564 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

COMMENCING: 1:56 p.m. 3:14 p.m. REPORTED BY: PEGGY OWENS REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL REPORTER REGISTERED MERIT REPORTER DEPOSITION OF: TAKEN AT THE INSTANCE OF: DATE TAKEN: LOCATION: vs. REPUBLICAN PARTY OF FLORIDA MIKE HARIDOPOLOS, and JOHN THRASHER, Defendant. ___________________________/ JAMES GREER, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 2012-CA-0962

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE

SECOND JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR LEON COUNTY, FLORIDA

VOLUME 4
JAMES GREER Defendant Haridopolos May 25, 2012 909 E. Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida

17
CONCLUDING:

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 PEGGY OWENS & ASSOCIATES (850) 222-6010

565 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
WITNESS James Greer Direct Examination by Mr. LeBoeuf 567 I N D E X PAGE A P P E A R A N C E S DAMON CHASE, Attorney at Law, of the law offices of Chase/Freeman, 1525 International Parkway, Suite 4021, Lake Mary, Florida behalf of the Plaintiff. STEPHEN S. DOBSON, III, Attorney at Law, of the law offices of Dobson, Davis & Smith, 610 N. Duval Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301; appeared on behalf 32746; appeared on

of the Republican Party of Florida. DEAN LEBOEUF and TODD RESAVAGE, Attorneys at Law, of the law firm of Brooks, LeBoeuf, Bennett, Foster & Gwartney, P.A., 909 East Park Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida Defendant Haridopolos. KENNETH W. SUKHIA, Attorney at Law, Sukhia Law Group, 2846 Remington Green Circle, Suite B, Tallahassee, Florida 32308; appeared on behalf of Defendant Thrasher. 32301; appeared on behalf of the

Cross Examination by Mr. Sukhia

574

566 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 37 - 6/25/08 36 - 3/1/05 NO. 34 - 4/1/08 Forward Strategies Consulting Contract 35 - 12/31/08 Forward Strategies Consulting Contract Forward Strategies Consulting Contract Picotte Fundraising Services Agreement 590 586 584 580
E X H I B I T S

PAGE

567 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. LeBOEUF: Q Mr. Greer, we are back from lunch break, and Whereupon,
JAMES A. GREER, called as a witness; after having been previously duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

D E P O S I T I O N

MR. CHASE: to clarify.

He has one question he would like

DIRECT EXAMINATION

I understand that there is something about your prior testimony that you would like to clarify. A Yes, sir. Yes, Mr. LeBoeuf. You asked me

where beyond the $124,000 payment that was due did the RPOF cause any damages. And I listed various things in the agreement that I believe they breached and caused damages. you also asked me about the criminal case. And I believe that RPOF orchestrated and used their political influence and power to create the criminal case, the criminal accusations, and were very much involved in directly influencing through the Attorney General Bill McCollum, through John Thrasher as a State Senator, the criminal case that was filed against me. But

568 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 And I believe that is a major portion of the damages filed against me, where RPOF's efforts and failure to disclose and address the severance agreement, and basically just created this fabrication that a crime had been committed. Q Do you have any direct evidence that RPOF or

Senator Thrasher or Mr. McCollum or anybody else was actively involved in causing you to be arrested? MR. CHASE: Object to form. Calls for a

legal conclusion. THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe by the public

statements that Bill McCollum made, the audit that was conducted that simply attacked myself and Governor Crist. After they had specifically

stated that every expenditure under my Chairmanship was proper, lawful and appropriate, that any issues that would arise out of any expenditures or contracts, known or unknown, foreseen or unforeseen or any issue relating to the appropriateness of any contract or expenditure would not be raised. And then later John Thrasher and Bill McCollum and the Republican Party of Florida breached that provision of that agreement and made false accusations against me, which resulted in my

569 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 arrest. BY MR. LeBOEUF: Q A Q Anything else? No. Okay. So you believe that you have covered

everything that you believe they did or didn't do that caused you to be arrested? A There may be other aspects that they were

involved in, but I don't know of any at this time. Q And you made the comment about what -- I

think it was that Senator McCollum and/or Senator Thrasher said that you saw in newspaper articles that you believe led to you being arrested. specific.? MR. CHASE: Bill McCollum was Attorney Can you be more

General, as opposed to senator. BY MR. LeBOEUF: Q Did I say Senator? Excuse me, I meant

General McCollum. A Yes, shortly after the severance agreement

was signed, Senator Thrasher started making public comments about the audit, conducting an audit, reviewing expenditures, were in clear violation of the agreement if, in fact, the result of that audit in any way criticized any expenditures under my Chairmanship,

570 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when in fact they had a binding agreement where they recognized that any contract and any expenditure was proper, lawful and appropriate; and that they agreed that there would be no questions relating to the appropriateness of any contract or expenditure. And not only did they violate that agreement, I'm not sure that I know, but I'm sure some day we will know who led this conspiracy and orchestrated this effort to charge me with a crime and have me arrested simply for the purpose. The final, the final hail Mary pass for getting out of paying me my agreement was to accuse me of a crime when they had tried everything else for two months to not pay me. The final decision, in my opinion was made, you know, we are going to have to pay him if we don't come up with something good. was accuse me of a crime. Q But other than your opinion, you don't have And the something good

any direct evidence of who took that action, do you? MR. CHASE: evidence. THE WITNESS: BY MR. LeBOEUF: Q All right. And with regard to the criminal I don't at this time. Objection. Misstates facts in

571 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 investigation that resulted in your arrest, you don't have, it is certainly not your position that any of the parties to this lawsuit were not able to answer any questions by law enforcement? MR. CHASE: I'm sorry, could you please

restate the question? BY MR. LeBOEUF: Q Certainly. You understand that there was a

criminal investigation conducted that resulted in your arrest; right? A Well, I understand that there was an

investigation conducted at the direction of the Attorney General and John Thrasher. Senator Thrasher,

who was head of RPOF at that time, I understand that FDLE was utilized to conduct that investigation. I'm not sure what transpired, what political influence or pressure was applied to FDLE to come to their conclusion. It would seem to me that if RPOF adhered to their assigned agreement that they acknowledged that any and all contracts were lawful, appropriate, and ratified, and if they had told FDLE that, it would seem to me that FDLE would not have concluded that a crime had been committed. But I don't know, I just read recently where

572 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 a United States Congressman publicly stated that FDLE went on a political witch hunt to accuse him of a crime and wasted taxpayer money to create a political investigation. So after I read that story, I'm not sure, you know, I'm not sure exactly what FDLE's goals are at times when they are getting political pressure or political influence. But ultimately, if RPOF had adhered to the agreement that they signed, I don't believe any accusation of a crime could ever have been raised. Q And just for my own understanding, you don't

believe that there was anything about that contract that prevented any representative from RPOF or any of the defendants in this case from meeting with, or honestly answering questions proposed to them as part of a criminal investigation; do you? MR. CHASE: Object to form. Calls for a

legal conclusion. THE WITNESS: I don't believe if they had

adhered to the agreement, a criminal investigation would ever have been conducted. Because they

specifically stated that nothing occurred that could in any way remotely be considered a crime, any contracts, agreements, known or unknown, seen

573 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or unforeseen, any issues relating to any inappropriateness of any expenditures. So I don't know what conversations they would have had with FDLE or anyone else in law enforcement regarding a crime, when they specifically stated in this agreement no crimes had been committed. BY MR. LeBOEUF: Q Well, Mr. Greer, in all fairness, once your

creation of Victory Strategies was discovered, and your majority ownership interest in Victory Strategies was discovered, it is certainly not your position that they weren't able to disclose that information that they had discovered after they signed the contract, is it? MR. CHASE: Object to form. Misstates facts

in evidence and calls for a legal conclusion. THE WITNESS: It is my position I was

directed and authorized to take over fundraising of the Republican Party, to receive compensation for it. It is not a crime to commit a company --

to form a corporation or an LLC, which I had legal counsel advise me on how to go about doing that. And the severance agreement provided for an extensive hold harmless provision that I could never raise any issues against RPOF. They could

574 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Mr. Greer, I'm Ken Sukhia. We have met. never raise any issues against me. And they later violated that agreement and orchestrated a criminal case, which was their ultimate attempt to not pay me my severance payments. MR. LeBOEUF: All right. That's all the I believe

questions I have at this time.

Mr. Sukhia may have some questions. MR. SUKHIA: Thank you.

(Mr. LeBoeuf departed the deposition.) CROSS EXAMINATION

And I, of course, represent John Thrasher in this proceeding. And I want to follow up, obviously, on some of the questions that have been asked. And I wanted to

start with a clarification, a question to see if maybe you could clarify something. You said when you were talking with Charlie Crist and when you informed him of Victory Strategies, that as you've just testified, your position is that, well, I had approval from the Governor to do fundraising activities, to take over the fundraising activities, and also to be paid for it.

575 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it down. And I believe your testimony was, the Governor told me to fulfill the fundraising responsibilities and to pay myself a commission. wasn't my question. But I was just saying, I mean I was, I wrote That's why I put quotes around it because That

that's to indicate that's what I believe your testimony was. Does that sound familiar? A Not initially. MR. CHASE: Object to form. Initially when he instructed me

THE WITNESS:

to get right of Meredith O'Rourke and cancel her contract, during that time frame me taking over fundraising was not the prominent part of the discussion because I wanted to find another fundraiser. So that's when I started interviewing, as we discussed yesterday. And ultimately, at the end He told

of the day, he told me to get rid of her. me to take over fundraising.

He told me to pay

myself, to pay myself and Delmar for that. I don't believe we talked specifically about what it was going to be, how much, or anything of that nature. BY MR. SUKHIA:

576 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q In that regard, as to what else he didn't

talk to you specifically about, isn't it true that he did not tell you to do that and do it secretly, i.e., without informing anyone at RPOF about it? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No, because the Governor's

THE WITNESS:

position was that he had the power and authority to approve and direct me to do it, and I didn't need to tell anyone else. And that was a regular occurrence with the Governor. The Governor did not believe that I was

required on many occasions when he instructed or directed me to do things, that I needed to receive anyone else's approval. BY MR. LeBOEUF: Q All right. He didn't tell you to do it

secretly, did he? MR. CHASE: Object to form. We never had a discussion of

THE WITNESS:

secret or not secret. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q So he didn't tell you do it secretly? MR. CHASE: Object to form. Correct.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA:

577 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q He never directed you to do it in such a way

that it was concealed from RPOF, did he? MR. CHASE: Object to form. Other than we had a discussion

THE WITNESS:

one time about Meredith O'Rourke interfering with the fundraising efforts. And that's why I think

the discussion came up about paying her $5,000, or that was part of that discussion. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Well, let me ask you. Are you saying that in

that discussion the Governor said make it secret, don't tell anybody that you are paying yourself and Delmar a commission on this? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No, I don't recall that, that

THE WITNESS: being discussed. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

He never said anything like that? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No, I don't recall him saying

THE WITNESS: that. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Now, on that subject of you and Delmar.

You

testified that in this conversation with the Governor there was some acknowledgment or understanding that

578 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there would be a need to or at some point you determined it would be necessary that you keep your name out of this; i.e., in terms of the filings that might be made, that might be accessible to someone; i.e., that it only be Delmar's name on there. make that determination in this? MR. CHASE: Object to form. As I initially recall, I don't Did you

THE WITNESS:

think that Delmar thought he was going to be publicly disclosed. Because the whole discussion

centered on if Meredith finds out that we are doing the fundraising, she will try and obstruct us from being successful. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Okay. Now, if Meredith knew that Delmar had

any involvement in this, she would also be destructive? A I don't know whether she would or would not

have been. MR. CHASE: Object to form. I know that anyone who tried to

THE WITNESS:

replace her as the fundraiser, she had demonstrated that she was not cooperative. She

had demonstrated she had the ability to interfere in fundraising. I'm not sure if it was just us. I think it

579 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 would have been anybody; but certainly us, she would have enhanced her efforts in interfering in our ability to be successful. MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q You testified to the fact that other Object to form.

contracts that, the fundraising contracts before Victory Strategies, that were entered into with the Party, that those contained confidentiality provisions, as well? MR. CHASE: Object to form. As I recall, yes.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Isn't it a fact that none of those prior

contracts, other than the one that you testified about drafting as a proposed contract, that was drafted on January 15, I believe, which was the last contract for Meredith O'Rourke's company, isn't it true that none of those actual contracts that were entered into with the Party had a confidentiality provision that said anything whatsoever about withholding information from RPOF and from the Finance Committee of RPOF? MR. CHASE: Object to form, and it assumes

facts not in evidence. THE WITNESS: There is no such thing as the

580 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Finance Committee of RPOF. That was an entity I

created as Chairman which has no place in the constitution or anywhere else. As it relates to a confidentiality provision, I don't recall the specifics. I know that all of

them have, because the fundraisers want them to have a confidentiality clause. MR. CHASE: And Ken, you are with me, if I

say object to form, it is relevance, okay? MR. SUKHIA: Yes. Can you mark this as the

next exhibit, No. 34. (Whereupon, the document was marked as Deposition Exhibit No. 34.) BY MR. SUKHIA: Q I'm handing you what's been marked as Exhibit

No. 34 for this deposition and ask you if you can identify that. A It appears to have my signature, but I don't

recall this document. Q A Can you identify what it is? It is a Consulting Contract between the

Republican Party of Florida and Forward Strategies. Q A What is Forward Strategies? I believe that was the name of Meredith's

fundraising company at the time.

581 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not? MR. CHASE: Object to form. It appears to be, yes. Q A Q Meredith O'Rourke? Uh-huh. And when was this contract entered into? MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q It was entered into in April of 2008, was it Object to form.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q A

This is your signature, as best you can tell? It appears to be. MR. CHASE: Object to form. Although, I don't know what

THE WITNESS:

these lines are going across the page, which I find unusual; but it appears to be my signature. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q I want to direct your attention to paragraph And ask you to tell me where, if

9 of this agreement.

you can see it in that agreement, that it has language consistent or where it contains the same language that your Victory Strategies confidentiality agreement contains regarding -- specifically regarding not disclosing any portion of the agreement to major donors or to members of the RPOF Finance Committee without the

582 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 express approval of the Chairman or the Executive Director? MR. CHASE: Object to form, and the document

speaks for itself. THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q question. A I don't, I see where that -- those exact I'm just asking you. I have a specific The language --

words are not used. Q Well, are there any words in the contract you

signed for Forward Strategies in April of 2008 which say anything about withholding information from the RPOF or the Executive Director or -- excuse me -- or the Finance Committee or Finance Chairman, anything like that? MR. CHASE: Object to form, and the document

speaks for itself. THE WITNESS: Actually, I think this

agreement with Forward Strategies exceeds the language -BY MR. SUKHIA: Q That's not my question. And I think, you

know, I'm going to ask you to just answer my questions. A I'm trying my best to answer your questions.

583 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Well, that wasn't an answer. MR. CHASE: Actually, let him answer the

question, and you can move to strike after he is done. But he gets to answer the question you

asked him. Go ahead and finish answering the question, Mr. Greer. THE WITNESS: I believe that this document

you presented, the confidentiality provisions are extensively more than the agreement that was in the fundraising agreement with Victory Strategies, because this agreement states that the consultant hereby confirms that all such information related to the client's business will be kept confidential by the consultant, except to the extent that such information is required to be divulged to the consultant's clerical staff or associates. So it looks to me, that according to this, she may not have been able to disclose information to RPOF under this confidentiality provision. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Doesn't the first portion of that provision

say each party hereto ("Such Party") shall hold in trust for the other party hereto, and shall not disclose to any other, to any non-party to the

584 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agreement any confidential information or other such party or confidential information? MR. CHASE: Object to form. Document speaks

for itself and its argumentative. THE WITNESS: MR. CHASE: It does.

Very nice tone, by the way. It does in the first paragraph,

THE WITNESS:

but then the fourth paragraph becomes more extensive. MR. SUKHIA: Now, let me show you the earlier

contract which, excuse me, which we'll mark as Exhibit No. 35. (Whereupon, the document was marked as Deposition Exhibit No. 35.) BY MR. SUKHIA: Q And let you look at that. Can you identify

what this contract is? A It appears to be a fundraising contract for

Forward Strategies. Q contract? MR. CHASE: Object to form. The addendum has my signature Okay. And is that your signature on this

THE WITNESS:

on the contract; not the contract, itself. BY MR. SUKHIA:

585 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I would assume the Republican Q I want you to again look at the paragraph

number four of this contract, which is identified as confidential information. And tell me if in any

portion of this contract it contains any language forbidding Forward Strategies from sharing any aspect of this information to the Finance Committee or to the Finance Chairman of the RPOF? MR. CHASE: Object to form. The document

speaks for itself. THE WITNESS: The Finance Chairman or Finance

Committee is not noted in this agreement; but it is an extensive confidentiality provision that states that the consultant hereby confirms that all such information relating to the client's business will be kept confidential by the consultant. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Okay, let's explore that. It says that the

consultant acknowledges that during the performance of the contract the consultant may learn or receive confidential client information. Now, who is the client, to your understanding

THE WITNESS:

586 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Party of Florida is the client. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q That the consultant may receive confidential

client information; and therefore, the consultant hereby confirms that all such information relating to the client's business will be kept confidential by the consultant. Do you see anything in this provision that would say that the nature or the very existence of this agreement, or any information about the agreement, shall not be disclosed to the major donors or to the RPOF, or including the Finance Chair or the Finance Committee of the RPOF? MR. CHASE: Object to form. The document

speaks for itself. THE WITNESS: I see that it is a

confidentiality provision of this agreement. MR. SUKHIA: Let me show you a document Ask you if you can

marked as Exhibit No. 36. identify it, please.

(Whereupon, the document was marked as Deposition Exhibit No. 36.) BY MR. SUKHIA: Q A Can you identify what that is, please? It appears to be an agreement from 2005

587 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 between the Republican Party of Florida and Meredith O'Rourke. Q And if you will look at paragraph four,

subparagraph E, little E.? MR. CHASE: B, Ken. Paragraph what? I have an A and

Did you say E? Excuse me. Do you have the wrong document? My eyesight, I guess -I can't read it either. I can't read it either.

MR. SUKHIA: MR. CHASE: MR. SUKHIA: MR. CHASE:

THE WITNESS: MR. CHASE:

I think you are talking about, it

looks like paragraph A is consistent with your line of questions. MR. SUKHIA: I'm referring to. MR. DOBSON: MR. SUKHIA: MR. CHASE: help. Yes, I think paragraph A is what I guess the last paragraph. Paragraph A of what? Paragraph 4(a), four little A. I guess, I'm sorry, I'm trying to

Consistent -- if you finish -- if you

start -- it is just consistent with your line of questioning. I'm not trying to presuppose what you are asking, but this sentence uses the same language and then spills over.

588 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Is there anything in this agreement that All right.

instructs or somehow creates a prohibition against the consultant providing information to the client, itself; that is, to RPOF? MR. CHASE: Object to form, and the document

speaks for itself. THE WITNESS: Well, this agreement seems to

even be more extensive, as it is very specific that the fundraiser will not, shall not release or cause to be released, permit, or cause to be permitted documents, donors lists, plans, and like, or any other deviations or alterations. It is very difficult to read. without the consent of the Party. Other than But this seems

to be more specific as it relates to confidentiality. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Okay. So your reading of this would be that

this would restrict the consultant from sharing information that she received from the Party, sharing that information to the Party? MR. CHASE: for itself. Object to form. Document speaks

589 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: It simply seems to be more

specific; but I would, it says what it says. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Okay. You had testified previously that this

confidentiality agreement that you included in the Victory Strategies contract was the same provision which appeared, or the others all had confidentiality provisions. But it is true, isn't it, that none of these others -- including these you looked at -- had confidentiality provisions which prohibited the consultant from providing information to the client, that is to RPOF, about whatever she was doing? MR. CHASE: Object to form. themselves. THE WITNESS: No, there was, I think you Object to form. I'm sorry.

The documents speak for

said, yourself, that one of Meredith O'Rourke's previous contracts that was between the Republican Party of Florida and Meredith O'Rourke's company had the exact same language that the Victory Strategies contract had. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q I'm talking about contracts she entered into. MR. CHASE: Object to form. Document speaks

590 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 for itself. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q A I will show you that contract in a minute. I thought she had signed that one, but it was

presented to her for her acceptance. Q But you would agree that the contracts -Let me go ahead and give this to

well, strike that. the court reporter. A

If I can have one minute to use the restroom. (Brief recess.) MR. SUKHIA: All right. Okay, showing you

what's been marked as Exhibit No. 37 to this deposition. (Whereupon, the document was marked as Deposition Exhibit No. 37.) BY MR. SUKHIA: Q You had testified that you had met Gretchen

Picotte, and that you retained her to do some fundraising activities? is that correct? A It was Orlando, Central Florida, yes. MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q This Exhibit No. 37, is this the contract Sorry, object to form. I guess in your Orlando area,

that appears to be the contract that was entered into

591 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 between the Republican Party and Gretchen Picotte? A Q It appears to be. Does it also contain a confidentiality

provision? MR. CHASE: Object to form. It does.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Did you enter into this agreement? MR. CHASE: Object to form. Document speaks

for itself. THE WITNESS: signature. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Okay. And where did this language come from That appears to be my

in paragraph six for this agreement? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I don't know. There is even

THE WITNESS:

more extensive confidential -BY MR. SUKHIA: Q I didn't ask that. I just asked where the

language came from. A Q I don't know. Now, you are saying there is even more The language in the

extensive and so forth.

confidentiality provision, in fact, restricts the Party

592 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 from disclosing donor information or -- excuse me -the consultant and the Party from providing or disclosing donor information, donor levels, financial information, and all other materials provided by RPOF under this agreement, which the agreement describes as being, all being highly confidential; and which says that these things may not be disclosed by the consultant without the express permission of the Chairman. Is that correct? MR. CHASE: Object to form. It is.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

And it also says, and I quote, Consultant

further acknowledges that violation of this duty of confidentiality will subject RPOF to immediate damages whose value is difficult to quantify; is that correct? MR. CHASE: for itself. THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Does it also say that the consultant Yes. Object to form. Document speaks

therefore agrees that any breach of this confidentiality provision will be considered a material breach of the agreement, and RPOF shall be entitled to recover a hundred thousand dollars -- not as a

593 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 penalty -- but as liquidated damages approximating the future economic damages that would be suffered by RPOF? MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Is that correct? MR. CHASE: itself. THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q What portion of this confidentiality It says that. Object. The document speaks for Object to form.

agreement, if there is any, or what portion of this contract prevents the consultant from sharing information about the contract with RPOF, its major donors, or including the Finance Committee of the RPOF? MR. CHASE: Object to form. The document

speaks for itself. THE WITNESS: Well, the Finance Committee is But this document

not mentioned in this document.

requires the consultant to get approval of the Chairman as it relates to this and other issues. And it even adds a hundred thousand dollars liquidated damages if they breach the confidentiality provision. what it says. BY MR. SUKHIA: So the document says

594 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Okay. Is there any provision in this

contract, that you are aware of looking through it, that would prevent the recipient from disclosing information about the contract to major donors or members of the RPOF Finance Committee without the express approval of the Chairman or the Executive Director? MR. CHASE: Object to form. The document

speaks for itself. THE WITNESS: Yes. It says in paragraph six,

an integral and material part of this agreement, consultant acknowledges that all lists, donor information, donor levels, financial information, and all other materials provided by RPOF under this agreement are highly confidential and may not be disclosed by consultant without the express permission of the Chairman. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Okay. Are you suggesting that this would

have prevented the consultant from sharing that information with the very client from which she received the information? MR. CHASE: for itself. THE WITNESS: The document states that the Object to form. Document speaks

595 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 6. person she has to get permission from is the Chairman, not the Party. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Now, you didn't answer my question. Is there

anything in this provision that you are interpreting that would prevent her from sharing any information to the RPOF about this, the information that she received from RPOF? A Yes. MR. CHASE: Object to form. The document

speaks for itself. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q All right. Let me show you again Exhibit No. I am going to let you look at

Let me back up.

Exhibit No. 5, which is the -A What was that exhibit number, the last one

you handed to me? Q The last one was No. 37. I want to show you

the fundraising -- actually these are Exhibits No. 10 to the deposition and No. 6. those. A And you can look at

Now, do you recognize Exhibit No. 10? I do. MR. CHASE: Object to form.

BY MR. SUKHIA: Q And what is number 10?

596 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CHASE: Object to form. It is an agreement that was

THE WITNESS:

provided for between Meredith O'Rourke and RPOF. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q All right. Is this the agreement that

references $5,000 a month that was a proposed agreement she never entered? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I think she ultimately signed

THE WITNESS: this agreement. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Okay, but this is the one that does not have

her signature on it. A Q Correct. All right. MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Now, where did the language in this about Object to form.

confidentiality come from? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I don't know.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q with her? A

Who is it that entered into this agreement

Myself, as Chairman.

597 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Okay. And is it your testimony you have no

idea how the language about confidentiality came out in that provision? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I don't recall how this I know that the $5,000 was

THE WITNESS:

agreement was created.

discussed between the Governor and I, but I don't recall how this agreement was -BY MR. SUKHIA: Q But you can see that -MR. CHASE: ahead, Ken. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q You can see that the language in the Object to form. I'm sorry, go

confidentiality provision there includes language about not disclosing the nature of the information, or the matters concerning this agreement to the RPOF, and so forth, the same language that's in No. 6. MR. CHASE: Object to form. I agree.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

When was this proposed contract prepared? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I don't recall.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA:

598 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Can you look at the date of the contract?

Does it identify a date? A It does not. It simply has blanks when it

says entered into. Q Do you know when it was that you were talking

with Meredith O'Rourke about resolving or about entering into some sort of modification of her agreement? MR. CHASE: Object to form. That went over, that went over We discussed

THE WITNESS:

an extended period of time. commissions.

We discussed reductions to the base.

We discussed insurance for her. So I don't recall exactly when this agreement was presented to her. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Okay. But you knew it had to be at or around

the time you were about to take over? A Take over what? MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q A Q Take over the fundraising? No, this was presented to her prior to that. At or about the time -MR. CHASE: Object to form. Object to form.

599 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: presented to her. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Now, do you know if the General Counsel I don't know when it was

reviewed any of these other contracts, other than the Victory Strategies one I referred you to? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I don't know whether he did or

THE WITNESS: didn't. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

You had alleged in your complaint, in

paragraph 22, subparagraph M, that shortly after you filed this litigation -- and I'm going to quote from your complaint. It says, "In its final desperate

attempt to avoid its express liability under the agreement, RPOF announced it was going to have Greer prosecuted for failing to disclose Victory Strategies, LLC." And this is a verified complaint, correct? That means this is under oath that you have given this. A Q (Nodding head.) Who at RPOF announced that it was going to

have Greer prosecuted for failing to disclose Victory Strategies and when did they announce it? A Can you repeat the time line that you are

600 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 asking about? Q It says on April 1, 2010, Greer filed the That's paragraph L. Paragraph M

instant litigation.

says, shortly thereafter, in its final desperate attempt to avoid its express liability under the agreement, RPOF announced that it was going to have Greer prosecuted for failing to disclose Victory Strategies, LLC. When did, quote, RPOF announce it was going to have you prosecuted for failing to disclose Victory Strategies, and who made that announcement? MR. CHASE: question. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q A When did they announce it? It was my understanding that there were Object to form. Compound

conversations taking place within RPOF that they were going to try and have me arrested. And I believe that those discussions were conveyed to certain members of the Executive Board, including James Stelling, who was a member of the Executive Board. Q Okay. You said RPOF announced it. So when,

you used the phrase here, the term, "announced", you mean someone at RPOF, you heard from somebody that

601 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 be. someone at RPOF talked about this in their private meetings or something? A I don't know what the term "announced" would

But I think when you become knowledgeable of

something, that's an announcement. But I also believe that there were statements from about March 15th on where RPOF was indicating that there may have been a crime committed. And I was being

told that, that people within RPOF were discussing that they were going to try and have me arrested so that they didn't have to pay the severance agreement. Q Do you know who was saying that, they were

going to have you arrested? A I was told it was John Thrasher. I was told

that it was discussed among the Executive Committee members. I was told that it was being discussed up And that I should prepare for bad

here in Tallahassee.

things coming my way, because they wanted to do everything they could to not pay me my payment, which became due on March 1st. Q Who told you that John Thrasher or anyone

else at RPOF, specifically John Thrasher, who told you that John Thrasher said that to avoid having to pay you under this agreement they were going to have you arrested?

602 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A I think around March 22nd to the 25th, John

Thrasher made a statement to the press that he said that he believed that crimes may have been committed by me at RPOF. Q Okay. Who told you that he said that to

avoid payments under the severance agreement, they were going to have you arrested? A No one told me that to avoid the payment, but

he made an announcement after the payment became due -not prior to the payment, but after the payment became due -- that crimes may have been committed. So you can only interpret that if someone is saying crimes may have been committed, that an arrest would follow. Q Let me ask you. Are you aware that Delmar

Johnson came to FDLE in March, on March 15th or March 16th of that year, that is 2010, and that he disclosed to them your involvement in Victory Strategies? MR. CHASE: Objection. Compound question,

relevance, and assumes facts not in evidence. THE WITNESS: could continue -MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: You answered the question. I have heard that. But if I

603 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did you disclose your financial interest in

Victory Strategies and the payments you had received from it to the RPOF auditors; that is, to Thompson, Brock, Luger and Company? MR. CHASE: Object to form. They didn't ask me.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Did you disclose your involvement in Victory

Strategies to CFO Richard Swartz? A He didn't ask me. MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Then the answer is, no, you didn't disclose Object to form.

that to him? A No. MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Did you disclose your interest in Victory Object to form.

Strategies to the RPOF Finance Committee Chair John Rood, the one who was serving as the Finance Chair at the time you entered this agreement? MR. CHASE: Object to form. Mr. Rood was basically useless

THE WITNESS:

as a Finance Chair. BY MR. SUKHIA:

604 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q That's not my question. Did you disclose,

did you disclose your interest in Victory Strategies to the Finance Committee Chair, John Rood? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Did you disclose your interest in Victory

Strategies to the RPOF bookkeepers, Kay Linton and Catherine Howell? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Did you disclose your interest in Victory

Strategies to the Budget Committee of the Republican Party of Florida? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Did you disclose your interest in Victory

Strategies to the Audit Committee of the Republican Party of Florida? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Did you disclose your interest in Victory

605 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Strategies to Treasurer Joel Pate? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Did you disclose your interest in Victory

Strategies to Assistant Treasurer Allen Miller? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Did you disclose your interest in Victory

Strategies to the vice Chairman of the Party, Allen Cox? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Did you disclose your interest in Victory

Strategies to the General Counsel to the Party, Daniel Nordby? MR. CHASE: Object to form. He wasn't General Counsel.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Let me ask you about that.

Isn't it true

that the General Counsel to the Party from February 8, of 2008 until June of 2009 was not Jason Gonzalez? MR. CHASE: Object to form.

606 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: I'm not sure who was General

Counsel during that time, because they informed me at one point in time it wasn't an individual that was the General Counsel. Ausley McMullen. So therefore, there was not a person who was the General Counsel. It was Ausley McMullen. So It was a contract with

Jason could step in, step out. step in, step out.

Dan Nordby could

So who was fulfilling the role as General Counsel, I couldn't tell you other than the fact we had a contract with Ausley McMullen. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q So you didn't, you didn't know who was

serving as your General Counsel for the Party while you were Chairman? A I knew -MR. CHASE: Object to form. I knew who came to the meetings

THE WITNESS:

to fulfill the role as General Counsel. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Who came to the meetings to fulfill the role

as General Counsel during the -MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Object to form.

607 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q -- during the period that Jason Gonzalez was

serving as the General Counsel in the Governor's office? MR. CHASE: Object to form. Oh, I think it was Dan Nordby.

THE WITNESS:

I think there was some other gentleman that popped in one time and represented the Ausley McMullen law firm, too. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Did you disclose your interest in Victory

Strategies to Daniel Nordby? A No. MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Did you disclose your interest in Victory Object to form.

Strategies to the other fellow that you mentioned who might have come over there from the Ausley firm? MR. CHASE: Object to form. Well, I disclosed it to Jason

THE WITNESS: Gonzalez. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

He was an employee of Ausley McMullen.

Well, let me ask you about that.

You said

you disclosed it to Jason Gonzalez.

And that was the

same, you said that it was as you were walking out of the office after the meeting, immediately preceding the

608 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 meeting at which he asked you directly if you had an interest in Victory Strategies and you said no. A Q Correct. Is that correct? MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q A Q Is that correct? Correct. At that, that meeting -MR. CHASE: Just object to form. I mean it Object to form.

is asked and answered. MR. SUKHIA: MR. CHASE: No, no, believe me it is not. When he told Jason Gonzalez when The objection is

he walked out of the meeting? asked and answered. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

You were asked at one point who was present And you had

at that meeting when he asked you that. said, gosh, I'm not sure I remember.

It was, it seemed

like you mentioned a lady's name who might have been in the meeting? A No, that's wrong, Mr. Sukhia. MR. CHASE: Object to form. I mentioned the lady's name, That was

THE WITNESS:

Katie Betta, on the day that I resigned.

609 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 when the Katie Betta question was answered. The day that he came into the office -- and this came up along with many other accusations that were going around -- was the day that there had been previous meetings that day. mentioned that I was upset. I think I

Because the

Republican Party was just, it was not a good day. They were talking about keeping blacks from voting. Having the Party pay for those Then

amendments, those constitutional amendments. having taxpayers pay to fund the defenses. a very hectic day.

It was

But I remember that day that he did ask me that in front of some other people, along with many other things that he told were going on, accusations about limousines, travel to New York Yankee games, travel to some other issues. And I think we came from my conference room into my office, because there was a meeting in the conference room where the House and Senate were trying to find a way to have the taxpayers pay for opposing those constitutional amendments, because they didn't want, they wanted to find ways to restrict voters from voting. And we went from I believe that meeting into

610 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 my, into my office. So I don't remember exactly

who was in that meeting, although I do remember Jason asking me that question. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Isn't it true that in the meeting at which

Jason asked you that question, two people -- actually, three people were present. MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Isn't it true that Eric Eikenberg was in that Object to form.

room, that Jim Rimes was in the office, and that Richard Swartz was in the office? MR. CHASE: answered. THE WITNESS: If they were in the room -Object to form, and asked and

Swartz was not in the room because Swartz was not involved in those type meetings. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q If the folks who were involved, who were in

that meeting, said they remembered that you were asked if you had an interest in Victory Strategies, and you said no, that you would sue anyone who said that -- if those people said that meeting occurred at the end of December, would they all be wrong? MR. CHASE: Object to form.

611 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 it. A Q No. Did you disclose your interest in Victory THE WITNESS: Couldn't have occurred at the

end of December because I didn't go back to the Party from about -- there was some date in the middle of December. MR. CHASE: I was, spent Christmas -- no.

Just answer the question. No, I don't know the dates.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Now, is it your recollection that the meeting

at which you said, I would like to get my lawyer on the phone, was not the meeting at which Jason Gonzalez asked you if you had an interest in Victory Strategies? MR. CHASE: Object to form. That was a different date.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Did you disclose your interest in Victory

Strategies to the national committeemen and national committeewoman of the Republican Party of Florida? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No, there was no need to.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

I didn't ask that.

I asked if you disclosed

Strategies to the full Executive Board of the

612 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Republican Party of Florida? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

When the subject of Victory Strategies came

up in your conversations with Pate and Miller, and you actually brought it up and said if you have any question about Victory Strategies, at that point it didn't occur to you it would be appropriate -- since their whole purpose for being there was to review the propriety of actions -- did you not feel at that point it would be appropriate to inform them affirmatively of your interest in Victory Strategies? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No, because at that time the

THE WITNESS:

discussions of me owning part of Victory Strategies was being talked about. I believe

there is some information that in early December somebody sent the Victory Strategies contract to Gary Lee. So it was a general assumption at that point in time, from what I understood, that people had become aware that I owned Victory Strategies. when I met with Joel and Allen, I said, do you have any questions about the Victory Strategies And

613 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 contract. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Okay. Let me ask you this. Isn't it true And they said no.

that the reason you brought up Victory Strategies at that time to Joel Pate and Miller is because you felt and knew that you were vulnerable on that issue and -MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Let me the finish my question. You knew that Object to form.

at that point they didn't know of your interest in Victory Strategies? MR. CHASE: question. THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Isn't it true at that point you knew that What's the question? Object to form and compound

they were aware of Victory Strategies, and that there was a concern, not about your ownership at that point, because it wasn't known, widely known, but people were concerned at that point, isn't it true, because Delmar Johnson -- your Executive Director -- it had become known at that point that he had an ownership interest in Victory Strategies? MR. CHASE: question. Object to form. Compound Assumes

Relevance.

Improper question.

614 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 facts not in evidence. THE WITNESS: I simply asked them if they had If they had

a question about Victory Strategies.

had one, and if they had asked, I would have told them. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q You said that you think it was widely known

of your involvement in Victory Strategies because even the contract had apparently been made known to and shown to Gary Lee. A Who was Gary Lee?

He was a County Chairman. MR. CHASE: Object to form.

BY MR. SUKHIA: Q A Q County Chairman of the Republican Party? Yes, he was one of the gang of five. You said you believe, though, that your

ownership in Victory Strategies was generally known because that contract had been disclosed to Gary Lee? MR. CHASE: Object to form. There was all types of

THE WITNESS:

accusations, issues relating to not only Victory Strategies, but there were also people that were raising the issue about Meredith O'Rourke getting $30,000 a month. So when I had Allen and Joel in my office, I

615 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 wanted them to look at every contract. And I

specifically asked them, based on my assumption that they might have had a question about Victory Strategies, and they said they did not. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Okay. The contract with Victory Strategies

mentions Delmar Johnson, but it doesn't mention you as having any ownership in Victory Strategies; does it? MR. CHASE: Object to form. The document

speaks for itself. THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q So how is it the disclosure of that contract It doesn't.

would make people aware that you had an ownership interest in Victory Strategies? MR. CHASE: answered. THE WITNESS: talk. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q And isn't it true that because that might Because I think that was the Object to form, and asked and

have been the talk, that is the reason that Jason Gonzalez would have asked you what about you, Mr. Chairman, do you have an ownership interest in Victory Strategies?

616 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. CHASE: Object to form. Well, the day Jason Gonzalez

THE WITNESS:

asked me that, he asked me that in front of non-RPOF employees that had no business being involved in that discussion, other than the fact they were participants in the discussion about suppressing voters that had immediately occurred before. They were not involved in any contractual issues with RPOF. And it was a broader discussion

of all the other things that were going on out there. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q And when you had that conversation with them,

you discussed with them, and there was discussion in that conversation about Delmar's ownership in Victory Strategies, was there not? A Absolutely not. MR. CHASE: Object to form. Delmar's name was not even

THE WITNESS: mentioned. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Let me ask you this.

It is a confidentiality

provision that you entered into that talks about not disclosing the contents of the agreement between

617 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Victory Strategies and the RPOF. What does disclosing your ownership interest in a company called Victory Strategies, how does that compromise or disclose information about the contract between RPOF and Victory Strategies? MR. CHASE: answered. THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Now, you said that you sold a business, both I don't know. Object to form, and asked and

of your businesses to the Florida Restaurant Association; is that correct? A Q That's correct. How much did you sell it for? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I don't recall because I had They got some of the

THE WITNESS:

partners in that firm. proceeds. was. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

I don't recall what the exact number

Well, how about a rough number? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I think it was over a million

THE WITNESS: dollars. BY MR. SUKHIA:

618 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Did you ever tell people that you sold it for

$17 million? A Absolutely not. MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Did you ever tell anybody when you sold that Object to form.

you concealed information about the business and got something over on the people who bought it? MR. CHASE: Object to form. Absolutely not.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Did you ever at another point tell people

that you received $3 million? A Absolutely not. MR. CHASE: Object to form. I think I was asked about

THE WITNESS: selling it.

I think George LeMieux asked me one

time about selling it, but I don't think we ever talked about how much. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q How is it that you were paid for that? MR. CHASE: Object to form. What do you mean?

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Were you paid in one lump sum or were you

619 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 paid in monthly payments? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I don't recall.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

And you sold it after you became Chairman -MR. CHASE: Object to form.

BY MR. SUKHIA: Q A Q A -- of the Republican Party? I did. Sometime in 2007? I did. MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q You don't recall how you were paid, whether Object to form.

you were paid by lump sum, or paid in payments? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I think one company was paid in

THE WITNESS:

payments and one was paid in one lump sum, but I don't recall. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q paid? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No. And you don't recall the lump sum you were

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA:

620 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q Do you have any rough idea of the lump sum

you were paid? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Do you have an idea of the monthly payments

you were paid for that? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Do you know when the payments would have been

made for that sale -MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q -- to you from the Florida Restaurant Object to form.

Association or to anyone, any of your companies or however it might have been structured? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I don't recall.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q A

You don't recall? I don't recall. MR. CHASE: Can we take a break?

(Brief recess.) MR. CHASE: We are back on. Ken, he is a

621 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 little gun shy about giving like long narrative answers. And so he doesn't know the exact He But

answers, so he is telling you he doesn't know. can, he can tell you about what he does know. it is like in a narrative.

So he is just, I think he is probably getting tired because it is late in the day. If you want

to ask some of those questions again, I think he can give you a better answer if you ask him to kind of explain what you do know about it. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Okay. Well, let's go back to the lump sum.

You said you believe you were paid, one of them was a lump sum. A Q Yes. I asked you if you could tell me generally

how much that was. A seven. I think the lump sum was about a million Maybe, it was between a million and a

million -- one company was sold for I think a million dollars. One company was sold for a different amount.

And then they paid me $10,000 a month over four years. Q A Q Okay. Who was the "they"?

The Florida Restaurant Association. Okay. Is that, is that different than the

622 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 consulting monies you were receiving? I believe you

testified 7,500 a month, maybe it was 8,000 a month? A I think -MR. CHASE: Object to form. It was part of the sales

THE WITNESS:

agreement, but they structured it so it would appear as a consulting payment. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Well, was that one in the same? What I'm

trying to determine is you said that they, as part of this sale you received 10,000 a month for a period of time. A Q Yes. In your testimony, you testified that the

Florida Restaurant Association was paying you for consulting and hotel restaurant services. testified to I believe $8,000 a month. MR. CHASE: down. Please. Object to form. Everybody slow You

Object to form on both that If I

question and the whole line of questions.

missed one then, of course, the objection is relevance again. But I'm objecting to form on all

of these questions. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q I'm trying to determine whether you received

623 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q A -- be received? I believe it was four years. Object to form. monthly payments, two sets of monthly payments. A Q No, one. You received one? MR. CHASE: Object to form. Jim, you've got

to let me get my objection in. THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q 10,000? MR. CHASE: Object to form. It was between eight and And your best recollection today is it was I'm sorry.

THE WITNESS: $10,000 a month. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

And how long were those payments supposed to

BY MR. SUKHIA: Q And are you still receiving those? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Oh, that's correct, but did you receive them

624 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 all? Did it come through -MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q A Q -- as promised? Yes. You indicated that you feel that, you know, You said one of Object to form.

you've had financial difficulties.

your credit cards were overdrawn, and so forth, since you left as the Chairman. Isn't it true that you had, despite the income you testified about, that you had personal financial problems before you left as the Chairman? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No. What is the objection? Financial problems before he left Okay, I'm

THE WITNESS: MR. SUKHIA: MR. CHASE: as Chairman? with you. objection. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q A Q You said no? No.

How is that relevant?

I'm sorry.

I will withdraw the

Were you not overdrawn on your bank accounts

during the time you were at the, had your Chairmanship? A I had a relationship with the bank that,

625 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that. because of me being in Tallahassee and traveling, that the bank officers would -- if there wasn't sufficient funds, would pay any and all of my checks, knowing that either I had my paycheck or wiring coming in. But I

had a considerable amount of money personally at Morgan Stanley. So the issue of the bank accounts that I read and heard about and this thing, this issue that has been created, I simply had a relationship with my bank that if a check came in, they knew to pay it. And they knew that either I would transfer money in or my paycheck would come in. And I have

spoken to the bank officers who have told me that that is not a correct statement, this perception that has been created about my financial circumstances. And they have told me that they told people So I was not in financial difficulty. I had a

considerable amount of money in Morgan Stanley that I could have transferred at anytime if I needed to. Q Isn't it true that you incurred substantial,

excessive gambling losses as a result of even just one trip that you took to Vegas? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I'm not sure what gambling,

THE WITNESS:

what excessive losses would be; but the answer to

626 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 that is no. And I'm sure there is a way to show

that I haven't substantiated major gambling losses to Vegas. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q Okay. So is it not true that during one

session of about an hour you lost $30,000? MR. CHASE: Absolutely not. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q 10,000? MR. CHASE: Object to form. No. How much did you lose? Was it more than Object to form. My apologies.

THE WITNESS: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q

Was it more than 5,000? MR. CHASE: Object to form. I don't know because I never I think the most I ever

THE WITNESS:

took much money with me.

took to Vegas one time was $5,000. BY MR. SUKHIA: Q card -MR. CHASE: BY MR. SUKHIA: Q -- when you were gambling? Object to form. Were you getting the money off of a credit

627 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: No, most of the time I either

took it with me -- cash or check from my bank. MR. DOBSON: Is this a good time to break?

(Discussion off the record.) MR. DOBSON: Memorial weekend. It is late on Friday before All the parties have agreed to

suspend the deposition, and we will continue it at another time. And we are going do everything in our power to schedule other depositions around Mr. Greer, so they won't have to make more than one trip, more than one deposition. MR. CHASE: Sounds good.

(Whereupon, the taking of the deposition was recessed at 3:14 p.m. waived.) Reading and signing were not

628 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
____________________________ PEGGY L. OWENS Registered Professional Reporter Registered Merit Reporter I, PEGGY L. OWENS, Registered Professional Reporter, at Tallahassee, Florida, do hereby certify as follows: STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF LEON C E R T I F I C A T E

That I correctly reported in shorthand the foregoing proceedings at the time and place stated in the caption hereof: That I later reduced my shorthand notes by computer-aided transcription, or under my supervision, and that the foregoing pages 564 through 627 both inclusive, contain a full, true, and correct transcript of the proceedings on said occasion: That I am neither of kin, nor of counsel, to any parties involved, nor am I financially interested in this action.
THIS the 5TH day of June, 2012.

629 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 _________________________________________ PEGGY L. OWENS, Registered Professional Reporter Notary Public - State of Florida My Commission No. EE 88005 Expires: 8-23-15 I, Peggy L. Owens, Registered Professional Reporter, Notary Public, State of Florida, certify that JAMES A. GREER personally appeared before me on the 25TH day of May, 2012, and was duly sworn. Signed this 6TH day of June, 2012. STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF LEON

CERTIFICATE OF OATH

630 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
__________ DATE ___________________________ SIGNATURE OF DEPONENT UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ MY DEPOSITION AND THAT IT IS TRUE AND CORRECT SUBJECT TO ANY CHANGES IN FORM OR SUBSTANCE ENTERED HERE. Page / Line ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ Correction ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ VOLUME 4 ERRATA PAGE *

Corrections to the deposition of JAMES A. GREER, taken in the case of Greer v. RPOF, et al. on 5/25/12.

*(PLEASE RETURN THE ORIGINAL OF THIS SHEET TO MR. LeBOEUF WITH A COPY TO MR. DOBSON & MR. SUKHIA BY 7/15/12. DO NOT SEND A COPY TO THE REPORTER .)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
cc. Mr. LeBoeuf Mr. Dobson

PEGGY OWENS & ASSOCIATES

Court Reporters
Post Office Box 13502 Tallahassee, Florida 32317 (850) 222-6010 June 5, 2012

JAMES A. GREER c/o Damon Chase, Attorney 1525 International Parkway Suite 4021 Lake Mary, Florida 32746 IN RE: Greer v RPOF, Haridopolos & Thrasher Dear Mr. Greer: Please be advised that your deposition taken in the above-styled cause has been transcribed. Pursuant to Florida Rules of Civil Procedure 1.310(e), since you did not waive reading and signing, please contact my office to make arrangements before 7/15/12 If I do not hear from you by the aforementioned date, reading and signing of your deposition will be considered waived.

Sincerely,

PEGGY OWENS, RMR Registered Professional Reporter

Mr. Sukhia

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
__________ DATE Page / Line ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________ ____________

E R R A T A

P A G E * , taken

Corrections to the deposition of in the case of on .

Correction ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________ ___________________________________

UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, I DECLARE THAT I HAVE READ MY DEPOSITION AND THAT IT IS TRUE AND CORRECT SUBJECT TO ANY CHANGES IN FORM OR SUBSTANCE ENTERED HERE. ___________________________ SIGNATURE OF DEPONENT

*(PLEASE RETURN THE ORIGINAL OF THIS SHEET TO WITH A COPY TO BY . DO NOT SEND A COPY TO THE REPORTER .)