Call 24/7 : 850­-681-6416

Acting Quickly to Safegaurd

Your Freedom




Time is of the Essence!

Sep 29, 2012
Posted By Andrews Law Office

Although this case has not generated that much buzz, I feel the need to update any and all interested individuals.

Governor Scott’s Harvard-trained lawyers from Florida’s Executive Office of the Governor have objected to producing any documents as well as any witnesses for deposition. The following is a list of some of the witnesses that the Executive Office of the Governor is attempting to shield from depositions:

  • John Robinson
  • Angela Moore
  • Beatriz “Bibi” Ramos
  • Jorge Riano
  • Steve MacNamara
  • Mike Prendergast
  • Lt. Gov. Jennifer Carroll

It is ironic that a Governor who took the Fifth Amendment 75 times would direct his lawyers to prevent Ms. Cole from confronting adverse witnesses.

Surprised? Not in the least.


*This information was taken from documents that are publicly available and were filed by Jesse Panuccio, the General Counsel for the Executive Office of the Governor.

  • GordonWayneWatts

    Attorney Andrews, why did the court not find Ms. Cole innocent on the basis that, in the workplace, there is no expectation of privacy? You ARE familiar with the Morningstar, Avrich, and McDade rulings on this head, are you not? Florida courts have consistently held that the constitutional protections of a reasonable expectation of privacy do NOT extend to an individual’s place of business. Morningstar v. State, 428 So. 2d 220 (Fla. 1982); Cohen Bros., LLC v. ME Corp., S.A., 872 So. 2d 321 (Fla. 3d DCA 2004); Jatar v. Lamaletto, 758 So. 2d 1167; (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Adams v. State, 436 So. 2d 1132 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983). An expectation of privacy in a business is not one which society is willing to protect. Morningstar, 428 So. 2d at 221 (citing Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967); Hill v. State, 422 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1982)).

    See also; WILLIAM G. AVRICH, vs. State of Fla., No. 3D05-1100 (Fla. 3rd DCA, Opinion filed August 23, 2006), the court held: “Based on the record before us, it is evident that the defendant made telephone calls to the victim’s business telephone line, located in the victim’s home where he conducted his business. Although the victim may enjoy a reasonable expectation of privacy in his home, that expectation is not extended to his business. See Morningstar, 428 So. 2d at 221 (holding that the constitutional protection of an individual’s reasonable expectation of privacy in his or her home does not extend to a place of business). We find that there was insufficient evidence to satisfy the elements of section 365.16(1)(a) because the defendant only made calls to the victim’s business telephone line.” —

    More recently, there have been new holdings: See e.g., McDade v. State, No. 2D11–5955, Decided: June 7, 2013, Fla. 2DCA, and Certified to the Fla.S.Ct., which held, in relevant part:

    “Considering these values and the already-existing legal exceptions that reflect them, we conclude that suppressing the recordings pursuant to chapter 934 under the circumstances of this case would produce an absurd result—a result we cannot fathom was intended by the legislature.4

    Accordingly, we affirm.”

    PS: I nearly won in court for Terri Schiavo ALL BY MYSELF, so I know a little bit about law – Cf:

    [1] In Re: GORDON WAYNE WATTS (as next friend of THERESA MARIE ‘TERRI’ SCHIAVO), No. SC03-2420 (Fla. Feb.23, 2003), denied 4-3 on rehearing. (I got 42.7%, e.g., almost half of my panel)

    [2] In Re: JEB BUSH, GOVERNOR OF FLORIDA, ET AL. v. MICHAEL SCHIAVO, GUARDIAN: THERESA SCHIAVO, No. SC04-925 (Fla. Oct.21, 2004), denied 7-0 on rehearing. (Bush got 0.0% of his panel)

    [3] Schiavo ex rel. Schindler v. Schiavo ex rel. Schiavo, 403 F.3d 1223, 2005 WL 648897 (11th Cir. Mar.23, 2005), denied 2-1 on appeal. (Terri’s blood family only got 33.3% of their panel in Federal Court)

    The was a miracle on 2 points: First, I nearly won in court for Ms. Schiavo, even not myself being a lawyer; however, my “faith” to proceed was even more miraculous: No one in their right mind would try to speak as “next friend” for Terri without themselves being a lawyer or blood family. (In fact, no one in their “wrong” mind would: One might become fined, become a ‘restricted filer,’ and/or generate much hatred for “butting in,” so my faith was a greater miracle IMHO than my near win.

    Is there any hope for Ms. Cole, your client, for getting a fair shake in court? I like Rick Scott and Jen Carroll, but they had NO expectation of privacy in the workplace -most especially a government workplace – please win one for us “little people” -and also for the “free press” who are censured here.

    Gordon Wayne Watts, LAKELAND, Fla., U.S.A.