Scientology

From: Robert S. Minton <bob@minton.org>
Subject: Minton Motion to Quash 1/4
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 13:35:32 -0500
Message-ID: <ir8f1u05bv4in053p1jq9p4rtf67b40kch@4ax.com>
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS SUFFOLK, ss. SUPERIOR COURT DEPARTMENT OF THE TRIAL COURT ESTATE OF LISA MCPHERSON, ) by and through the Personal ) Representative, DELL LIEBREICH, ) Plaintiff, ) Civil Action No.: 2001-04612 Request for Hearing v. ) ) CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY FLAG ) SERVICE ORGANIZATION, ) Defendant. ) NON-PARTY ROBERT S. MINTON'S MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS DIRECTED TO FLEETBOSTON AND FIDELITY OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER Pursuant to Superior Court Rule 9A, non-party Robert S. Minton respectfully brings this motion to quash the subpoenas directed to third-parties FleetBoston Financial Corporation ("FleetBoston") and Fidelity Investments, Inc. ("Fidelity"), respectively, in the above-captioned matter. As set forth below and in the accompanying Affidavits of Robert S. Minton and Linda M. Ricci, Esq., the Church of Scientology Flag Service Organization (hereinafter, "Scientology") seeks the production of documents and testimony by FleetBoston and Fidelity concerning Mr. Minton's private banking affairs for an improper purpose, viz., to harass and intimidate Mr. Minton, who is an outspoken critic of Scientology. Because the discovery sought by Scientology far exceeds the scope of relevant discovery in the underlying Florida action and invades Mr. Minton's right to financial privacy, Scientology should not be permitted to obtain such discovery.

Mr. Minton respectfully requests a hearing and the issuance of an order quashing the subpoenas directed to FleetBoston and Fidelity.

INTRODUCTION Scientology apparently commenced this action in Massachusetts to conduct discovery in connection with a wrongful death action which is proceeding in Florida. Specifically, Scientology seeks production of records reflecting Mr. Minton's private financial transactions at two Massachusetts financial institutions. Mr. Minton is not a party to the underlying Florida action, which is pending in the Circuit Court for the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County in Florida (Case No. 00-5682-CI-11). Mr. Minton's only connection to this matter is that he has provided financial support to counsel for the plaintiff in the underlying action as well as to various individuals who are outspoken critics of the Church of Scientology to assist them in their litigation against the Church. Mr. Minton moves to quash the subpoenas directed to FleetBoston and Fidelity on the following grounds:

· Right to financial privacy. Compliance with the subpoenas would violate Mr. Minton's right to financial privacy.

· Improper purpose. The discovery is sought for an improper purpose, that is, to harass and intimidate Mr. Minton, as evidenced by the pattern of similar acts by Scientology.

· Overbroad subpoenas. The subpoenas are overbroad, reaching well beyond the discovery held to be relevant by the Florida court. Although the subpoenas ostensibly seek discovery of payments made by Mr. Minton to witnesses in the underlying case, most of the records sought by Scientology implicate individuals who do not appear on the parties' witness lists.

Moreover, to the extent that such individuals are reflected on the parties' witness lists, many of these individuals have nothing to do with the facts of the underlying Florida case and have been identified by Scientology only for the purpose of obtaining discovery of Mr. Minton's financial records.

· Lack of notice. Mr. Minton was not given notice of the Petition to Conduct Discovery filed by Scientology in this Court.

· Other individuals. Compliance with the subpoenas implicates the privacy rights of the other individuals who were parties to the financial transactions in issue. Upon information and belief, none of these individuals has been given notice or an opportunity to be heard.

For the reasons set forth above, Scientology's efforts to conduct discovery of Mr. Minton's private financial records constitute an abuse of discovery and, on this basis, Mr. Minton respectfully requests that the subpoenas be quashed.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND Unbeknownst to Mr. Minton, Scientology commenced this Miscellaneous Action on October 10, 2001 , apparently for the purpose of making an application to conduct discovery of Mr. Minton's private banking records in connection with a wrongful death action pending in Florida state court.

This action follows on the heels of the Florida court's issuance of out-of-state commissions upon application by Scientology but without consideration of Mr. Minton's opposition to the issuance of such subpoenas;

rather, the Florida court specifically noted that Mr. Minton's opposition would be heard in Massachusetts.

Upon receipt of Scientology's Petition to Conduct Discovery - which failed to inform this Court that (a) Mr. Minton objected to the issuance of the requested subpoenas and (b) the Florida court specifically contemplated that Mr. Minton's objection would be heard in Massachusetts - this Court issued an Order requiring FleetBoston and Fidelity to appear for a deposition and produce documents on November 19, 2001. Affidavit of Linda M. Ricci, Esq., dated November 16, 2001 (hereinafter, "Ricci Aff."), Exhibit 10. Moreover, despite Mr. Minton's objection on the record before the Florida court, neither Mr. Minton nor (presumably) any of the other individuals implicated the subpoenas was provided with notice of Scientology's Petition to Conduct Discovery filed in this Court. ARGUMENT I. This Court Has Jurisdiction to Consider the Propriety of the Subpoenas at Issue Because the Pinellas County court issued out-of-state commissions without considering the merits of Mr. Minton's objection, it is entirely within this Court's jurisdiction to make a determination as to the propriety of the subpoenas issued to FleetBoston and Fidelity. In fact, during a hearing on October 3, 2001, the Pinellas County court treated the issuance of such commissions as a ministerial act and specifically contemplated that Mr. Minton's objection to the subpoenas would be heard in Massachusetts:

THE COURT: . . . . But this is just simply to appoint, apparently - to appoint a commissioner - what is it for? To issue a subpoena?

MR. MOXON : Yes. It's - it's the authority to issue a subpoena in another case.

THE COURT: Yeah. It's just the authority to issue a subpoena in another state, to some records.

MR. MERRETT : Which we contend are not relevant to the - any of the subject matter and are private or protected by bank secrecy laws in Florida. I mean - that's the thing. I mean, I - you know, people's bank records are subject to some privacy absent an actual showing of relevance and necessity.

THE COURT: Well, of course, all this says is that a subpoena can issue.

Then you can move to quash the subpoena and raise privacy issues and all that sort of stuff. So I'm not suggesting that you don't have those rights to raise those things. This just says they can issue a subpoena. And there's really no reason not to enter this, Counselor.

. . . .

So this does not thwart your right to raise all those matters and challenge all those matters; it simply allows the process to start.

Ricci Aff., Exhibit 7 at 74-75 (emphasis added). Despite the fact that Mr.

Minton's counsel raised his objection on the record before the Florida court, Scientology failed to so inform this Court in its petition to conduct discovery. II. The Massachusetts Bank Subpoenas Violate Mr. Minton's Right of Financial Privacy A. The Florida Constitution Creates a Right of Privacy The broad discovery order issued by this Court, which was preceded only by the ministerial issuance of commissions by the Florida court, impinges on Mr. Minton's right of privacy as established by the Florida Constitution. Article I, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution states:

"Every natural person has the right to be let alone and free from governmental intrusion into the person's private life except as otherwise provided herein. . . ." This provision of the Florida Constitution provides a "strong, freestanding right of privacy" that is broader in scope than the protection provided by the United States Constitution. Rasmussen v. South Florida Blood Serv., Inc., 500 So. 2d 533, 536 (Fla. 1987);

Winfield v. Division of Pari-Mutuel Wagering, 477 So. 2d 544, 548 (Fla.

1985); Berkeley v. Eisen, 699 So. 2d 789, 790 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1997).

Because the discovery orders requiring compliance with the subpoenas to FleetBoston and Fidelity constitute state action, such actions must be consistent with the strictures of the Florida Constitution. See Calderbank v. Cazares, 435 So. 2d 377 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983). Where, as here, a right of constitutional dimension is implicated, "the party seeking discovery of confidential information must make a showing of necessity which outweighs the countervailing interest in maintaining the confidentiality of such information." Higgs v. Kampgrounds of America, 526 So. 2d 980, 981 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1988). Scientology has not demonstrated, and cannot demonstrate, the requiring showing of necessity -- particularly in light of the absence of nexus with the core issues in the underlying litigation -- and, thus, fails this balancing test. B. The Massachusetts Right of Privacy Statute Similarly Provides Protection to Mr. Minton's Personal Financial Affairs So, too, has the Massachusetts legislature created a privacy right.

The Massachusetts Right of Privacy Statute provides: A person shall have a right against unreasonable, substantial or serious interference with his privacy. The superior court shall have jurisdiction in equity to enforce such right and in connection therewith to award damages.

Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 214, § 1B. There can be no doubt that information concerning an individual's bank accounts is universally regarded as "confidential by the bank customer, the bank, and by the public in general." Commonwealth v. Source One Associates, Inc., No. 98-0507-H, 1999 WL 975120, at *1 (Mass. Super.

Oct. 12, 1999) (discussing at length the private nature of personal banking records). The confidentiality of customer accounts is well-established and reflected in the confidentiality policies common in the banking industry.

Such financial institution policies prohibit the release of any account information to a third-party unless the bank is required to do so by subpoena or by written consent of the account holder. Consistent with these policies, employees of such financial institutions are responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of customer accounts. III. Scientology Seeks Discovery of Mr. Minton's Financial Records for an Improper Purpose and Has Engaged in Abuse of Discovery Scientology's application to this Court extends well beyond the discovery authorized by the Pinellas County court and speaks loudly to Scientology's real, intended purpose: to harass Mr. Minton. In exercising control over requested discovery, the trial court has authority to prevent the use of discovery as a means of harassment. See Mass. R. Civ. P. 26(c);

In re Roche, 411 N.E.2d 466, 475 (Mass. 1980) (when considering requested discovery of a potential witness, a judge "must be particularly sensitive to preventing exposure 'for the sake of exposure' . . . by forcing needless disclosure of confidential relationships"); see also Sugarmill Woods Civic Ass'n v. Southern States Utilities, 687 So. 2d 1346, 1350 (Fla. Dist. Ct.

App. 1997) ("A trial court has authority to prevent discovery which it believes is a mere fishing expedition calculated for harassment."). By its Order dated October 4, 2001, the Pinellas County court specifically limited the issuance of a subpoena to records relating to the payment of funds "to plaintiff or plaintiff's agents or counsel, payments to witnesses in this action, and receipt of funds from or paid to the company Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc." Ricci Aff., Exhibits 8 & 9. Such authorized discovery ostensibly is related to Scientology's counterclaim for abuse of process (which asserts that the plaintiff and certain alleged co-conspirators have abused process insofar as Mr. Minton allegedly has made payments to witnesses, intimidated witnesses, and controlled the litigation through payments to the plaintiff and its counsel). The majority of "witnesses" identified by Scientology for purposes of this action have no knowledge of the underlying facts but are Scientology critics. The inclusion of these individuals on Scientology's witness list is nothing more than an effort to conduct discovery against Mr. Minton and other Scientology critics as a harassment mechanism.

The subpoenas served on FleetBoston and Fidelity are nearly identical. Each requires production of:

[a]ny and all documents in your possession, custody or control, including account statements, debit memos, cancelled checks, bank wires or other transfer records, dated from October 1997 to the present, concerning accounts held in the name of Robert Minton (Social Security Number 409-80-4568) relating to the payment of funds to the plaintiff or plaintiff's agents or counsel or witnesses in this case, including but not limited to . . . [46 specifically identified individuals and entities].

See Ricci Aff., Exhibits 11 & 12 (hereinafter, "Request No. 1"). Each subpoena also requires production of:

[a]ny and all documents in your possession concerning receipt of funds into accounts held in the name of Robert Minton (Social Security Number 409-80-4568) from the Lisa McPherson Trust, Inc., Operation Clambake, Andreas Heldal-Lund, any Norwegian bank, any German bank and Gerald Armstrong.

See Ricci Aff., Exhibits 11 & 12 (hereinafter, "Request No. 2").

A. Request No. 1 Seeks Information Concerning Mr.

Minton's Financial Transactions with Individuals Who Have Not Been Identified as Witnesses Request No. 1 seeks Mr. Minton's financial records reflecting payments made to the plaintiff, to plaintiff's counsel, or to any of forty-six individuals and entities that Scientology claims are "witnesses"

in the underlying wrongful death action. As evidenced by the witness lists filed by the parties, that simply is not the case. Ricci Aff., Exhibits 1 & 2. In fact, of the 46 individuals or entities listed on "Schedule A" of the FleetBoston and Fidelity subpoenas, only 4 individuals appear on both Scientology's and the plaintiff's witness lists, 6 are listed only on Scientology's witness list; and 7 are listed only on the plaintiff's witness list. In total, only 17 of the 46 individuals and entities are identified as witnesses in the case, as reflected by the parties' own submissions. Three additional entries reflect the two lawyers representing the plaintiff and their law firm. It is noteworthy that to the extent this Court finds that bank records reflecting payments made by Mr. Minton to the plaintiff's counsel are discoverable, they are entitled to special treatment. On November 7, 2001, Ken Dandar, Esq. of Dandar and Dandar P.A.

moved for an emergency hearing before the Pinellas County court to stay discovery on the ground that there is a stay order entered by the Second District Court of Appeal pending decision on Mr. Dandar's earlier petition for a writ of certiorari. In light of the stay, the Pinellas County court ordered that any documents concerning Kennan Dandar, Thomas Dandar, or Dandar and Dandar P.A. be produced under seal. Specifically, the Pinellas County court ordered that, if produced, the reporter is to send such records in a sealed envelope directly to the Honorable Susan Schaeffer via Federal Express. Ricci Aff., Exhibits 3, 4, and 13 (Tr. 334-39). In sum, the majority of individuals and entities whose names are reflected on "Schedule A" to the subpoenas are nowhere listed as witnesses by either party. Even if the Florida court's order is accepted as written (which Mr. Minton does not), it permits issuance of a subpoena only to discover records of payments (a) to the plaintiff or plaintiff's counsel, (b) to a witness in the case, or (c) to or from the Lisa McPherson Trust.

Ricci Aff., Exhibits 8 & 9. At a minimum, the discovery sought by Scientology requires a person-by-person analysis, and Scientology should be required to demonstrate the relevance of discovery concerning each of the 46 persons on "Schedule A."

B. Request No. 2 Seeks Discovery Concerning Payments Made To Mr. Minton that Has Not Been Authorized by the Florida Court Request No. 2 is substantially broader in scope than Request No. 1, seeking records of all payments to Mr. Minton from (i) the Lisa McPherson Trust , (ii) Operation Clambake, (iii) Andreas Heldal-Lund, (iv) any Norwegian bank, (v) any German bank, and (vi) Gerald Armstrong. At the outset, Request No. 2 is objectionable insofar as it contains no date restriction and apparently seeks records for the life of Mr. Minton's accounts, including the period prior to the commencement of the wrongful death lawsuit. Records reflecting transactions prior to the commencement of the wrongful death action are wholly irrelevant. The scope of any response must be narrowed to the relevant time period, which is no earlier than February 20, 1997, when the Estate of Lisa McPherson commenced the wrongful death action. Moreover, Request No. 2 is objectionable because it seeks records of payment to Mr. Minton, which discovery has not been authorized by the Florida court. Again, even if the Florida court's order is accepted as written, it permits issuance of a subpoena concerning payments to Mr.

Minton only from the Lisa McPherson Trust. In addition, Scientology seeks discovery of payments from such non-specific entities as "any" Norwegian bank and "any" German bank, among others. Scientology has provided no explanation as to (a) how unspecified banks could possibly be witnesses in this matter or (b) why discovery of payments by such unspecified banks to Mr. Minton is relevant or necessary to its counterclaim concerning abuse of process. Scientology should not be permitted access to such records. C. Scientology's Earlier Conduct Demonstrates that Scientology Seeks This Discovery For An Improper Use The Affidavit of Robert S. Minton submitted in support of the instant motion to quash sets forth in detail evidence of Scientology's campaign to harass and intimidate Mr. Minton. See Affidavit of Robert S.

Minton, dated November 16, 2001 (hereinafter, "Minton Aff."). Scientology is relentless in its efforts. Time and again, Scientology has demonstrated that it cannot be trusted and that its true motive in the pursuit of discovery against the person of Robert Minton is nothing more than an attempt to seek "revenge" on a man it abhors for supporting its harshest critics. As evidenced below, there can be no doubt but that the instant subpoenas are merely the latest attempt by Scientology to harass and intimidate Mr. Minton as "punishment" for providing financial support to certain critics of Scientology. 1. Mr. Minton's assistance to Scientology critics As noted above, Mr. Minton is a private citizen who has provided financial assistance to several individuals who have sued and been sued by various affiliates of Scientology. He has done so out of concern for the way in which Scientology treats individuals who dare criticize it.

Specifically, he finds offensive Scientology's litigious nature and its practice of trying to crush its critics under the heavy weight of litigation. For these reasons, he has sometimes offered financial contributions to others to help defray the costs of litigation. Among his goals in doing so are to produce a "fairer fight" and to make it more likely that the matters at issue are fairly heard and decided by the courts rather than disappear because one of the litigants cannot afford to continue. Moreover, Mr. Minton is neither a party to any of these suits nor has any involvement in or direct knowledge about the underlying matters being litigated. See Minton Aff., Exhibit 1(A), 2-4. 2. Scientology's harassment of Mr. Minton and his family Scientology has responded to Mr. Minton's activities predictably.

Over the past several years, Scientology has taken aggressive steps to harass and intimidate Mr. Minton and his family. Scientology has dispatched private detectives to try to "dig up dirt" on Mr. Minton from his relatives and former business associates. It has had Mr. Minton's two young daughters followed on two occasions. One representative of Scientology has threatened to attack Mr. Minton through his family, former business associates, and tax authorities. On many occasions, Scientology has had its members blanket Mr. Minton's neighborhood with leaflets containing false and highly inflammatory statements about him. In February 2000, two men who identified themselves as working for the law firm of Moxon & Kobrin (which represents Scientology) approached Mr. Minton's seventy-seven-year old mother, two aunts, and two brothers at their homes in Nashville, Tennessee. Warning Mr. Minton's family that "someone is going to get hurt," these individuals went so far as to say that they would be willing to pay the cost for his family to have Mr. Minton committed to a mental institution and to help them set up a conservatorship to manage his money. A "private investigator" named Mr. Hirsch, from an organization apparently known as International Inquiries, contacted Mr. Minton's personal accountant and asserted that a foreign government had filed formal criminal charges against Mr. Minton and that a foreign bank account allegedly belonging to him had been frozen. These statements were totally false. See Minton Aff., Exhibit 1.

Scientology, through its counsel, has threatened Mr. Minton, expressing its displeasure that Mr. Minton has "undertaken the financial maintenance of a significant number of litigants adverse to Scientology Churches in the United States":

A number of those with whom you have associated yourself through your patronage . . . have engaged in threats and acts of violence, attempts at intimidation and scandal-mongering. Association with lawbreakers such as these, combined with the monetary demands that inevitably accompany their involvement in litigation or similar fertile areas for attempts of extortion, make your actions of interest to the prosecutors to whom such conduct has been referred.

My client holds you, your associates and backers, financial or otherwise, personally responsible for any and all damages it has suffered or will continue to suffer as a result of your tortious officious intermeddling in Church litigation. The Church will not tolerate such conduct. I demand that you immediately withdraw all financial support for such matters and am warning you that you and those you're funding have crossed the threshold of legality.

Minton Aff., Exhibit 1(A)(2). Consistent with its past actions, Scientology has served these subpoenas on FleetBoston and Fidelity only in an attempt to harass Mr.

Minton. As demonstrated above, the subpoenas are not related to any legitimate subject of inquiry or issue in the Florida action, and Scientology is using the discovery process to delve into Mr. Minton's financial affairs simply for the purpose of retaliation. D. Curtailment of Scientology's discovery efforts is necessary to prevent further harassment Through its efforts in this and in other actions, Scientology has demonstrated its willingness to use compulsory process not only to harass but also to advance its purposes in other litigation and otherwise. At least one other court has explicitly noted Scientology's abuse of the litigation process to silence Scientology critics. In Religious Technology Center v. Lerma, a copyright action brought by Scientology-affiliated-corporation RTC, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia held:

[T]he Court finds that the motivation of [RTC] in filing this lawsuit against The [Washington] Post is reprehensible. Although RTC brought the complaint under traditional secular concepts of copyright and trade secret law, it has become clear that a much broader motivation prevailed - the stifling of criticism and dissent of the religious practices of Scientology and the destruction of opponents. L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, has been quoted as looking upon the law as a tool to "[h]arass and discourage rather than to win. The law can be used very easily to harass and enough harassment on somebody who is simply on the thin edge anyway, well knowing that he is not authorized, will generally be sufficient to cause his professional decease. If possible, of course, ruin him utterly." 908 F. Supp. 1362, 1368 (E.D. Va. 1995) (citations omitted) (emphasis added). The following day, the District Court issued an amended order, specifically finding that RTC had "unclean hands" as a result of its "true motives" behind the litigation:

[T]he Court is now convinced that the primary motivation of RTC suing Lerma, DGS, and The [Washington] Post is to stifle criticism of Scientology in general and to harass its critics. As the increasingly vitriolic rhetoric of its briefs and oral argument now demonstrate, RTC appears far more concerned about criticism of Scientology than vindication of its trade secrets.

Lerma, 908 F. Supp. 1353, 1360 (E.D. Va. 1995). The same motivation is at work here. 1. Scientology's Prior Abuse of Discovery In This Action As recently as last month, Scientology made a stunningly improper use of a photocopy of a check that was produced pursuant to a similar - and substantially broader - subpoena directed to the Bank of America in Florida in this case. By subpoena dated September 21, 2001, Scientology sought discovery of "all documents from the Bank of America comprising the records relating to any account of Robert S. Minton," ostensibly for the purpose of conducting discovery in furtherance of the claims and defenses at issue in the litigation. Minton Aff., 4-5; Ricci Aff., Exhibit 5. Upon information and belief, the Bank of America produced certain of records of Mr. Minton's account transactions in response to such subpoena, which reflected a return date of October 11, 2001. On October 27, 2001, Mr. Minton attended a large conference organized by CULTinfo, a non-profit educational organization which provides cult information and family support service, in Cleveland, Ohio in order to receive the Leo J. Ryan Award. Minton Aff., 4-5. Immediately after the award ceremony at the Hilton Hotel in Cleveland, Mr. Minton and his colleagues from the Lisa McPherson Trust were "greeted" by flyers taped to guests' hotel room doors, which included a photocopy of a July 2001 check that Mr. Minton had drawn from his account at Bank of America and paid to the Leo J. Ryan Educational Foundation accompanied by a "Profile of Robert Minton," which was intended to harass and embarrass Mr. Minton and to discredit his award. Id. Several Scientology operatives attended the conference. Id. Scientology's callous disregard of the proper purposes of the discovery mechanisms is readily apparent. Scientology should not be permitted to continue to engage in such antics. In light of such discovery abuses, this Court should grant Mr. Minton's motion to quash.

IV. At a Minimum, This Court Should Enter a Protective Order In light of the above-demonstrated abuses by Scientology, in the event that this Court determines that Scientology is entitled to records of any nature concerning Mr. Minton's accounts at FleetBoston and/or Fidelity, this Court should - at a minimum - issue a protective order (1) restricting access to such records to counsel of record in the Pinellas County wrongful death action and counsel to Mr. Minton and (2) limiting use of such records to the legitimate purposes of the Pinellas County court action. CONCLUSION In sum, Scientology's present subpoenas are nothing more than its most recent intimidation technique conveniently "dressed up" as a subpoena.

For the foregoing reasons, Mr. Minton respectfully requests that his motion to quash the subpoenas directed to FleetBoston and Fidelity be granted.

Respectfully submitted, ROBERT S. MINTON By his attorneys, _____ Stephen A. Jonas (BBO# 542005) Linda M. Ricci (BBO# 600284) Hale and Dorr LLP 60 State Street Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (617) 526-6000 Dated: November __, 2001 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Linda M Ricci, hereby certify that a true copy of (i) Non-Party Robert S. Minton's Motion to Quash Subpoenas Issued to FleetBoston and Fidelity, (ii) Affidavit of Robert S. Minton in Support of His Motion to Quash, (iii) Affidavit of Linda M. Ricci in Support of Mr. Minton's Motion to Quash, and (iv) Mr. Minton's Request for Hearing were served on this date to the following:

Brian D. Gross, Esq., Cooley Manion Jones LLP, 21 Custom House Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (by hand delivery); Colleen Hankins, Esq., Mail Stop F9D, Fidelity Investments, 82 Devonshire Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02109 (by hand delivery); Jon Hayden, Esq., Mail Stop MADE 10019C, FleetBoston Law Department, 100 Federal Street, Boston, Massachusetts 02110 (by hand delivery); and Ken Dandar, Esq., Dandar & Dandar, P.A., 5340 West Kennedy Blvd., Suite 201, Tampa, Florida 33607 (by Federal Express).

____________________________ Linda M. Ricci Dated: November 16, 2001