Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht

Rating
Date

September 2019
Size

bytes
Views

614
Categories

Court Records

Preview only show first 6 pages with water mark for full document please download

Transcript

Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 1 of 105 UN ITED STAT ES D ISTRIC T C O U RT SO UTH ERN D ISTR IC T O F FLO RIDA W EST PA LM B EA CH D IV ISIO N CaseNo.18-cv-81104-BB (BLOOM ) FILED BY G R EENW AY N U TR IENT S,IN C., a C olorado corp. D.C. AF2 18 2219 C tkkx ei ll'lo s. Bœ c cm S.D.OF FLA.-MIAMI Plaintiff,v. EC O W IN C O .,LTD .; JA M E S D .RYA N ; M IC H A EL J.RYAN ; TH E RYAN LAW G R O UP,LLC. PLAIN TIFFS'M O TIO N TO STR IK E D EFEN DA N TS'PLEA D IN G S FO R FR AUD O N TH E C O U RT.SPO LIATIO N .A N D A ND A LTE RN ATIVE M O TIO N FO R O TH ER SANCTIO NS PUR SUANT TO RULES 26fe)(1).(3)AND 1.540 (a).(b).(1).(2).(3).(4).(5) REL IEF FRO M JUD G M EN T.D EC REE S.O R O R D ER S A N D A M O TIO N TO BE R ELIE V ED O F PLA IN TIFF'S C O U N SEL'M O TIO N TO W ITH D M W COM E NOW thePlaintiffs,GREENWAY NUTRIENTS,INC.(ttGREENWAY'')byandthrough its undersigned principalm ove this H onorable Courtforan orderstriking D efendant's pleadings, entering default,striking defenses,orsuch otherreliefasthe Courtdeem sappropriate forfraud upontheCourt,pursuantto federalrulesofcivilprocedure26(g)(1),(3)AND 1.540 (a),(b),(1), (2),(3),(4),45)and am otionto berelieved ofPlaintiff'scounsel'm otion withdraw ascounselof record on behalfofG reenw ay on the groundstherefore state asfollow s: Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 2 of 105 INTRO DUCTION Plaintiffsm oves to seek an evidentiary hearing and sanctionsagainstW ard,D am on,Posner, Pheterson& Bleau (élW ardDamon'')andPierceBainbridgeBeckPrice& HechtLLP(içpierce Bainbridge'')(collectively,ttplaintiff'sCounsel'')DefendantsJamesD.Ryan(tEJAM ESRYAN'')9 M ichaelJ.Ryan(CCM IKE RYAN''),andTheRyanLaw Group,LLC.(6ETHE RYAN FlRM'')on the grounds thatthe Plaintiff'sform erattorneys and defendantJam esRyan and The Ryan Finu have engaged in deception,and attem pted fraud upon the Court,intentionalom issions,and the deliberate concealmentofm aterialevidence centralto theplaintiff'sclaim s.ThePlaintiff's counsel,inconjunctionwiththeaccusedDefendant'smisconductincludes,butisnotlimitedto, the following' , * Failure to investigate,and w ellas intentionalom issions ofm aterialevidence, * K now ingly providing the courtw ith false and m isleading pleadingsorfilings, * W ithholding asw ellasconcealing m aterialevidence,failure to com m unicate,asw ellas abandoning the Plaintiff's forrefusing to agree to release defendants Jam es Ryan,M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Firm ,from this action entirely contradicting this courtspriornllings. * Failure by Plaintiff'scounselto follow through on the prom ise to provide the Plaintiff'sw ith an expertw itnessto prepare a reportas to the Plaintiff's uncontested m otion fordefault judgementagainstdefendantEcowinCO.LTD.(6EECOW IN'')inadeliberateeffortto underm ine as w ellas m inim ize the plaintiff's dam age aw ard again Ecow in by this court. * Fraud upon thecourt,pursuantto federalrulesofcivilprocedure26(g)(1),(3)and 1.540 (a), (b),(1),(2),(3),(4),(5) * Clientabandonm ent 2 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 3 of 105 Floridacourtshavemaintainedthatifapartyhlesamotionpursuanttorule1.540(b)(3),pleads fraud orm isrepresentation with particularity,and show s how thatfraud orm isrepresentation affectedthejudgment,thetrialcourtisrequiredtoconductanevidentiaryhearingtodetermine whetherthem otion should begranted.Robinson v.Weiland,936 So.2d 777 (Fla.5thD CA Sep 01,20063. Rule1.540(b)providesforreliefthroughanutindependentaction''and ''thisruledoesnotlimit thepowerofacourtto entertainan independentactiontorelieveapartyfrom ajudgment, decree,order orproceeding orto setaside.Yohanan v.D eclaire,421 So.2d 55l (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982) Rule 1.540 protects due process by allow ing aggrieved parties to dispute and potentially obtain reversalof''snal''judieialactions,eitherbecauseofinnocentmistakes,such asclericalenors,or because of culpable m isconduct,such asnegligence ordeliberate fraud.You don'thave to be a partytobenehtfrom Rule l.540.Anyoneadverselyaffectedbyajudicialaction,may flea petitionforreversalofajudicialactionunderRule 1.540. M oreover,Rule26(g)(3)includesNO .'safeharbor''allowingalawyertocorrectanoffending docum entfurtherstating thatthe cour/m ustsanction a lawyerfortiling an im proper certifcation. Rule26(g)(3)doesnotrequireashowingofLGbadfaith''either.A lawyercanrunintomandatory sanctions,w ithoutany safe harbor,foran inadequate investigation oftheirclient's docum ents. Brown v.Tellermate HoldingsLtd.,2014 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 90123 (S.D .Ohio July 1,2014) 3 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 4 of 105 BACKG RO UND AND SUM M ARY OF PLAINTIFF'S CLAIM S Priorto engaging Plaintiff'scounsel,Plaintiff'scounselw as repeatedly provided w ith evidence thaton oraboutM arch 3,2015,Greenway wassrstcontacted and latermetfaceto facewith federallaw enforcem entofficials with the U nited Staes Departm entofHom eland Security ($dDHS'')whowerereferredtoGreenwaybyAdobeSystems(6SADOBE'')andTheMicrosoft Corporation (ûtM lCROSOFT''').Asevidenced asExhibit#1 Plaintiff'scounselw as provided w ith evidence thatD H S ofscialshad previously advised Greenway thatdefendantsDavid Dragan Selakovic(EASELAKOVIC'')and Steven Blackburn (tEBLACKBURN''),and otherscloselyaffliatedwith SelakovicandBlackburn,weretheprimary targetsof a m assive ongoing federalcrim inalinvestigation surrounding the unlawfultheft, m anufacturing,and distribution ofseveralbillion dollarsw orth ofcounterfeit,grey m arket,or unauthorized versionsofAdobe',M icrosoft'and now Greenw ay'brand nam e produd s illegally bearing each ofthe aforem entioned com panies valid US tradem arks. A s evidenced as Exhibit #2 Plaintiff'scounselw as provided w ith evidence thatD H S ofscialshad inform ed G reenway senior m anagem entthatG reenw ay would be the lead victim in the governm ents crim inalcase against Selakovic,Blackbul'n,and otherunnam ed suspects atthattim e. Plaintiff'scounselwas provided w ith evidence thatD H S ofscialshad inform ed G reenway that Greenway w ould be able to receive com pensatory dam agesand restitution from the m ore than twentymilliondollars(tt$20,000,000. 00'')thatDHS,inconjunctionwithUnitedStates Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 5 of 105 Depm mentofJustice(EEUSDOJ'')hadsuccessfully seizedduringfederalcivilassetfodeiture proceedings from severalother accused suspects affliated w ith defendants Selakovic and Blackburn who had already pled guilty to crim inalcharges in the U S governm ent'ongoing criminalinvestigationentitledLGoperadonSoftwareSlashers''. Plaintiff'scounseladvised thaton oraboutO ctober28,2016, DH S offcials laterinform ed Greenway thatDHS and USDOJofficialswould be unableto lile crim inalchargesagainst Selakovic citing thatGreenway would need to return to a federalcivilcourtof1aw to obtain a favorable decision overSelakovic,before D H S or USD OJ offcials w ould considerfurther investigating orEling crim inalcharges againstSelakovic,Blackburn,and others affiliated w ith Selakovic as itrelated to D H S'crim inalinvestigation surrounding the theftofG reenw ay' products and businessm odelby the sam e accused defendants in this action. Plaintiff'scounselw as provided w ith evidence thatdefendantJam es Ryan isin fact,still currentlyrepresentingand defendingDavidSelakovic'initialdefaultjudgementandeventual permanentinjunctionthatwasissuedagainstDavid Selakovic,Blackburn,andothersinseparate federalcivil-theftand tradem ark infringem entrelated proceedings thatare currently stillin progressand being conducted by Adobe System sregarding the sam e type ofaccusationsagainst the m ostof the sam e accused D efendantsin this action.SeeAdobe System s Incorporated v.Bea's H ive LLC,David Selakovic,Steve Blackburn civilcase num ber 9:l4-cv-8ll02 Plaintiff'scounselw as also provided with evidence thatthisisN O T the very firsttim e that DefendantJam esRyan and The Ryan Firm have defended Selakovic,Blackburn,ortheirrelated alter-ego corporate entitiestied to the unlawfultheft,m anufacturing,and distribution ofother com paniesbrand nam e com paniesproductsforyears. 5 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 6 of 105 Plaintiff'scounselw asprovided w ith evidence thatD efendantJam esRyan had previously defended SteveBlackburninnolessthantwo (2)separateandmassivefederaltrademark infringementproceedingswhereinBlackburnhadalreadyreceivedtwo(2)separatepermanent federalinjunctionsthattheM icrosoftCorporationwasabletoobtainoverBlackburn.SeeNo. 04-4017Microsop Corporation vy.MBC Enterprises,SteveBlackburncivilcasenumber(D.C. No.2:00-CV-217-PGC),andM icrosop Corp.v.Big BoyDistributionLLC,589F.Supp.261 1308 (S.D .Fla.2008) On or aboutAugust17,2018,Plaintiff's attorneysW ard,D am on,Posner,Pheterson & Bleau (téW ardDamon'')andPierceBainbridgeBeckPrice& HechtLLP(lspierceBainbridge'') (collectively,6iplaintiff'sCounsel'')filedsuiton behalfofPlaintiff'Greenway. Shortlythereafter,onoraboutSeptember5,2018,Plaintiffs'Counselserved Defendantts)James Ryan,M ike Ryan,The Ryan Fil'm .,Vegalab,lnc.,and Vegalab,LLC . Thatsam e day,on oraboutSeptem ber5,2018,D efendantJam esRyan responded to Plaintiff's Counselsending a scathing em ailthreatening to file a R ule 11 m otion forsanctionsforattorneys fees and costsifthe Plaintiff's Counseldid notim m ediately agree to w ithdraw itscom plaint againstthe accused defendants thatw asreplete w ith the srstofm any of Jam esRyan',M ike Ryan'and The Ryan Erm 'm isleading statem ents,deliberate om issions,ad w ellasuntruthsto counseland thiscourtby stating,in part,the follow ing below ;A sevidenced as exhibit#3 ''Yourallegation thatmybrotherM ichael,vlyyirvlorIeverrepresentedGreenwayNutrients, Inc.,(Greenway)isfalse.Thatneverhappened.Nordid h'ceverreceivecn:conM ential fzlftlrzzlcfftlzlfrom Greenwakorcrl# other czl/f/# operated :37M n Escam illa.'' . . 6 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 7 of 105 Forwhatit's+/,r//,, M vbrotherTom hasneverbeen J mem berorassociate ofzzl1)5r#l.'' On or aboutSeptem ber 14,2018,Plaintiff's Counselrequested thatthe Plaintiff's provide additionalevidence of an attorney-clientrelationship existing betw een Defendants Jam esRyan, M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Firm . On or aboutSeptem ber 14,2018,G reenway'principalG ustavo Escam illa im m ediately provided Plaintiff'sCounselwithanadditionalfourteen(14)exhibitsintheform ofemail com m unications by and betw een G reenway and Jam es Ryan,M ike Ryan,and theirbrother ThomasF.Ryan(CSTOM RYAN'')whoalsoservedasGreenwayNutrients,lnc.'generalcounsel from on oraboutN ovem ber 2010 through Novem berof2012.A sevidenced asexhibit#4 G reenw ay'Septem ber 14,2018,em ailand exhibits to Plaintiff'sCounselincluded further evidence dem onstrating thatan attorney-clientrelationship did,in fact,existby and betw een Jam esRyan,M ike Ryan,The Ryan Firm ,as wellas Jam es and M ike Ryan'brotherTom Ryan as further described below ; l. CopyofGreenway'PrivatePlacementM emorandum (t6PPM '')listingM ikeRyanasattorney ofrecord forG reenw ay'PPM . 2. Copy ofan em aildated M ay 26,20 11,thatw as sentto Steve Blaekburn w ith G reenway' attorney M ike Ryan who w asalso copied regarding a potentialinvestm entin G reenw ay' business m odel. M ike Ryan sending G reenw ay a draftcopy ofthe com panies PPM as wellas advising Greenway ofthe United StatesSecuritiesand ExchangeCom missions(ttSEC ''')regulations asfarasm aking any public announcem ents. 7 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 8 of 105 Emailfrom Greenway to M ikeRyan on oraboutJune 11,2010,receiving Greenway' conhdentialbusiness inform ation thatM ike Ryan,Jam es Ryan,and Tom Ryan laterused to detennine thatG reenw ay'entire business m odelw asvalued atapproxim ately tw enty-sve milliondollars($25,000,000.00)atthattime. A solicitation letterthatD efendantJam es Ryan sentto his clients gushingly touting G reenw ay'PPM and publicly traded entity fonuation strategy as an extraordinary investm ent and opportunity and proceeded to offerJam esRyan',M ike Ryan',and Tom Ryan'clients a seventeenandahalf(17.5+)percentequitystakeforfourandahalfmilliondollar ($4,500,000. 00)investmentinGreenway'PPM . 6. A n em ailthatJam es Ryan sentto hisbrotherTom Ryan regarding G reenw ay'PPM and that ifany investm entw asm ade in G reenw ay as a resultofJam es Ryan'orThe Ryan Finu' effortsto assistG reenw ay raise capital,thatJam es Ryan and The Ryan Finu w ere to receive atenpercent(10+)commissionandtenpercent(10+)instockownershipinGreenway. A n em aildated on orabouton oraboutO ctober21,2010,dem onstrating M ike Ryan working inconjunction withGreenway'CPA forthepreparationofGreenway'audited snancials thatG reenw ay intended on laterutilizing to take Greenw ay N utrients,lnc' business m odelpublic. A copy ofan em ailthatTom Ryan sentto G reenw ay indicating thatTom Ryan and M ike Ryan had received Greenway'initialffty thousand dollar($50,000.00)depositand :ve thousand dollar($5,000. 00)wiretransfer. 8 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 9 of 105 Plaintiff'sCounselwasalso repeatedly provided with evidencedemonstrating thatDefendant Jam esRyan'law partnerand brothernam ed Tom Ryan,had also lived as a guestin the hom e of the Plaintiff's ow ners from on oraboutNovem ber2010 through Novem ber2012,w hile also serving asG eneralCounselon behalfofG reenw ay N utrients,lnc. Jam esRvan.M ikeRvanvand theRvan Firm File Sham PleadinesIn An Attem ptTo Deliberatelv M islead ThisCourt Curiously,afterDefendantJam esRyan w as presented with m aterialevidence thatentirely contradicted Jam esRyan'earlier Septem ber 5,2018,em ailstatem ents to Plaintiff'sCounsel, Jam esRyan abruptly changed hisstory ofsupposedly neverhaving previously represented or received any confdentialinfonnation from G reenw ay orone ofitsprincipalsG ustavo Escam illa. On or aboutO ctober 1,2018,Jam es Ryan and The Ryan Finu filed a m otion to dism iss Greenway'claim s on behalfofD efendantsVegalab,LLC ,Vegalab,lnc.,M ike Ryan,Jam es Ryan,and TheRyan Firm .(DE 23). Included in DefendantJam esRyan'm otion to dismiss(DE 23),JamesRyan proceeded toengage in a pattern ofdishonestbehaviorby sling sham pleadings om itting m aterialfactsthatany reasonable person should have know n wasbeing presented foran im properpurpose such as to increase the costsoflitigation,harass,and delay proceedings stating in part,the following,as described in m ore detailbelow ' , '*Ryan fzzw Group.PLLC wtzs'formed in Junet?f2012 and bclltzn doing businessin October 2012.Thiswcs'the /H /tim eM ichaelAvczlandlames##crlbezanpracticinz law tozethen'' 9 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 10 of 105 ln doing so,JamesRyan intentionally failed to disclose to thiscouftthaton oraboutOctober21, 2010,a fulltwo (2)yearspriorto thatJamesand hisbrotherM ike Ryan had previously formed the legalentity,practiced law together,and were equalpartnersand shareholdersin the 1aw lil'm named Ryan & Ryan Lawyers,LLC during thesame timeperiod in question.Asevidenced as exhibit. #5 Even worse,Plaintiff's counselw as m ade ofaw are ofJam es and M ike Ryan having previously practiced law togetherasRyan & Ryan Law yerssLLC ,yetfailed to protectthe Plaintiff'sbest interestsby allow ing DefendantJam es Ryan to brazenly m islead and advise the courtofthe following; ''CountIV also states in allegation l45 the RYA NS ''disclosed the opportunity to create a publicly-traded firm through m ergerw ith a publicly-traded shelllike H PC A cquisitions....'Fhere isno allegation thatHPC had everagreed to beacquired by GREENW AY,thatthe RYANS knew HPC had agreed to an acquisition by G REENW AK thattheRYANS alleged effortto - help SELAK OVIC acquire HPC wasuniustiâed ortheGREENW AY suffered anv dam aa: bv notpurchasine the com pany for itself.'' 'Tlt(Greenway)alsoattemptstoclaim itwasabreachofadutybytellingSELAKOVIC aboutan opportunity to create a ûçpublicly-traded firm through m ergerw ith HPC Acquisitions,Inc.''This countincorporatesparagraph 42 w herein G REENW AY allegesStlam es and M ichaelRyan insroduced M r.Escam illato Eric Hanson.aM innçsota-based investorwho waspa14ofagronp thatowned apublicly-traded shellcompany called HPC Acquisitions.Inc.''(HPC)who discussed i4the possibility''of a m erger.'' 10 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 11 of 105 ttM ore importantly,theallegations,iftaken astrue,establish theRYANS disclosed an opportunitv to GREENW AY.nottheother wav around.Theallezed opportunitv to m erge with HPC isnotalleged to have been owned or pursued llv GREENW AY orthatthis . particular opportunitv w as som ehow m ore advantazeous than anv other Eçshellcom panv''. GR EEN W AY has notpleaded facts from w hich the courtcould conclude the inform ation about H PC wasconhdentialor dam ages arising from the disclosure ofH PC 'S availability to another.'' Plaintiff'sCounselW asOnceAgain.Provided W ith M aterialEvidence Entirely Contradicting Jam esRyan'.M ike Ryan'qAnd The Ryan Firm ' Oneoine Deception.UnethicalConduct.AsW ellAsSham PleadingsBeforeThisCourt. On oraboutJanuary 9,2019,Plaintiff's counselw asonce again,provided w ith m aterialevidence entirely contradicting Jam esRyan'false assertions thatJam esRyan and M ike Ryan both presented to thiscourtin defendantJamesRyan'initialmotion to dismiss(DE 23)thatPlaintiff's Counselintentionally concealed from being disclosed thatincluded,butw asnotlim ited to,the follow ing evidence below ; O n oraboutJanuary 11,2011,pliorto G reenw ay N utrients.lnc.ever holding any discussions regardingapotentialreversemergerwithEricHansonanddefendantVegalab,lnc.(thenHPC), Tom Ryan and M ike Ryan had drafted and prepared a non-disclosure/non-circum vent (6tGREENW AY-HPC NDNCA'')agreem entthatwasexecuted by and between Greenway Nutrients,Inc.and EricHanson who wasrepresentingVegalab,Inc.(then HPC)atthattim e.As evidenced asexhibit#6 11 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 12 of 105 Plaintiff'sCounselwasin possession ofthe Greenway-ilpc NDNCA and knew thatDefendant Jam es Ryan,M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Firm continued to engage in dishonesty,yetdefense counselfailed to recalland Plaintiff'sCounseldeliberately failed to disclose this m aterial evidence thatis centralto the Plaintiff'sclaim s to thiscourt. TheGreenway-llpc NDNCA furtherstated thatEric Hanson oranyone afhliated with Vegalab, 1nc(then HPC)wasnotpermittedtouseGreenwayNutrients,Inc'conhdentialbusiness inform ation for any purpose otherthan discussions w ith G reenw ay Nutrients,lnc,including to solicitbusiness from or to provide any services orproducts to any otherparty. The Greenway-l-lpc N D N CA dem onstrated thatEric Hanson while also acting on behalfof Vegalab,Inc(thenHPC)andwiththeknowledgeandassistanceofJamesandMikeRyan, proceeded to intentionally move Greenway'opportunity into apotentialreverse mergerdealwith Vegalab,lnc(thenHPC)awayfrom GreenwayanddeliveredGreenway'consdentialand attorney-clientbusiness relationships and inform ation to Vegalab.SA ,David Selakovic,and defendantEcow in instead. The G reenway-l-lpc ND N CA also dem onstrated G reenw ay'intentions to create a publicly traded entitythrough a reverse mergerwithVegalab,lnc.(then HPC)thatmanufactured,developed,and distributed organic plant-based pesticidesand fungicide productsm uch like D efendantsJam es Ryan,M ike Ryan,and the Ryan Firm latercom pleted with Eric H ansonsD efendantSelakovic, and Ecowin instead. M oreover,Vegalab SA and Ecowin'unlaw fulexclusive distribution dated O ctober 19,2012, speciscally identified Vegalab,lnc.(then HPC)asa suitable corporatevehiclethatJam esRyan, 12 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 13 of 105 M ikeRyan,and The Ryan Firm were fully awareofyet,have proceeded to embezzleGreenway' conhdentialattorney-clientbusiness inform ation fortheirow n personalsnancialgain and use. To com pound the Plaintiff's ongoing m alfeasance concerns,Plaintiff's counselw as also provided w ith evidence thatJam esRyan purposely failed to disclosq thatJam esRyan'brotherTom Ryan was in fact.an equalpartnerand shareholder in the 1aw fil'm and entity of Ryan and Ryan Attorneys.P.A .during the sam e tim e period thatTom Ryan served asG eneralcounselon behalf ofGreenw ay N utrients.lnc.thatentirely contradicted Jam esRyan'Septem ber5,2018,em ail statem entsto Plaintiff'sC ounseland m ore im portantly,this court. A s one ofm any exam ples,notonly did Jam es Ryan and The Ryan Firm intentionally m islead yourhonor,Jam esRyan has atbest,attem pted to also hoodw ink Plaintiff's Counseland this courtasto the true facts surrounding Jam es Ryan'brother'lbm Ryan having supposedly never been associated or a m em ber ofthe law filnn and entity ofRyan and Ryan Attorneys,PA .,in whereas Jam esRyan stated: GF'orwhatit'sworth,My brotherTom hasneverbeena memberorassociateofmyhrm.'' Notw ithstanding,Plaintiff'sCounselalso repeatedly being m ade aw are ofTom Ryan practicing law w ith his brotherJam es Ryan w hile Tom Ryan served as Generalcounselofbehalfof Greenw ay N utrients,lnc.,yet,Plaintiff'sC ounselfailed to disclose the existence ofthe GreeI- aJ/-H PC-N D NCA w hile continuing to allow Jam es Ryan and The Ryan Firm to 5le m ultiple sham pleadingsallthroughoutthese proceedingscavalierly m aking a fullm ockery of this court. 13 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 14 of 105 PLAINTIFF'S CO UNSELS PROCEEDS TO ADVISE GREENW AY THAT IF GREENW AY DlD NOT AG REE TO RELEASE JAM ES RYAN.M IKE RYAN.AND TH E RYAN FIRM FROM THIS ACTIO N TH AT PLAINTIFF'S CO UNSEL W O ULD BE ABRUN LY W ITHDRAW ING AS COUNSEL O F RECORD ENTIRELY CO NTRADICTING THIS CO URTS PRIOR RULING S Notwithstanding the factthatatNO TIM E did Jam esRyan,M ike Ryan,orThe RyanFirm ,ever onceprovide Plaintiff'Counselwith any physicalevidencethat contradieted orrefuted anyof Greenway'morethanonehundred(100+)plusindividualexhibitsintheform ofemail com m unications,distribution agreem ents,and m ostim portantly the G reenw ay-llpc N D NCA agreem entthatTom Ryan,asw ellasM ike Ryan did,in fact,draftand prepare on behalfof G reenw ay N utrients,lnc. On ouraboutM arch 29,2019,Plaintiff's Counselfiled itsm otion to w ithdraw ascounselof recordonbehalfofGreenway(DE 99)statinginpart: GFollowing theM arch 4,2019 mediadon in thiscaseand thisCourt'sM arch 6,2019 Orderon DefaultludgmentProcedureandonM tl/it)zltoStay (DE 923,ordering Plainhy toeither/le fordefault/naljudgmentagainstEcowin tlr#/cazlt//fceofjointliability PierceBainbridge hascommunicatedextensivelywithPlaint@ regarding strategygoingforwardagainstEcowin andlortheRyanDefendants... Inthecourseofthosecommunications,ithasbecomeclearthatprofessionalconsiderations requiretermination ofplaintW 'sCounsel'srepresentation o-f#lcfrltl ;/./t.. Further,withdrawalispermittedhereunderRule4-1.16(b).First,withdrawaldoesnot materiallyadverselyc#ec/theintereststl /#/cjzmlF '' 14 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 15 of 105 Thetruecircum stancessunoundingPlaintiff'sCounseldeciding to inexplicably withdraw as counselofrecord on behalfof Greenw ay could notpossibly everbe further from the truth. O n oraboutM arch 5,20 19,forreasons stillyetto be explained to the Plaintiffsand this court, Plaintiff'sCounselem ailed Greenway advising Greenway thatifGreenway did notagreeto im m ediately release defendantsJam esRyan,M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Firm from this action thatPlaintiff'sCounselw ould be inexplicably notifying this courtofPlaintiff's Counsel' intentionsto w ithdraw alas attorneys ofrecord on behalfofG reenw ay.As evidenced as exhibit #7 Curiously,justafew weekspriorto,onoraboutFebruary l4,2019,thecourtissued anOmnibus Order(DE 81)snding thatDefendantsJamesRyan,M ikeRyan,andTheRyanFirm couldbe held accountable asto the Plaintiff'stortious intederence and breach ofsduciary duty claim s furthernotingthatDefendantJamesRyanhadifagrantlymisquotedthe&w''. Plaintiff's Counselwere also in possession of the G reenw ay-H pc ND N CA thatentirely undennined D efendants Jam esRyan'fraudulentadm issions before this courtas itrelatesto Jamesand M ikeRyan' representing DefendantVegalab,lnc.(then HPC),in directviolation of G reenw ay'N D N CA w ith Eric H anson.thatJam esRyan'law partners and brothersTom and M ike Ryan them selves,had in fact,drafted on behalfofGreenw ay N utrients,lnc. M ore im portantly,Plaintiff's Counselknew or should have know n thatPlaintiff'Counselfailure to diselose Jam es Ryan'fraudulentadm issionsbefore this courtoreverproperly advising the courtofthe existence ofthe G reenw ay-llpc N D N CA priorto requesting to w ithdraw ing as 15 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 16 of 105 counseland abandoning Greenway W OULD IN FACT,materially and adversely affectthe interestsofG reenw ay. Plaintiff'sCounselw ere also m ade aw are of the factthatdefendantJam esRyan,M ike Ryan,and theirbrotherTom Ryan,areal1now practicing 1aw outofVegalab,lnc.'corporateoficeslocated at636 U S-I#110,N orth Palm Beach,FL 33408. Plaintiff'Counselknew thatJam esRyan,M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Firm adm itted to taking pa14 in discussionsregarding a potentialreverse m ergerbetw een G reenw ay and Eric H anson and Vegalab,lnc.,(thenHPC)asevidencedinaemailfrom Tom RyantoEl'icHanson statinginpart, asdescribed m ore in detailbelow :As evidenced asexhibit#8 GE6candNance,Ienjoyeddiscussing whatourcompany,Greenway Nutrientsisdoing... 2012 isgoing to be a greatyear...Tom Ryan'' Plaintiff'Counselw ere provided w ith evidence thatJam es Ryan'law partnersTom and M ike Ryan had drafted and prepared the G reenw ay-H PC ND N CA agreem entyet,continued to allow Jam esRyan and The Ryan Fil' m to representVegalab,lnc.in the process ofhling num erous sham pleadingsegregiously riddled w ith false and m isleading statem entsbefore this court. PLAINTIFF'S COUNSELS FIRST PROM ISES.THEN INEXPLICABLY REFUSES TO PROVIDE G REENW AY W ITH AN EXPERT W ITNESS W ITHOUT PROPER INVESTIGATION O R CO NSIDERATIO N PROVIDED TO PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL BY TH E A C C USED D EFE ND A NT S T H AT R EFU TED A NY O F G REE NW AY ' VNCP NTESTED M ATERIAL EVIDENCE AGAINST PFFENDANT ECO W JN 16 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 17 of 105 Plaintiff'sCounselw ould like to m islead yourhonorand thiscourtto believe thatthere is som e mysteriousevidencethatwouldsomehow bedetrimentalorprejudieethePlaintiff'sintereststhat is a blatantfalsehood thatthe Plaintil 's w holeheartedly welcom es this courtto im m ediately conductan evidentiary hearing to review . O n oraboutM arch 5,2019,afterreceiving attorney Plaintiff'scounsels em aildem anding Greenway release Jam es Ryan,M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Firm from this suit,Plaintiff'ssenior m anagem entm etface to face w ith attorney John M .Pierce w ho is G reenway'lead attorney,and the com paniesoriginalcontactw ith Pierce Bainbridge. During G reenw ay'm eeting w ith John Pierce,Pierce explained thatifG reenw ay would consider entertaining releasing D efendantsJam esRyan,M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Finu from thisaction, thatPierceBainbridgewouldhireQioneofthebestexpertwitnesses''toassistGreenwaypreparea reportto properly assesthe com panies m ulti-m illion dollaruncontested m otion fordefault judgementagainstEcowin. Greenw ay initially agreed to entertain potentially releasing Jam es Ryan,M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Finn,pending the review ofthe proposed release,and m ore im portantly,Pierce Bainbridge acquiring an expertw itness to assistG reenway assessthe com panies dam ages againstEcowin. On oraboutM arch 12,2019,PierceBainbridgeattorney JonathanA .Sorkowitz,emailed Greenw ay requesting thatG reenw ay supply Plaintiff'scounselw ith evidence to support Greenw ay'dam ages againstEcow in. On or aboutM arch 13,2019.Greenway did in fact,supply Plaintiff'scounselw ith copiesofthe com panies2011 and 2012 corporate tax returns.G reenway'CPA contactinfonnation,G reenw ay' 17 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 18 of 105 2012 nationaldistributioncatalogevidencing the com paniesalready well-established national retail,w holesale,and distributorpricing in the m arket. G reenw ay also supplied Plaintiff'scounselw ith evidence ofG reenw ay'proprietary trade secret dilution and m ixing ratios dem onstrating thatafter Greenw ay reform ulated Ecowin'highly concentrated products into G reenw ay'bottlesbearing G reenw ay'tradem ark and N o Pow dery M ildew ( PulF6eadqesPeqtal),e4ekv Mr.Escamilla! 1wasgivenyx rinfr atiY W representativ- withAtklbeSystemsaritheMicrosdtCccm tion.Ifit:11KssiNe,lwouldllietocore tan intervi- e hyoueil* ron3/2/2015(>'W 2015,cor 1(816)9144959 Ee ail:Cados.suarezt :dbs.cx)v Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 35 of 105 E xhibit 2 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 36 of 105 On Monday,August6,2018 7:20AM,JonathanSorkowitz w rote: G us: W e appreciate yourenthusiasm to gatherdocum entation forthe case,butplease Ieave the externalcom m unications to us. There's an established procedure for getting documents from the federalgovernment(through the Freedom ofInformation Act)thathasto be followed (and itdoesn'tinvolve the Crime Victims'Act).Also,our engagem entw ith you doesn'tcover representation regarding the D HS investigation' , we only representyou in the civilcase againstSelakovic. W e'lllaunch a FO IA requestatthe appropriate tim e ifitIooks Iike the Adobe issues are going to be germ ane. It's im portantthatw e presenta united frontto the outside w orld,so please don't contactopposing parties orcounsel,otherparties/w itnesses involved in the case,or DHS withouttalking to usfirst. Irealize the gearsofjusticeturnslowlyand youwant to m ove things forw ard,butit's essentialto a functionalattorney-clientrelationship thatyou Ietus handle this part. In this vein,I'm going to send a very briefem ailto DHS justexplaining ourrepresentation ofyou and putting them onthe Iookoutfora potentialFO IA requestin the future. Lastw eek w e Ieftoffw ith a discussion ofthe claim againstthe Ryans vis-à-vis the 2013 Colorado com plaint. W e're stilldeterm ining w hetherthe C olorado com plaint's allegations w illbe considered conclusive w hen we file ournew claim ,orifthey're m erely contrary evidence that'llbe usable by the otherside. Should have an answ er in the nextday ortwo,w hich w illclarify how w e go forw ard in D istrictCourtin Florida againstthe Ryan brothers. Ihope to file the com plaintthis w eek afterthatdecision is m ade. Thanks, Jon From :G ustavo Sent:M onday,A ugust6,2018 6:56 AM To:shaw n.gibson@ dhs.gov C c:Jonathan Sorkow itz ' ,John Pierce , 'Liza Haworth Subject:Greenway Nutrients,Inc.-David Selakovic -Vegalab,emailserver evidence. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 37 of 105 August6,2018 DH S - IC E IHom eland Security Investigations-Dom estic O perations Attn:Shaw n G ibson O perations M anager 500 12th StreetSW ,6th FloorMS-5106 (6161) W ashington D .C .20536 em ail-shaw n.gibson@ dhs.gov Re:G reenw ay Nutrients,Inc. David Selakovic -Vegalab em ailserver evidence. - DearM r.G ibson, W e hope thatyou are in good spirits and things are continuing to go very well foryou sir. W e are very happy to reportthatGreenway Nutrients,lnc.(''GREENW AY'') has recently engaged the high-stakes com m ercialIitigation pow erhouse in Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & HechtLLP,(''pierce Bainbridge'')in orderto seek civildam ages againsta pairofW estPalm Beach Florida area based businessman named David Selakovic (''SELAKOVIC'')and Steve Blackburn (''BLACKBURNI'),and Selakovic'related corporate entities thatwe were Iedto believe thatyouragency stillcurrently has an active and ongoing felony crim inalinvestigation stillcurrently open on and underw ay. Pierce Bainbridge Continues Explosive G row th w ith Addition ofElite C rim inal Defense Law yer Itis also ourunderstanding thaton oraboutsom etim e around January - February 2015,Adobe System s (''ADOBE'')Iaterturned overand provided youroffice and the U nited States Departm entofHom eland Security('IDHS -ICE'')withseveralemailserversaswellas apyroxlmatelyfiftythousand (50,000)pagesofemailcommunication evldence thatw ere retrieved during a civil-raid thattook place on orabout sometime in Iate Augustorearly Septemberof2014 by Adobe,in conjunction w ith US FederalM arshall's ofsuspects Selakovic'and Blackburn'W estPalm Beach Florida w arehouse facilities. relevant evidence or inform ation thatyOu feelm ay assistG reenw ay w ith its upcom ing civilsuitagainstthe accused defendants in our case accordingly. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 38 of 105 Pursuantto 18 U.S.C.9 3771ofThe Crim e Victim s Rights Act,G reenw ay respectfully requests thatany and aIlem ailcom m unication evidence thatyour office and D HS has previously received from Adobe orduring youragencies crim inalinvestigation ofG reenw ay'asserted theft-related claim s against suspects Selakovic,Blackburn,orSelakovic'related corporate entities that referencets)Greenway,orany ofGreenway'corporate officers in any capacity be im m ediately turned overto Pierce Bainbridge in orderso that G reenw ay m ay be afforded to ability to utilize any em ailcom m unication evidence thatm ay assistG reenw ay to recoversom e ofthe m illions ofdollars in ongoing financialIosses during the com panies upcom ing federalcivilsuit thatPierce Bainbridge w illbe initiated on the com panies behalfin com ing w eeks. G reenw ay is also respectfully requesting thatany and aIIrelevanteyew itness testim ony,evidence,orinform ation thatyou feelm ay assistthe courtto suss 0utany ofthe accused defendant's participation and overallculpability in our m atterbe turned overPierce Bainbridge atyourearliestconvenience. G oing forw ard and because w e are in a Iittle overourheads and do notdo this type ofthing every day fora Iiving M r.G ibson w e are honestly unaw are as to precisely how the crim inalcom plaintprocess w orks ordiffers from the civilcom plaintprocess ,therefore G reenw ay did notw antto evertrouble or involve M r.Sorkow itz,M r.Pierce,orPierce Bainbridge w ith this side ofthings and only to the extentthatG reenw ay and m yselfare seeking to acquire any relevantevidence orinform ation thatyou feelm ay assistG reenw ay w ith its upcom ing civilsuitagainstthe accused defendants in ourcase accordingly. Pierce Bainbridge'contactinform ation is below : John M .Pierce M anaging Partner tel:(213)262-9333 x101 jpierce@ piercebainbridge.com Jonathan A .Sorkow itz Padner 0 :(213)262-9333 x115 jsorkowitz@ piercebainbridge.com Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 39 of 105 Thank you,M r.G ibson,and w e are very hopefulthatourcontinued prayers and w ellw ishes on yourbehalfcontinue to go w ellreceived. Respectfully subm itted, G ustavo Escam illa President G reenw ay N utrients,Inc. 135 EastO live Avenue #135 Burbank,CA .91503 (818)355-0062 direct O n Friday,O ctober28,2016 6:38 A M ,''G ibson,Shaw n S'' w rote: M r.Escam illa, W e have researched yourclaim s and consulted w ith the U nited States Attorney's O ffice,W estern D istrictofM issouriand w hile w e sym pathize w ith yoursituation,w e have been advised thaton August 17,2015 a DistrictCourt found in favorofSelakovic againstG reenw ay Nutrients in regards to the assertion ofthe G reenw ay tradem ark. W hile we understand thatyou m ay disagree with this judgement,ouragency is bound by decision ofthe court and thereforare restricted on w hatw e can do in regards to yourclaim s that they continue to sellyourproducts illegally. M y suggestion is to seek Iegal alternatives such as an appealofthe decision and ifyou should receive an affirm ative decision w e can revisitourinvolvem entagainstthe distribution of the G reenw ay products. Regardless,w e continue to investigate the alleged crim inalactivities in regards to his alleged distribution ofcounterfeitsoftw are. Please Ietm e know ifyou have any questions. Shaw n G ibson lO perations M anager DHS - IC E IHom eland Security Investigations-Dom estic O perations 500 12th StreetSW ,6th FloorMS-5106 (6161)IW ashington D.C.20536 em ail-shaw n.gibson@ dhs.gov W ith honorand integrity,w e w illsafeguard the Am erican people,our hom eland,and our values. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 40 of 105 E xhibit 3 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 41 of 105 From :Jam es Ryan Sent:W ednesday,Septem ber5,2018 6:30 PM To:' rnisonson@ warddam on.com 'j ''am oretto@ warddam on.com ' Cc:' [email protected]';' jpierce@ piercebainbridge.com'' , ' jsorkwitz@piercebainbri dge.com' Subject:Greenwayv.Selakovicetal DearMessrs.Nisonson and Moretto, lam in receiptofyourcom plaintand Iw antto be clearIam going to be very shorton the curtesy Iextend before lbegin pursuing sanctions.You note in paragraph 101 Ofyourcom plaint you are aware ofthe dism issalofthe 2017 Action.YOu should also know thatbecause thatorder doesnotdayitiswithoutprejudice,itiswithprejudice.See Rule41(b). IfIam required to seek sanctions underRule 11 on behalfofM essrs.Selakovic and /or Blackburn;VegalabLLC;FulfillmentSolutionsServices,lnc.(sicâ(Fulfillmentl;New EpicMedia, LLC ;or,Suprem e G rowers,LLC itw illbe in partbecause yourclient's claim s have been adjudi cated onthemeritsbyreasonoftheinvoluntarydismissalandthoseclaimsarebarredby the doctrine ofRes Judicata. Yourallegati on thatm y brotherM ichael,m y firm orIeverrepresented G reenway Nutrients,Inc., (Greenway)isfalse.Thatneverhappened.Nordidweeverreceiveanyconfidentialinformation from G reenway orany otherentity operated by M r.Escam illa. The Ecow in ddcontract''attached to yourcom plaintis nOtsigned by Ecowin.1am inform ing you thatthe allegation thatG reenw ay had such contractis false. Vegalab,lnc.,(Vegalab)wasnotinthepesticidebusinessuntil2016whichwasIong after G reenway ceased doing business.You do notand neverwillhave any evidence to supportyour claim thatVegalab tortuously interfered w ith any relationship betw een yourclientand Ecow in and /orthatitis oreverinfringed on any Greenway markts).Despite the existence Ofm anyOf these defendants w hen G reenway was in business,yOu w illalso neverbe provided w ith credible evidence ofany infringem entofa G reenw ay m ark by any ofthem . The truth is M r.Escam illa has been a m iserable failure ateverything he has attem pted to do. Theonetime Imethim inpersonwaswhen hewasin 2010whenhewasjustgettingreadyto startG reenw ay University.He walked us through the building thatwould becom e its cam pus. The tourIasted about30 m inutes.Atthe tim e itwas to becom e the only schoolin the U.S.with a stateaccreditationto teachaboutmedicalmari juana.IIostaIIconfidenceinhim whenthe accreditation was revoked as a resultofhis failure to disclose his felony conviction on the state application. As foryourclient,itcontracted Fulfillm entto purchase bottle and ship Ecowin products under G reenway's label.Then itfailed to pay the billand Fulfillm enthad to liquidate the rem aining inventoryto mitigate itsdamages.Lateritsuedand obtainedajudgmentinthe amountof $94,077.73 On October7,2014 thatremains unsatisfied.In anticipation yourfirm has required yourclientto pay a retainerlw illbe serving yourfirm with a writofGarnishm ent.lwillalso be servingyourclientwitha writofexecutionto take ownershipofyourclient'smarkls)andits claim ed causes ofaction. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 42 of 105 Ihaveattached acopyofJudge Mara'sorderofdismissalandthe referencedjudgementfor yourconvenience. Ihave also attached an em ailsentby M r.Escam illa in 2015 thatthreatened action againstthe Florida Barbecause he was nothappy with theirresolution ofhis Barcom plaintagainstmy brotherTom .Forwhatit' s wodh, M y brotherTom has neverbeen a m em berOrassociate ofm y firm.Thisemailisjustoneofmanyexamplesofbad behavi orbyyourclient. 1am available to discuss any oraIlofthis by phone orin person. Thank you in advance foryourconsideration ofthis inform ation. Sincerely, Jam es D.Ryan,Esq. Florida BarBoard Certified in Business Litigation idr@ rvanlawgroup.net mobile: 561.889.1001 Ryan Law G roup,PLLC 636 US Highw ay O ne,Sui te 11O North Palm Beach Florida M ain: 561.881.4447 Fax: 561.889.4461 ww w.ryanlawgroup.net Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 43 of 105 E xhibit 4 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 44 of 105 On Friday,September14,20183:33PM,Gustavo wrote: Septem ber14,2018, Re; G reenway Nutrients,Inc.v.Selakovic etaI. U.S.DistrictCourtS.D.Fla.lndex No.9:18-cv-81104-BB Good afternoon Jon, Thank you very m uch forthe em ailand foradvising us ofJam es Ryan and The Ryan Law G roup'concerns. ltis im portantto note thatwe take Jam es Ryan'denials very seriously and understand thatitis vitally im portantthatw e are able to supportofallegations with supporting docum entation. Itis regretfulthatJam es Ryan is attem pting to distractcounselfrom the truth being disclosed w hile discredi ting his form erclients w ith inform ation thathas nothing to do w ith the overwhelm ing factualevidence thatw e have to supportourallegations againstthe accused defendants in ourcase. Because w e do notw ish to inundate and wanted to provide counselwith concise evidence, supporting docum entation,and inform ation as soon as possible,with yourperm ission we will provide inform ation tw o parts,first,is this em ailas itrelates to M ichaelRyan,Jam es Ryan,and The Ryan Law Group. Second,and Iatertoday,as we com plete this portion forcounseland because we wantto ensure thatwe resend and provide m ore concise evidence thatw illallow us to easily overcom e and address any concerns regarding M ichaelJ.Ryan'on behalfofThe Ryan Law Group' obvious assistance w i th the form aldrafting ofthe G reenw ay-Ecowin agreem entand the fact thatG reenw ay did in fact,notonly introduce Ecowin into the US butalso Iaterdid in fact, acquire the com panies exclusive distribution rights with Ecow in forthe entire US. W e willalso address James Ryanassertionsas they relate to FSS'defaul tjudgmentthatwe had previously discussed as w ell. Jam es Ryan,M ichealRyan,and The Ryan Law G roup m ustbe very concerned w hile clearly understanding thatthe US Suprem e Courtrecently revisited and addressed the issue ofthe courtpotentially dism issing ourcom plaintG reenw ay'com plaintagainstthe accused defendants due to US Suprem e Courtclari fying a plaintiff's standards in asserting claim s during federalIitigation proceedings in the Twom bly pleading standard in Ashcroftv.lqbal,129 S.Ct.1937(2009). W e are truly unsure,however,due to ournovice and Iim ited research thatwe regretfully had to undertake previousl y,we were inform ed thatthe courtinterpreted Rule 8(a)(2)'s notice pleading standard to require thata com plaintallege ''enough facts to state a claim to reliefthatis plausible on its face.'Twom bly,550 U .S.at570. Itfound thatthe factualallegations ''m ustbe enough to raise a rightto reliefabove the speculative Ievel.''Id.at555.The courtreasoned thatthisstandard ''gdid)notimposea probability requirem entatthe pleading stage.''1d.at556. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 45 of 105 Italso em phasized lhata claim to reliefm ustbe plausible on its face and thatwhile the ''plausibilitystandard isnotakinto a'probabilityrequirement,'(Ji tasksformorethanasheer possibility thata defendantacted unlawfully.'Iqbal,129 S.Ct.at1949. W e also find itincredibly odd thatJam es Ryan and The Ryan Law G roup would be taking such drastic m easures now,having neverpreviousl y denied,contested,orresponded to,any of evidence,inform ation,orallegations in the com panies Rule 11 m otion againstJam es Ryan and The Ryan Law Group thatthe com pany was able to subm itto the courtduring ourbrief fum bling around orrepresentation ofthe com pany as Pro-se Iitigants thatunfortunately took place during ourpriorFlorida suit. O n W ednesday,Septem ber5,2018,Jam es Ryan w rote and stated the follow ing in his Ietterto counsel''Your allegation thatm y brotherM ichael,m y firm or Ieverrepresented Gœ enway Nutrients,Inc,(Gœenway)isfalse.Thatneverhappened.Nordid Ne ever receive any confidentialinform ation fm m Greenw ay or any otherentfty operated by M n Escam illa.'' Therefore,thank you forallow ing us the opportunity to provide docum entation to contradict and easily dem onstrate thatJam es Ryan on behalfof1he Ryan Law Group is once again, regretfully choosing to be totally untruthfuland com pletely dishonest. Li za and Iwillacquire actualbankcopiesofthe initial$50,000.00 and $5,000.00 w ire transferts)from ouroId BankofDenveraccountthatwe have since closed butshould still have hard copies ofin storage thatw ere in fact,m ade to Thom as F.Ryan,M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Law G roup priorto perform ing any Iegalw ork on the com panies Private Placem ent Memorandum (PPM)asevidenced inattachedinexhibit#14and described below. Atthe tim e w hen we initially hired M ichaelJ.Ryan and his brotherThom as E Ryan to assistthe com pany w ith the form aldrafting ofthe com panies PPM ,w e neverthoughtto ask fora retainer agreem entsim ply because priorto disclosing any ofthe com panies confidentialinform ation to ei therM ichaelJ.Ryan orThom as F.Ryan we required thatboth ofourform erattorneys review and execute the com panies non-disclosure agreem entw hich they,both in fact,did. M ore im portantly,from on orabout Novem ber2010,through Novem ber2012,thatJam es Ryan and M ichaelRyan'youngerbrotherThom as F.Ryan also Iived as a guest in our hom e Free ofCharge in exchange forThom as E Ryan also serving as GeneralcounselforG reenw ay Nutrients,Inc. ln fact,Thomas E Ryan from Ryan)stillIists hisem ploymentas LegalatGreenway Nutrients as dem onstrated in Tom Ryan'online Linkedin profile below : https://www .linkedin.com /in/tom -w an-z8ao3846 Additionally,ataIItim es during Thom as F.Ryan'tenure in ourhom e,as wellas during M ike Ryan'representation ofGreenway BO TH M ike Ryan and Tom Ryan com m unicated w ith and utilized the sam e em ailaddress Iocated atryantlaw @ aolxcom . Thom as E Ryan had regularand ongoing conversations w ith M ike Ryan and Jam es Ryan in orderto keep his brothers apprised ofthe com panies day to day business operations and financialdealings during the entire tim e Tom Ryan Iived as a guestfree ofcharge in ourhom e as well. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 46 of 105 Regretfully, Thom as E Ryan also Iaterrefused to provide us w ith any ofourpastcli ent paperwork and actually denied thathe had everrepresented G reenw ay Nutrients Inc.,in any capacity which we w ere able to Iaterfactually disprove during ourbriefinquiry with the Florida Baras to w hetherornotitwas ethicalforG reenway'form erattorney Thom as E Ryan to unlaw fully share and disclose the com panies confidentialattorney-clientprivileged inform ation while also m aking an appearance on behalfofthe defendants in ourpriorColorado suit. W e neverwanted to cause harm to Thom as Ryan,we sim ply w anted Thom as Ryan to tellthe truth and adm itthathe was being dishonest,and stillto this day,Liza and lcannotbelieve that Thom as Ryan,M ichaelRyan,orJam es Ryan w ould have been involved in doing Iike this to us. W e Iaterdropped ourFlorida Barinquiry into Thom as E Ryan'unethicalconductand were also Iaterinform ed by DHS authorities thatThom as F.Ryan'conductwould be thoroughly investigated by DHS w hich w as untrue. Please find the attachm ents regarding ourpaym ents to as w ellas M ike Ryan',Jam es Ryan and The Ryan Law G roup'representation ofthe com pany and the supporting em aildocum entation to supportourclaim s. Exhibit#1 - Is a copy ofG reenw ay'PPM Iisting M ike Ryan as attorney ofrecord forthe com pany. Exhibit#2 - Is a copy ofan em aildated M ay 26,2011,thatwas sentto Steve Blackburn with Greenw ay'attorney M ike Ryan acting on behalfofthe Ryan Law group also being copied on regarding a potentialinvestm entin Greenway'business m odel. Exhibit#3 - ls a copy ofem ails thatM ike Ryan acting on behalfofthe Ryan Law Group sending us copies ofourPPM as wellas advising the com pany ofthe SEC regulations as faras m aking any public announcem ents. Exhibit #4 - Is a copy ofan em ailthatwas sentto M ike Ryan on oraboutJune 11,2010,on behal fofthe Ryan Law G roup receiving the com panies confidentialinform ation thatM ike Ryan, The Ryan Law G roup,as wellas Jam es Ryan Iaterused to determ ine thatthe com panies businessmodelwasvaluedatapproximatelytwenty-fivemilliondollars($25,000,000.00)atthat tim e. Exhibit#5-Afterdeterminingthatthecompaniesbusinessmodelwasvaluedat appmximately twenty-ffve mlllion dollaa f> 5,e ,e .* )atthattim e,JamesRyan Iater senthis high-end wealthy clients a letter touting Gœ enw ay as an extraoM inak investm entand business oppodtlnc while oSerfng bis (Jam esRyan'clients)a seventeenanda halfpem entequitystakeforfouranda halfmillion dollar(1 ,R ,e .* ) investm entin the com panies business m odel. Quick question? How did Jam es Ryan,M ichaelRyan,orThe Ryan Law Group ever com e to know of Greenw ay being an extraordinary investm ent,business opportunity,orany ofthe com panies confidentialinform ation ifas Jam es Ryan regretfully suggests in his Ietterto counselw hereby Jam es Ryan dishonestly stated,''Nor did w e ever receive any confidentialinform ation from Greenw ay orany otherentity operated by M r.Escam illa.''? Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 47 of 105 Exhibit#6 - Is a copy ofan em ailthatJam es Ryan sentto his brotherTom Ryan regarding the com panies PPM and ifany potentialinvestm entwas m ade in Greenw ay as a resultofJam es Ryan orThe Ryan Law G roup'e'orts to assistthe com pany thatJam es Ryan and The Ryan Law Group were to receive 10% com m ission and 10% in stock ifany of Jam es Ryan orThe Ryan Law G roup clients decided to m ake an investm entin G reenw ay. Exhibit#7 -is a copy ofan em aildated on orabout Septem ber27,2010,with M ike Ryan on behalfofThe Ryan Law Groupzalso working in conjunction with his brotherTom Ryan review G reenway Nutrients@ distributlon agreem entw ith SunlightSupply. Exhibit#8 -is a copy ofan em aildated on oraboutAugust3,2010,requesting thatG reenway generate new confidentialcom pany passcodes forone ofthe com panies SEC registrations. Exhibit#9 -is a copy ofan em aildated on orabouton oraboutOctober21,2010, dem onstrating thatM ike Ryan on behalfofThe Ryan Law Group worked in conjunction with Greenway'CPA forthe preparation ofthe companiesaudited financials thatthe com pany w as planning on utilizing in orderto be able to Iatertake the com pany public. Exhibit#10 -is a copy ofan em aildated on oraboutApril4,2011,from M ike Ryan on behal f ofthe Ryan Law Group,in conjunction with his brotherTom Ryan setting up aconference call m eeting with a gentlem an by the nam e ofG reg Nolan fora potentialinvestm entin the com panies business m odelas w ellas taking the com pany public.. Exhibit#11 -additionally,beginning som e tim e on oraboutJune of2010,and afterappearing orbeing featured on NBC,ABC,FOX,W allStreetJournal,and Forbes Magazine justto name a few ,w e began to take m eetings with various quali fied and non-qualified investors seeking investm ent in G reenway'highly successfulbusiness m odelw ith the sole purpose and intention offirst preparing a PPM thatw ould laterbe converted through a reverse m ergerwhile sim ultaneously taking the com pany public utilizing a publicly traded shellcorp Iike HPC. G reenway found im m ediate success and on oraround July-August2010,M ichaelJ.Ryan and the Ryan Law Group,were aware thatthe com pany was able to attractas wellas identify a publicl y traded shellcorp nam ed STRATA CAPITAL CO RPO RATIO N and STRATA ACQUISITION CORP (collectivelyidentifiedas 'STRATA'')throughanothercontactofourswho introduced Strata'ownernam ed Richard Astrom who was also based outofthe W estPalm Beach area w ho desperatel y w anted G reenw ay to com plete a reverse m ergerw ith Strata at thattim e. G reenway initially agreed to a binding LO Iw ith Strata and proceeded to also take extra added m easures to engage the Iegalservices ofG ottbetter& Partners,LLR based outofNew York City to also help representG reenway during the com panies due diligence and background process into Strata'viability as a suitable corporate vehicle in orderforG reenway to Iaterbe able to com plete a proposed reverse m ergerw ith Strata. G reenway'counsel: PaulC.Levites,Esq. Gottbetter& Partners,LLP 488 M adison Ave.,12th Fl. New York,NY 10022 T-212.400.6900 F-212.400.6937 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 48 of 105 E-pcl@ gottbetteccom W -ww w.gottbetteccom Strata'ownerRichardAstrom wasrepresented byLaura E.Anthony('ANTHONY' '),Esq.with Legal& Compliance,LLC ('L&C'')based inWestPalm BeachFloridawho'sIaw firm speciali zes in SEC com pliance and regulatory m atters in orderto provide Strala'due diligence docum entation to Gottbetteron behalfofG reenway. Laura E.Anthony,Esquire Legal& Com pliance,LLC 33O Clem atis Street,Suite 217 W estPalm Beach,FL 33401 O#ice:561-514-0936 Fax:561-514-0832 Lauraanthonypa@ aol.com ww w.legalandcom pliance.com The proposed reverse m ergerw as nevercom pleted due to ourIaterdiscovery ofpotenti ally false orm isleading statem ents ofStrata'viabili ty and the various ''stock prom oters' 'thatw ere affiliated w ith M r.Astrom and the Strata w ho did notappearto have G reenway'best interestat heart. M s.Anthony and L&C willbe able to confirm thatM ike Ryan was actjng as Gœ enway' attorney pm vided com pany inform ation to M s.Anthony and L&C during the com panies due diligence pm cess ofStrata. Exhibit#12 -is a copy ofthe em ailfrom M ike Ryan to Liza inform ing the com pany thathe (MikeRyan)had read and agreedtothetermsoftheexactsamenon-disclosureform that defendants New Epic and FSS also executed and agreed to keep the com panies inform ation com pletely confidential.The originalem ailw illalso be provided. Exhibit#13 - Is a copy ofa letterthatThom as F.Ryan sentto another attorney requesting stating thatM ike Ryan had contacted in orderto also possibly serve as an escrow agent forthe com panies PPM . Exhibit#14 -Is a copy ofan em ailthatThom as E Ryan sentto us indicating thathe and Mike had received ourinitial$50,000.00 depositand $5,000.00 w ire. ln closing,w e w ould Iike to hum bly lhank you once again and as w e take a quick break to prepare ourevidence as itrelates to defendants Ecow in and FSS,w e Ieave you with only one ofdefendantJam es Nyan'num em us and com pletely dishoneststatem ents thathe has already m ade to counselin M K Ryan 'letterdated Septem ber5,m f8,w herein M n Ryan' own typed N olW s stated the following:''Fotlrallegation thatm y brother M ichael,m y firm orIeverm pœ senfed Greenway Nutrients,Inc,(Gp enway)is false.Thatnever happened.Nordid e e everreceive any confidentialinform ation from Greenw ay orany otherentity operated by M n Escam illa.k' Thank you,Jonathan. Respectfully subm itted, Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 49 of 105 G ustavo (818)355-0062 Liza (818)263-6845 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 50 of 105 Exhibit 5 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 51 of 105 Ly' # . 4 & .4 p a 4 W partmentofState / Di visionofCorporation: / %qarctf ecqr/y / Retaàtoy-p-ocumpntN.g-m..k#q/ - Prqvi ousOn Li st NextOnLi st Retum toList EntityNameSearch Search Events No M-- HWtofy Detailby Entity Nam e Fl ori da Limi ted Liabili tyCompany RYAN & RYAN LAW YERS,LLC Flling Inform ation DocumentNum - r FEI/EIN Number Date Flled State Status LastEvent EventDate Filed EventElecti ve Date L10000109993 NONE 10/21/2010 FL INACTIVE ADMIN DISSOLUTION FOR ANNUAL REPORT 09/23/2011 NONE PrincipalAddress 631U.S.HIGHWAY ONE SUITE 100 NORTH PALM BEACH,FL 33408 Ma/lingAddress 631 U. S.HIGHW AY ONE SUITE 100 NORTH PALM BEACH,FL33408 Repistered AgentNam e & Address RYAN,JAMES D 631U.S.HIGHW AY ONE SUITE 100 NORTH PALM BEACH,FL33408 AuthorizedPersontâ)Detail Name & Address Title MGRM RYAN,JAMES D 26K LAKE SHORE DRIVE,#103 RI VIERA BEACH,FL33404 Title MG RM RYAN,MICHAELJ 370 GOLFVIEW ROAD,#104 NORTH PALM BEACH,FL33408 AnnualRepods No AnnualRepoe Filed Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 52 of 105 E xhibit 6 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 53 of 105 Gr- yNdfi# s/rr & US. V G Ir<. Mt/tà W DIM CSJ, af No ciran- V Page 1qf: 't GR EENW AY NUTRIENTS.INC.and tJS STRATEG Y,lNf' 1. M UTUAL NON-DISCLOSIIRE and NO N-CIRC UM V ENTIO N AG REEM ENT ThisMutualNon-DisclosurcandNon-circumvtntionAgreement(thisAgteement)governsthedisclosure ofinftpnuationby and betweenGreeawây Nutriexql c.('I-11F$e('-0R?(. )RA170N*')andUS Strategl'1nc. lhQ -- ttheL-ffcctiveDate). (Tbe-'Company--).togetber(Thci.parties-*)fki ;of' % &t-. . - As used herein, Confidential Inform ation lneans any and aIl technical arxl non-technical informalion provided by eitherparty to the other.including,butnotIimited to information rcgarding (a) patentand patentapplications.(b)trade secret,and (c)proprietarj'information.mask works.ide' as, Aqm plcss media- techniques, sketce s,draw ings. works of authurship, naodels- inventitlnse kn - ow-how, processes- apparatuses, equipm ente algorithlns, soûware program s, sotbvarc source docum ents, and tbrm ulae related to tNe current.futtlre.and proposed products and services of each tlt-the parties,and incltlding, without lim itation, their resm ctive infonmation concerning research. exlxrilnental worke development. design details and specilicationsa engineering. f' inancial inlbrmation. procuremcnt requiremerlts,purchasinp m allufacturing,ctlstom er lists.investors.employees.business lmd contraetual relationships,business forecastsssalcsand merchandising,lnarketing plansand infbrmation the disclosing party providesregarding third - ies. l. Each pillly agrt-ts tllat it ' willhold in strict confidenc. e and notdisclose to any third party Confdentiallnformation ofthe other.exccptas approved in writillg by the other party to thisA gm ement. and will use the Contsdential Illform ation for no ptlrpost other than evaluating or purslling a btsiness relatitlnship with the other party to this Agrcemenl. Ntltwitllstanditag the abovc. the y tt? whom Contidential Information wms disclosed (the Recipient)shallnot be in violation of this Section 2 with regard to a disclosure that was in response to a valid order by a courtor other govem m ental body. or ptlrsuantto rules and regulations of any sttr k exchangc or sttyt:k assteiation in which securities of the Rccipicntor its representatives m ay be traded froln time to lime.provided thatthe Recipiem provides the other party w ith prior uqitten notice of sucll disclosure in ordcr to perm it the othcr party to seek contldentialtreatm cntofstlch inform ation and the Recipientorits representatives only furnish thatportion ofthe Conlsdentiallnfonnatîon whîch.in thejudgmentofRecipienl'scounscl-Recipientisrm uired îo diselose. Expressly subjectto Sectit-ln4.any Contidentiallnformationdiselosed pursuantto tlaisSection2 shallremain treated as Confidential lntbfm ation underthis Agreement in allother respt-cts. Each party shall only lx rm it access to Conlsdential Infonnation of the other party tu those of its employees or authorized representatives having a nced to know and who has'e signed contsdentiality agreem ents or arc olllvrwise bound by confidentiality obligatiensatleastasrestrictive asthose eontained herein. 2. 1), )ach y shallim mediately notify the otherin tlle eventol -any Itlss or unauthorized disclosure ofany Confidentiallnlbnnation ofthc otherparty. 3- NonCircumvention: 'fhe 'Padies''intending to be legally botmd,htreby irrevtlcably agree,and guarantee each other they shalI not, directly or indirectl) intertbre with, circulnvent or attempt to circumvent, avoid, by-pmss. or obviate cach other'g interest. or the interest or relationship between the 'Padies''w' ith roducers.sellers- btlycrs. brokcrs. dealers,distributors. financial institutions. technology lnital Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 54 of 105 Gr M - % je#s1, & US&r8t> lfr, tutk'i &(oO ?a8- e W W u ram w kAX > PageJof4 owners. develogers or lnanufk turcrs. to change, increase or avoid directly or indirectly payment of established or to tx establishcd fces. com m issions. or continuance of pre-established relationship or intcrvene in non-contracted relationship with manufacturers tnr technology owners with intem w ditvîas, entreprenvurs,legalcotlnsel,orinitiatebuy/sellrclationships,ortransactionalrelationshipsthatY -passone of the ''Partiesn w ith any corporationoproducersttxhrm logy owner,partnemhip,or individualm vealcd or introduced l7y oneoftlle''Padiesotô0neânotàerin ctlnnx tit)p Witllanyon-going 0rlkttlr:''transaction''Or 'proî .etzt'4. Each party's obligations undcrthis Agmemelltwith reslxxctto any portion ofthe otherparty-s ContsdentialIntbrmation shallterminatewhenthe Recipientcan doctlmcntthat:((a)itw' asin theptlblic domain at the time itwas communieated to the Rccipientby the other party;(b)itcntered thc ptlblic domain subsequeatto the tim e itwas comm unicated to the Recipientby the otherparty'through no tàultof the Recipivntp '(c)itwas in the Rccipient=s m ssession frec ofany obligatilln ot -conlidencc atthe time it wascommunicated to the Recipientbytheotherparty' ,(d)itw'asrightfuily communicatcd to the Recipient frœ of any obligation of conlidencc subsequentto the tim t it was com m unicated to the Recipient by the otl aerparty;or(e)itwas rightfully communicated to the Recipienttree (,1'any'obligation ofcontsdence subsequentto thetimeitwascom municated to theRecipientby theotherparty;or(f) itw'ascoum lullicated by the otherparb'to a third party frce ofany obligation ofctm tsdence. 5- Upon termination orexpiratitm oflhis Ag eem ent-orupon written requcstofthe otherparty,each party shallpromptly returnto the othcra11dtxmnents-notes and othertangihle materials rzptegenting the other's Confidcntiallntbrmation and aIlcopiesthereof. 6. n'lxe parties recog' nize and agree that nothing conu ined i11this Agrccmentshallbe eonstrued as granting any propeny rights.by 1icense or otherw isesto any ConlldcntialIntbnnatiolt of thc other party' discloscd pursuant to this A greem ent, or to any invention or any patent.topyright. tradem ark.or uther intellectual property right that has issued or that m ay issue. based on such Contsdential Inform ation, Neithcr party shall rnakc, have m ade. use or sell for flnl purlx se any' producî or other item usinp incoqxlrating orderived tkom any ConlldcntialInlbrm atiorlofthe otherpartq. 7. ConGdential lntbnnation shallnot be rcproduced in any form exceptas required tç) accomplish the intent ot-this Agreement. Any reproduction of-any Corllldential lnformation of the other party by eimqrparty shallremain lhe'property of-the disclosing pa. 14. 3, .and shallcontain anl'and alIcontsdentialor proprietary notictl orlegends thatappeûron the original.unlktss othenvise authorlzed ln wrhing b)'tlle other )', 8, Thisagreem entshallterminale two years at' terthe bffective Date.orm ay be term inatcd by'eîther party at any time tlpnn 30 day' s w'ritten notice to the other party-'I' he Rccipitnt's tàbligations under this Agreem entshallsurvive tennination ofthis AgreementIx tween the parties and shall1* binding upon the Recipient's heirs,successors and aisigns. Tluz Recipient-s obligations laereundcr sha11 continue in full force and effect with respectto non-technicalsalcs-mark-cting.and tsnancialConfidentialInfonnation fbr threeyearsfrom thedateot-disclosure ofsuch ConsdentialInfonnation. ' Fhe Rm ipient'sobligationswith resm ctto aIIlechnicalContidenti' allnforfnation slzallbe term inated 0111, pursuantto Section 5. Ini ls Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 55 of 105 Gr- y W qia' tts/1r.d U$2r/> fœ. M/* O D/aSœ xee e a raxr- % Page 3r?/-4 9. This agreem ent shall be governed hy and construed in aceordance with thc laws ot-Califbrnia withoulrcference to conflictof laws principles. Any disputes under this Agre m entshallbe broughtin the statc courts and the l--ederalcourts ltxated in l,()s Angeles County.California.and the parties hereby congentto tlze N rsonaljtrisdiction and venut ofthese courts. Notwithstanding the foregoing,the disclosingpartymayseekinjunctiverelicffrom any'coun ofcommtentjurisdictiontopreventabreachof thîsAgreement. ThisAgreemelltmaynûtb4amentledexcept$rawritingsignctf$'bothpartkshçreto. 10. fach party acknow ledges thatits breach of this Agreefncntw illcause irrcparablc damage and hereby agrees tlhqt the othcr party shallbe entitled to seek and receive iqiunctive rclief tmder this Agrecmentwithoutbeing reqaired to N sta lx4nd ort'thersecurity,as wellas such furtherreliefincluding butnotIimitedto actualdamagesandcostsand fktsasmay begranted byacotld ofcompdentjttrisdîction. 1l. lfany provision ofthis Agreementis found by a proœ rduthority to bc unentbrceable or invalid. such unenfbrceability orinvalidity shallnotrenderthis Agreem entunentbrceable orinvalid asa vvhole and. in such event.such provision shalllx changed and intcrpreted so asto bestaccomplish the objectivesof stl ch unenlbrccable orinvalid grovisioflwithin the linAits ofapplicdblc Iaw orapplicable courtdccisions. l2- Ncithecpartyshallcommunicateanyinfijnmationtotheotherinviolationofthepropridaryri/uts ofany third party. I3. Neither party willmssign ortransfer any rights or obligations tlnderthis Agreementwithoutthe priorwritttn consentofthe otherparty. Neither party shall export- dîrectly or indirectl). any technical data acqtlired from the otfler pursllnnt to this Agrccm ent or any product utilizing any gtlch data to any eountry tbr which the U.SGovenpmentorany agency thereoratthe limc of exportrcquires 24)7 expt)rtlicense orothpr governmental approvalwithoutfirstobtaining such licenscorapproval. l5. Allnoticesorrejx' )rts perm itted orrcquired tlnderlhis Agreementshallbe in wriling and shdllbe dclivered by personaldelivery,electronic mail,tàcsim ile transm ission or b)'certified or registered mail. return reccipt requestedeand slmllt x deerned given upon personaldelivery- t lve days aher deposk in the mail,orupon acknow ledgmentof'rcceiptofelccm lnic transmission.Notices shallI XAsentt( n the addresses . Setfolthatthetnd 0t'thisAptttmentt)rsuçhotheraddrcRsaseitherpartl'may specit' y inwriting. l6. Each of the parties agrces that the software program s of the other party contain valuable contidentialinfbrmation and each pany agreesitw ilIntltmodify.revcrse engineer.decompile,createother works from,or disassem ble any softwarc program s eontained in the C'ontidentialInformation cht'the otller party withoutthe priorwritten consentof-the otherparty. l7. ThisAgreementsuN rsedesal1ptiordiscllssitlnsand writings and ctmstinltosthe cntire agreement bctweenthepartiesw' ithrespecttothcsubjectmatlerhereof- lnIt s . Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 56 of 105 Gr- yNœ ia s lfr & &S&ral% /rr MutuW O fl/a#cv earx/Nfxyo rczme AA - V : Page4t a/4 INW'I'lNIA:WTIIERE()l'.the iesheretoLavecatlsedthisAgreemtultt0t. t oxectltedl150ftheEtllkçtisz t Date. G ItEENB' . NY NlT ' 1' RIb'N' l' N lNt'. tIS S' I-R. &' I'I' ,(;4' -' Sigtlatnre: Sigllattir - Name:GustaNzoEscalnilIa Name Gaqc ê . . . * 'I'itle:Presidentf EO l'itlè?:ç5. 1-t 1--- m. Date. Date: Address' . 12328GladstoneSttite2 SylmarCA 913z12. Addrcss: /-$ -/ 3*i C(*> .1 C4 ' sw.ët ?4*B < > - 3 ee , 1 -#v'o / . Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 57 of 105 Exhibit 7 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 58 of 105 Gustavo F-scanzilla LizaH aw e M v h 5,2019 Pa> 2 of4 againstEcowinifthey retuain inthecase.becauseitwouldprejudicetheirdeiknsetohavea defaulttaken asto Ecowin. The prmniseoftheConlplaintw efled asagainsttheRyan partiesis thatGreenway had acontractwith Ecowin which wastenzlillated asaresllltoftheRya. u parties- conduct.Therefore.theRyan pal-tieswould ll 'k-elyhavearighttocontestthedefaultjudgment againstEconilz.wllichwouldalso bebasedonthisprenzise.asprejudicingthenz.Itisgenerally thenvlein federalprocedtu'ethatjointlyliabledefendants-ordefendantswhoarenotjoitztly liablebuthave closely related defenses- cannotbedefaulted tmlesseithera11defendantshave defaulttdortherehasbeenan adjudicationoftheclailnsonthenlelitsagainsttherenlau 'ling defendants.In otherw ords.wlûleGreenway could tryto argue thattheRyansshould notbe allowed to interfere with thedefaultagainstEcow in.they willcel-tainly try to do so.slowing thingsdou-n.and there isahi-ah lt 'k-elihoodthatthey w ould succeed. Greenway can thereforederivesignit-icantvalue froln renloving the Ryan pal-tiesfrom tlze litigation attlùstinle. Further.theteisnonmrginalbenefitto keeping theln in the case.sitlcethe datuages souzht frozu the Ryan pat-tieswould beessentially the salue ar swhatGreenway seeks &onlEcowin:nanlely.thebenefitofGreenway'sbargain 111itsbroken contractwith Ecow-in. If w ecan getthatfrolu Ecowin.tllereis11o pointin ptu-suing theRyan pal-ties. The downside ofproceeding againsttheRyan pal-tiesisalso vely signit-icant.They have frequently and consistently tllreatened anlaliciolîsprosecution action orsanctionsagainstboth us and you forsuing thenlwithouta sotm dbasis, Even in the eventsuch a suitwereunsuccessful.it w ould be expensive to defend.and awasteoftitne foreveryone involved. Therightstrategic choice forGreenw ay isthereforeto accepttheRyans'offerofaw alkaway agreenlent.in orderto elinliaate lualiciousprosecution sanctionsl' isk and proceed unùupededtoseek alargejudgnwntagainstEcowin.Asyoutattonleys- inparticular.as attonzeysw hose t' inancialincentives are aligned w ith G reenw ay's tlwough ourtull-contingent an'angenzentand advancenzentofsiplit-icantcosts- weunhesitatingly and strongly reconunend acceptingthisoffet.qse hopethatwehave gained yourtnlstand that.consistentn-ith yolufrequentpraise ofourwork.thatyou willagree, Additionally.please be advised wewillnotproceed with the claitusagainsttheRyan paz-tieson yotu'behalf.A iierthorough investigation and revieq a'ofthenlatelialsyou provided in responseto olu'Septenlber 14 letter.tmd perournunlerouspliorconversationswith you.we believethenlto bewithoutevidentiary suppol' t.The few itenlsyou have sentusol-iginating with any oftheRyanbrotlzerswhicllrelateto Greenway N utl-ients.asopposed to Greenw ay U niversity.are frotu Toln Ryan.nots. ficlzaelor Jalnes.and do notpm-tain to the l'inn you asked usto sue.the Ryan Law Crroup.PLLC',q'rehave seen no evidencethatJaluesorNlichaelRytm w orked for G reenw ay N utrients.incltlding the private placelnentnlenlorandtun you have frequently refen' ed to.whiclz.although itdoesnzention theconceptofnutrientproducts.was prepared to solicitinvestluentin Greenway University,' W recez-taillly havelleverbeen provided with mzy retainerap-eementorexpressstatenlelztthatany oftheRyan paz-tieswere actizzg as Greenway Nutrients'attonleys.And ourreliance on yom'representationscaused several assel-tionsoffactto be included in theConzplau 'ltwlzich laterproved incon'ect.forexa: mple tllat s' IichaelRyan drafted the Ecow in contractorthatJanles Ryan introduced El' ic H anson to you. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 59 of 105 Gustavo Escanziza LH Haw orth M amh 5,2019 Page 3of4 56oreover.the attolney-clientrelationship betw een JanzesorsfichaelRyêm orRyan Law Group and Cireelnvay N '' utrients.which they have repeatedly denied existsand ofxvhieh we do nothave evidence.isthe fachmlprenzise ofa11the clailns againstthese pal-ties. Thisincludesthe tortiousintederencewithcontractclainls.asthetunjustified-interferenceelelnentofthattort requires breach ofan attolney-clientcollfdence in thiscontextto distinguish itfl-olu 11011actionable sharing ofinfonzzation. A tyotlrinsistence.w e agreed to deferw itlldraw ing the clainlstm tilatierthe sfotion to Disnûssw asdecided-because itw aspossible these elainlsw ould be distnissed on the pleadings and therefore w ew ould notbe required to drop thetn outlight.l Because we do notbelieve these clainzsto be suppol-ted.how ever.w ew illnotpursue thenzon yourbehalf.asrequired by otu' ethicalduties as attonw ys. A lthough we strongly believe aecepting tlzew alkaway agreenlentis in Cireenw ay-sbestintez'est.tlzisis an independently suft-icientz' eason notto pm-sue tlze claim s. Thisdecision isfinal:while we alw aysappreciate the oppot-tunity to speak with you. respectfully.nre w illnotengage in furtherdebate on thispoint.whieh w e have discussed extensively in writing and overthe phone. O fcourse.asyou kuzow .itisalw aysCireenw ay'sdecision how to proceed w ith itscase, Ave cam zot.and w ould not.acceptthe w alk-aw ay agremnetltforGreenw ay w ithoutyourconsent. However.should you.asyou have frequently indicated.reluse to drop the clailnsagainstthe Ryan parties.w e w illhave a fundanzentaland irreconeilable disas emnentabouthow to lnove fonvard with the case and w illregretfully be forced to w ithdran'froln thislnatterasyotuattom eys ptlrstlalltto olu'EngagelnentA greeluent.Rtlle 1.16 ofthe N ew York Rules of ProfessionalConduct.and Rule 1.16 ofthe Califolnia RulesofProfessionalConduet. Thatisnotthe outconle w ew ant, svehave always proeeeded in good faith in the hopes ofapositiveresolution ofthisnàatter. %%'e w ould like notlling luore than to seek a rennm erative outcolne - forGreetnvay aud forourftt-ln - by proceeding in dqfaultagainstEcow in on Greenw ay-sbehalf. Please infonn usby 5.00 Pacitic tinw on Thtu-sdav.sfarch 7 how Cireelnvay intendsto proceed.so that.ifw e are forced to n-ithdraw .w e can give the colu4 notice inunediately and provideyou adequate titne to go fonvard arsyou see t54. lfw e do notheal-definitively ti-onlyou aboutwhetherto acceptthe Nvalk-away agyemnentby thattinle we w illhave no choice butto unforttmately t' ile papersrequesting to berelieved asyourcotm seland provide you w ith your case file so thatyou lnay seek otherrepresentation.z 1n attheM otionto Dùm isswasdenled asto tlleclainzsagznstte Ryanpartiesdcesnotcv gethisaaalysis. On aM oion to Dism iss,tlze courtisrequired to acceptdle allegationsin thecomphintastrue,w' hetherernotiey have probablecatweoreddentiarysupport. 2You m- tioned dlzring the mediation session thatotherattorneyshavebeen interested in taki ng up Greenway'scase in tlzepast. should we lx forced to witâdraw wewould l)e lzappy to work qzùckly to getany otherattorney up to speed. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 60 of 105 E xhibit 8 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 61 of 105 OnWednesday,January11,2012 11:45AM,Tom Ryanwrote: Plea% sign and retum Thanks Tom --- o riginalM essage--- From :Nance GuentherPeterson To:ryantlaw Cc:EricHanson Mehanson@ usstrategies.o m> Sent:M on,Jan 9,2012 9:40 am Subject:NDA Tom , G ood afternoon. Attached is the NDA w ith Eric's initials - dated today. W e Iook forward to continued discussions on this exciting project. M y best, Nance Nance G uenther Peterson SeniorVice President US Strategies Corp. 301 Clem atis Street Suite 3000 W estPalm Beach,FL 33401 (P)561-833-8150 (F)561-833-8501 ww w .usstrategies.com nanceg@ usstrategies.com Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 62 of 105 From :Tom Ryan Date:January 6,2012 at10:09:09 AM PST To:gescam [email protected] ,[email protected] Subject:Fwd:Meeting aboutNutrients - Ori ginalMessage-- From:Eric Hanson To:Tom RyanMryantlaw@ aol.com> Cc:Mrm236 Sent:Fri,Jan 6,2012 1:54 am Subject' .Re:Meeting aboutNutrients Congratulations!Let's m ove to the nextstep and see whatcan be done.Please forward the non compete etc....W e then should have a callwith form erCongressm an Jerry W eller,who is wi th us, map outa plan to move fo- ard.My travelschedule atthe mom entisa bitflui d.Atthe mom entIooks Iike Iwillbe in DC the week ofthe 10th and perhapsthe following week.Let's stay in touch and aIl my best,Eric Sentfrom m y iphone OnJan 5,2012,at8:16 PM,'Tom Ryan''wrote: Ericand Nance Ienjoyeddi scussi ngwhatourcompany,GreenwayNutri entsi sdoing.Iam pleasedtotellyouthewehavesignedthecontad for theCO2 charged nutrients.Iwould Iike to fofward anon-com pete nor-di sclosure agreementto youandthen fol low upwRhsome testresults.Italkedwith Gus Escam ila andtold him yourte ughtsonthe hardwœ d trees and on thetestingattheunivers' ltyof Iowa.We can provide the samples along wRhdata wehave.Ifyouare stillplanning onbeing hereonthe 16th ofJanuafy we woul d apgreciate getti ngtx etherwith you.2012 isgoingto bea greatyear. Tom Ryan (561)723-5725 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 63 of 105 E xhibit 9 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 64 of 105 To:Jonathan Sorkow itz <' Isorkow itz@ niercebainbridqe.com > Cc:Liza Haworth Sent:M onday,M arch 11,2019,3:33:38 PM PDT Subject:Re:M oving forward Good afternoon Jonathan, Thank you,forthe em ailand w hile itis very disappointing to hearthatwe m ay nothave am ple tim e to have an expertwitness assistG reenway in determ ining the com panies Iosses, thankfully,we are able to provide evidence thatdefendantEcow in had staded to unlawfully ship over50,000 ofgallons Ecow in'base pow dery m ildew products directly to Fulfillm ent Solutions Services,LLC .,in Florida during the exactsam e lim e period thatEcow in w as supposed to be supplying products to G reenway. M oreover,lfw e recall,FSS w as form ed on oraboutJune 20,2O11,in the state ofFlorida w ith the assistance ofTom and M ike Ryan,thatw as specifically created forproviding distribution and orderfulfillm entservices to Greenw ay Nutrients,Inc.'eastcoastoperations atthattim e. AfterdefendantEcowin unlawfully breached its contractwith G reenw ay,on oraboutO ctober 19,2012,and decided to IatercutG reenw ay offfrom being able to purchase any products from Ecow in any fudher,in Novem berof2012 as w e disclosed in ourcom plaint,Ecow in also took partin the defendants overalldeceptlon by attem pting to intentionally m islead Greenway'seniormanagementthatDavid Park(Greenway'originajcontact)wasnoIonger em ployed by Ecow in,thatGreenway was also able to prove rem ains to be entirely untrue. ln addition to G reenw ay N utrients continuing to dig through the com panies records,and in orderto assist in assessing 1he com panies overalldam ages thatwere directly caused to Greenw ay business m odelby Ecow in'breach ofits contractw ith G reenway,attached areand website Iinks below oftwo separateand unlaM ulbillofladingls)and shipments ofEcowin'base powdery m ildew products to Fulfillm entSolutions Services,LLC (''FSS'') dated June 2013,and Novem ber2013. https://panl 'iva.com/Ecowtn-co-Ltd/4o4x r o https://paniiva.com/Ecowin-co-Ltd/s4glqx Therefore,and from w hatwe are able to now Iocate on by publicly available shipping records, defendantEcow in did,in fact,intentionally divertas w ellas deprive Greenway Nutrients oftens ofm illions ofdollars in Iostprofits thatGreenway would have enjoyed had Ecowin not unlawfully shipped its base powdery m ildew products to ourcom petitorin directviolation and in breach ofits contractw ith G reenway. Thankfully,those facts are indisputable.Here is w hy. ln orderto supportGreenway Nutrients,Inc'position,Vegalab'very firstem ployee and form er Vice PresidentofNorth American Sales named David Heller(we are able to resend i fneeded), provided a signed affidavitstating am ongstm any otherthings,the following: 1.Thatduring M r.Heller's em ploym entatVegalab,thatthe only tw o products that Vegalab and Suprem e G row ers,LLC'em ployees had on hand thatw as bottled,properly labeled,and ready to sellw ere Greenw ay Nutrients,Inc'No Spider M ites and No Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 65 of 105 Pow dery M ildew brand nam ed products.M r.Hellerw as em ployed by Vegalab from on or aboutJune of2012,through August of2013. 2.ThatVegalab w as now Ecow in'exclusive distributorof Ecow in'products forthe entire United States. 3.M r.Helleralso stated thatafterSelakovic,Blackburn,and their related corporate entities ran out ofG reenw ay No Spider M ites and No Pow dery M ildew productIabels that he personally w itnessed defendants Blackburn and Selakovic w ho had obviously m isappropriated G reenw ay products,Iabels,caps,and raw product inventories,w hile acting on behalfof and through Fulfilm entSolutions Services,LLC'instructVegalab and Suprem e G row ers em ployees to affix and continue to sellthousands ofadditional counterfeitversions bearing Greenw ay'No SpiderM ites and No Pow dery M ildew products Iabels. W hile G reenway'tradem ark infringem entallegations m ay have been dism issed as itrelates to the otherdefendants,Mr.Heller'sstatements,inconjunctionwithdefendantEcowin'own docum ented and m isleading statem ents,and shipping records should provide conclusive evidence thatEcow in know ingly and intentionally took partin causing harm to G reenw ay' distribution of its brand nam e products,w hile diveding m illions ofdollars in Iost profits aw ay from Greenw ay. In addition to this,w hile the defendants attem ptto dow nplay the significance oftheirunlawful distribution ofGreenway'NSM and N PM products,w e are able to prove thathad Ecow in not intentionally violated the term s ofits contractw ith G reenw ay and proceeded to latership over 50,000 gallons of Ecow in'raw pow dery m ildew productto Selakovic,Blackburn,and FR. q,that Greenw ay w ould not have ever had to sustain those Iosses itsuffered as a resultofdefendant Ecow in'conduct. To also supportG reenw ay'position i fwe recall,New Epic M edia'form erPresidentnam ed Paula Ryan also supplied G reenw ay w ith an em aila#idavi tstating thatSelaklovic was intending on defrauding Greenway Nutrients and Iaterreverse engineering Greenw ay'products overseas which we are also able to prove Ecowin Iaterpublicly announced on oraboutJanuary of2014. (Weareableto supplyMs.Ryan'emailagainifneeded). W hen w e firstdiscovered and broughtEcoW in into the United States we acquired exceptional pricing. EcoW in'products are highly concentrated and carry a 1600-1 dilution ratio. M eaning 1 ounce ofEcoW in'products w ould m ake up to 1600 ounces orgreaterthan 12 gallons offinished ready to use product. Less than 1 ounce ofraw product is w hatw e use in our32 ounce N PM 10 gallon concentrate thatretails for$89.50. The tw o unlawfulEcow in shipm ents to FSS thatare attached w ere 11,700 and 22,000 kilogram s or33,700 kilogram s in totalweightrespectively. Each kilogram weighs 2.2 pounds.Ecowin'raw productshipm ents to FSS were in excess of 74,140 pounds. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 66 of 105 Each gallon ofproductw eighs approxim ately 8.34 Ibs.Therefore,there are approxim ately 8,889 gallons of Ecow in'raw base powdery m ildew productthatw ere shipped to FSS as opposed to G reenway and w hile Ecowin was supposed to deliverthose products to G reenway There are approxim ately 128 ounces ofproductin each gallon. Each gallon ofEcow in base pow dery m ildew productm ade approxim ately 128 bottles ofour lo-gallon NPM concentrate thatretailsfor$89.50. G reenw ay N utrients,lnc'gross profitpereach gallon ofEcow in'base pow dery m ildew productw as approxim ately 128 x $89.50 = $11,456.00 According to w hatw e are able to prove defendant Ecow in shipped to FSS,Greenw ay's lossesat$11,456jergallonx8889gallonsfrom whatwecanuncoveronourown,iswell in excess of$50 m lllion dollars and over$100 m illion in gross sales as a result. Had Greenwayenjoyed theabili tyto havethe8,889gallonsofEcowin'baseproductthat Ecow in w as contractually obligated to deliverto G reenw ay,Greenw ay w ould have neverhad to com pete againstitsel fnorwould have Greenw ay lostm illions ofdollars in profits due to the defendants intentionally and illegally selling Greenway'ow n branded No Powdery M lldew and No SpiderM ites products back to G reenway entire custom erbase atsigni ficantly reduced pricing foryears. M ost im portantly,on orabout October19,2012,Ecow in, Vegalab,SA,and Selakaovic,aII agreed and identified defendantVegalab,Inc.as a suitable corporate vehicle thatthe defendants aIlIatertook partin utilizing to take Vegalab,Inc.public. Notonly did Vegalab,Inc.form errepresentative nam ed Eric Hanson intentionally breach the Ryan brothers prepared Greenw ay Nutrients,Inc,NDA,Ecow in also Iaterconspired w ith Selakovic and Vegalab,SA to take partin taking Vegalab,Inc,publicly traded business m odelpublic thatw e did notdiscoverhad taken place w ith the assistance of ourform er attorneys untilon or aboutM arch of2017. This is a majorm ulti-milliondollartheftand fraud thatwas perpetrated againstus by ourform er attorneys w ho introduced us to a know n group ofthieves w ho have repeatedly stolen other com panies products in the very sam e fashion and thatis w hy the defendants were so keen on stealing ourrelationship w ith Ecow in so thatthey could eventually take overourcom pany for its well-established brand nam e products. G reeneway Iostprofits as a resultofdefendants Ecow in are substantialgiven the harm ful nature,background,and egregious conductthat Ecow in proceeded to em ploy against Greenway fornojustifiable reason whatsoeverotherto compete against,take marketshare,as wel!as profits aw ay from G reenw ay. This was notIawfulcom petition,and welloutside the scope ofa sim ple breach ofcontract case in w hatw e assertw as a wellplanned and deliberately orchestrated schem e and theftOf ourcom pany forits valuable nam e brand products thatEcowin is atthe directcenterofsim ply because Ecow in has continued to supply aI1parties in ouraction with Ecowin'raw base products. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 67 of 105 Thank you,so very m uch Jon,forallowing us to dig through things fudherand please advise as to how w e should calculate G reenway'dam ages as a resultofEcow in'conducta described above. Respectfully subm itted, G us (818)355-0062 Liza (818)263-6845 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 68 of 105 E xhibit 10 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 69 of 105 Case 2:17-c1-07453 Doctlm ent1 Filed 10/12/17 Page 41 0f73 Page ID #:41 - <@*nG *#O re M pre de lhlp- t Töesdcy.clct obe'. 12' ' .1s21F7ly!'N From: qGkstavo Escamil tal<- [email protected] To: 's* .y' % m @d% ,> ' 6u hawn,[email protected] 'CadosSuarez'x:carl os.starez*dbs.+w> pxaw e ssagc pnntanm vev ' 6.File: 652K8 . Nlwrioad A$I * .t. .. @ .x :u . Y < -, v ' . 1 w . l j '' ? œ. 5ave Save Save Save Save Save > arP- ialA- sGibsonart Suarez, 1am kke dthatyouare*their/ * 1ard arein> s/da.Ireei ve apioaecallfrom aD ntlemenname Gèn#r p- cThle Nmseïto rrm as t* tw r> ofGen&ark Self-storao * chislœ ate i n Wilits Cali fr ia. htlo://- .plm aA nt-a .com/ G on irdicate that)w,as- 11Rs hisfaciiity - r@ iprossx slonofQd pall/tgofourUV tre m A protpcte W Spidorbit@s,as* 1asourhe P Mil tlw pfGltl cts.Gl enalsoie i cate t% tt% renterofore ofhis sloram unitshad rK eivedthisilm.plpe uctshi prnentt)fG?eer- y Nutrionts@ pre krtsfrom Flodœ ae ut24m onths aK . W ithxz me physioally insm otiog these gmxls,loan easily eatime e the retaisvalue ofthis stolY pre uctshiv ent'o be woll3n excess of $1K ,= .X .Se y.Mr.Sel akœ i c a' d Mr.Blackburn hw e li terall y stolenready evellhiœ fr x mearè l(k)roteven have anywhere* artO t tnuohprce tIehin my u irecom - ny. 1i nfœ rne Glen thatthlsproa rty se ld * ctmsiœ red stolenaru that1wasw irv lo r em rthisinfofrnatlm to tbe PrON fe* all aw efhtorcement authAti es brfur t* review. Asyœ cancleadysœ int* attce e tosthat1rxei ve from Glec,ourpreuctl ai. wlsY airp curGr eenwayYtientsl tre mark(USPTO Se alNum> 85142469)e i chi s al so alfixe to aëofœ rcGnpanies pe tlctl ae lsiscl early vi sibleina! 1()fGle ' spo osthatIrK eiye t* y ae that'am r w forwardix toyouraA rry. W.Sàakovi c,aswel lasMr.Blackbum havecontinue tokrowixl yill + lyreset lmilionsoftbliars ab18tosacc-sful# prcsxutaMr. Selakm ic axlW .Bl&ckbtm wklax- rto hw eabsoltxely zero esrv tforanyfm* falI aws,a' d oranyappa' enffearfrom anyty* 6 fe ql cdminalryosx uli on. T* you. gix oray, Gus Escamila Presie t Gr- o Nutri entsl 135 QastOliveAve.:4103 PurbarA,CA.gl* 3 (818) -- - Di rxt On Tum,$Bl4l$&,GlwnM aI'kKotqnrnakitoraqme pmail.comz-- 0. .*: > Fm :Glen Markuplenmarkstoraœ @pmai facomx > SuiiKt:Fb:GreenwayNutri entstR)Cbntactlnformation > To:'Gustavo Escamiff a'i- camill [email protected]> > Date:Tuesdayyœ ttkv 4,D 16,12: 57 PM > Attace kou will >fi rt e tosoft- i tems. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 70 of 105 Case 2:17-67-07453 Doctlmellt1 Filed 10/12/17 Page 42 Of73 Page ID #:42 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 71 of 105 E xhibit 11 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 72 of 105 On M onday,M arch 11,2019,9:38:14 AM PDT,Jonathan Sorkow itz <' Isorkow itz@ niercebainbridge.com > wrote: Gus: W e have a breach ofcontractclaim againstEcow in,so the dam ages should be what Greenw ay expected to getfrom the contractbutdidn't- i.e.the profits Greenw ay would've seen from the contractforthe rem ainderofits term afterEcow in breached. Thatshould be m easured by w hatyou w ere m aking on the contractbefore the breach. Regarding a dam ages exped,the couë only gave ustwo weeks to file a requestfordefaultjudgment,so Idon'tthink w e have tim e foran expert. Ican try to getm ore tim e butJudge Bloom runs a very tight docketand i t's unlikely she'llgrantthat. The good news is,Idon'tthink we need one. Ifw e can subm itdocum entation thatdem onstrates Greenway was m aking 100k+ in profitforthe monthsthe contractwasinplace,wecan makeasound applicationforajudgmentofIost profits forthe rem ainderofthe contractterm - and w hile Ithink it's iffy thatBloom would grant this,lw illcertainly include in the requestthatthe courtconsidera second yearofthe Ecowin contractsince the contracthas thatIine aboutsigning again aftera year. So Ithink the place to startw ould be w hateverfinancialrecords forGreenw ay Nutrients existfrom thattim e. Tax returns orfinancialstatem ents would be great. As faras Iostbusiness opportunities etc., unfodunately Ithink those claim s w ould have been againstdefendants who've already been dism issed by the court. Jon From :Gustavo q:nescam illat/vrrail.cot z)> To:Jonathan Sorkowitz<' IsorkoA gA t> ebqàp-Y idnqrr r l Cc:Liza Haworth Sent:M onday,M arch 25,2019 11:55 PM To:John Pierce , 'Jonathan Sorkow i tz u' Isorkowitz@ niercebainbridqe.com>' ,Carolynn Beck ' ,Jim Bainbridge u' lbainbridne@ niercebainbridge.com > Cc:Liza Haworth ;M arc Kent Date:M arch 25,2019 at4:44:57 AM PDT To:Gustavo Cc:Liza Haw orth ,Carolynn Beck - Subject:Re:Ecow in'uncontested motion defaultjudgment Carolynn orsom e partneryou need to dealwith this.Iam closing m assive dealthis week.G us, Iitigation is a fluid process.Itis intellectualcom bat.Itis notconducted via CYA e-m ails.You need to stop.Candidly,Ido notappreciate itin lightofwhatIand this firm have done f0ryou afteryourthreatening IetterIastyear.And especially afterw hatJon Sorkow itz has done fOryou. lassure you furtherthreats willnotreceive such a warm response. 1have builtand m anage a globalfirm with 60 or65 or70 ofthe m ostelite Iitigators On the planet thatis stillgrowing.Ihave been orwillbe in about10 cities in two weeks orsom ething like that. Igetthousands ofem ails a day and dozens ofcalls.Iam n0tin the mood foryourten thousand word e-mailswithmultiplefontsbolded with underlinesand italics.ltisjuvenile. Team,someonejumponthisand ensurewearehandlingthisproperiy.Icannotbetheperson dealing withdefaultjudgmentprove-uphearings. GetOutlookforAndroj/ . From :G ustavo Sent:M onday,M arch 25,4:33A M Subject:Ecowin'uncontestedmotiondefaultjudgment To:John Pierce Cc:Liza Hawodh Good m orning John, Hope you had an excellentweekend! As we have exhibited,Liza and Ihave continued to be exem plary clients ofyourfirm by m aking ita pointto m inim ize ourcom ing to you forany assistance,questions,orhelp,however;now thatwe are attempting to calculate GreenwayNutrients,lnc'(''Greenway'')uncontested damages againstdefendantEcowin Co.LTD.('Ecowin''),we are now respectfully requesting a few m inutes yourundivided attentîon sim ply because Liza and Ihave becom e even m ore confused and are needing to hearyourthoughts due to OurIack ofknowledge thatw e are currently experiencing. Since on oraboutM arch 14,2019,Liza and Ihave been repeatedly attem pted to reach you regarding Greenway'uncontested motion fordefaultjudgmentagainstdefendantEcowin that was originally due to be subm itted to the courton M arch 2O,2019,and is now due On M arch 28, Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 83 of 105 2019,and we have we stillhave yetto hearfrom yOu regarding Ourconfusion orreceive your inputand professionalassessm ent. Reason being,on oraboutM arch 7,2019,w hen Liza and Im etwith you atyouroffice,yOu were kind enough to prom ise us thatG reenway would be acquiring the professionalassistance ofan expertw i tness to help assess the com panies dam ages againstdefendantEcowin going forward. A few days later,on oraboutM arch 12,2019,Jonathan Sorkowitz abruptly inform ed Greenway' seniormanagementthatGreenway would nothave am ple time to acquire the assistance ofan expertwitness and thatG reenw ay would have to prove the com panies uncontested dam ages againstdefendantEcowin on ourow n. W hile thatw as very disappointing new s,to say the Ieast,we w ere nottoo concerned because thankfully,G reenw ay was able to acquire additionalevidence thatEcow in had in fact, unlawfullyshipped anadditional8,889 gallons (and Geassertwellover50,000gallonstof its raw base powdery m ildew concentrate productdirectly to Fulfillm entSolutions Services,LLC (''FSS'') duringthe sametime periodthatEcowinwascontractuallyObligated todeliveritsbase pow dery m ildew productto G reenw ay Nutrients. Here is w hy Ecow in'unlaw fulshipm ents of8,889 gallons of productto FSS is so very im portantand vitalin assessing G reenw ay Nutrients,lnc'dam ages in ourcase. JonathanaskedustoprovideevidencethateachgallonofEcowin'basepowderymildew productmakes 128 bottles offinished productthatretailfor$89.50 each thatls worth a totalof$11,456 pergallon to the defendant's thatGreenway had created in the market, w hich we also cc'you on. As we had attem pted to explain,as a direct resultofEcow in unlawfully diverting product aw ay from G reenw ay and intentionally delivering its valuable base powdery m ildew productto FSS and others instead,Ecow in also intentionally deprived G reenw ay ofw ell over$101,000,000inpotentialjrossrevenuesthatGreenwaywouldhavehadthe oppodunitytoenjoy had Ecowln not''materiallybreached''itscontractwithGreenwaywhile unlawfully delivering its productto FSS. Please understand thatG reenway is notseeking som e unrealistic dam age figures against Ecowin in any w ay,we are sim ply wanting to gain som e m uch-needed clarity as to how Ecowin' anti-com petitive behaviorand conductcould potentially affectG reenway potentialdam age award figures going forward and we stilldo notunderstand h0w Jonathan is arriving at G reenway'potentialdam age award figures. As we had unsuccessfully attem pted to repeatedly explain to Jonathan,the single biggest reason w hy Ecow in'unlaw fulshipm entof8,889 gallons ofits base pow dery m ildew producttoFSSandothersissoveryimpodantandvitalindeterminingGreenwaï' uncontested dam age award against Ecow in is thatG reenw ay would have the abillty to easilyIeverageEcowin'defaultjudgmentand potentially beafforded millions ofdollars Iitigation financing. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 84 of 105 lfwe recall,and pursuantFSS non-disclosure agreem ent,FSS,oranyone affiliated with FSS, was to nothave any contactorprovide any services to any ofGreenway'raw productsuppliers and especially Ecowin. This oversightcould potentially costG reenw ay m illi ons ofdollars in furtherdam ages,and since then,G reenway'seniorm anagem enthas been attem pting to reach you to cure ourobvious confusion as itrelates to Jonathan'fiduciary duty to properly assess and m axim ize G reenw ay' uncontested dam ages thatthe com pany m ay be entitled to receive againstEcow in. Additionally,Ecow in has clearly acted in very bad faith and pursuantto Ecow in'and Vegalab,SA'very ow n O ctober19,2012,distribution agreem ent,you w illalso find that Ecowin is also responsible for m oving G reenway'opportunity into a potentialreverse merjerdealwithHPC Acqusisitions,lnc.(now Vegalab,Inc.)awayfrom Greenwayin conjunction w ith Selakovic,Vegalab,SA ,and Vegalab,Inc.instead. G e were wondering how are we supposed to assess Greenway N utrients,Inc'dam ages as a resultofEcowin'bad faith conduct? M oreover,had we provided w ith an expertw itness like w e were prom ised would occur,they would be able to substantiate thatG reenw ay'form ernearestcom petitors nam ed NPK Industries in oursam e m arketspace,thatalso carried sim ilarcom peting powdery m ildew and spiderm ite products,haveenjoyed revenuesinexcessof$30-$40 millionduringthatsametime periodas well. Additionally,ourform ernationaldistribution partners named SunlightSupply'Vice Presidentof Sales nam ed Rod Davis,would be w illing to provide G reenway Nutrients w ith an additional statem entortestim ony thatG reenw ay Nutrients No Powdery M ildew and No SpiderM ites brand nam e products were one ofthe top three up and com ing organic pesti cides and fungicide brand ofproducts across the entire Uni ted States priorto Ecow in deciding to supply FSS as wellas 0urcom petitors w i th Ecow in'products instead ofG reenway. Had Ecowin notintentionally provided its products to FSS and others,Greenway would have never had to com pete againstitselfand others and would have continued to experienceafree unimpededmarketplace foritsproductswhileenjoying similarifnot greaterrevenues m uch Iike our form ercom petitors NPK Industries and since Ecowin' defaultjudgmentis now going uncontested how are Ge toknow? Greenw ay w as also able to provide evidence to Jonathan thatdem onstrated that Greenw ay had sent FSS over5,000 labels ofeach size ofG reenw ay'No Powdery M ildew products size bearing the companies tradem arkthatwas worth over$1.9 m illion dollars thatitalso appears thatwe are nottaking into consideration as Iosses to G reenw ay and we do notunderstand w hy. Lastl y,please understand thatLiza and lare n0tseeking to be a burden on you in any way,we are sim ply notassim ilating how Jonathan is able to arrive athis determ ination ofG reenway Nutrients,Inc'potentialdam age award calculations w hen Jonathan asked G reenway to prove the value ofEcowin'products to G reenway Nutrients,lnc.in the m arketonly to Iaternottake any Ofourdocum ented evidence thatwe were able to provide thatsupports the value ofour products in the marketinto consideration. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 85 of 105 W e also respectfully beg ofyou to please understand thatwe are nOtattem pting to be a burden ornuisance inanyway,John,we Ioveand respectyouverymuch,anditsaIlgood,itisjust thatLiza and Iare sim ply seeking clarity on G reenway Nutrients being able to m axim ize any potentialuncontested dam age awards thatthe coud m ay be willing to im pose againstEcowin and we would really Iike to getyourthoughts and professionalassessmentin figuring itoutso we can both finally sleep betteratnight. Liza and 1,sincerely appreciate and respectfully thank you in advance foryourvaluable tim e and kind understanding,very m uch. Respectfull y subm itted, G us (818)355-0062 Liza (818)263-6845 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 86 of 105 E xhib it 14 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 87 of 105 Forwarded M essage ----From :Gustavo -- --- To:Jonathan Sorkowi tz ' ,Carolynn Beck ucbeck@ piercebainbridge.com >' ,Liza Haw orth ;M arc Kent Sent:W ednesday,M arch 27,2019,7:38:19 AM EDT Subject:Re:Re;Ecowin'uncontested motion defaultjudgm ent Jonathan, Regretfully,yourhave had ourcom panies tax returns inform ation along w ith ourcom panies C PA 'contactinform ation since on orabout M arch 7,2019. W hy have you notcontacted G reenway'CPA to acquire this inform ation? Furtherm ore,you are the professionaland ourcurrentCPA stated thatyou as an attorney should have known thatyou could have easily acquired ourcorporate tax information by providing G reenw ay Nutri ents w i th an IRS form 8821 or4506. G reenw ay'had already supplied you w ith the com panies 2011,2012,and now you are requesting 2013'tax inform ation thatw e are happy to provide. W e are curious as to w hatis included in G reenw ay'2013 tax inform ation thatw illassistyou in maxim izing yourclients uncontested molion fordefaultjudgement? W hy have notadvised Greenway Nutrients,Inc ofthis orsupplied Greenway Nutrients,Inc. w ith an lRS form 8821 or4506? Please do so atyourearliestconvenience so thatw e m ay be able to acquire this infom ation thatyou should have already investigated and received. Additionaly,you have deprived Greenway ofan expertwitness and the opportunity to properly aSSOSS OUrCom panies dam ages. M oreover,atthis point,itis obvious thatyou are now com peting yourown CYA as John would callit,and are now sim ply attem pting to m ake i ts appearas i fG reenway is som ehow being non com pliantw ith yourdocum entproduction requests when nothjng could possibly everbe furtherfrom the truth. You have allowed Jam es Ryan and The Ryan firm to continue to com m ita deliberate fraud upon the courtthatwe are going to everything hum anly possible to ensure Judge Bloom is m ade aw are of. Lastly,we DO NOT AN D W ILL NOT CO NSENT TO PIERC E BAINBRIDGE abandoning G reenw ay Nutrients,lnc orw ithdrawing as counselofrecord and are requesting thatyou im m ediately notify the the courtto setan evidentiary hearing so thatGreenway Nutrients may appri se Judge Bloom ofJam es Ryan and The Ryan firm gross m alfeasance. Failure to do so is adversarialand to the severe detrim entofG reenw ay Nutrients,Inc'best interests. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 88 of 105 Thank you. Respectfully subm itted, G us (818)355-0062 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 89 of 105 E xhibit 15 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 90 of 105 John Pierce Re:Re;Ecowin'uncontested moti on defaul tjudgment To: -1r )t . nathar nSork. c' v;it; r, G' -kin. Cc: C'arot' , ;nn E: 3c't.k, Didn'tItellyouto stop threatening me/us and to Ieave me offyouremails? ldo not'consent''to that.BTW , we willadhere tothe ethicalrules regardless ofwhatyou consentto.W e willnotpursue claims against partieswi thoutmerit. W e are withdraw ing due to yourlack ofcx peration and otherissues.C B1,cite the relevantprovisions of the engagementagreement.Untilthe withdrawal,we willcontinue to zealously representyourintefestsas required to do underthe ethi calrules. Now Ieave me alone untilyou force me to be deposed and testify attrial.Othereise,Ido notwantto see you orhearyournam e even.This w illnotbe a pleasantexperience foryou. G etO utlook forAqdroid - Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 91 of 105 E xhib it 16 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 92 of 105 From :Gustavo Subject:Re:Re;Ecow in'uncontested m otion defaultjudgment Date:M arch 28,2019 at7:30:02 AM PDT To:Jonathan Sorkow itz ,Liza Haw orth , M arc Kent Good m orning John, W e do notunderstand w hatyou are attem pting to convey orw hy you feelthe need to getupset with yourclients John. Yourresponses to ourinquiries are sim ply unacceptable. You are G reenway Nutrients,Inc'Iead attorney and w hy is itsom ehow okay foryou to be too busy to m ake good on yourprom ises,com m unicate, orrespond to yourclient's inquiries about the conductofM ike Ryan,James Ryan,orThe Ryan Law G roup,LLC,in ourcase or Greenway'questionsasitrelatestothemotionfordefaultjudgmentagainstdefendantEcowin Co.LTD? Now w e are feeling even m ore abandoned and even m ore confused because we are having a very difficulttim e understanding w hatprom pted you to getso upsetorw ith yourcli ents that would warrantyourthreatening to abandon yourclients and w ithdraw as counselofrecord? Please provide yourIegalreasoning to yourin w riting behind yourwanting to abandon G reenw ay Nutrients,Inc.,and w ithdraw as counselofrecord forrefusing to release G reenway Nutrients,lnc.'form erattorneys Jam es Ryan,M ike Ryan,orthe Ryan Law G roup,LLC from this Iitlgation.W e wantto know and are asking you to respond without getting angry to defensive. M oreover,on oraboutSeptem ber5,2018,w hen w e initially served defendantJam es Ryan, M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Law G roup,LLC .,Jam es Ryan wrote you and Jonathan and a scathing Ietterstating am ongstotherthings,the follow ing untruths below and attached foryour convenience. ''Your allegation thatm y brother M ichael,m y firm orIeverrepresented Greenway Nutrients,Inc,(Greenway)is false.Thatneverhappened.Nordid eeeverreceiveany confidentialinform ation from G reenway orany other entity operated by M r.Escam illa. ''TheEcowin Gcontract''attached toyourcomplaintisnotsignedbyEcowin.Iam inform ing you thatthe allegation thatG reenway had such contractls false.'' ''Fotldonotandneverwillhaveay evidencetosupportyourclaim thatVegalab tortuously interfered with any relatlonship between your clientand Ecowin and /orthatit isoreverinfringed on any Greenwaymarkts). Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 93 of 105 ''TheonetimeImethim inperson >as when he >as in2010 when he >asjustgetting ready to startGreenway UniversityiHe walked us through the building thatwould becom e its cam pus.The tourIasted about30 m inutes. For whatit's Gorlh, M y brother Tom has neverbeen a m em ber orassociate ofm y firm .'' G reenw ay w as able to im m ediately provide you with evidence to the contrary againstthe Ryan brothers as itrelates to the rem aining accused defendant's unlawfulconductthatincludes: 1.Jam es Ryan Septem ber5.2018,em ailto counsel, 2. G reenway'initialSeptem ber 14,2018,em ailand evidence folderthatis also attached, 3.along w i th G reenway'January 9,2019,em ailand evidence folder Itis equally well-established thatthe courthas the inherentpowerinclude the authority to dismiss the claims ordefensesoforentera defaultjudgmentagainsta Iitigantwho engages in dishonestconduct,obstructsthediscoveryprocess,abusesthejudicialprocess,orotherwise seeks to perpetrate a fraud on the court. As a generalrule,a Iitigantis deem ed to have perpetrated a fraud on the courtwhen i sitcan be dem onstrated,clearly and convincingly,thata party has dlsentiently setin m otion som e unconscionable schemecalculatedto inte/erewiththejudicialsystem'sabilityimpadiallyto adjudicatea matterbyimproperlyinfluencingthe (trieroffact)orunfairlyhamperingthe presentationofthe opposingparty'sclaim ordefense.''Cox,706 SO.2dat46(quoting Aoude, 892 F.2dat1118). G reenway Nutrients,Inc'seniorm anagem enthas repeatedly provided counselwith evidence thatdefendantJam es Ryan and the Ryan Firm have deliberately m isled and have,in fact, continued to com m ita deliberate fraud upon the court. W e are once again,respectfull y requesting thatyou please com m unicate and respond to your client's inquiries atyourearliestconvenience. Thank you. Respectfully subm itted, G us (818)355-0062 Liza (818)263-6845 Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 94 of 105 PRO O F O F SERVICE O F DO C UM ENT Iam overthe age of18 and nota party to this bankruptcy case oradversary proceeding. My business address is: zta7 z' ' ' /' z G'7e. nWzq/c ' f'+/,'GrH-''c' ?#2*% Atrueandcorrectcopyo theforegoing ocumententitled(specifyjïA w N I db > v X # ' . v ' e r t x . on ' -. ; z . o, ' o ' Yz-P' X , :&' o m o ç' #' O t y. r' .. % willbeserved orwasserved (a)o thejudgeinchambers i ntheform and mannerrequiredbyLBR 5005-2(d), 'and(b)in the m annerstated below: 1.TO BE SERVED BY THE CO URT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Pursuantto controlling General Ordersand LBR,theforegoing documentwillbe served bythecoudviaNEF and hyperlinktothe document.On (dale) he CM/ECF docketforthis bankruptcy case oradversaryproceeding and determ ined that , Ichecked t the following persons are on the Electroni c M ailNotice Listto receive NEF transmission atthe em ailaddressesstated below : I----IServiceinformationcontinuedonattachedpage 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: On(dale) LJ.-?& -/# ,Iservedthefollowingpersonsand/orentitiesattheIastknown addressesinthisbankruptcy case oradversary proceeding by placing a true and correctcopythereofina sealed envelope in the United States mail, firstclass,postage prepai d,and addressed asfollows.Listingthejudgehereconstitutesadeclarationthatmailingto the judgeoko willbecNom Ietrde dyf no-o Ia-ter.t. haF n2%-. 4ho5urs,U afterroc thedocume led'. Xvtsetr z yg 5 *nt'isfi .0 C'?A ' ?OO yt ' l-cu,q&<,co l .Gox . mkeozxtxnt pav Xs,,/sw py.sp g.vta vck. 4, (o,,o? wa z z z < . . 7z J W=> V S /* 3 'r*T G > G .'YY'W ZZô a- D - lEvovn d; ?. ,.,zx' ..<-4 .sw ov QZXO/J /Johusiogu/%''/z.o z?v<'clssa> C ;rc/e - . -'- ' ' . , 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY,OVERNIGHT MAIL.FACSIMILE TRANSM ISSION O R EM AIL (state method foreachnersonorentitvserved): Pursuantto F.R.Ci V.P.5and/orcontrolling LBR,on (dale) ,Iserved thefoll owing personsand/orentitiesbypersonaldelivery,overni ghtmailservice,or(forthosewho consented inwri tingto suchservicemethod),byfacsimiletransmissionand/oremailasfollows.Li stingthejudge here consti tutesadeclaration thatpersonaldeliveryon,oroverni ghtmailto,thlejudgewillbecompleted no Iaterthan24 hoursafterthedocumentis filed. r--l Serviceinformationcontinuedonattachedpage Ideclare underpenal tyofperjuryunderthe Iawsofthe United Statesthattheforegoing istrue andcorrect. + #. gg' Dafe June 2012 F .v/ Printed Nam e z zw/f Sig a u Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 95 of 105 UNITED STATES DISTRICT CO URT SOUTHERN DISTRICT O F FLO RIDA W EST PALM BEACH DIVISIO N Case No.18-cv-81104-BB (BLOOM) In re: Greenway Nutrients,Inc., a Colorado cornoration / Plaintiff Eco w lN co .,LTD.; JAM ES D.RYAN; M ICHAELJ.RYAN ; THE RYAN LAw G no up,LLc. Defendants / DIRECT TESTIM O NY O F GUSTAVO ESCA M ILLA 1. M y name is Gustavo Escam illa and Iam one ofGreenway Nutrients, Inc.'(SSGREENW AY' ')principals and adversely affected pady in this action. 2. Priorto me and mybusinesspadnerLiza Hawodh,(1dLIZA'')and Greenway engaging attorney John Pierce to representG reenway,m e and Liza personally provided John Pierce w ith evidence thaton oraboutM arch 3, 2015,Iwas firstpersonally contacted on behalfofGreenway and then Liza and IIaterm etface to face with federalIaw enforcem entofficials with the United States DepadmentofHomeland Security (d1DHS'')who were referred to me and GreenwaybyAdobe Systems ($'ADOBE' ')and The Microsoft Corporation (I.M ICROSOFTM). Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 96 of 105 3. Me and my business partnerLiza,repeatedly provided attorneyts)John M . Pierce,JonathanA.Sorkowitz,as wellas Ronald Niconson,with evidence thatDHS officials had previously advised m e and G reenway thatdefendants David Dragan Selakovic (''SELAKOVIC')and StevenBlackburn (''BLACKBURND),and otherscloselyaffiliated with Selakovicand Blackburn, were the primary targets ofa m assive ongoing federalcrim inalinvestigation surrounding the unlaM ultheft,m anufacturing,and distribution ofseveral billion dollars wodh ofcounterfeit,grey market,orunauthorized versions of Adobe',M icrosoft'and now G reenway'brand nam e products illegally bearing each ofthe aforem entioned com panies valid US tradem arks. 4. Ipersonally provided John Pierce DHS officialsw ere in possession ofm ore thanfi ftythousand (50,000)emailsthatpotentially contained crucialemail records centralGreenway'case thatAdobe System s had turned overto DHS afterAdobe Systems,inconjunction with US FederalMarshall's,raided severalofDavid Selakovic'W estPalm Beach,Florida area warehouse facilities thatG reenway'attorneys failed to investigate orfollow up on. 5. Me and my business padnerLiza,repeatedly provided attorneyls)JohnM . Pierce,Jonathan A.Sorkowitz,as wellas Ronald Niconson,with evidence dem onstrating thaton oraboutM arch 8,2017,thatIpersonally becam e aware ofand Iatershared w ith Liza thatG reenway'form erattorneys M ichael J.Ryan,and IaterJam es D.Ryan had taken partin interfering with Greenway'exclusive distribution agreem entw i th Ecowin,w hile taking an unlawfulstock ow nership position in Vegalab,Inc,in directviolation of Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 97 of 105 Greenway'non-disclosure /non-circumventagreementthatM ike Ryan had taken partdrafting and preparing on behalfofGreenw ay and Eric Hanson who wasrepresenting Vegalab,Inc.(then HPC Acquisitions,Inc,IIHPC'')at thattim e. 6. O n oraboutM arch 5,2017,G reenway'attorney Jonathan Sorkowitz sent myselfan em ailforreasons stillyetto be explained to m e ormy business partners,advising m e and Liza thatifG reenway did notagree to im m ediately release defendants Jam es Ryan,M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Firm from this action thatGreenway'attorneysw ould be inexplicably notifying this coud ofGreenway'attorneys intentions to withdrawalas counselofrecord on behalfofGreenway. 7. O n M arch,7,2019,M yselfand Liza Haw orth m etw ith face to face with attorney John Pierce w ho is G reenw ay'lead attorney and original contactw ith Pierce Bainbridge in ourcase. 8. Dudœ ourMarch,7,2019,re trv JohnPbrœ nevertœ kthedrre to explaine yrre or Lèa shouu lM rm uire to reb.1tm Ja- Ryan,Mike Ryan,orthe Ryan Law Group,LLC from telau uteventoœ htheœ urthasrue inGœ nwa/favor. 9. John Pbrœ prtxaxe toexpl ainto rte and Lka 1atKGrœ nvayK u: œ nse r enteM ining r> iblyrebasiœ Y fendae Jaru Ryan,Me aelRyan,andR e Ryan 1.- Group,LLC.,frm ME Ku utMatPbrœ Bai nbe' eK u: uhl ie(ye of#?etesf exm rle lea svtoassùtGrœ no yprex re a damœ e rem dforthecomx nbs uv miœ unœ nteste rrrtbnforY fauljudgerrentœ ainstEcY n,Co.LTD. Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 98 of 105 10.O n oraboutMarch 12,2019,Pierce Bainbridge attorney Jonathan A. Sorkow itz,Iaterinform ed m yselfand Liza thatPierce Bainbridge would be unable to provide G reenway w ith an expertw itness due to the coud not allow ing G reenway am ple tim e to hire and prepare an expertw itness report on behalfofthe com pany to establish G reenway Iosses againstDefendant Ecow in. 11.From on oraboutM arch 14,2019,through M arch 28,2019,m yselfand Liza Haworth repeatedly attem pted to inquire w ith Greenway'Iead attorney John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge attorney Jonathan Sorkowitz as to whatdid Plaintiff's counselintend on subm itting to the courtspecifically pertaining to Greenway'uncontested motionfordefaultjudgementagainstEcowin. 12.O n oraboutMarch 27,2019,lpersonally advised G reenway attorneys John Pieerce,Jonathan Sorkowitz,w ho should have properly advised attorney Ronald Nicosnson,thatG reenway would NOT AG REE TO CONSENT to Greenway attorneys abandoning G reenway and requested thatG reenway' attorneys ask this coud to conductan evidentiary hearing so thatm e,Liza, orGreenw ay,would have been able to m ake yourHonoraw are ofJames Ryan',M ike Ryan'and The Ryan Firm highly unethicalm isconductthathas perm eated these entire proceedings. 13.O n oraboutMarch 29,2019,G reenway'attorneys filed theirm otion to wi thdraw as counselofrecord on behalfofGreenway neverexplaining their Iegalreasoning orbasis forrequiring the m e,Liza,and Greenway to release Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 99 of 105 Defendants Jam es Ryan,M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Firm from this action thathas Ieftm e very confused,bew ildered,ba#led as to w hy. Executed atGlendale,California,April16,2019. ldeclare underpenalty of perjury thatthe foregoing istrue and correct. '' . .#. /s/G ustavo Escam ill Gustavo Escam ilja April16,2019 - 7 - Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 100 of 105 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT O F FLO RIDA W EST PALM BEAC H DIVISIO N Case No.18-cv-81104-BB (BLOOM) In re : G reenway Nutrients,lnc., a Colorado corporation / Plaintiff V. ECOW IN CO .,LTD.; JAM ES D.RYAN ; M ICHAEL J.RYAN; THE RYAN LAW G RO UP,LLC . Defendants / DIRECT TESTIMO NY O F LIZA HAW O RTH M y nam e is Liza Hawodh and Iam directly fam iliarand hand firsthand knowledge ofthe eventsthathave taken place aIIthroughoutGreenway Nutrients,lnc.'(''GREENW AY'')proceedings in question.. 2. Priorto me and my business partnerGustavo Escamila,(I 'GUSTAVO'')and Greenway engaging attorney John Pierce to representG reenway,m e and Gustavo personally provided John Pierce with evidence thaton orabout March 3,2015,G ustavo was firstpersonally contacted on behalfof Greenway and then G ustavo and IIaterm etface to face with federalIaw enforcem entofficials with the United States Depadm entofHom eland Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 101 of 105 Security (uDHS'')whowere referred to me and GreenwaybyAdobe Systems (''ADOBE' ')and The MicrosoftCorporation (''M ICROSOFTD). 3. Me and my business padnerGus,repeatedly provided attorneyts)John M. Pierce,JonathanA.Sorkowitz,as wellas Ronald Niconson,with evidence thatDHS officials had previously advised m e and G reenway thatdefendants David Dragan Selakovic (ISELAKOVIC'')and Steven Blackburn (''BLACKBURN''),and others closelya#iliated with Selakovicand Blackburn, were the primary targets ofa m assive ongoing federalcrim inalinvestigation surrounding the unlawfultheft,m anufacturing,and distribution ofseveral billion dollars wodh ofcountedeit,grey market,orunauthorized versions of Adobe',M icrosoft'and now G reenway'brand nam e products illegally bearing each ofthe aforem entioned com panies valid US tradem arks. 4. Iwas copied on num erous em ailproviding G reenway'attorney John Pierce w ith evidence thatDHS officials were in possession ofm ore than fifty thousand (50,000)emailsthatpotentially contained crucialemailrecords centralG reenway'case thatAdobe System s had turned overto DHS after Adobe Systems,inconjunctionwith US FederalMarshall's,raided severalof David Selakovic'W estPalm Beach,Florida area w arehouse facilities that Greenw ay'attorneys failed to investigate orfollow up on. 5. Me and mybusiness padnerGustavo,repeatedlyprovided attorneyts)John M .Pierce,Jonathan A.Sorkowitz,as wellas Ronald Niconson,with evidence demonstrating thaton oraboutM arch 8,2017,thatG ustavo first becam e aware ofand Iatershared with m e thatG reenway'form erattorneys Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 102 of 105 M ichaelJ.Ryan,and IaterJam es D.Ryan had taken partin interfering with G reenway'exclusive distribution agreementw ith Ecowin,while taking an unlawfulstock ownership position in Vegalab,Inc,in directviolation of G reenway'non-disclosure /non-circum ventagreem entthatM ike Ryan had taken pad drafting and preparing on behalfofG reenway and Eric Hanson whowas representing Vegalab,Inc.(then HPC Acquisitions,Inc,I'HPC'')at thattim e. 6. O n oraboutMarch 5,2017,Greenway'attorney Jonathan Sorkowitz sent G ustavo and Iaterm e an em ailforreasons stillyetto be explained to me or G ustavo,advising m e and Gustavo thatifGreenw ay did notagree to im m ediately release defendants Jam es Ryan,M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Firm from this action thatGreenway'attorneys would be inexplicably notifying this courtofGreenway'attorneys intentions to withdrawalas counselofrecord on behalfofGreenway. O n March,7,2019,m e and G ustavo m etw ith face to face w ith attorney John Pierce w ho is G reenw ay'Iead attorney and originalcontactwith Pierce Bainbridge in ourcase. 8. Dudng ourMarch,7,2019,rre tœ John Pbrœ nevertA the tc toexpl ain* 9rre or GuA vo shoub te rm uie to rebaD Jaru Ryan,Mike Ryan,orte Ryan t.aw Group, LLC from thebu utevenMoughtheœ urthasrue inGœ nwa/favor. 9. JohnPbrœ prrm :a vlto expKinto rre and GusKvo that;Ge nvayK ub œ nsG r enteO ining r> iblyrebasiœ Y fendant Janu Ryan,Me aelRyan,andTheRyan t.- Group,L.LC.,from Mi S bu ut *atPbrœ BainbrklgeK uiduhlie or)eofbe * sf Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 103 of 105 exm #e ea srto assbtGœ nwayprem re adamœ eN dforthe alme ne ulm niœ unœ nta te rx tbnforœ fautje enxntœ ainstE- n,Co.LTD. 10.O n oraboutM arch 12,2019,Pierce Bainbridge attorney Jonathan A. Sorkowitz,Iaterinform ed m yselfand Gustavo thatPierce Bainbridge would be unable to provide Greenway with an exped witness due to the courtnot allowing Greenway am ple time to hire and prepare an expertwitness report on behalfofthe com pany to establish Greenway Iosses againstDefendant Ecowin. 11.From on oraboutM arch 14,2019,through M arch 28,2019,m yselfand G ustavo repeatedly attem pted to inquire with G reenway'Iead attorney John Pierce and Pierce Bainbridge attorney Jonathan Sorkow itz as to whatdid Plaintifrs counselintend on subm itting to the coud specifically pedaining to Greenway'uncontested motionfordefaultjudgementagainstEcowin. 12.O n oraboutM arch 27,2019,Iw as personally copied on an em ailadvising G reenway attorneys John Pieerce,Jonathan Sorkow itz,who should have properly advised attorney Ronaîd Nicosnson,thatGreenway would NOT AG REE TO CONSENT to G reenway attorneys abandoning Greenway and requested thatG reenway'attorneys ask this courtto conductan evidentiary hearing so thatm e,Gustavo,orG reenway,would have been able to m ake yourHonoraware ofJames Ryan',M ike Ryan'and The Ryan Firm highly unethicalm isconductthathas permeated these entire proceedings. 13.On oraboutMarch 29,2019,G reenway'attorneys filed theirmotion to withdraw as counselofrecord on behalfofG reenway neverexplaining their Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/18/2019 Page 104 of 105 Iegalreasoning orbasis forrequiring the me,Gustavo,and G reenway to release Defendants Jam es Ryan,M ike Ryan,and The Ryan Firm from this action thathas Ieftm e very confused,bewildered,baffled as to w hy. Executed atG lendale,California,April16,2019. ldecl are underpenalty ofperjury thatthe foregoing is true and correct. / /s/Liza Haworth Li za Hawort April16,2019 b z , E) a ït v Case 9:18-cv-81104-BB Document 102 Entered * + on * FLSD Docketm04/18/2019 ' c: > * . o < 4: s . u uF -* c= -œ : O < x a t a . P < o - X X *r , g .p m * x x a + m r. s < u l * c o œ ,: s t ! B = > % r s a. o O . e. 2 m Page 105 of 105 m o V e $41 ç#1 * -. <>= uio o o * w o o < eœm , o w z W ; v o; ul =v o-..a Mazu w a œo W œ wg . a Q.On u .' ly d ; ,* eo-..' ',. 7j Fk: p,. ? '.g3 ; 4 <; = .J g < ...i..x N >.-. . w.-. . . '.;,k- .a. , . k . . é.x .' . . ' .y. : . ., ., .- e . . - , '' ' . . uœ ., !f:l j. s j y ,- ; . '! d . x' '.. . g j uu * '' Z - y - .o o - ,<) Z r l .cz oo z v . =r t k . g a . s -: -- -8. m : ll a! p . jy . a :: o o . > y! s Y. œ Y / < *.. <, . e' - l d . o ; < . . i 4g ,l js jj , g jj r a ... j p j;ë :;1 . i. ax g x. ' z: g( , g ?s. x î ., .z : l t t w : j = o . s j z a : j ' ! k q z o à'=. . . j . 8' r.e : 5:.. : , $ %:a *je v e : v j = . R, j 1 j . .-.. .. . .x: v . . . . r j x . yc yy uj .zj v y, . * m v %. X : C . o . - :*; kjzs; j t p I> < a' Q < *Q *' z *Y p w I . l b. wo . j,.-p. j !. o ro & . î z. . . s k .*.t m uj.1') t l!zjj. a .:I ,. . . o xu k t . ) . 6 . . tk N . @ X m s *- . P . . .i !' s : 2 %o o . , . jj jj k i l 'z t rjj! l . t : r : j,. . N. .= E < >x >J qja o . j,z . . x 8. su .go s E !,;jg = *! . - > . ; p ip e a ?! s ' :. a e' 2 1= gs ; .l .œ# 4 a,o w,' *z, u ! ' t ' j ' : = . ; o x . j. . waa, . . '' j !j !y sI k. x , j' ; g R, j . , s 'q o .g.q.a.. .$ 1 4 . -- p'% . z 8 .1. t '' ' / ., t)- œ' E z c i, : meo b vz 8 < ' a s -. .., .. . . . .. . u =' % o x -x N .t % uw X. . 4! z . VL' .e o k . '.àt ?( cy-fs',';. t : ïl)j ! y -: !5 l i . ! N -@ 4 ( .) - * a 1a *j : . Do w- w t E) a - I . u % j N #.N * è..8 'K v s 5. 8 ( ' .-. vl N. ' .t 'ï z - 4:: .,, , %. jï. @ak: .g' S. * , h.... .. ' . M1 Q. - X ( * e N = , yl l j . x . v s8 I Ec )a Xg u k.X '=y a< 3O - 1 O 2 vA o4 p: j o< xo . s .4 î A ' -O Fu .. w< r1J * a o fç . %.1 y 1 i r a ru œ : y Q t w m - N N s F < œ m œ z x : a: (, c. eys1p y J vyF ? @ * r u m. c: e (Zlp = . . : na.t,G<< a * m o j- . & . v .. xx o . f- k . jb!k $ mq o f â . op . j' .% , .- . u s. y . j. sa k +.Sv * wo . r . !r q.s * > 5 g ac; : , .= a:: jjs. 0a1;a ! .=t. 4 , . lxz( ' !r'z8 k..agitz .)w .u -.. '%Qt> ' -' j , a j o o .j ( S e 5I11*u r & ' ( u I u . e . ' > . a . . (:I..s @.j, :1 p k ..: 0y o ,u . 4: u a-s .37:1833S3ld03TW RA'A OIRW IZQS IIBVIINQN7d1!1I0d77#:l11lM E S NBI:I31IlIM K'1 l 1 . l l l * O W X m m W c s * + * G * < = . m < 1 Z œ + X m '- . V œ 4% W o l a op/ku > C o G0 L œ ; z . Do< x **= D o ul œz u -e z 3 = c o m e = O E m = œ

Pierce Bainbridge Beck Price & Hecht - Fraud On The Court.

Share

Rating

Date

Size

Views

Categories

Transcript

Select your language