she could

18· ·be appointed?

19· · · A· · No, no, not at all.· I was part of a slate

20· ·of nominees after serving one term as vice

21· ·president.· Sincerely wanted to avoid the risk of

22· ·becoming president, which the vice president would

23· ·succeed to should the president become indisposed.

24· ·And I wanted to recognize her work in setting up a

25· ·secular superiority organization, starting up the


·1· ·Lakeland chapter, and becoming our legal

·2· ·consultant, whatever the term was provided, the

·3· ·description was provided for her services.

·4· · · Q· · So she was adding value to the

·5· ·organization?

·6· · · A· · I was simply, as I said, at the time, an

·7· ·ornament, and rather not waste that office.· So I

·8· ·removed myself from the slate and recommended that

·9· ·she be elected in my place.· In fact, I nominated

10· ·her, perhaps for office the year before, but it

11· ·had been pointed out she had not yet been a member

12· ·of AOF long enough to qualify as an officer.

13· · · Q· · Did you admire her willingness to

14· ·challenge the governmental authorities directly?

15· · · A· · Well, I -- yes, but she wasn't alone in

16· ·that willingness in our group.

17· · · Q· · Did you agree that the times had changed

18· ·and that the tenure of the times was more

19· ·encouraging of activism?

20· · · A· · Yes.

21· · · Q· · Did you and she have a discussion about

22· ·whether an AOF event in Orlando involving Sean

23· ·Faircloth should be promoted by all board members?

24· · · A· · I don't recall a discussion.

25· · · Q· · Do you recall that she was very involved


·1· ·in having a very successful AOF event in Orlando

·2· ·and she was concerned that some of the board

·3· ·members were going to go to a different event in

·4· ·Clearwater?· Am I ringing a bell here?

·5· · · A· · Vaguely.· I believe I went to the Orlando

·6· ·event.· I don't recall the Clearwater event.

·7· · · Q· · Was it very successful?

·8· · · A· · Moderately successful.

·9· · · Q· · How many people were there?

10· · · A· · I don't know.

11· · · Q· · Would it be like 150 people?

12· · · A· · I don't know.· I didn't count.· It's not

13· ·as prominent in my memory as it may be in others.

14· ·I heard Sean Faircloth speak several times.· It

15· ·wasn't like going to Mount Sinai for me.

16· · · Q· · All right.· So in 2010 you were the vice

17· ·president, but you're saying for 2011 she became

18· ·the vice president?


20· · · Q· · And then you are involved in that

21· ·transition?

22· · · A· · Yes.

23· · · Q· · And thought that was a good thing for the


25· · · A· · Yes.


·1· · · Q· · You said you viewed yourself as an

·2· ·ornament?

·3· · · A· · As vice president.

·4· · · Q· · What do you mean by that?

·5· · · A· · I did whatever the president asked of me,

·6· ·and that was very little.

·7· · · Q· · Now, did it come to your attention -- I'm

·8· ·sure it did -- that Ms. Wachs was very active in

·9· ·Polk County on some church-state separation

10· ·issues?

11· · · A· · I didn't live in Polk County, I didn't

12· ·reside there.· She had the reputation, yeah, of

13· ·doing that on our behalf and, perhaps, before she

14· ·affiliated with us.

15· · · Q· · And, in fact, there was a lot of

16· ·publicity; was there not?

17· · · A· · There was publicity.

18· · · Q· · There were press conferences, billboards?

19· · · A· · Mainly in Lakeland.

20· · · Q· · And that the sheriff of Polk County, a

21· ·fellow named Grady Judd, took it upon himself to

22· ·arrest her; --

23· · · A· · Uh-huh.

24· · · Q· · -- are you aware of that?

25· · · · · ·That was a big deal for this organization,


·1· ·was it not, to have your officer arrested, put in

·2· ·solitary confinement?

·3· · · A· · It was a big deal for us individually.· We

·4· ·didn't like to see her treated that way.

·5· · · Q· · The board agreed, did it not, in early

·6· ·2012 that it would financially support the legal

·7· ·cost associated with her activism -- excuse me;

·8· ·2011?

·9· · · A· · When the board agreed, it was not exactly

10· ·a prior agreement to support.· It was like an ex

11· ·post facto concurred over with actions already

12· ·taken by Ms. Wachs.

13· · · Q· · But however it happened --

14· · · A· · However it happened.

15· · · Q· · -- it happened; right?

16· · · A· · Uh-huh.

17· · · Q· · The board was committed to supporting her

18· ·in this effort and, in fact, put in the budget

19· ·money to support her legal expenses?

20· · · A· · Budget implies preplanning.· Budget was in

21· ·this case simply a meeting agenda item.· So the

22· ·budget was newly introduced at the same time that

23· ·it was approved.· It wasn't presented in advance,

24· ·pondered, deliberated, and then decided upon.

25· · · Q· · Is it your testimony that it wasn't


·1· ·circulated?

·2· · · A· · What do you mean by circulated?

·3· · · Q· · By email prior to the board meeting?

·4· · · A· · Prior to the board meeting could be day

·5· ·before, could be two days before.· I'm not

·6· ·certain.

·7· · · Q· · Well, you voted in favor of this budget?

·8· · · A· · It wasn't presented as a separate budget.

·9· ·The budget was presented as an agenda item.

10· ·Whenever the agenda was provided to us, the budget

11· ·was provided to us.

12· · · Q· · But, in any event, you voted to approve

13· ·the budget; did you not?

14· · · A· · Yes.

15· · · Q· · And at least at the board meeting you

16· ·understood that the budget contained some money to

17· ·support the legal expenses being incurred by

18· ·Ms. Wachs?

19· · · A· · This was not an indefinite pledge of

20· ·support.· If we're talking about Ms. Wachs' suit

21· ·against Polk County, against Grady Judd, we

22· ·committed $25,000 as a retainer for her, for those

23· ·specific purposes.

24· · · Q· · And that is a lawsuit in response to the

25· ·she was treated, the harassment, the putting her


·1· ·in solitary confinement?

·2· · · A· · We were not involved in developing the

·3· ·lawsuit.· You need to ask her what was it for.

·4· · · Q· · And AOF was not a plaintiff in the lawsuit

·5· ·because AOF was not put in solitary confinement.

·6· ·She was put in solitary confinement; right?

·7· · · A· · Yes.

·8· · · Q· · As a board member were you keeping up on

·9· ·the activities, the arrest, the civil suit that

10· ·Mr. Walters was filing?· Were you reading all

11· ·this, were you paying attention to it?

12· · · A· · Yes.

13· · · Q· · And, in fact, you executed and signed

14· ·petitions, did you not, supporting her?


16· · · Q· · Do you recall there were petitions being

17· ·circulated among the board members to express

18· ·support for her against Grady Judd?

19· · · A· · I recall petitions; whether they were

20· ·among board members or not.· Aside from board of

21· ·directors meeting, I don't recall just petitions

22· ·wafting through the mail at me to sign, or e-mail.

23· ·I might have received petitions.

24· · · Q· · In June of 2011 do you recall that

25· ·Mr. Gollobith was one of her biggest fans, said


·1· ·how important it was to the cause to support her

·2· ·and how mistreated she was?

·3· · · A· · I don't know how Ed felt.· I don't recall

·4· ·specifically.· I felt that same way.

·5· · · Q· · You did feel that way?

·6· · · A· · Yes.

·7· · · Q· · Okay.

·8· · · · · ·[ The Bank of America check from

·9· · · Atheists of Florida to Walters Law Group,

10· · · $25,000 was hereby marked as Brown

11· · · Exhibit 2 for identification, as of this

12· · · date.]


14· · · Q· · Let me show you what I marked as Brown 2.

15· · · · · ·Do you recognize this as a check from

16· ·Atheists of Florida for $25,000?

17· · · A· · Are these now my property?

18· · · Q· · The court reporter gets to take them at

19· ·the end of the day.

20· · · A· · I can mark on them?

21· · · Q· · No.· You could mark on his if he lets you.

22· · · · · ·And is this consistent with what was

23· ·happening here in March of -- March 8 of 2011,

24· ·that $25,000 was being paid to the Walters Group?

25· · · A· · Without reference to something to, a


·1· ·calendar in front of me, I couldn't swear when we

·2· ·voted on this.· I think it was June, June 26th, we

·3· ·had approved this expenditure.· I can't even make

·4· ·out the authorized signature.

·5· · · Q· · Were you aware that Ms. Wachs was first

·6· ·arrested on March 3rd, 2011?

·7· · · A· · I don't have the dates fresh in my mind.

·8· · · Q· · So what happened in June was some type of

·9· ·ratification?

10· · · A· · No.· We didn't approve, we didn't approve

11· ·this expenditure until I believe it was June 26th.

12· · · Q· · Okay.· But did you approve it on June

13· ·26th?

14· · · A· · Yes.

15· · · Q· · Now, were you aware that the chairman of

16· ·the board, Mr. Gollobith, knew of the arrests in

17· ·early March of 2011 and approved this emergency

18· ·payment?

19· · · A· · The arrest?

20· · · Q· · Of Ellenbeth Wachs' arrest, which was on

21· ·March 3rd?

22· · · A· · Which -- okay.· The neighborhood

23· ·disturbance arrest, the false practice of law

24· ·arrest?· What -- I'm a little confused.

25· · · Q· · I'm talking about her first arrest,


·1· ·whichever one that was.

·2· · · A· · False practice of law I think was the

·3· ·first arrest.

·4· · · · · ·Now, your question again was with respect

·5· ·what to dates was I aware?

·6· · · Q· · I guess I want to know was the board

·7· ·notified in some fashion back in March, not in

·8· ·June, but back in March?


10· · · A· · I don't know if it was a formal board

11· ·notification.· I'm sure I was notified.


13· · · Q· · How would you have been notified; by phone

14· ·call?

15· · · A· · Probably e-mail.· I have to review my

16· ·e-mails.· I was certainly notified.

17· · · Q· · I mean, I assume this is viewed as some

18· ·type of emergency when your vice president has

19· ·been arrested as part of the activism or

20· ·retaliation for the activism, I should say?


22· · · A· · I consider it an outrage, I don't know

23· ·about emergency.· In Polk County it might be

24· ·almost be expected.



·1· · · Q· · You understood that filing the civil

·2· ·rights suit was part of the effort to persuade the

·3· ·county to drop the criminal charges?

·4· · · A· · I didn't know that it was effectively

·5· ·applying for a get-out-of-jail free card or get

·6· ·out of jail for $25,000, no.· I thought it was an

·7· ·attempt to receive damages, which Ms. Wachs then

·8· ·would have the ability to repay Atheists of

·9· ·Florida with.

10· · · Q· · Did you read the complaint and see that

11· ·damages were not --

12· · · A· · Not --

13· · · Q· · -- requested?

14· · · A· · My apologies, Mr. Brown.· Your question

15· ·again?

16· · · Q· · Did you read the complaint that

17· ·Mr. Walters prepared and see that he was not

18· ·seeking monetary damages?

19· · · A· · Not at the time.· Not for some time

20· ·afterwards.

21· · · Q· · Did you ultimately see that?

22· · · A· · Yes.

23· · · Q· · Who told you that this lawsuit was about

24· ·getting money as opposed to getting your vice

25· ·president out of criminal charges?


·1· · · A· · No one told me.· I think I'm guilty of

·2· ·assuming that was in prospect.· Relieving the

·3· ·pressure on her certainly was primary and was

·4· ·something I would have supported spending $25,000

·5· ·for -- did vote for, I think reluctantly, because

·6· ·of its ex post facto nature.

·7· · · Q· · Did you know Mr. Cooper before he joined

·8· ·the board in June of 2011?

·9· · · A· · I believe I did.

10· · · Q· · When he joined the board in June of 2011 I

11· ·assume, again, this was without a vote of the

12· ·members; right?· This was another one of these

13· ·votes by the board, itself?

14· · · A· · Just as Ms. Wachs advanced to the board

15· ·because of her role as chapter director, I think

16· ·Mr. Cooper advanced to the board in somewhat of

17· ·the same process, Tampa chapter director.

18· · · Q· · Did Mr. Cooper express to you in June or

19· ·July that he had a run-in with Ellenbeth Wachs and

20· ·he didn't like her?

21· · · A· · No.

22· · · Q· · Did he express to you that he was going to

23· ·work hard to turn the board against her?

24· · · A· · No.

25· · · Q· · Did he come up with the idea of -- with


·1· ·the idea of the subcommittee of the board for

·2· ·financial oversight?

·3· · · A· · No.

·4· · · Q· · Who came up with that idea?

·5· · · A· · I did.

·6· · · Q· · And what was your reasoning there?

·7· · · A· · Well, one, this $25,000 expenditure thrust

·8· ·on us, either we abandon -- either we abandon

·9· ·Ms. Wachs or pay $25,000 for a suit -- to support

10· ·a suit we had not been consulted about in the

11· ·least.

12· · · Q· · By the way, during that time period was

13· ·AOF receiving substantial donations from outsiders

14· ·as a result of this publicity and the outrage, all

15· ·that?

16· · · A· · I don't know that I knew then, but I have

17· ·known since that so far as I know not directly to

18· ·support only Ms. Wachs' defense, we had a $10,000

19· ·contribution from I think Todd Steefel (phonetic),

20· ·Stiefel, and $5,000 from Eddie Tabash, who I knew.

21· ·I did not know Mr. Stiefel.

22· · · Q· · And would you agree that the membership

23· ·increased substantially during that time period?

24· · · A· · We had such terrible membership records, I

25· ·couldn't agree or disagree as to what extent any


·1· ·increase would be outside of what would be normal.

·2· ·I don't have historical records to determine

·3· ·either.· Ms. Owens might, who has kept membership

·4· ·records.

·5· · · Q· · Was it the intent of the financial

·6· ·oversight committee that this would apply to the

·7· ·funds of Atheists of Florida, Inc.?


·9· · · A· · Could you repeat that.


11· · · Q· · Was it the intent of the financial

12· ·oversight committee that it would apply --

13· · · A· · The "it".

14· · · Q· · -- to the funds of Atheists of Florida?



17· · · Q· · The process, the process of getting

18· ·approval through this committee?

19· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Object to the form

20· · · still.

21· · · A· · Pardon me.· Forgive me for saying that, I

22· ·see no sense in your question.· It was the obvious

23· ·purpose of the committee to approve all

24· ·expenditures from Atheists of Florida funds over

25· ·$1,000.



·2· · · Q· · Okay.· But not for restricted funds that

·3· ·were donated for a separate purpose than Atheists

·4· ·of Florida?

·5· · · A· · If that could be proved and were not in

·6· ·the Atheists of Florida treasury, and I recall

·7· ·your use of the term pass-through, but, yes, they

·8· ·would apply only to Atheists of Florida funds.

·9· · · Q· · Let me show you Brown 3.

10· · · · · ·[ The E-mail from Mr. Brown to Mr.

11· · · Golly, August 2, 2011 was hereby marked

12· · · as Brown Exhibit 3 for identification, as

13· · · of this date.]


15· · · Q· · And first can you identify Brown 3 as your

16· ·e-mail of August 2, 2011, with an attached e-mail

17· ·for Mr. Gollobith?

18· · · A· · Let me see.· I'm responding to motion one.

19· · · · · ·Okay.· I read them.

20· · · Q· · Okay.· And it appears that you, I guess,

21· ·are doing kind of an e-mail vote of aye?· You're

22· ·doing an e-mail vote here?

23· · · A· · Yes.

24· · · Q· · And your reasoning is to be a careful

25· ·steward of AOF's resources?


·1· · · A· · Yes.

·2· · · Q· · I didn't understand the line "I'm absent

·3· ·any fear of personal liabilities, so that was not

·4· ·a factor in my vote".

·5· · · · · ·What does that mean?

·6· · · A· · I had nothing to lose.· Sue me for all I

·7· ·got.

·8· · · Q· · Okay.· Then the next line you say, "We

·9· ·have good cause to support the criminal defenses

10· ·of John and Ellenbeth acting on behalf of the

11· ·AOF".

12· · · · · ·Do you see that?

13· · · A· · Uh-huh.

14· · · Q· · That was your belief?

15· · · A· · At that time, yes.

16· · · Q· · What was your understanding of motion

17· ·No. 2?

18· · · A· · Okay.· As I prove to my colleagues every

19· ·day, I am very ignorant about website mechanisms

20· ·and all that.· I was supporting -- I think there

21· ·was -- the first thing anybody saw when going to

22· ·the AOF website was give us some money for the

23· ·Ellenbeth Wachs legal fund, for the Atheists of

24· ·Florida legal defense, defense fund, whatever it

25· ·was called.


·1· · · Q· · I think it was called the Ellenbeth Wachs

·2· ·Legal Defense?

·3· · · A· · But I think there are two tabs, or

·4· ·whatever they were called.· Wanted -- this was to

·5· ·make it clear that we had other missions other

·6· ·than supporting Ms. Wachs.· That was the primary

·7· ·mission.· We had three other legal processes that

·8· ·might either did or would in the future require

·9· ·support.· So these four legal issues, whatever

10· ·they were, the Lakeland suit, the city of

11· ·Lakeland, the suit against the city of Lakeland.

12· · · Q· · This was for opening meetings with prayer?

13· · · A· · In other words, give them four choices for

14· ·donation.

15· · · Q· · And then do what with the money once they

16· ·made that choice?

17· · · A· · However this was set up.· I had no

18· ·personal role in setting it up.

19· · · Q· · At the end of motion No. 2, it says, "For

20· ·donations to the AOF fund as designated by the

21· ·donor".


23· · · A· · Correct.· That was four specific choices

24· ·they would make and that would designate to what

25· ·purpose they would direct it.


·1· · · · · ·I know personally no more about it than

·2· ·that.

·3· · · Q· · You said earlier this was kind of your

·4· ·idea.· It looks like it's Mr. Gollobith's motion?

·5· · · A· · The financial oversight committee is my

·6· ·idea.

·7· · · Q· · Okay.· But it looks like somebody else

·8· ·wrote up the motion.· Did you prepare this and put

·9· ·Mr. Gollobith's --

10· · · A· · I don't believe so.· No, I did not.

11· · · Q· · You understood that an election for board

12· ·members was going to be held in 2011 and the time

13· ·period for submitting nominations was going to end

14· ·on September 30th?

15· · · A· · Uh-huh.· Yes.

16· · · Q· · And you touched on this earlier, there

17· ·needed to be a process in place for handling the

18· ·election?

19· · · A· · Yes.

20· · · Q· · How involved were you personally in

21· ·looking at the process and making sure it was --

22· ·it met the standards that you thought should be in

23· ·place?

24· · · A· · At the time?



·1· · · A· · Not at all.

·2· · · · · ·MR. BUESING:· This is Brown 4.

·3· · · · · ·[ The E-mail from Mr. Kieffer to Mr.

·4· · · Golly, et al., October 8, 2011, was

·5· · · hereby marked as Brown Exhibit 4 for

·6· · · identification, as of this date.]


·8· · · Q· · Let me show you Brown 4, which is an

·9· ·e-mail from Mr. Kieffer dated October 8.· It looks

10· ·like you were one of the recipients of this.

11· · · · · ·Do you recall receiving this e-mail?

12· · · A· · Not specifically, but I must have.

13· · · Q· · You see there is a procedure set out here

14· ·for how the elections would be handled?

15· · · A· · Yes.

16· · · Q· · Did you express any objection or concern

17· ·about that procedure?

18· · · A· · Let me review them.

19· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· While he's doing that

20· · · can I take a quick break?

21· · · · · ·MR. BUESING:· Of course.


23· · · Q· · First of all, have you had a chance to

24· ·read Brown 4?

25· · · A· · Yes.


·1· · · Q· · And do you recall taking any action or

·2· ·having any response to this e-mail that was sent

·3· ·to the board?

·4· · · A· · Well, I was rather surprised to find that

·5· ·a nonexistent executive committee had met.· We

·6· ·didn't have an executive committee.· It was never

·7· ·set up in the bylaws.

·8· · · Q· · I think it says here all AOF officers were

·9· ·invited?

10· · · A· · It does say that, but there is no such

11· ·thing as executive committee.· There wasn't then

12· ·and there isn't now.

13· · · Q· · Doesn't the president have authority to

14· ·appoint committees?

15· · · A· · He does, and they should be approved by

16· ·the board.· And there is nothing in the minutes

17· ·ever to recognize an executive committee had been

18· ·formed and had been constituted as persons named

19· ·to it.

20· · · Q· · Okay.· What about the elections committee,

21· ·is that an appointment by the president?

22· · · A· · All committees are appointed by the

23· ·president with board approval.

24· · · Q· · Not by the chairman of the board but by

25· ·the president?


·1· · · A· · Correct.

·2· · · Q· · Now, as of this date, October 8th, did you

·3· ·have any inkling that this election would not

·4· ·actually go forward?

·5· · · A· · I don't believe so.

·6· · · Q· · So other than your -- the statement you

·7· ·made about the executive committee, did you have

·8· ·any other reaction or did you take any other

·9· ·action in response to Brown Exhibit 4?

10· · · A· · In response to what?

11· · · Q· · This document?

12· · · A· · With respect to the election, only item

13· ·No. D-5 I might personally oppose.· Now,

14· ·recognizing that I'm in agreement that the

15· ·membership records were quite messed up that year,

16· ·but I would have had second thoughts about item

17· ·D-5, 1D-5.

18· · · Q· · Did you take any action about that or

19· ·comment back?


21· · · Q· · So it looks like the problem here is that

22· ·some members did not get a reminder sent?

23· · · A· · It was so messed up I can't tell you what

24· ·the problems were.· That was one of the problems.

25· · · Q· · Do you know if this was Matt Cooper's


·1· ·responsibility to keep the member role accurate?

·2· · · A· · No, no.· I think -- I think Rob and John

·3· ·were involved that year.· I forget whether that

·4· ·was the year that Rob was executive director in

·5· ·2010.· But Nan Owens had kept the records but she

·6· ·wasn't getting fresh information.· People were

·7· ·given memberships in exchange for work and that

·8· ·wasn't recorded.· I can't explain all the other

·9· ·problems.· That was probably a minor.· Nan Owens

10· ·is the person who would --

11· · · Q· · At this time period did you know that Matt

12· ·Cooper had resigned from the elections process?

13· · · A· · I don't know on October 8th when I knew

14· ·that -- that I knew that.· It probably took some

15· ·time for me to know that he resigned and wasn't

16· ·kicked off?

17· · · · · ·MR. BUESING:· Please mark this as

18· · · Brown 5.

19· · · · · ·[The E-mail from Mr. Kieffer to Ms.

20· · · Wachs, et al, October 15, 2011 was hereby

21· · · marked as Brown Exhibit 5 for

22· · · identification, as of this date.]


24· · · Q· · And do you recall receiving Brown 5?

25· · · A· · I don't know yet.· I'm aware of this.



·2· · · Q· · Do you recall receiving it on October 16,

·3· ·2011?

·4· · · A· · I have no specific recollection of

·5· ·receiving it, but I receive e-mails.· I read them.

·6· ·So I must have read that.

·7· · · Q· · Do you recall taking any action in

·8· ·response to this particular e-mail?

·9· · · A· · I don't believe I took any action.

10· · · Q· · Now, as of this point did you have any

11· ·reason to think based on Exhibit 4 and Exhibit 5

12· ·that the election process was not moving forward

13· ·correctly?

14· · · A· · I'm not certain.· This specific date,

15· ·Sunday, October 16th.

16· · · Q· · My question is did you have any concern

17· ·that this election process was not moving forward

18· ·appropriately?

19· · · A· · I don't believe I did.

20· · · Q· · Now, did it come to your attention in late

21· ·October that Peterson, Cooper and Gollobith had

22· ·made the firm decision to expel Ellenbeth Wachs?


24· · · A· · I have no knowledge of their collective

25· ·decision on any date whatsoever.· And their


·1· ·personal agreement was not a board decision.· I

·2· ·don't see -- well.


·4· · · Q· · I know we spoke earlier that the mailbox

·5· ·lock had been changed.· Was it your understanding

·6· ·that --

·7· · · A· · I'm sorry.

·8· · · Q· · You did not know that in October?

·9· · · A· · The mail was placed on hold.· No specific

10· ·people were locked out of the mailbox.· The

11· ·mailbox was -- the mail in the box was not to be

12· ·available to anyone until a release order was

13· ·received by the post office.

14· · · Q· · How was the president supposed to pay the

15· ·bills?



18· · · Q· · The mailbox wasn't just for ballots.· It

19· ·was for all of the business of AOF; right?

20· · · A· · The president would have to wait until the

21· ·mail was released.

22· · · Q· · What about donations?

23· · · A· · They would have to await receipt until the

24· ·mail was released.

25· · · Q· · What about changing the locks on the


·1· ·office?

·2· · · A· · I know nothing about that.

·3· · · · · ·MR. BUESING:· Next mark this as

·4· · · Brown 6.

·5· · · · · ·[ The E-mail from Christos to Golly,

·6· · · et al, October 30, 2011, was hereby

·7· · · marked as Brown Exhibit 6 for



10· · · Q· · Do you recall receiving Brown Exhibit 6 on

11· ·or about Sunday, October 30, 2011?

12· · · A· · Yes.

13· · · Q· · And this is from Mr. Tzanetakos?

14· · · A· · Yes.

15· · · Q· · Did you have any conversations with

16· ·Christos?

17· · · A· · E-mail conversations, yeah.

18· · · Q· · Did you talk to him on the phone at all?

19· · · A· · No.

20· · · Q· · What did you understand to be the issue

21· ·regarding sanity before the organization

22· ·disintegrates?

23· · · A· · Regarding what?

24· · · Q· · The last line here, "I'm urging the board

25· ·to exercise some sanity before the organization


·1· ·disintegrates".


·3· · · Calls for speculation.

·4· · · A· · Christos would have preferred resolution

·5· ·rather than confrontation.


·7· · · Q· · And Mr. Gollobith and Mr. Cooper and

·8· ·Mr. Peterson preferred confrontation?

·9· · · A· · I don't think that unwillingness to seek

10· ·resolution was confined to any of these two sides,

11· ·if sides, indeed, were shaping up.· Maybe they

12· ·were elements in both sides that were -- preferred

13· ·confrontation.

14· · · Q· · Cooper would certainly prefer

15· ·confrontation; wouldn't he?

16· · · A· · I don't know, I had no conversations with

17· ·him at that time.· He would certainly prefer

18· ·confrontation with respect to the election, other

19· ·matters.

20· · · Q· · Right.· And the same with Mr. Gollobith,

21· ·he preferred confrontation; didn't he?

22· · · A· · Very likely, yes.

23· · · Q· · Let me next show you Brown 7.


25· · · Peterson, November 1, 2011 was hereby





·4· · · Q· · First, for the record can you identify

·5· ·Brown Exhibit 7 as your e-mail to Christos and

·6· ·then on top of it is your e-mail to Mr. Peterson?

·7· · · A· · Pardon me.· I recall this exchange, yes.

·8· · · Q· · I can't resist, what is "read and destroy

·9· ·Double 07"?

10· · · A· · I joke.· I have been resisting jokes here,

11· ·believe me.· Quite a few have arisen.

12· · · Q· · Why did you want him to read and destroy?

13· · · A· · I didn't.· It's just because there was so

14· ·much agitation going on.· Well, because I wasn't

15· ·sure -- well, I just prefer this to be a private

16· ·conversation with Christos, and Jim had known

17· ·Christos far longer than I had.· Jim had been a

18· ·part of Atheists of Florida I think from 1998.

19· · · Q· · Your attorney, Mr. Porter, has said he is

20· ·in the process of going through the individual

21· ·computers of all the defendants to make sure we

22· ·have production of all the documents.

23· · · · · ·Has that process happened with your

24· ·computer yet?

25· · · A· · We tried.· I'm an absolute idiot when it


·1· ·comes to computers.· I was trying yesterday.

·2· ·We're still trying.

·3· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Bob, I had it in my

·4· · · hands in my conference room all there on

·5· · · the laptop but I couldn't find a way to

·6· · · get them off.· He's the last holdup and I

·7· · · think it's going to happen in the next

·8· · · week or so.· Clearly within the 30 days we

·9· · · have been ordered to do it.

10· · · · · ·MR. BUESING:· Okay.· We look forward

11· · · to that.


13· · · Q· · This I think came out of Mr. Peterson's

14· ·file is how we got it.

15· · · · · ·You would like a gentleman by the name of

16· ·Mr. Oravec to be at the board meeting?

17· · · A· · Definitely.· The man impressed me greatly.

18· · · Q· · Now, at this point you knew that the

19· ·November 6th board meeting was going to have

20· ·removal of Ellenbeth Wachs and John Kieffer?

21· · · A· · I don't know that I knew that on

22· ·November 1st.· I would know that as whenever I

23· ·received a revised agenda of the meeting.

24· · · Q· · On the second page you say, "both

25· ·contending parties, Ellenbeth, John, and Ed, have


·1· ·made mistakes".

·2· · · · · ·Do you see that?

·3· · · A· · Where?

·4· · · Q· · Third paragraph.

·5· · · A· · Third paragraph.

·6· · · · · ·Yes, uh-huh.

·7· · · Q· · And by Ed you meant Ed Gollobith?

·8· · · A· · Ed Golly, yes.

·9· · · Q· · Were you on the board when there was

10· ·discussions about Mr. Gollobith selling his

11· ·building to the organization?

12· · · A· · Yes.

13· · · Q· · Did you view that as a conflict of

14· ·interest?

15· · · A· · No.

16· · · Q· · Why would it not be a conflict of interest

17· ·for the board chair to sell his building to the


19· · · A· · Because from what I know it's hearsay from

20· ·the history of AOF before I joined and became

21· ·friendly with anybody on the board that Ed Golly

22· ·had formed this chapter, which in effect has

23· ·become Atheists of Florida, the Tampa chapter, and

24· ·has supported it both through his personal efforts

25· ·and monetarily throughout its existence.· In other


·1· ·words, he kept it afloat all these years.· That

·2· ·was my opinion of Mr. Golly.

·3· · · Q· · Even if all that is true, what does that

·4· ·have to do with him selling a building in the

·5· ·middle of a recession to an organization?

·6· · · A· · Because the board, if you will notice, I

·7· ·think just reviewing minutes lately, I think

·8· ·Mr. Kieffer made a motion, or someone, we should

·9· ·acquire a building within five years, and someone

10· ·revised it, we should have a building by October

11· ·2012, or whatever it was.· And Ed had a building

12· ·he was letting us use for rent free.· It was not

13· ·necessarily to his monetary advantage to sell it

14· ·to Atheists of Florida.

15· · · Q· · Well, a lot of people were having trouble

16· ·with monetary advantage in real estate in the year

17· ·2011?


19· · · Calls for speculation.


21· · · Q· · Everybody was sinking, I don't know if you

22· ·remember that.

23· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· By then it was coming

24· · · back up.· That was 2008, 2009.



·1· · · Q· · Well, so, you mentioned the good work of

·2· ·Mr. Gollobith over the years with the

·3· ·organization.· So did that overcome any concern

·4· ·you had whether it's appropriate to even have this

·5· ·sort of business relationship with your own

·6· ·organization?


·8· · · A· · I had no objection to it, nor did anybody

·9· ·else speak prominently to that point that I recall

10· ·during that time, before our antagonisms began,

11· ·these litigated antagonisms.


13· · · Q· · You're saying Ellenbeth Wachs didn't speak

14· ·out against this idea and thought it was

15· ·inappropriate?

16· · · A· · I don't recall that she did.· She might

17· ·have.· She didn't convince the board.

18· · · Q· · Well, when you say in here that Ed has

19· ·made mistakes, so you're not referring there to

20· ·the mistake of getting himself personally wrapped

21· ·up in the finances through this real estate sale?

22· · · A· · Wrapped up?· That was the main thing on

23· ·his mind in those times?· Absolutely not.· I had

24· ·no idea of that.· I would be supporting Ed as I

25· ·have.


·1· · · Q· · Ed is paying your legal fees for this

·2· ·case?

·3· · · A· · Well, he's paying all the board's legal

·4· ·fees.· But I don't think that's -- that's not why

·5· ·I'm here because Ed is paying the legal fees.

·6· · · Q· · What are the mistakes that Ed made that

·7· ·you refer to in this document?

·8· · · A· · Two parties, one on my side, one on the

·9· ·other side, have confrontational aspects prominent

10· ·in their personalities.· Don't tread on me.· And,

11· ·so, sparks fly.· His mistake is to get consumed

12· ·with that.· Perhaps her's also.

13· · · Q· · Would you agree with me that Ed Gollobith

14· ·could not abide the idea that he would be voted

15· ·off the board after all he had done all these

16· ·years?

17· · · A· · I get the impression Ed would love to

18· ·retire and just be a silent influence behind the

19· ·scenes with the money and whatever.· The problem

20· ·with Atheists of Florida has not been a surfeit,

21· ·as I tried to make clear before, of volunteers

22· ·either to serve on the board or do the day-to-day

23· ·work of the organization.· It has been just the

24· ·opposite.

25· · · Q· · Did you ever counsel Ed or Mr. Cooper or


·1· ·Mr. Peterson that, you know, relax, the mission is

·2· ·going to be fine, let these young folks have it

·3· ·for a while?

·4· · · A· · Did you say Peterson?

·5· · · Q· · Yes.

·6· · · A· · Peterson does not have a confrontational

·7· ·personality.

·8· · · Q· · But did you counsel them that it's okay

·9· ·for the long-term mission of the organization to

10· ·let some new people run it for a few years?

11· · · A· · Who are the new people?· We had voted

12· ·Kieffer and Wachs into leadership positions.· We

13· ·wanted them there.

14· · · Q· · I'm talking about the slate of board

15· ·nominees that Ms. Wachs recommended to the

16· ·members, those new people, sir.· What is the big

17· ·deal --

18· · · A· · My frank impression, most of them I would

19· ·consider lackeys like the 22 year-old that hardly

20· ·speaks English.· People who move to Delaware, how

21· ·are they going to participate fully in the

22· ·participation, particularly as board members are

23· ·drafted actually doing work for the organization?

24· · · Q· · Well, in a democracy if you wanted to

25· ·influence the election legally and properly, would


·1· ·you not communicate to all the members the people

·2· ·you would recommend and explain why?

·3· · · A· · Me personally?

·4· · · Q· · Yes, sir.

·5· · · A· · I'm simply a voter in that election.

·6· · · Q· · But you had the right to -- it's a

·7· ·democracy; right?· You had the right to express

·8· ·yourself to persuade people your slate is better

·9· ·than her slate?

10· · · A· · I didn't have a slate.

11· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Calls for

12· · · speculation.

13· · · A· · Oh, I'm not -- excuse me.· I'm thinking of

14· ·the people who were nominated for the subsequent

15· ·election in terms of their qualifications.· No.· I

16· ·think some of her nominees were probably well

17· ·qualified in that 2011 election.

18· · · Q· · But my question is, did you counsel Ed

19· ·Gollobith to relax, let these people get elected,

20· ·let them pull the wagon for a while?

21· · · A· · No.· I was convinced that there were flaws

22· ·in the election process at that point -- at some

23· ·point.· I was not as close to this matter as the

24· ·principals in this are, Kieffer and Wachs,

25· ·Gollobith, Nan Owens who is on that elections


·1· ·committee, Rob Curry who had some connection with

·2· ·it, and Matt.· I was mostly an observer.· Not

·3· ·mostly, I was an observer.· And I don't have an

·4· ·exact time on this.· Perhaps you now have.

·5· · · Q· · Was it your observations that the 2011

·6· ·election had to be stopped by whatever means?

·7· · · A· · At some point I was convinced that it

·8· ·should be.· I can't recall exactly what point that

·9· ·was.

10· · · Q· · Did Christos come to the November 6th

11· ·board meeting?

12· · · A· · No, I don't believe so.

13· · · Q· · Do you know why not?

14· · · A· · You have to ask him.

15· · · Q· · Now, if Matt Cooper were, in fact, fired

16· ·as Tampa chapter director, that would take him off

17· ·the board; would it not?

18· · · A· · Yes.

19· · · Q· · Were you aware around this time,

20· ·November 1st, that an effort was being made to

21· ·look for a lawyer?

22· · · A· · I think so, but I can't tell you that I

23· ·certainly was.

24· · · Q· · Was this a gentleman named Ryan Carey?

25· · · A· · Yes, I ultimately knew Ryan Carey.


·1· · · Q· · And he was going to be hired by

·2· ·Mr. Gollobith as his personal lawyer?


·4· · · A· · I don't recall precisely the exact status,

·5· ·but Ed Golly was going to pay for his services,

·6· ·certainly.

·7· · · Q· · And you know he was listed in the minutes,

·8· ·in the November 6th minutes as Mr. Gollobith's

·9· ·lawyer?

10· · · A· · Yes.






16· · · Q· · Now, it looks like about an hour later

17· ·also on November 1st you e-mail Mr. Peterson.

18· · · · · ·Do you recall this e-mail?

19· · · A· · Yes, uh-huh.

20· · · Q· · All right.· The Joe is Joe Reinhardt?

21· · · A· · Correct.

22· · · Q· · And it was certainly his view that as of

23· ·November 1st that Ellenbeth and John Kieffer would

24· ·be kicked off the board at the November 6th

25· ·meeting; right?


·1· · · A· · Apparently so.· I don't recall

·2· ·specifically, but I wouldn't state something

·3· ·false.

·4· · · Q· · You saw that Ellenbeth Wachs invited the

·5· ·entire general membership to the board meeting.

·6· ·Don't they have a right to be there?

·7· · · A· · They have a right, but it's a small room.

·8· · · Q· · And, let's see, this would pack the room

·9· ·with members attracted by her notoriety.· You're

10· ·referring to the fact she has gotten pretty famous

11· ·within the atheists community?

12· · · A· · In the Atheists community, yeah.

13· · · Q· · And that a lot of these members joined

14· ·because of her?


16· · · A· · That I don't know.


18· · · Q· · Let me ask you a question about having the

19· ·full membership there.· Wouldn't that be a good

20· ·thing to have this discussion about, you know,

21· ·there is a more activist style, there is a more,

22· ·you know, we sit around and talk style?· You know,

23· ·you're the members, you get to choose, how would

24· ·you like us to go forward with the cause?· That's

25· ·democracy, right, to make your case?


·1· · · A· · Perhaps you served on board of

·2· ·directors --

·3· · · Q· · I'm on six of them, sir.

·4· · · A· · -- for profit corporations and

·5· ·not-for-profit corporations.· How would you like

·6· ·all the stockholders in your corporation to appear

·7· ·at a board meeting every board meeting, any board

·8· ·meeting?

·9· · · Q· · This is a nonprofit; right?· It's a

10· ·member-driven nonprofit; right?



13· · · A· · Okay.· The board is responsible to the

14· ·members.· The officers are responsible to the

15· ·board.· In this case it seemed to me that the

16· ·president and vice president were assuming the

17· ·board was responsible to them.· This cannot be the

18· ·case.· Ms. Beth's notoriety was in her capacity as

19· ·vice president of Atheists of Florida.· And

20· ·through her activities for Atheists of Florida she

21· ·was subjected to outrageous persecution from one

22· ·particular police jurisdiction.


24· · · Q· · So you didn't like the idea --

25· · · A· · I'm trying to respond.


·1· · · Q· · -- to the members in the room?

·2· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Were you finished with

·3· · · your answer?

·4· · · A· · Your original question was, we should have

·5· ·invited all 180, say, members of the Atheists of

·6· ·Florida into our small meeting room where we then

·7· ·could not possibly have held a meeting.· We would

·8· ·have no room to move.

·9· · · Q· · You couldn't move to a bigger room?

10· · · A· · Not without postponing the meeting.

11· ·Perhaps, you know, with unlimited time to think

12· ·about all the consequences of every single move

13· ·could have been done, but I don't think either

14· ·party was thinking -- either opposing party was

15· ·thinking all possible consequences far into the

16· ·future.

17· · · Q· · I'll stipulate with half of that anyway.

18· · · · · ·What is the rush for the meeting on

19· ·November 6th?· Is it because there is an election

20· ·in process?· You got to stop the election, you

21· ·can't wait; right?


23· · · Argumentative.· He already disagreed with

24· · · you.

25· · · A· · The principle concern of the board about


·1· ·that meeting was we had lost trust in Ms. Wachs

·2· ·and John Kieffer for expenditures I thought --

·3· ·some expenditures were recklessly planned without

·4· ·consultation with the board expecting the board's

·5· ·support.


·7· · · Q· · Did she plan to get arrested?

·8· · · A· · I'm trying to explain my position.· This

·9· ·had to be brought under control.· We tried with

10· ·the financial oversight committee.· That didn't

11· ·seem to work.· And it cannot be in our situation

12· ·that the board becomes subjective to the president

13· ·and vice president.· The organization, if we are

14· ·responsible to the membership, to be responsible

15· ·to the membership we have to make sure that the

16· ·president and vice president carry out our

17· ·policies as we see fit.

18· · · · · ·Because of the way our bylaws are set up,

19· ·the president gets a head start on doing anything

20· ·he wants, even criminal.· And it's our

21· ·responsibility as a board either to bring them

22· ·into agreement with our wishes or to suspend them

23· ·from office, remove them from office, which is

24· ·what in the first instance we did.

25· · · · · ·So that's the sum of it.· You don't trust


·1· ·your officers, you get rid of them.· They don't

·2· ·consult you on major decisions.· They have the

·3· ·right not to consult you but to advise the

·4· ·chairman whether he even did that, I'm not certain

·5· ·with.

·6· · · Q· · Well, by November 1st hadn't the criminal

·7· ·charges against Ellenbeth Wachs been dropped?

·8· · · A· · I don't know the dates.· In fact, there

·9· ·was some confusion about that, that I reported in

10· ·some e-mail that probably is available to you on

11· ·other's computers and will ultimately be available

12· ·to you on mine.

13· · · Q· · And wasn't the civil suit that Mr. Walters

14· ·handled, wasn't that concluded by November 1st?

15· · · A· · I think it was, but it wasn't publicized.

16· ·Dates, I heard of October 20th, but then I think

17· ·we learned about it from an article in the

18· ·Lakeland Ledger.

19· · · · · ·We were financing that suit but not being

20· ·informed directly of its resolution.· We had to

21· ·read about it in the newspaper.

22· · · Q· · So in a motion to create the second motion

23· ·when the financial oversight committee was created

24· ·there was going to be a website with four

25· ·different actions that were going to be mentioned.


·1· ·One of them was the prayer suit; right?

·2· · · A· · I couldn't tell you exactly.· But your

·3· ·guess is as good as mine of the four.

·4· · · Q· · But you would agree with my basic premise

·5· ·that you don't plan to get arrested by an

·6· ·outrageous sheriff in Polk County, Florida?


·8· · · Calls for speculation.

·9· · · A· · I wouldn't personally.


11· · · Q· · And that you would --

12· · · A· · If I can finish answering.

13· · · Q· · Of course.

14· · · A· · I wouldn't have provided a sheriff with

15· ·pretense to arrest me either.

16· · · Q· · You would not have confronted him about

17· ·using taxpayer money to support churches?· Isn't

18· ·that the mission of your organization?

19· · · A· · I would have conducted myself differently

20· ·in a dispute with a nextdoor neighbor, for

21· ·example.· I would know that I have been a public

22· ·personality.· I wouldn't entice confrontation with

23· ·the law in that manner.

24· · · Q· · So if you were a civil rights activist in

25· ·1960, you would not sit at the lunch counter


·1· ·because it would cause confrontation?

·2· · · A· · I might well have sat at a lunch counter

·3· ·in 1968.· This is a different view.· Now, SNCC,

·4· ·which was then called CORE, different than what we

·5· ·call, certain racial organizations had boards of

·6· ·directors who established policy.· The ACLU

·7· ·establishes policy.· When you carry out that

·8· ·policy.

·9· · · Q· · But I thought you said you wouldn't

10· ·confront.· If she had just never said anything, I

11· ·guess she wouldn't have gotten arrested, but then

12· ·she would not have promoted your mission of

13· ·challenging church-state violations?


15· · · A· · Two arrests, her arrests, basically had

16· ·nothing directly to do with Atheists of Florida.

17· ·The conduct, the conduct that appeared to warrant

18· ·the arrests had nothing basically to do with

19· ·Atheists of Florida.· She was arrested because of

20· ·her affiliation with Atheists of Florida is very

21· ·likely.

22· · · Q· · Right.

23· · · A· · That's why I would vote to support her

24· ·legal defenses.

25· · · Q· · So when Martin Luther King was dragged to


·1· ·the Birmingham jail for vagrancy, he wasn't a

·2· ·vagrant, he was a Civil Rights Activist.


·4· · · A· · Please, I have to laugh at you, sir.


·6· · · Q· · Well, it's a tough life being an activist?

·7· · · A· · Tough life being an attorney.

·8· · · Q· · No, that's not true.

·9· · · · · ·All right.· So now we're on November 1st,

10· ·and he, Joe Reinhardt confirms what Ed told me

11· ·about a very likely unauthorized $18,000

12· ·withdrawal to cover additional legal expenses that

13· ·I believe I have forgotten to mention to you.

14· · · · · ·Do you see that in your fourth paragraph?

15· · · A· · Yes.

16· · · Q· · So apparently by November 1st you had

17· ·spoken to Ed directly.· It says here, "Ed told me

18· ·about an $18,000 unauthorized withdrawal".

19· · · A· · Uh-huh.

20· · · Q· · Do you remember when that conversation

21· ·took place or where?

22· · · A· · No.

23· · · Q· · Would that be by telephone?

24· · · A· · Probably.

25· · · Q· · Is Ed, given his personality, Ed


·1· ·Gollobith, the kind who thinks the best defense is

·2· ·a good offense?


·4· · · Speculation.

·5· · · A· · Honestly that's my impression of Ed.


·7· · · Q· · Mine too.

·8· · · · · ·Okay.· Then in parentheses you say an

·9· ·interesting thing.· You say, "At the same time I

10· ·was feeling cautious about Ed's claim because the

11· ·act, if true, seems stunningly audacious?

12· · · A· · Yes, still seems audacious.

13· · · Q· · That she would go and steal $18,000 out of

14· ·the bank account, that's kind of implausible;

15· ·isn't it?

16· · · A· · I wasn't concerned with theft.· That

17· ·didn't enter my mind.· The fact that we put, the

18· ·board of directors put a stricture on expenditure

19· ·of funds, if Ms. Wachs, Kieffer, felt that they

20· ·had a right to those funds, they had a right to

21· ·come to the board and address it.· But to remove

22· ·those funds and apply them elsewhere, no, they had

23· ·no right to do that.· It was made expressly clear

24· ·by the formation of the financial oversight

25· ·committee, those funds were in Atheists of


·1· ·Florida's treasury.· Whether there is a dispute,

·2· ·whether they were passing through Atheists of

·3· ·Florida treasury is irrelevant at the time.· Let

·4· ·that be decided by the board, by some legal

·5· ·authority where ultimately they may be.

·6· · · Q· · Sir, your lawyer on behalf of Atheists of

·7· ·Florida has accused my client of civil theft.· Are

·8· ·you aware of that?· She's not accused of maybe

·9· ·something happened.· Your lawyer has said, she

10· ·stole it.


12· · · Argumentative.· Calls for a legal

13· · · conclusion.

14· · · · · ·Go ahead.


16· · · Q· · Are you saying you don't know if there is

17· ·any theft here?

18· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Misleading

19· · · the witness now on legal issues he's not

20· · · familiar with.


22· · · Q· · You can answer.

23· · · A· · I agree with him.· Sorry for the joke.

24· · · Q· · Do you think a theft occurred?

25· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Improper


·1· · · foundation.

·2· · · A· · If a theft did not occur, there was ample

·3· ·opportunity for any agreed parties to address that

·4· ·to the board, an emergency meeting, whatever.


·6· · · Q· · The fact of guilty until proven innocent;

·7· ·right?

·8· · · A· · It's not a court of law.· It's a board

·9· ·attempting to preserve its funds and integrity and

10· ·its right to represent the membership and not to

11· ·surrender that to an individual.

12· · · Q· · Stunningly audacious are your words;

13· ·right?

14· · · A· · Yes.

15· · · Q· · That's how you view it if this was a

16· ·theft?


18· · · Misstates what the document says.

19· · · A· · Audacious in defying an obvious -- a rule

20· ·intended expressly to prohibit such a removal.

21· · · Q· · And it was Ed Gollobith that said that to

22· ·you, right, that it had never been approved?

23· · · A· · No.· Other members of the financial

24· ·oversight committee also said it had not been

25· ·approved.· Joe Reinhardt told me it wasn't


·1· ·approved.· There were five members of that

·2· ·committee.· If Matt was on it.· Of course he's

·3· ·dead and he didn't want to have -- he wanted as

·4· ·little as possible to do when he was fighting this

·5· ·mortal illness with Atheists of Florida, it was

·6· ·reducing his resistence to the disease, the stress

·7· ·was.

·8· · · Q· · Like my client's MS.· Are you aware my

·9· ·client has MS?

10· · · A· · Yes.

11· · · Q· · So at this point it would be Ed Gollobith

12· ·and Joe Reinhardt who both told you flat out it

13· ·was never approved by the financial oversight

14· ·committee?

15· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Misstates

16· · · prior testimony.


18· · · Q· · Your document here says neither Ed nor Joe

19· ·were consulted.· That's what you were told?

20· · · A· · What Paragraph?· Oh.· This is what I knew

21· ·on November 1.· Not to say I didn't learn

22· ·something different.· I can't tell you exactly

23· ·what I learned and when.

24· · · Q· · So as of November 1 when you had these

25· ·conversations, were you relying upon the veracity


·1· ·and truthfulness of Mr. Gollobith in everything

·2· ·that you concluded?

·3· · · A· · And Joe Reinhardt in terms of the approval

·4· ·or disapproval over the request of $18,000.

·5· · · Q· · Again, just so I have the record clear, in

·6· ·the discussions from Joe and from Ed, neither one

·7· ·of them told you where the 18,000 had come from,

·8· ·that it had been donated specifically for this

·9· ·purpose?


11· · · A· · That's a matter at issue.· It was in the

12· ·Atheists of Florida treasury is what I knew.· And

13· ·my responsibility as a director is to protect our

14· ·funds.· And in so doing I recommended we start

15· ·this financial oversight committee, which the

16· ·board did later adopt.


18· · · Q· · These two gentleman, Mr. Gollobith and

19· ·Mr. Reinhardt, did not express to you how the

20· ·money got into the treasury for this $18,000 into

21· ·the bank?

22· · · A· · No.

23· · · Q· · You would agree with me they wanted to

24· ·make it appear as bad as possible?

25· · · A· · Joe Reinhardt certainly not.


·1· · · Q· · What about Ed?

·2· · · A· · He was all for resolution, as I think you

·3· ·could see in some of my communications where I

·4· ·preferred that to this head-on collision.

·5· · · Q· · What about Ed Gollobith?

·6· · · A· · I think I heard the truth from Ed as he

·7· ·saw it.· If I had been lied to, I may find that

·8· ·out.· If I do, it will affect my relationship.· I

·9· ·don't believe I have been.

10· · · Q· · Which brings me to the awkward reality

11· ·that your lawyer is Ed's lawyer.

12· · · · · ·Have you ever signed an express waiver of

13· ·conflict of interest allowing Ed's lawyer to be

14· ·your lawyer?

15· · · A· · I have signed whatever has been put in

16· ·front of me with respect to legal representation.

17· · · Q· · I don't need to know from what source, but

18· ·did you get independent legal advice on whether

19· ·it's appropriate to be represented by the same

20· ·lawyer that represents Ed Gollobith who made these

21· ·representations to you?

22· · · A· · No.

23· · · Q· · In other words, there is a difference

24· ·between consent and informed consent?



·1· · · Don't answer that.

·2· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Does that mean I

·3· · · retract my answer?

·4· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· No.


·6· · · Q· · So apparently one of the things that Ed

·7· ·told you was he learned of this when a bank teller

·8· ·for whatever reason pointed out a transfer from

·9· ·one account to another?

10· · · · · ·Do you see that at the bottom of that

11· ·paragraph?

12· · · A· · Yes, uh-huh.

13· · · Q· · Did he tell you when specifically this

14· ·stunningly audacious information came to him?

15· · · A· · He probably did.· I don't recall it.· This

16· ·is not my existence, was not my existence.· I was

17· ·not totally consumed in it.· Very concerned with

18· ·it.· I can't give you specific dates what I

19· ·specifically knew at a specific time.

20· · · Q· · Did he tell you that he, himself, made the

21· ·transfer of the money?


23· · · A· · I don't know that what you say for a fact;

24· ·and, no, he did not inform me if that is a fact.



·1· · · Q· · And it didn't dawn on you that that was an

·2· ·interesting coincidence at the same time he wanted

·3· ·to stop the election, he just happens to stumble

·4· ·upon this stunningly audacious theft of money?

·5· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Misstates

·6· · · the document.

·7· · · A· · I don't know where to begin.· Could you

·8· ·repeat your question.


10· · · Q· · Well, as a board member and as a concerned

11· ·board member, I would add, didn't the timing of

12· ·this discovery concern you that it was an odd

13· ·coincidence that just at the time they needed to

14· ·find grounds for expulsion, oh, we have found

15· ·financial misappropriation, here it is?


17· · · A· · No.


19· · · Q· · Now we can stop the election, now we can

20· ·do a new election, we can get rid of these people?

21· · · A· · The answer to your question did I see a

22· ·coincidence?· No.

23· · · Q· · And within a week of this day he's the

24· ·chairman and the president?

25· · · A· · For an explanation, we were a group, we


·1· ·were analyzed, all of us here.· Some of us were

·2· ·friends.· You lose trust in a couple of people.

·3· ·To this date I haven't lost trust in Ed Golly.

·4· ·Now, not being a detective myself, a legal

·5· ·investigator, having any specific legal knowledge

·6· ·nor any knowledge of internal bank processes,

·7· ·that's as far as I can go.· When I lose trust,

·8· ·trust is lost.

·9· · · Q· · And you lost trust in Mr. Kieffer and

10· ·Ms. Wachs because of what Ed told you?

11· · · A· · No.· Some of their conduct, irrespective

12· ·of what Ed or anybody else might have said to me.

13· ·I don't sit as a student with Mr. Golly.· I don't

14· ·absorb lessons from Mr. Golly or anybody else.· I

15· ·simply absorb and interpret them in the context of

16· ·my own experience and my own personality.

17· · · · · ·MR. BUESING:· Let's take a lunch

18· · · break.

19· · · · · ·[Luncheon recess taken from 1 p.m.

20· · · Until 2:00 p.m.]

21· · · · · ·[Whereupon, Mr. Curry was not

22· · · present after lunch.]






·2· · · · · ·[ The E-mail from Ms. Wachs to Mr.

·3· · · Golly, November 1, 2011 was hereby marked

·4· · · as Brown Exhibit 10 for identification,

·5· · · as of this date.]


·7· · · Q· · Mr. Brown, we're back from lunch.· I

·8· ·marked and I am showing you Brown Exhibit 10.· And

·9· ·I want to direct your attention to the page that

10· ·has No. 4 on the bottom.· And it reflects an email

11· ·from Ms. Wachs to the board, and attached is a

12· ·proposed agenda for the November 6th board

13· ·meeting.

14· · · · · ·First, for the record, can you identify

15· ·Exhibit 10 as e-mails back and forth concerning

16· ·the agenda for the November 6th meeting?

17· · · A· · I don't recall specifically this back and

18· ·forth.· If it was sent to me, I read it at the

19· ·time.

20· · · Q· · What is your understanding of who sets the

21· ·agenda for board meetings?

22· · · A· · I reviewed bylaws several times since then

23· ·and it's not debited in my memory, but I believe

24· ·it's the original bylaws the chairman sets the

25· ·agenda, the president sets the date of the


·1· ·meeting, day, time, place of meeting.

·2· · · Q· · Is that the chairman or the president?

·3· · · A· · Chairman sets the agenda, president

·4· ·decides time, place of meeting.· The president

·5· ·calls the meeting if it's not prescribed in the

·6· ·bylaws.

·7· · · Q· · Did. Mr. Gollobith tell you that she,

·8· ·Ellenbeth Wachs, had not submitted an agenda and,

·9· ·therefore, that's the reason he was setting an

10· ·agenda?

11· · · A· · I don't believe so.

12· · · Q· · Now, take a look at Exhibit 9, Brown

13· ·Exhibit 9.· First, can you identify this as your

14· ·email to Mr. Peterson?

15· · · A· · Yes.

16· · · Q· · You can identify this as your email, sir?

17· · · A· · Yes.

18· · · Q· · What was the issue you were discussing

19· ·with Mr. Peterson?

20· · · A· · Unless I see that e-mail, I'm not certain.

21· · · Q· · You're saying Mr. Reinhardt overruled the

22· ·board on investments and mutual funds?

23· · · A· · Yes.· The board had voted unanimously, I

24· ·think, to spend or to invest the endowment funds

25· ·into specified mutual funds securities.· A


·1· ·proposal from a past president, James Young.· And

·2· ·Joe Reinhardt never authorized that investment.

·3· ·So he was acting contrary to the direction of the

·4· ·board.· This was a first signal to me that the

·5· ·bylaws should ultimately be changed to remove that

·6· ·kind of power as president.

·7· · · Q· · Was he expelled over that?

·8· · · A· · No, he wasn't.

·9· · · Q· · What does the sentence mean, "I hope Ed

10· ·hasn't made mistakes that taint the decision I

11· ·seem to be developing"?

12· · · A· · I have no idea.

13· · · Q· · By this point you have spoken to either

14· ·Joe Reinhardt or Ed Gollobith about --

15· · · A· · Wait a minute.· I don't know that I have

16· ·spoken to.· This is a reflection on the whole

17· ·recent history, I would say, just looking at it

18· ·now.· Not specifically about something that

19· ·happened that particular day.· Just trying to

20· ·think our way out of the predicament we find

21· ·ourselves in.

22· · · Q· · Okay.· Well, it looks like later that same

23· ·day, Exhibit 8 we have already gone over, is when

24· ·you talk about Ed telling you about a very likely

25· ·unauthorized $18,000 withdrawal.· And I'm trying


·1· ·to see if that relates to your statement about

·2· ·tainting --

·3· · · A· · That's not the one we just looked at?

·4· · · Q· · No. 8, "what Ed told me".

·5· · · A· · Yes, I see.· Could relate to that.· Errors

·6· ·in observation or whatever it was.· Just having

·7· ·placed trust into other individuals that they

·8· ·seemed to have lost.· I wouldn't say I misplaced

·9· ·the trust originally.

10· · · Q· · Well, my point is at this point this

11· ·runaway idea was based on what Mr. Gollobith told

12· ·you, that there had been an unauthorized

13· ·withdrawal of money?

14· · · A· · Oh, no, no.

15· · · Q· · What did it refer to?

16· · · A· · The long unannounced history to the board

17· ·of the planning of this suit against Polk County

18· ·sheriff.· That check you showed me was dated I

19· ·think two months before we were given any

20· ·advisement of this action.

21· · · Q· · Which you approved?

22· · · A· · Pardon me?

23· · · Q· · You approved; correct?

24· · · A· · We approved it.· That's not an issue.· We

25· ·approved it.· Can we agree that we approved it?


·1· ·You don't need to ask me again.

·2· · · Q· · Okay.

·3· · · A· · Thank you.

·4· · · Q· · I'm just trying to refer to what the

·5· ·runaway is referring to.· That's referring to the

·6· ·$25,000?

·7· · · A· · No, it's referring to the whole pattern of

·8· ·conduct involving, as I understand it now,

·9· ·planning for an arrest not necessarily of other

10· ·officers, either of our officers at the school

11· ·board meeting, planning for an arrest which would

12· ·subject the board and the treasury of Atheists of

13· ·Florida for payment of legal costs.· I felt that

14· ·such an action should have been approved by the

15· ·board.· The board should have been consulted.

16· · · · · ·This relates back to why the bylaws needed

17· ·to be revised to remove any kind of permissive

18· ·permission to a single individual to launch

19· ·something that could expose the organization to

20· ·serious financial harm.

21· · · Q· · Okay.· So in your mind you were focused on

22· ·taking that sort of action without board

23· ·pre-approval?· You were not focused on

24· ·embezzlement or misapplication of the funds?



·1· · · Mischaracterizes prior testimony.


·3· · · Q· · I'm just trying to understand your state

·4· ·of mind as of November 1, 2011.

·5· · · A· · This is prior to a board meeting.· And all

·6· ·we did at a board meeting, formal board meeting

·7· ·was to remove them from office.· They remained on

·8· ·the board if they wished, they were just removed

·9· ·from office.

10· · · Q· · We'll get to the November 6th board

11· ·meeting in a second.

12· · · · · ·MR. BUESING:· Let's mark this.

13· · · · · ·[ The E-mail from Mr. Peterson to

14· · · Mr. Brown, November 5, 2011 was hereby




18· · · Q· · I think the e-mail below is the one we

19· ·talked about.

20· · · A· · Hold on, I read the one on top.

21· · · · · ·I agree completely with Jim Peterson's

22· ·views here.

23· · · Q· · So just for the record you do recall

24· ·reading this and receiving this e-mail on

25· ·November 5, 2011?


·1· · · A· · I don't recall specifically that I read it

·2· ·on November 5.· I presume that I did but I don't

·3· ·have that kind of memory.

·4· · · Q· · So you agree with the statement that

·5· ·anybody deserves an opportunity to explain and

·6· ·clarify the items in a long list of recent charges

·7· ·and controversies?

·8· · · A· · Yes, I do.

·9· · · Q· · Do you see his use of the word "serious

10· ·financial fraud or embezzlement"?

11· · · A· · Yes.

12· · · Q· · So I take it -- well, let me back up.

13· ·Between November 1st and the series of e-mails we

14· ·looked at and November 5th, did you have phone

15· ·calls with other board members, did you discuss

16· ·what was going to happen?

17· · · A· · I can't recall.· I may have.· That may

18· ·have all been on e-mail, through e-mail.· I can

19· ·say I do not recall any phone conversations, but

20· ·it doesn't mean I might not have had them.

21· · · Q· · Who was promoting the idea that there may

22· ·have been a serious financial fraud or

23· ·embezzlement?

24· · · A· · I'm not sure.· I wasn't agreeing with this

25· ·statement.· It's a conditional statement.· If


·1· ·serious financial fraud could be shown to have

·2· ·occurred, then expulsion to membership may only

·3· ·begin serious troubles.· I'm agreeing with this

·4· ·conclusion given it's a possibility of fraud or

·5· ·embezzlement.

·6· · · Q· · The whole idea which you found to be

·7· ·stunningly audacious if they had --

·8· · · A· · Was removal of funds.




12· · · Q· · Go ahead.· You can answer.

13· · · A· · My objection was removal of funds without

14· ·the authorization of the financial oversight

15· ·committee.

16· · · Q· · Right.· But if it had been an actual

17· ·embezzlement, that would have been stunningly

18· ·audacious; correct?

19· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection to form.

20· · · Misstates prior testimony.

21· · · A· · That really doesn't deserve an answer,

22· ·sir.· It's obvious.


24· · · Q· · I thought so, too.

25· · · · · ·Who is Alan Oravec?


·1· · · A· · He's someone I scarcely knew who

·2· ·apparently had organized, certainly had a major

·3· ·role in organizing the Sarasota chapter, which was

·4· ·a multifaceted chapter, seemed to be an ideal

·5· ·chapter of our organization.· He was a lawyer and

·6· ·he attended one board meeting at which I was very

·7· ·impressed by him.· And that's who he is.

·8· · · Q· · So you viewed him as a credible person?

·9· · · A· · Yes --

10· · · Q· · Was he a board member?

11· · · A· · There was argument about that.· He started

12· ·the chapter, he had more than -- he had a very

13· ·active chapter.· Obviously qualified to be on the

14· ·board.· But it was said much after the fact that

15· ·he actually never joined Atheists of Florida, he

16· ·was not a paid member of Atheists of Florida.· I

17· ·think we addressed that earlier with the

18· ·membership of Ben Geiger given membership

19· ·arbitrarily by an individual, not by the board, in

20· ·return for certain work with the benefit of

21· ·Atheists of Florida.· Alan Oravec had labored very

22· ·productively.

23· · · Q· · So it doesn't surprise you that Nan Owens,

24· ·the treasurer, would have sent to the entire

25· ·board, including Alan Oravec, the financial


·1· ·statements on November 3, 2011?

·2· · · A· · On November 3, did you say?

·3· · · Q· · Yes, sir.

·4· · · A· · No, it wouldn't surprise me.· We at that

·5· ·moment would have considered him a member of the

·6· ·board as director of the Sarasota chapter.

·7· · · Q· · Next mark this as Exhibit 12.

·8· · · · · ·[ The E-mail from Alan Oravec to Ms.

·9· · · Owens, et al, November 6, 2011 was hereby




13· · · Q· · This is two e-mails.· The first is from

14· ·Nan Owens on November 3rd.· And the second is from

15· ·Alan Oravec on November 6th at nine in the

16· ·morning.

17· · · · · ·Do you recall receiving these e-mails?

18· · · A· · Seriously, no.· I know I received it.· I

19· ·don't recall -- it'd not in my active memory that

20· ·on that specific day I got an e-mail from Alan

21· ·Oravec.· But I recognize that I did.

22· · · Q· · Do you agree with his comment that the

23· ·founders of a group can become too maternalistic

24· ·about their baby and resent anyone with different

25· ·parenting ideas?


·1· · · A· · Not necessarily.· I would agree that

·2· ·founders of a group can become too maternalistic.

·3· · · Q· · Do you know if that happened in this

·4· ·group?

·5· · · A· · I don't think it has quite, no.· Well, I

·6· ·think Christos feels maternalistic but retired

·7· ·from participation because of illness in his

·8· ·family.

·9· · · Q· · Now, he makes reference in here to a rumor

10· ·that some members of the board were contemplating

11· ·hiring a lawyer to inquire whether the board and

12· ·organization may rescind or recoup the donation

13· ·that it gave last summer to her legal fund?

14· · · A· · I have no knowledge of what he's talking

15· ·about.

16· · · Q· · Do you know if that's the $25,000?

17· · · A· · Can you direct me to the paragraph?

18· · · Q· · Yes, sir.· (Indicating.)

19· · · A· · "As a general proposition"?

20· · · Q· · No, keep going.· "My major reason for

21· ·writing".

22· · · A· · Well, he's mistaken in assuming the board

23· ·made a donation to a legal fund.· We specifically

24· ·paid a retainer to a lawyer whose name was --

25· · · Q· · Walters?


·1· · · A· · Walters.

·2· · · Q· · Well, was there a discussion among you and

·3· ·other board members?

·4· · · A· · I didn't participate in one.· I'm not

·5· ·aware of one.

·6· · · Q· · Let's talk about that $25,000 for a

·7· ·minute.

·8· · · · · ·Did Mr. Gollobith take the position that

·9· ·the lawyer could not have spent that much money

10· ·and, therefore, it was some other type of

11· ·financial misappropriation?

12· · · A· · That he couldn't -- it's my understanding

13· ·that Ed Golly felt that the cost of the

14· ·proceedings that we were aware of in reference

15· ·only to the suit against Grady Judd could not have

16· ·reached that amount.

17· · · Q· · How would he know that?· He's not a

18· ·lawyer; is he?

19· · · A· · I think he's -- I don't know if he'd

20· ·agree -- maybe he's a legal groupie.· But I know

21· ·he's involved in a lot of legal stuff.· He would

22· ·know.

23· · · Q· · Based on what your lawyer put in the

24· ·lawsuit, it appears there is no claim anymore with

25· ·respect to the Walters money, that it's now


·1· ·understood that is what it cost, the money was

·2· ·spent.

·3· · · A· · That's not my understanding.

·4· · · Q· · What is your understanding?

·5· · · A· · That we're still investigating that

·6· ·$25,000.

·7· · · Q· · And let me guess, your understanding comes

·8· ·from Mr. Gollobith?

·9· · · A· · I think we had board meetings--

10· ·discussions at board meetings.

11· · · Q· · But it was Mr. Gollobith who said, oh, the

12· ·money was used for Ellenbeth's business, it was

13· ·used for her divorce, it was kicked back.· That

14· ·all comes from Mr. Gollobith?


16· · · A· · Without seeing whatever records are

17· ·available, my experience with the law is roughly

18· ·confined to traffic citations.· So how that money

19· ·was spent, it's my understanding that the hours

20· ·that are gone into settling this suit rather than

21· ·pursuing it would not have approached $25,000.


23· · · Q· · Yes, but my question, sir, is from whom do

24· ·you gain such an understanding?· Who said that to

25· ·you?


·1· · · A· · Principally Ed Golly.

·2· · · Q· · Have you looked yourself at the Walters'

·3· ·invoices?

·4· · · A· · I have seen them and almost everything

·5· ·that would truly inform us was redacted, was

·6· ·removed.· What I seen.· I might have seen what you

·7· ·call invoices, I seen whatever forms I have seen.

·8· ·Much of the information that would have been of

·9· ·value to us was redacted.· All we know, that money

10· ·was spent.

11· · · Q· · So you don't dispute that the Walters

12· ·money was spent?


14· · · A· · I have no knowledge of that.· I couldn't

15· ·comment either way.· The documents that were

16· ·redacted could have been falsified for all I know.

17· ·All I know is that I did not see anything that

18· ·would permit me to have an opinion.


20· · · Q· · Are you aware that the invoices came out

21· ·of Mr. Walters' files?· Are you saying Mr. Walters

22· ·falsified invoices?

23· · · A· · I don't know.· All I'm saying is it's

24· ·redacted.· I don't know what is there.· He could

25· ·have.· I don't know Mr. Walters.· I'm not saying


·1· ·he did.

·2· · · Q· · Are you testifying that the amount of

·3· ·redaction made it impossible for you to determine

·4· ·most of the entries, what most of it was for?

·5· ·Wasn't the redaction a small amount?

·6· · · A· · Could I count the number of entries?

·7· ·Obviously I could.· But they told me nothing. I

·8· ·know what they could have told me because of my

·9· ·limited legal background anyway, but they told me

10· ·nothing.· And I didn't study them.· I glanced at

11· ·them and there was nothing there to see.

12· · · Q· · So was this another guilty until proven

13· ·innocent, as far as you're concerned?


15· · · A· · Your language.· No.


17· · · Q· · I want to be clear on the record, are you

18· ·saying she did anything improper with respect to

19· ·the $25,000 given to Lawyer Walters?

20· · · A· · I would like to be able to find out

21· ·whether if she, you meaning Ms. Wachs --

22· · · Q· · Yes?

23· · · A· · -- or Lawyer Walters did anything improper

24· ·or anybody else involved?

25· · · Q· · Anybody.


·1· · · A· · I would like to learn that.· And to my

·2· ·knowledge it might be better revealed if we

·3· ·actually were to see unredacted substantiation of

·4· ·the expenditures.

·5· · · Q· · Has anybody told you that Ms. Wachs

·6· ·offered an in camera inspection?

·7· · · A· · I don't know what that means.

·8· · · Q· · Without the redactions to the judge.

·9· · · A· · Offered to whom?

10· · · Q· · The judge.

11· · · A· · What judge?

12· · · Q· · The judge in these cases.· Judge Baumann.

13· · · A· · At what point?

14· · · Q· · In the last year, two years.

15· · · A· · The last year.· I did not know that is a

16· ·fact that was offered.· I don't know Judge

17· ·Baumann, for that matter.

18· · · Q· · I want to put it in the other direction.

19· ·Do you have any actual knowledge that any of the

20· ·$25,000 was misused or misapplied?· Do you have

21· ·any knowledge of that?

22· · · A· · I don't have any knowledge of how it was

23· ·applied.

24· · · Q· · So you don't have any knowledge that it

25· ·was misapplied; correct?


·1· · · A· · Direct knowledge.

·2· · · Q· · That would logically follow; correct?

·3· · · A· · We spent a lot of time and Mr. Golly a lot

·4· ·of money in trying to find out how it was applied.

·5· ·So far my understanding, we failed.

·6· · · Q· · That's my understanding, too, sir.

·7· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Object to the last

·8· · · comment.


10· · · Q· · Did you have any concern about

11· ·Mr. Oravec's comment in here that it would be a

12· ·grave financial error for the organization and

13· ·those who participate in it?

14· · · A· · Could you direct me?

15· · · Q· · The same paragraph, "my major reason for

16· ·writing".

17· · · A· · "My major reason."· Yes.· Your question?

18· · · Q· · My question was as a board member when a

19· ·fellow board member tells you it would be a grave

20· ·financial error for the organization and those

21· ·that participate in it to seek to rescind or

22· ·recoup the donation, how did that affect your view

23· ·of all this?

24· · · A· · Well, he was tentatively a board member.

25· ·My respect for him was my judge of him as a person


·1· ·and because of his legal background.· I respected

·2· ·the fact that he said in that one board meeting,

·3· ·no, and was later questioned as to his right to be

·4· ·on the board.

·5· · · · · ·So he was not an esteemed established

·6· ·board member.· He was, in fact, a visitor to one

·7· ·board meeting.· So with that in mind, I respected

·8· ·what he had to say.· I respected the man.· I would

·9· ·like to have seen him continue to serve.

10· · · Q· · Did you take seriously his concern as a

11· ·lawyer and somebody you respected that a grave

12· ·financial error for the organization and those who

13· ·participate in it would occur if you seek to

14· ·rescind or recoup the money?

15· · · A· · He said would be a potentially grave

16· ·financial error.

17· · · Q· · Okay.

18· · · A· · It could cost us a lot of money.

19· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Can we go off the record

20· · · real quick.

21· · · · · ·[Discussion held off the record.]


23· · · Q· · Further down in this document he says he

24· ·was present when there was a ratification of all

25· ·the expenses that were contributed to the legal


·1· ·costs associated with the --

·2· · · A· · Can you direct me to that.

·3· · · Q· · The very last three lines.

·4· · · A· · On page 1?

·5· · · Q· · Page 1, yes, sir.

·6· · · A· · That meeting may have been his

·7· ·introduction to all these problems.· So your

·8· ·question is what?

·9· · · Q· · That the board's decision to support this

10· ·was based upon a thorough discussion, the lawyer

11· ·answering questions, thoughtful questions,

12· ·satisfactory answers, due diligence.· Do you see

13· ·that, sir?· Do you agree?

14· · · A· · No, I didn't -- I mean, I agree.

15· · · Q· · Okay.· Do you agree with his statement in

16· ·here that Ellenbeth would have relied on that

17· ·decision in her actions thereafter?

18· · · A· · I don't know that to be true.

19· · · Q· · Would it be reasonable for her to rely on

20· ·that after receiving support from the board?


22· · · A· · Okay.· Please back up a bit.

23· · · Q· · Well, as of June she had the full support

24· ·of Mr. Gollobith, she had a board meeting --

25· · · A· · Please, I am not -- I'm sorry for


·1· ·interrupting.· I'm not Mr. Gollobith's toady.

·2· ·That he had Mr. Gollobith's support is immaterial

·3· ·to me.· She did not at this point had my support.

·4· · · Q· · It was a unanimous vote, was it not, in

·5· ·June to ratify?

·6· · · A· · Not looking at November 6th.

·7· · · Q· · No.

·8· · · A· · In June to ratify.· Yes, yes.· I think we

·9· ·showed poor judgment, I, poor judgment at that

10· ·time with respect -- well.· We didn't know it was

11· ·planned so far in advance without consultation

12· ·with us, and it was either, either we pay the

13· ·$25,000 or cut them loose.· That seemed like a

14· ·betrayal to me that we would betray them.

15· · · Q· · You don't know that on your website on

16· ·April 6, 2011, there was a whole description of

17· ·what happened, the legal work?

18· · · A· · What happened?· Explain.

19· · · Q· · About what happened in Polk County to

20· ·silence?

21· · · A· · About the filing of the suit, the planning

22· ·of the suit?· Nothing was said.

23· · · Q· · Was there discussion in advance of the

24· ·November 6th board meeting that calling a question

25· ·required a three-quarters vote?


·1· · · A· · I don't recall it.

·2· · · Q· · Was Mr. Oravec entitled to participate in

·3· ·the November 6th board meeting?

·4· · · A· · If we accepted him.· I accepted him.

·5· · · Q· · You don't remember that --

·6· · · A· · Was he there?· I don't think he was there.

·7· · · Q· · Now, you -- you are testifying

·8· ·Mr. Gollobith showed up with an attorney named

·9· ·Ryan Carey?

10· · · A· · Yes.

11· · · Q· · Did you know he was going to attend?

12· · · A· · I'm not sure.

13· · · Q· · Did you ask why he was there?

14· · · A· · I think it was announced why he was there.

15· · · Q· · Could board members attend by telephone,

16· ·vote by phone?

17· · · A· · We had permitted that, yes.· We Skyped

18· ·people in.

19· · · Q· · Do you know if Mr. Oravec was going to

20· ·appear by phone and was refused?

21· · · A· · I didn't know what Mr. Oravec's plans

22· ·were.

23· · · Q· · Why was Mr. Carey there; do you know?




·1· · · A· · All I could say, he was not there at my

·2· ·personal behest.


·4· · · Q· · He was certainly not a member of Atheists

·5· ·of Florida; right?

·6· · · A· · I don't know.

·7· · · Q· · Are nonmembers allowed to attend AOF board

·8· ·meetings?

·9· · · A· · I don't recall if we ever addressed that

10· ·issue.· Difficult enough in most cases to get

11· ·members interested to attend.

12· · · Q· · In fact, the bylaws at that time said

13· ·board meetings shall be open to the organization's

14· ·members.· Are you aware of that?

15· · · A· · I didn't specifically prohibit nonmembers.

16· ·Explicitly.

17· · · Q· · Who is Sandra Smith?

18· · · A· · I know her as Ed Golly's girlfriend.

19· · · Q· · Was she stationed at the door to keep

20· ·people out?

21· · · A· · Not to my knowledge.

22· · · Q· · Had there ever been a door monitor for

23· ·prior board meetings?

24· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Object to form.

25· · · A· · I don't recall one.



·2· · · Q· · She was not a board member; was she?

·3· · · A· · Was that a question?

·4· · · Q· · Yes, sir.

·5· · · A· · She was not a board member.

·6· · · Q· · So she was allowed to be there, Mr. Carey

·7· ·was allowed to be there, both of whom were

·8· ·nonmembers; correct?

·9· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Object to form.· Lack of


11· · · A· · I believe Sandra was a member.· I could be

12· ·wrong, but that's my belief.


14· · · Q· · A board member?

15· · · A· · No, not a board member.· A member of

16· ·Atheists of Florida.

17· · · Q· · So you're not aware if she turned away AOF

18· ·members at the meeting?

19· · · A· · I'm not personally aware of it, no.

20· · · Q· · Do you know if Tony Calero was turned

21· ·away?

22· · · A· · I don't know Tony Calero.· I don't know if

23· ·he was turned away.

24· · · Q· · Now, you mentioned that Sandra Smith was a

25· ·girlfriend of Ed Gollobith.· Can you explain why


·1· ·she was appointed to prepare an audit for Atheists

·2· ·of Florida?

·3· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Lack of


·5· · · A· · I believe she had some financial

·6· ·experience.


·8· · · Q· · As a board member would it concern you

·9· ·that an audit is being performed by somebody who

10· ·has a personal relationship with the then chairman

11· ·and president?

12· · · A· · No, not at that point.

13· · · Q· · That doesn't strike you as a pretty

14· ·blatant conflict of interest for the auditor?


16· · · Argumentative.· Asked and answered.

17· · · A· · I don't recall the circumstances of that

18· ·audit, that particular -- or her appointment.

19· ·Some people wanted an audit, wanted an independent

20· ·financial audit, for which we would pay.· Others

21· ·didn't want to spend money.· It was never finally

22· ·resolved.· I don't think we ever had -- I don't

23· ·believe we ever did have a subsequent formal

24· ·financial audit.

25· · · Q· · Don't you recall Mr. Gollobith appointing


·1· ·Sandra Smith to conduct an audit?

·2· · · A· · No, I do not recall.· It could have

·3· ·happened, but I don't recall.

·4· · · Q· · Do you know if Ms. Wachs had invited

·5· ·Attorney John McKnight to attend the board

·6· ·meeting?

·7· · · A· · Did I know she had invited John McKnight?

·8· · · Q· · Yes.

·9· · · A· · No.

10· · · Q· · Did you know there were preprinted removal

11· ·of officers voting cards?

12· · · A· · I learned that at the board meeting, yes.

13· · · Q· · Did you have anything to do with setting

14· ·up the board meeting or?

15· · · A· · No.

16· · · Q· · Was that handled principally by

17· ·Mr. Gollobith?



20· · · A· · I couldn't say.· I don't know.


22· · · Q· · Do you agree if a motion takes place or a

23· ·motion is amended, that should be recorded on the

24· ·board's minutes?

25· · · A· · Motions and amendments to motions should


·1· ·be recorded.· Yes, I agree with that statement.

·2· · · Q· · And do you recall that at the

·3· ·November 6th meeting a motion was made to remove

·4· ·the officers, and Matt Cooper immediately called

·5· ·to question before there was any discussion?

·6· · · A· · I would have to refer to the agenda, but

·7· ·that is probably inaccurate -- to the minutes;

·8· ·excuse me.

·9· · · Q· · And that the chair, Mr. Gollobith,

10· ·recognized Mr. Cooper as having the floor and

11· ·being a board member?

12· · · A· · If that's what the minutes specify, that's

13· ·what happened.

14· · · Q· · Even though Mr. Cooper had been removed as

15· ·the chapter director?



18· · · A· · I don't know the timeline involved.· If

19· ·Mr. Cooper was admitted without objection to a

20· ·seat on the board of the November 6th meeting, he

21· ·was entitled to be there.


23· · · Q· · But if he was no longer a chapter

24· ·director, that's how he got his board position --

25· · · A· · It was not my knowledge that he was no


·1· ·longer a chapter director.

·2· · · Q· · Well, assume he was no longer a chapter

·3· ·director, then he would have lost his seat on the

·4· ·board; correct?

·5· · · A· · Yes.

·6· · · Q· · So he would have had no right to be at

·7· ·this board meeting --


·9· · · Q· · -- moving to call the question?

10· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Object to form.

11· · · Misstates prior testimony.· I think he

12· · · answered.

13· · · A· · If he was not a member of the board, no.

14· · · Q· · Now, was there any reason why you would

15· ·not want this discussion to take place?

16· · · A· · Why he would not want this --

17· · · Q· · Why you as a board member would not,

18· ·instead of calling the question, why wouldn't you

19· ·want to hear what Mr. Kieffer had to say or

20· ·Ms. Wachs had to say?

21· · · A· · What was the motion that was called?· What

22· ·was the question?

23· · · Q· · Removal of them as officers.

24· · · A· · That was not the motion.· The motion was

25· ·to vote on retention or removal of every officer.


·1· · · Q· · Was there a reason why you didn't want to

·2· ·hear what they had to say first?

·3· · · A· · No.

·4· · · Q· · I mean, if they would have said, oh, that

·5· ·$18,000, that was all money donated expressly for

·6· ·this purpose, it was all approved by the FOC, Ed

·7· ·Gollobith was involved all along, you wouldn't

·8· ·want to hear that discussion in the open board

·9· ·meeting?



12· · · A· · I was prepared to call the question.


14· · · Q· · Without hearing from Mr. Kieffer about his

15· ·explanation?

16· · · A· · I was prepared to call the question.· I

17· ·voted to support Mr. Cooper's motion.· As I tried

18· ·to make clear, I have lost trust in two of our

19· ·officers and I felt they should be replaced.

20· · · Q· · And you didn't think they even had the

21· ·right to be heard?

22· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Calls for a

23· · · legal conclusion.

24· · · A· · Certainly they should have the right to be

25· ·heard whether in advance of removal from office.


·1· ·Mind you, we remove them both from office, they

·2· ·stay on the board unless it's their choice to

·3· ·leave it.· Adequate room for discussion, but

·4· ·they're no longer president and vice president.

·5· · · Q· · You now had one board member use the word

·6· ·embezzlement in Mr. Peterson's e-mail, you had

·7· ·Mr. Gollobith call and talk to you about this

·8· ·$18,000 as being --

·9· · · A· · I don't know that Mr. Gollobith called me.

10· ·I might have called him.

11· · · Q· · Okay.· Well, your e-mail reflects the

12· ·conversation in which he described this $18,000 as

13· ·a totally unauthorized expense and you didn't feel

14· ·as a board member you should ask these people?

15· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· It's

16· · · misleading.

17· · · A· · All of these people had my trust, Ed

18· ·retains it.· John, unfortunately, and Ellenbeth

19· ·had lost it.

20· · · Q· · So they lost it but you were going to keep

21· ·them on the board?

22· · · A· · It was not a question of whether to keep

23· ·them on the board.· All we were doing was voting

24· ·to keep or remove from office.· The secretary, the

25· ·treasurer might have been removed.· That didn't


·1· ·happen.· They were still on the board.· They

·2· ·didn't have to leave the meeting.

·3· · · Q· · So what you're basically telling me,

·4· ·Mr. Brown, your mind was made up before that

·5· ·meeting started?

·6· · · A· · My mind was made up that I no longer

·7· ·wanted them as president, because they were, in

·8· ·effect, a joint president -- co-president.

·9· · · Q· · From looking through the e-mail chain, it

10· ·looks like your mind was made up after

11· ·Mr. Gollobith and Mr. Reinhardt both told you that

12· ·she had taken $18,000 without authorization?


14· · · Mischaracterizes.

15· · · A· · After I had reached the conclusion based

16· ·on what I knew of the parties involved that there

17· ·had been an unauthorized removal.· Whether they

18· ·could make a good case of that removal after the

19· ·fact, let them do so.· But it seemed it was clear

20· ·to me at that time -- maybe I'm going on too

21· ·long -- that were they feeling that the board was

22· ·in service to them.· Not that they were responsive

23· ·to the board.· That had gone by the bye.

24· · · Q· · So your mind was made up?

25· · · A· · My mind was made up.· I wanted them out as


·1· ·officers.

·2· · · Q· · And all the other board who voted in favor

·3· ·of that, as far as you know, their minds were made

·4· ·up?


·6· · · Speculation.

·7· · · A· · I don't know that.


·9· · · Q· · Was it a unanimous vote to call the

10· ·question?

11· · · A· · Well, you can gather that the majority of

12· ·the board -- this is a democratically-run

13· ·organization.· Nine people on the board want

14· ·certain officers removed, maybe one or two

15· ·additional, other than the officers involved, want

16· ·to stay in office.· So, therefore, those nine

17· ·members are in conspiracy to remove the

18· ·leadership.· I mean, preposterous.

19· · · Q· · What happened to the election?· Where did

20· ·that go?

21· · · A· · The election was a provocation.

22· · · Q· · A provocation or a threat?

23· · · A· · No threat to me.· I didn't sense it as a

24· ·threat.· I couldn't speak for anyone else.· I like

25· ·some of their slate.· I would have voted for some


·1· ·of them.

·2· · · Q· · Who first raised the idea of let's just

·3· ·cancel the election, let's start over?

·4· · · A· · Who first what?

·5· · · Q· · Cancel the election, starting over?

·6· · · A· · I don't know.

·7· · · Q· · You were aware because of the e-mail that

·8· ·Ms. Wachs had proposed a detailed agenda that

·9· ·included items like going over the finances, going

10· ·over the financial oversight committee report?

11· ·You know that she proposed that three times and

12· ·Mr. Gollobith rejected it three times?


14· · · A· · No, I did not know it was proposed three

15· ·times and rejected three times.


17· · · Q· · You know it was proposed and didn't

18· ·happen; right?


20· · · A· · Uh-huh.


22· · · Q· · Because your mind was made up?

23· · · A· · On what?

24· · · Q· · You didn't need to hear anything, your

25· ·mind was made up?


·1· · · A· · At the meeting --

·2· · · Q· · Yes, sir.

·3· · · A· · -- or with respect to the agenda?

·4· · · Q· · At the meeting because there was no

·5· ·discussion on those items at the meeting; was

·6· ·there?

·7· · · A· · That wasn't the agenda as presented.

·8· · · Q· · Mr. Gollobith prepared the agenda, it

·9· ·wasn't on the agenda anymore; right?

10· · · A· · Correct.

11· · · Q· · Now, we have information from your

12· ·attorney that you participated in an expulsion

13· ·process.

14· · · · · ·Do you recall that?

15· · · A· · Yes.

16· · · Q· · When did you first learn you were going to

17· ·be involved in an expulsion process?

18· · · A· · Now, expulsion of whom in this?

19· · · Q· · Well, I'm interested in Ellenbeth Wachs,

20· ·my client.

21· · · A· · Probably at an informal meeting after the

22· ·November 6th formal board meeting.· It was not

23· ·convened as a board meeting, just a gathering to

24· ·reflect on what had happened.

25· · · Q· · How long did that November 6th formal


·1· ·meeting last?

·2· · · A· · I don't know.· It's in the minutes.

·3· · · Q· · Pretty quick; wasn't it?· Pretty short?

·4· · · A· · Possibly very likely.· A limited agenda.

·5· · · Q· · How did you find out there was going to be

·6· ·an expulsion proceeding?

·7· · · A· · An expulsion proceeding?

·8· · · Q· · Yes, sir.

·9· · · A· · Almost through osmosis, I would have to

10· ·say.· I was never made specifically aware.

11· · · Q· · Let me see if I'm understanding this.· We

12· ·are at a board meeting, it's on a Sunday, probably

13· ·doesn't take very long.

14· · · A· · I didn't regard the meeting I was in when

15· ·I entered into it as a board meeting.· Just a

16· ·gathering at Ed's house.· Sort of like a

17· ·postmortem.

18· · · Q· · Who was gathered at this postmortem?

19· · · A· · Many members of the board.· Ed, of course,

20· ·Matt Cooper, maybe Jack Baysart (phonetic).· I'm

21· ·not certain if he was on the board then.· There

22· ·was a bunch of people.· Maybe as many as a dozen,

23· ·I would think.· Maybe less than that.

24· · · Q· · Was Tracy Thomas there?



·1· · · Q· · Mr. Peterson was there?

·2· · · A· · It's funny, I don't specifically recall

·3· ·him but he must have been there.

·4· · · Q· · Who is Jack Baysart?

·5· · · A· · Who?

·6· · · Q· · Yes, sir.

·7· · · A· · He was a snowbird from Colorado who

·8· ·divided his time between a local address and

·9· ·Colorado.· I think he retired with that board

10· ·term.· I might be mistaken he was on the board

11· ·even then, but I think so.

12· · · Q· · So in your own words describe this

13· ·gathering.· What did you call it?· A social

14· ·gathering?

15· · · A· · A postmortem.· How regretful that we did

16· ·what we had to do because, like I told you before,

17· ·we were all a bunch of colleagues at one time

18· ·working together towards similar ends.

19· · · Q· · So what you did was remove them as

20· ·officers.· Did you also remove them as board

21· ·members in the board meeting?

22· · · A· · No, they remained on the board.· They

23· ·might have resigned.· I think one did, I think

24· ·Ellenbeth might have resigned.· She walked out

25· ·verbally from the board.· But it all happened very


·1· ·fast.

·2· · · Q· · And how did you know to go to Ed's house?

·3· ·More osmosis?

·4· · · A· · I wasn't specifically -- yeah, it was.· I

·5· ·wasn't specifically invited.· I heard there was a

·6· ·gathering.· Someone said, why don't you come, too.

·7· ·And I did.

·8· · · Q· · Now, how did it come to be that there was

·9· ·any discussion of now expulsion as opposed to

10· ·removing them as officers?

11· · · A· · I couldn't say how it came to be.· I

12· ·wasn't part of any discussion toward that end.

13· · · Q· · Was there any kind of official expulsion

14· ·decision made at Ed Gollobith's house?

15· · · A· · I don't know if the expulsion decision was

16· ·made there, but very likely could have been.

17· · · Q· · Well, were you not one of two people

18· ·selected to review an expulsion complaint?

19· · · A· · I didn't know what that was that I was

20· ·reviewing.

21· · · Q· · Did you know you were in the process of

22· ·some sort of bylaw-driven process?

23· · · A· · I saw something I think in the form of a

24· ·letter, and I agreed with what I read in the

25· ·letter.· I was asked to sign it.· And I had trust


·1· ·in a couple of individuals.

·2· · · Q· · A couple of individuals?· Who?

·3· · · A· · Matt Cooper and Ed.

·4· · · Q· · Gollobith; right?

·5· · · A· · Principally Matt.

·6· · · Q· · So why was it necessary to actually expel

·7· ·them as opposed to taking away their roles as

·8· ·officer?


10· · · Lacks foundation.

11· · · A· · I wouldn't have agreed it was necessary to

12· ·expel them at that proposition in those terms been

13· ·presented to me.

14· · · Q· · Now, you were told, were you not, that

15· ·there had been a misappropriation of the

16· ·organization's funds?

17· · · A· · My actions were not based on what I was

18· ·told.· My actions were based on the removal of

19· ·$18,000, whether your client now claims it was her

20· ·property, the removal of funds from the Atheists

21· ·of Florida account without prior authorization

22· ·from the financial oversight committee.

23· · · Q· · As told by Mr. Gollobith, he said he never

24· ·authorized it?





·3· · · Q· · I'm trying to get the source of your

·4· ·knowledge that it had never been authorized?

·5· · · A· · And Joe Reinhardt and I think Nan Owens as

·6· ·treasurer on that committee, she didn't authorize

·7· ·it.

·8· · · Q· · So those three people told you it was not

·9· ·authorized?

10· · · A· · Not all simultaneously, but, yes, all

11· ·three said they did not authorize it.· And that's

12· ·enough.· Three out of five members is a majority.

13· · · · · ·MR. BUESING:· Let me mark this,

14· · · please.

15· · · · · ·[ The E-mail from Mr. Golly to Mr.

16· · · Peterson with attachment, January 15,

17· · · 2013 was hereby marked as Brown Exhibit

18· · · 13 for identification, as of this date.]


20· · · Q· · Let me show you Brown Exhibit 13, and I'm

21· ·showing you the second page.· Have you ever seen

22· ·these four pages before?

23· · · A· · I'm not certain if this is supposed to be

24· ·the document I was presented at that gathering at

25· ·Ed's house after our November 6th meeting.· I


·1· ·don't recall it as being this long.· I recall it

·2· ·being a couple of pages, but this could be it.

·3· · · Q· · And was it represented to you that this

·4· ·was from Tracy Thomas?

·5· · · A· · I'm not clear if Tracy Thomas' return

·6· ·address and signature was on the form that I saw.

·7· ·It might simply had been the text that is involved

·8· ·in the letter.· And I don't recall it being

·9· ·addressed to Mr. Ed Golly, although I do recall it

10· ·was in a letter format.

11· · · Q· · This had been prepared before the board

12· ·meeting; correct?

13· · · A· · I don't know.

14· · · Q· · You said you went immediately to Ed

15· ·Golly's house after the board meeting?

16· · · A· · I didn't say immediately.· I said I went

17· ·after the board meeting to Ed Golly's house.· I

18· ·could have meandered there.

19· · · Q· · Do you think this was typed up immediately

20· ·after the board vote or was it typed up before?

21· · · A· · I think it could have been typed up

22· ·afterwards.

23· · · Q· · Do you think it was typed up on

24· ·November 11th?



·1· · · speculation.· Lack of foundation.

·2· · · A· · I have no idea. I think it could have been

·3· ·typed up at Ed's house while we were all there.· I

·4· ·don't know.


·6· · · Q· · Prepared by Tracy Thomas or somebody else?

·7· · · A· · I don't know.· I see her signature here.

·8· · · Q· · Did Mr. Gollobith tell you that this was

·9· ·prepared by Tracy Thomas?

10· · · A· · No.

11· · · Q· · What did he tell you?

12· · · A· · He didn't tell me anything.· As I recall,

13· ·Matt Cooper gave me something he wanted me to

14· ·read.· I read it and was asked to sign it.· I

15· ·didn't disagree with -- as this may not be exactly

16· ·what I read.· I signed it.· I later went over to

17· ·Mr. Cooper and expressed my sadness that he put me

18· ·in this position and that I would never want to be

19· ·put in this position again signing something that

20· ·I didn't know exactly its purpose.· So he had lost

21· ·a portion of my trust as of that meeting because

22· ·of that.· I don't like being used that way.

23· · · Q· · How did you feel he was using you?

24· · · A· · Because of the trust he established and

25· ·fondness I had for him personally, without telling


·1· ·me the purpose and what was the reason asking me

·2· ·to do this.

·3· · · Q· · You understand that you have been cited as

·4· ·somebody who validated the truthfulness of all the

·5· ·statements in here?

·6· · · A· · As I said, I agree, if this is what I

·7· ·signed, I essentially agreed to everything in

·8· ·here.

·9· · · Q· · Conducting what independent investigation?

10· · · A· · As independent an investigation as anybody

11· ·on the board had been able to do up until that

12· ·time.

13· · · Q· · Without saying one word to Mr. Kieffer or

14· ·Ms. Wachs about these allegations?



17· · · A· · I try to make it clear, I was disappointed

18· ·in the conduct of both Ms. Wachs and Mr. Kieffer.


20· · · Q· · Well, based on these facts after being

21· ·told she misappropriated funds, I would expect you

22· ·to be disappointed.· This is what Mr. Cooper told

23· ·you?

24· · · A· · Even before.· Even before.

25· · · Q· · Did you know this document was going to be


·1· ·the basis for a series of public communications?

·2· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Lacks

·3· · · foundation and misleading.

·4· · · A· · No.


·6· · · Q· · Turn to page 4 of the document.· Issue to

·7· ·misappropriating the organization's funds.

·8· ·Item 3.· Do you see that?

·9· · · A· · Yes, I see it.

10· · · Q· · This statement that this alleged

11· ·misappropriation was discovered on October 18,

12· ·2011, you were relying on the veracity and

13· ·truthfulness of Mr. Golly?

14· · · A· · Yes.


16· · · Please don't answer until he's finished

17· · · and give me a chance to object.


19· · · Q· · And the statement the FOC was never

20· ·consulted regarding this expenditure?

21· · · A· · Where is that?

22· · · Q· · It's the next sentence, Item 3.

23· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Object to the form.· I

24· · · don't hear a question.



·1· · · Q· · I didn't finish the question.

·2· · · A· · I'm free to answer.

·3· · · Q· · And, again, you're relying upon the

·4· ·veracity and truthfulness of Cooper, Gollobith,

·5· ·Nan Owens for that statement?

·6· · · A· · Yes.

·7· · · Q· · Were you troubled by the use of the phrase

·8· ·"misappropriating the organization's funds"?· Did

·9· ·that bother you at all?

10· · · A· · Yes, it did.

11· · · Q· · That's a pretty incendiary phrase; isn't

12· ·it?

13· · · A· · I don't know if I agree to the term

14· ·incendiary, but it has implications that I would

15· ·rather reserve judgment for.

16· · · Q· · I mean, it has implications of dishonesty;

17· ·doesn't it?

18· · · A· · It does.

19· · · Q· · Now, the first issue in here is called

20· ·obstructing the organization's business.· Do you

21· ·know where this information came from for this

22· ·alleged obstruction of the election process?

23· · · A· · From Matt Cooper and Nan Owens.· They're

24· ·the only ones close to the election process other

25· ·than the parties involved.


·1· · · Q· · Do you know whether, in fact, this

·2· ·language under issue one was, in fact, drafted by

·3· ·Matt Cooper and dropped in here?

·4· · · A· · Under issue one, I didn't know that.· But

·5· ·similar to the copy I have seen elsewhere

·6· ·attributed to Matt Cooper.

·7· · · Q· · Did you make any effort to investigate

·8· ·item by item the statements that are laid out

·9· ·here?

10· · · A· · Not personally.

11· · · Q· · You relied upon Mr. Cooper?

12· · · A· · No, I relied upon collaborative

13· ·consultation, e-mails back and forth with all the

14· ·board members that I'm friendly with, Steve Miles,

15· ·Jim Peterson.

16· · · Q· · Well, let me give you an example, Item 13

17· ·on page 2 says they arranged ballot names in an

18· ·order favorable to the president, acting president

19· ·and their preferred candidates.

20· · · · · ·Did you say, for example, can you show me

21· ·the ballots so I could see how they're arranged?

22· · · A· · I disagreed with that.

23· · · Q· · That turns out to be pretty silly, doesn't

24· ·it --

25· · · A· · At the time --


·1· · · Q· · -- because it turns out to be in

·2· ·alphabetical order; right?


·4· · · A· · I agree, I don't -- never saw that point.


·6· · · Q· · Did that make you wonder if the hatred of

·7· ·Mr. Gollobith and Mr. Cooper was so strong that it

·8· ·had overruled their sense of judgment here that

·9· ·they would drop in things of that extreme nature?


11· · · A· · They were overreaching, yes.


13· · · Q· · Well, it has been represented in this case

14· ·that you and Mr. Miles were the two board member

15· ·review committee to review the complaint?

16· · · A· · Oh, it was Steve Miles who I was mistaken

17· ·for the snowbird from Colorado.

18· · · Q· · So Steve Miles and not --

19· · · A· · Steve Miles was there.

20· · · Q· · So it has been represented that the two of

21· ·you did a review of this four-page complaint and

22· ·that you both agreed and it was unanimous?

23· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection; form.· Lack

24· · · of foundation.



·1· · · Q· · I'll rephrase it.

·2· · · · · ·Did you say that what actually happened

·3· ·was you and Mr. Miles signed a document, this

·4· ·document or some version?

·5· · · A· · I can't vouch for what the other Steve

·6· ·did, but I assume he signed it.

·7· · · Q· · And you didn't cross off sections and say

·8· ·this looks silly, this doesn't make sense?

·9· · · A· · No.

10· · · Q· · You just did the whole thing?

11· · · A· · Yes.

12· · · Q· · I mean, if you had to do it over again, do

13· ·you think you would take a lot more care and

14· ·caution in reviewing these sorts of allegations?



17· · · A· · If it had been made clear to me that what

18· ·I was signing was an eviction notice, I very

19· ·likely would not have signed or asked for revision

20· ·of this document.


22· · · Q· · I mean, you're aware that Mr. Gollobith

23· ·and others then trumpeted (indicating), we had an

24· ·expulsion process, it was unanimously approved?

25· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection to form.· It's


·1· · · misleading and no foundation for that.


·3· · · Q· · Let me rephrase it.

·4· · · · · ·Did you understand that this was an actual

·5· ·expulsion from the membership of the organization?

·6· ·Did you even understand that or were you thinking

·7· ·this was something else?

·8· · · A· · I was not informed of the purpose and it

·9· ·was -- I regard what I did as a reckless act to

10· ·sign that without that information.· I might have

11· ·signed an expulsion notice otherwise.· I might

12· ·have advised reconsideration of the expulsion

13· ·notice.

14· · · Q· · Let me show you No. 14, Brown 14.

15· · · · · ·[ The Action on Complaint by Tracy

16· · · Thomas against Ellenbeth Wachs and John

17· · · Kieffer, November 6, 2011 was hereby




21· · · Q· · Have you ever seen Exhibit Brown 14

22· ·before?

23· · · A· · I have to read it.

24· · · · · ·Your question?

25· · · Q· · Have you seen this before?


·1· · · A· · No.

·2· · · Q· · I gather you did not prepare it?

·3· · · A· · Pardon me?

·4· · · Q· · You did not prepare it?

·5· · · A· · No, I haven't seen it before.

·6· · · Q· · Now, you indicated earlier that you worked

·7· ·as a newspaper reporter and editor.· Did you ever

·8· ·have any involvement with the newsletter that was

·9· ·published by Atheists of Florida?

10· · · A· · Yes.

11· · · Q· · What was your involvement with that?

12· · · A· · Starting with the October December

13· ·newsletter of 2011.

14· · · Q· · And why were you involved at that stage?

15· · · A· · I think I volunteered.

16· · · Q· · Why?

17· · · A· · I wanted to have the ability to modulate

18· ·perhaps inflammatory comments that Ed Golly might

19· ·insert.

20· · · Q· · Ed was really emotional at this time;

21· ·wasn't he?

22· · · A· · Yes.

23· · · Q· · He was angry and letting it vent in every

24· ·way he could; is that fair?

25· · · A· · He was angry.· I don't know about the rest


·1· ·of your statement.

·2· · · Q· · Well, he didn't hesitate to share his

·3· ·feelings with the board or the membership through

·4· ·the newsletter or with other people in outside

·5· ·organizations or with the press?


·7· · · speculation.

·8· · · A· · I don't know how he modulated his point of

·9· ·view outside of Atheists of Florida board of

10· ·directors and those people immediately concerned

11· ·with a matter of the expulsion and its aftermath.

12· · · Q· · Is it fair to say Mr. Golly was just mean?

13· · · A· · Mean?

14· · · Q· · Mean.

15· · · A· · I never experienced him that way.

16· · · Q· · Wasn't there a way to remove John Kieffer

17· ·and Ellenbeth Wachs without calling them thieves?



20· · · Q· · Just remove them?


22· · · Misstates evidence.

23· · · A· · This is conjecture on my part, but it

24· ·seems like the simple language going back I think

25· ·to the original bylaws was plugged in to the


·1· ·expulsion notice, I don't think went back to

·2· ·removal of office, rather than being modulated,

·3· ·itself, still to give us, to make us justified --

·4· ·to represent us as justified in the expulsion

·5· ·without the implications of misappropriation.

·6· ·However, we just took that package of requirements

·7· ·for expulsion and plugged it in.· By we, I mean

·8· ·the board of directors which supported these

·9· ·publications.

10· · · Q· · But there was no concern about

11· ·reputational damage to Ms. Wachs or Mr. Kieffer?

12· · · A· · I can't --

13· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection to the form of

14· · · the question.· Lacks foundation.

15· · · · · ·From who?

16· · · A· · Yeah, I can't speak.


18· · · Q· · From -- I'll start with you.

19· · · A· · Repeat your question, please.

20· · · Q· · Was there any concern you had about

21· ·reputational damage from calling somebody a

22· ·misappropriator of funds?

23· · · A· · Yes, I would have had some concern.

24· · · Q· · I'll be honest with you, one of the

25· ·shocking things about this is we're now getting


·1· ·into this aggressive campaign to beat on these

·2· ·people through public disclosure and public

·3· ·statements to the press.

·4· · · A· · Is that a question?

·5· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Yeah, I

·6· · · didn't even hear a question.


·8· · · Q· · Was it your expectation as a member of the

·9· ·expulsion process that there was now going to be

10· ·some sort of struggle out in the greater world

11· ·over what happened here?

12· · · A· · I think you referred to a previous

13· ·document of mine where I elicited the prospect

14· ·of -- mentioned the prospect of entanglements in

15· ·the future going through our actions.

16· · · · · ·[ The Letter to Ms. Wachs from Mr.

17· · · Golly, November 7, 2011 was hereby marked

18· · · as Brown Exhibit 15 for identification,

19· · · as of this date.]


21· · · Q· · I'm showing you what is marked as

22· ·Exhibit 15.

23· · · · · ·Have you ever seen this document?

24· · · A· · I believe I have seen this.· I don't

25· ·believe I saw it immediately November 7, 2011, but


·1· ·I have seen it.

·2· · · Q· · And did you prepare this document?

·3· · · A· · No.

·4· · · Q· · You see the statement in this document,

·5· ·let me read this line to you.· "The conclusion of

·6· ·the committee" -- that's referring to you and

·7· ·Mr. Miles -- "was that the evidence proved

·8· ·irrefutable that you had misappropriated the

·9· ·organization's funds".

10· · · · · ·Do you see that phrase in there?

11· · · A· · Yes.

12· · · Q· · I think earlier in the day I asked you

13· ·whether it would be fair to say whether something

14· ·had been proven to you on a irrefutable basis, and

15· ·I thought you said that phrase had never been

16· ·used, but here it is.

17· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Misstates

18· · · it.· This is not published.· It's a letter

19· · · from one person to another.


21· · · Q· · Well, sir, this would be a

22· ·mischaracterization of what you and Mr. Miles did,

23· ·that you had received evidence that proved

24· ·irrefutable; wouldn't you agree?




·2· · · A· · No, I don't believe that the evidence was

·3· ·irrefutable, but there is a possibility of

·4· ·refuting it, yes.

·5· · · · · ·[Whereupon Mr. Curry returned to the

·6· ·proceedings.]


·8· · · Q· · You thought you were just giving every one

·9· ·90 days to come back and explain?

10· · · A· · Making displeasure known and giving them

11· ·90 days to explain, or if the individuals hadn't

12· ·left the members on the board of directors, there

13· ·was opportunity for them to explain there as well.

14· · · Q· · Did you approve this letter in furtherance

15· ·of this going out?

16· · · A· · This letter, no.

17· · · Q· · It has your name here as director in the

18· ·letterhead?

19· · · A· · That's probably standard letterhead.· No,

20· ·I did not see the letter.

21· · · Q· · When you first saw it, did you complain

22· ·that it was not fully accurate?

23· · · · · ·MR. BURRES:· Objection.· Lack of


25· · · A· · I don't recall seeing it before today.



·2· · · Q· · Wouldn't it have been the chairman and

·3· ·president's duty to circulate such a document to

·4· ·the entire board?



·7· · · A· · I don't know.· I believe the board was

·8· ·simply notified that Mr. Golly had notified Wachs

·9· ·and Kieffer.

10· · · Q· · Have you seen a similar letter like this

11· ·to Mr. Kieffer?

12· · · A· · No, I have seen none of these letters.

13· ·Neither of these letters.

14· · · Q· · It says in here that you had no conflict

15· ·of interest, that they were determined -- excuse

16· ·me, a committee of two board members were

17· ·determined to have no conflict of interest.


19· · · A· · Yes.

20· · · Q· · And you had just the same day voted to

21· ·remove her because you no longer trusted her?



24· · · A· · Well, two-part question.· Yes, I earlier

25· ·that day had voted to remove both president and


·1· ·vice president from office and based on my loss of

·2· ·trust for them.


·4· · · Q· · You don't think that represents a conflict

·5· ·of interest, sir?

·6· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Objection.· Calls for a

·7· · · legal conclusion.

·8· · · A· · I have no opinion on that.


10· · · Q· · Were you aware that e-mail blasts were

11· ·sent out to the membership declaring that she had

12· ·been expelled?

13· · · A· · I wouldn't call it a blast, but the

14· ·membership was notified.

15· · · Q· · By e-mail?

16· · · A· · Yes.

17· · · Q· · It was under the title Change of

18· ·Leadership?

19· · · A· · If you say so.· I'm not disputing that.

20· · · Q· · I see here Mr. Gollobith is now president.

21· ·How did that happen?· What took place to make him

22· ·president?

23· · · A· · Nobody else wanted to be president.· We

24· ·were without one.

25· · · Q· · Did you ever send her a refund of her


·1· ·membership dues?

·2· · · A· · I'm unaware of that.

·3· · · Q· · Just one more.

·4· · · · · ·[ The Letter from Ryan Carey to John

·5· · · McKnight, November 6, 2011 was hereby




·9· · · Q· · Let me show Exhibit 16.· Have you ever

10· ·seen this certified letter from Ryan Carey to John

11· ·McKnight?

12· · · A· · I'll read it and then comment.

13· · · · · ·I believe I have seen this letter before

14· ·or a draft, but without the letterhead.

15· · · Q· · You think it was prepared by

16· ·Mr. Gollobith?

17· · · A· · I do not.

18· · · Q· · Now, what board action caused Mr. Carey to

19· ·now claim to be the lawyer for Atheists of

20· ·Florida, Inc.?


22· · · A· · I believe he was originally retained on

23· ·that basis, although it was misstated at the

24· ·minutes that he was Golly's personal attorney.



·1· · · Q· · Could he have been retained on, say,

·2· ·November 2nd, without any -- when the president

·3· ·and vice president didn't retain him, the board

·4· ·hadn't voted to retain him, how could he be

·5· ·retained by Atheists of Florida, Inc.?

·6· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Object.· It calls for a

·7· · · legal conclusion, the definition of

·8· · · "retention".

·9· · · · · ·THE WITNESS:· Should I answer that?

10· · · · · ·MR. PORTER:· Yes.

11· · · A· · I conclude that in that case that Ed Golly

12· ·hired him to represent Atheists of Florida.· Now,

13· ·his client then was Ed Golly representing on

14· ·behalf of Atheists of Florida.· If this is the

15· ·case.· As I say, I don't know the legal ins and

16· ·outs.


18· · · Q· · On what authority could Ed Golly as board

19· ·chair hire a lawyer for Atheists of Florida, Inc.?

20· · · A· · On his own authority.

21· · · Q· · Is that how the corporation operated, it

22· ·was the Gollobith corporation?

23· · · A· · I know the opposition would object, but I

24· ·believe, and before this arose, my study of the

25· ·bylaws, there is an implied guardianship function


·1· ·for the chairman in the bylaws by stipulation its

·2· ·from the beginning that despite the chairman's

·3· ·fairly restrictive role otherwise in governance,

·4· ·the president must inform the chairman of every

·5· ·major action taken.· Why on earth would it be

·6· ·required for the president to notify the chairman

·7· ·unless the chairman had some semi-executive

·8· ·function on behalf of the membership.

·9· · · Q· · Well, I think you earlier said the bylaws

10· ·were not clear in a lot of these respects and

11· ·needed to be rewritten?

12· · · A· · But that was in the original set of bylaws

13· ·and it's been retained ever since, so far as I

14· ·know, all the bylaws I have seen.

15· · · Q· · By the way, is it healthy for an

16· ·organization to have a chairman and president be

17· ·the same person?


19· · · speculation.· Can we go home now?

20· · · · · ·MR. BUESING:· Just give me two

21· · · minutes.

22· · · · · ·So Mr. Porter needs to get on the

23· · · way to handle some items back in his

24· · · office.· We'll be back in touch with his

25· · · office to reset and finish up the


·1· ·deposition.· Hopefully by then we'll have

·2· ·his documents, Mr. Porter, the documents

·3· ·coming out of his computer and that will

·4· ·also allow a chance for Mr. Kieffer and

·5· ·Mr. Hoffman to ask some questions.

·6· · · · THE COURT REPORTER:· Are you ordering

·7· ·the transcript?

·8· · · · MR. BUESING:· Yes, I think so.

·9· · · · THE COURT REPORTER:· Do you want to

10· ·order a copy?

11· · · · MR. HOFFMAN:· Order a copy.

12· · · · MR. PORTER:· Not right now.

13· · · · THE COURT REPORTER:· Do you want the

14· ·witness to read, and sign?

15· · · · You have a right to read this

16· ·transcript before it becomes final and

17· ·you are allowed to make changes in the

18· ·errata sheet, put the reason why you're

19· ·making the change.

20· · · · THE WITNESS:· Do you advise that I do

21· ·that?

22· · · · MR. PORTER:· Yes, I do.· Because of

23· ·who you are, being an editor and things of

24· ·that nature.· · · · · (The taking of this deposition was25· ·concluded at 3:40 p.m.)


·1· · · · · · · · · · · · · · *****

·2· · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET

·3

·4· ·Our Assignment No.: 52174

·5· ·Case Caption:· Atheists of Florida v. Atheists of

·6· · · · · · · · · Florida

·7

·8· · · · · · ·DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

·9

10· · · · · ·I declare under penalty of perjury that I

11· ·have read the entire transcript of my Deposition

12· ·taken in the captioned matter, or the same has been

13· ·read to me, and the same is true and accurate, save

14· ·and except for changes and/or corrections, if any,

15· ·as indicated by me on the DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET

16· ·hereof, with the understanding that I offer these

17· ·changes as if still under oath.

18

19· · · · · ·Signed on the _______ day of

20· ·_______________, 2013.

21

22

23· ·___________________________________

24· · · · · ·STEVEN BROWN

25


·1· · · · · · · · · ·DEPOSITION ERRATA SHEET

·2· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________

·3· ·__________________________________________________

·4· ·Reason for change:________________________________


·6· ·__________________________________________________

·7· ·Reason for change:________________________________


·9· ·__________________________________________________

10· ·Reason for change:________________________________

11· ·Page No._____Line No._____Change to:______________

12· ·__________________________________________________



15· ·__________________________________________________



18· ·__________________________________________________



21· ·__________________________________________________


23

24· ·SIGNATURE:_______________________DATE:___________

25· · · · · · ·STEVEN BROWN


·1· · · · · · · · · · ·CERTIFICATE OF OATH

·2· ·STATE OF FLORIDA· ·)

·3· ·COUNTY OF PINELLAS )

·4

·5

·6· · · · · ·I, the undersigned authority, certify that

·7· ·personally appeared before me and was duly sworn on

·8· ·the 13th of December, 2013.

·9

10· · · · · ·WITNESS my hand and official seal this 20th

11· ·of December, 2013.

12

13

14

15· ·_____________________________________

16· ·GERRILYNN MEHL, RPR

17· ·Notary Public - State of Florida· · ·My Commission No. EE20750818· ·Expires:· June 16, 2016

19

20

21

22

23

24

25


amanderson

Stamp

·1· · · · · · · · · · C E R T I F I C A T E

·2· ·The State of Florida )

·3· ·County of Pinellas· ·)

·4· · · · · ·I, Gerrilynn Mehl, Registered professional

·5· ·Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of

·6· ·Florida at Large, do hereby certify that the· · ·aforementioned witness was by me first duly sworn to·7· ·testify the whole truth; that I was authorized to· · ·and did report said deposition in stenotype; and·8· ·that the foregoing pages are a true and correct· · ·transcription of my shorthand notes of said·9· ·deposition.

10· · · · · ·I further certify that said deposition was· · ·taken at the time and place hereinabove set forth11· ·and that the taking of said deposition was commenced· · ·and completed as hereinabove set out.12· · · · · · ·I further certify that I am not an attorney13· ·or counsel of any of the parties, nor am I a· · ·relative or employee of any attorney or counsel of14· ·party connected with the action, nor am I· · ·financially interested in the action.15· · · · · · ·The foregoing certification of this16· ·transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the· · ·same by any means unless under the direct control17· ·and/or direction of the certifying reporter.

18

19· · · · · ·IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my· · ·hand this 20th day of December, 2013.20

21

22· ·__________________________________

23· ·Gerrilynn Mehl, RPR

24

25


amanderson

Stamp

Steven Brown 12-13-2013 Fullprint

Documents

Transcript of Steven Brown 12-13-2013 Fullprint