1

607 Sea Turtle Way

PLANTATION, FL 33324

(P) 954-559-6853

gainsburg@bellsouth.net

March 28, 2017

Via email: jcolvin@mcdonaldhopkins.com

Re: Barry Gainsburg v David Shiner and Shiner Law Group, Inc. Bio-Tech

Case No. 16-000487

Greetings and Salutations Mr. Colvin:

Please find this correspondence as a response to your email letter dated March 27, 2017

wherein you ask I to withdraw the Hearing Subpoenas for Defendant Shiner and Non-Party Mr.

Steven Siegel with respect to my pending Motion to Lift to Stay which has been special set for

hearing on April 10, 2017.

First, with respect to you and your clients’ frustration regarding written communications, I

wholeheartedly disagree. First, such protection has been put in place by the Court because your

client, Defendant Shiner, stalked me down the court hall way to the elevator bank. When arrived

Defendant Shiner threatened my career – by stating I messed with the wrong person and that he

knew people at the Florida Bar (of which he surprisingly is the Chairman of a Palm Beach Florida

Bar Grievance Committee) and that he was going to end my career and me, personally. Sop that

is the reason such Court Order exists and why it remains in place to this day.

Next, I believe that written communication, is no different from that of a oral nature, accept

now there is a written record of everything that has been said and exchanged. This avoids and

removes room for error, as Fed Durst of Limp Bizkit regarding all of the “He said, she said

Bullshit”. In writing, this type of misunderstanding simply does not occur and serves to preserve

a record of whether your clients unilaterally set hearings, engaged in other unseemly or unethical

activities regarding cooperation in moving matters forward or simply refusing to respond to

requests from the undersigned.

As to your request for I to withdraw the subpoenas directed at Defendant Shiner and Steven

Siegel, the answer as you know must be “NO”. Notwithstanding that Defendant Shiner at first

argued that there was no relationship or reasons for the instant case to be brought together with the

Gainsburg v. Bio-Tech Medical Software and Siegel matter (Case 15-018959) before Judge

Imperato- I believe in his Motion to Dismiss he argued “Multifarious Pleading”, but then several

2

months later, Mr. Bouvette of Conway Simberg, your predecessor in representing Defendant

Shiner, argued the complete opposite argument to the court when the case was then in front of

Judge McCarthy. And this resulted in a Stay of the Case since May 2016.

After Appeal to the 4th DCA on the granting of the Stay, they District Court ruled last year that an

evidentiary (or non-evidentiary) hearing could be held regarding “if respondents’ defenses are not

as represented to the trial court as tied to issues surrounding petitioner’s termination and the reason

for same”.

So in essence the real issue for the Court to determine what statement is true by your client

Defendant Shiner. Was it?

(i) On October 6, 2015, the Shiner Defendants stated in their own words in a letter to

Plaintiff’s then Counsel, Mr. Andrew Teschner, Esq., “However it appears from Mr.

Gainsburg’s several communications to both BioTrack and BioTrack’s

client/customers, that Mr. Gainsburg has unilaterally terminated and attorney/client

relationship with BioTrackTHC.” That letter was signed by Defendant Shiner. I state

this is the Truth.

Or was it?

(ii) On or about October 30, 2015, when Shiner was reached by Mr. Schroyer of Marijuana

Business Daily (“MBD”), Mr. Shiner stated to him, as a non-privileged third party, that

“He’s [Gainsburg’s] a disgruntled attorney who got fired for not doing his job.” I state

that is not true, and it is defamation per se.

Or was it?

(iii) On or about November 19, 2015, after the Shiner Respondents had published their

Defamatory Statement to MBD, Shiner and SLG served (but did not file with the Court)

Defendants’ Motion for Sanctions and attorney Fees Pursuant to Section 57.105 Florida

Statutes (57.105 Motion). Paragraph 6 of the 57.105 Motion states “On or about

October 2, 2015, Mr. Gainsburg VOLUNTARILY TERMINATED HIS

REPRESENTATION AS BIO-TECH’s LEGAL COUNSEL” This Motion was signed

and served by Defendant Shiner upon the undersigned. I state once again this is the

Truth.

So, it is essential that testimony be given from both Defendant Shiner and his client Non-Party

Witness Federal Fraud Felon Steven Siegel for the Court to make the relevant inquiry and

determination about both of their credibility and how the alleged factual knowledge was

conveyed and communicated from or by Defendant Shiner and Felon Siegel to the Court, the

Media and I.

Your Client Defendant Shiner refused to provide answers to any discovery served on him prior

to the issuance of the Court’s Stay – so there is no deposition testimony from him or Felon

Siegel to provide to the Court for review in lieu of live oral testimony, Additionally, your client

3

Defendant Shiner is still listed as co-counsel on this matter and therefore should be in

attendance regardless of subpoena or not. But better to make sure.

I believe the testimony require will require 7 minutes at best to ask the witnesses about the

above and inquire the source of information and the truthfulness of such. This can only serve

to expedite the Court’s understanding of the matter and the personalities involved. To have it

any other way would be unjust and inequitable.

Also, as you are aware the Court never previously ruled as to your Motion to Quash subpoenas

issued to Defendant Shiner. And Defendant Siegel purposefully evading service of the

subpoena during that time. So, if you feel that you need to file a Protective Order, please by

all means do as you please. But ultimately after over six (6) months of trying to have my

Motion to Lift Stay heard – originally filed on August 9, 2016 – I believe an evidentiary

hearing which was properly noticed and never objected to should and shall go forward with

the providing of testimony from both Defendant Shiner and Felon Siegel.

In fact, I would imagine that your client, Defendant Shiner, would enjoy having the

opportunity to speak to the Court, as he always has so much to say anyway and he can finally

explain all of these confusing statements and positions and where he got his news from. The

fact that I was either fired (I wasn’t) or the fact that I unilaterally terminated (I did) is not

privileged information of any sort. Such statement is an allegation of fact that occurred which

is not subject to attorney-client privilege or any other known privilege. Such are alleged facts

which need to be substantiated, explained, proven or disproven by your client Defendant

Shiner and/or Felon Siegel. The truth shall set him free, while perhaps exposing him and his

insurance carrier, also your client, to liability.

I hope that my response more than adequately addresses your questions and concerns. I also

believe the fact that it is in writing, allows it to be more comprehensive and through then

telephone argument and speaking over one another or worse.

Jah Guidance and Wisdom

/S/ Barry R. Gainsburg

Barry R. Gainsburg, Esq.

cc: Opposing counsel