Chapter 6

A REPORTER’S NOTE
As a fourth generation Seventh-day Adventist, I am deeply embarrassed that the trademarked name, “Adventist”, is part of the name of this corporation. I am in hopes that the pending federal prosecution (see Chapter 5 and AHS Update) will so embarrass the Adventist Church that it will force Adventist Health System to change its name while the federal government changes its practices.

I intend to follow this story until it is no longer newsworthy, so check this blog occasionally. Readers, your posted comments can alert me to current news, and I can always be reached at aphanson@csuchico.edu.

Patricia and I thank you for your prayers. I’m also indebted to those of you who have gone out of your way to provide the invaluable encouragement, insights, and information that made this reporting possible. Patricia’s story is an important one.
Andy

In this chapter, Patricia would like you to look at three documents. Two can be read in plain text, and the final one as a pdf file. I’ve chosen to post the INTERROGATORIES first, because it allows the reader to better understand the court’s way of putting Patricia’s testimony on the record.

In the MOTION FOR CIVIL COMTEMPT, Patricia fights back, asserting her whistleblower and Fifth Amendment Rights. She argues the case for a fair hearing regarding her whistleblower status and her testimony regarding Adventist Health Service’s illegal practices. And she names names.

The AMENDED COUNTER CLAIM/COUNTER PETITION   offers a picture of the machinations if the legal process, and allows you a glimpse of Patricia’s amazing ability to use that process to defend herself from a billion dollar institution that will stop at nothing to protect its interests. (Note: This link problematic with Firefox OS. Recommend: Chrome and/or Safari)


SUPPLEMENTAL INTERROGATORIES

1. 1. The following Supplemental interrogatories are included in Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant Patricia L.   . Moleski. The original submission made by the defendant/counter plaintiff were submitted August 31, 2011.

A. A. Interrogatories Regarding the AHS documents which you Obtained and are the Subject of this Lawsuit.

INTERROGATORY NO. 1: Did you electronically download or otherwise obtained copies of documents from the private or personal work folders (as defined in the instructions to these supplemental interrogatories) of any AHS employee without each employee's prior approval or authorization.

ANSWER:

There were no "private or personal work folders" in the SHARED G DRIVE nor did I have access to any "private or personal work folders."

While working at AHS there were print-offs of many of the thousands of deletions, worker compensation deletions, procedure manuals, emails, email receipts, and other work related material. These were then stored in my cubical filing cabinet in AHS Risk Management. At no time was there ever a policy/documentation or meeting to inform me of having to ask for permission and I was never questioned about any of these actions until I reported AHS to law enforcement regarding HIPPA violation, fraud, patient overdose, covering up patient death, deletions of patient adverse events and the deletions of Worker Compensation Claims. After my reports to authorities, AHS went on to accuse me of the very thing that Ireported them of doing.

Within the SHARED G Drive I had close to thirty folders that contained close to 1300 files that were/are easily accessible to all employees within AHS Risk Management. Thus the name SHARED G DRIVE.

INTERROGATORY NO. 2: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 1is yes, are the AHS documents that you downloaded or obtained currently in your possession, custody or control?

ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 1.

INTERROGATORY NO.3: If your answer to Interrogatory No.2 is no, when did you cease possession or control of the AHS documents and to whom did you deliver them?

In good faith, I reported clear violations of the law by AHS.  I reported this information to the FBI and will not disclose any information regarding the details of that investigation.  Idid so understanding that both Federal and State law protect a whistleblower who in good faith reports criminal and/or fraudulent activity.  I am, however, in an abundance of caution, asserting my constitutional privilege, i.e., my Fifth Amendment Rights. Without waiving my Fifth Amendment rights, on February 18, 2009, as part of my job position, Iwas asked, via e-mail, to delete a duplicate claim record of the suicide of a patient named Kenneth Kramer. This was not unusual as I had been making deletions to entries of claim records, which I was told were duplicates.  In this particular instance, I actually went into the Riskmaster computer system program to find the duplicate claim record and found that no such duplicate claim record existed. I went back into the Riskmaster system and claim of Kenneth Kramer and discovered that Mr. Kramer was overdosed.  Due to the overdose, Mr.
Kramer left the hospital, (unbeknownst to the medical care providers), went to the parking garage of Florida Hospital and jumped off the7th floor of the Florida Hospital parking garage, taking his own life.  I reported to the hierarchy of AHS as I felt I should, including but not limited to, Jonathan Hillock- AHS Risk Management Data Systems Manager, James Pridemore - Florida Hospital Loss Control Manager, Jean Hood- AHS Risk Management Assistant Director, Stacy Prince- AHS Risk Management  Director, Bill  Morgan- AHS- Claim Director, William Morgan- AHS Legal Counsel, Sandra Johnson- AHS Sr. Vice President, Business Department, Chuck Edmonds, Dave Riesen- AHS Compliance Director, Bonnie Laurencell- AHS Manager Human  Resources, Robert Hederschedt- AHS Senior Vice President, Administration, Ann Elilas and the AHS Global Compliance Hotline and informed each that Kenneth Kramer's claim record was not a duplicate.

However, after reporting this to the noted individuals, (the hierarchy of AHS), I went back into the Risk Management  system and discovered that the event had been changed from a suicide to an AMA (Discharged against Medical Advice). When I confronted these individuals, in particular, Jean Hood, AHS Risk Management Assistant Director, I  informed  her that I  had spoken to Jonathan Hillock, AHS Risk Management Data Systems Manager, about the change in the record and he told me that he could restore the claim record to its original   state.  Jean  Hood  started yelling at me and stated: "it is their data, just  leave it alone" and "don't change anything."   I  then spoke to James Pridemore,  Florida Hospital Loss Control Manager about this situation and he stated, "They just want to get rid of it" and. "they do not have to report a suicide."

I was then called into a compliance meeting by Dave Reisen, AHS Compliance Director, regarding this situation and some other deletions which I brought up where claim records were deleted .and fraudulently "re-created" to the benefit of AHS. The next case discussed with Dave Reisen at the compliance meeting was the "Baby Frandley" case, which I also was told was a duplicate. I informed these same individuals that this claim record was not a duplicate, as one of the events listed the baby as being overdosed on vitamin  K and the other fraudulent "created" claim record listed the baby as having low APGAR scores.  I asked David Reisen, "How will the family of this baby know that it received two Vitamin K shots?"  He stated "it is a duplicate, case closed."  I told Dave Reisen that this was not right and that I thought that the conclusion was wrong.  He said "this is not your choosing."

I then informed David Reisen that I had contacted AHCA, JCAHO and HIPPA hat­ line and they stated that under no circumstances should any claim or data be altered or deleted.  David Reisen stated that the deletions of duplicates are no longer my concern and that Jonathan Hillock, AHS Risk Management Data Systems Manager, would be doing the procedure. I told David Reisen that I thought it was unfair to ask me or Jonathan to do these deletions without the education of the HIPPA, AHCA and JCAHO guidelines. David Reisen stated, "case closed." As I left that meeting, I told David .Reisen that their findings were wrong and that it was not a good thing for Adventist Health System. With these deletions occurring, the families of the victims/patients will never know what happened to their loved ones.  I considered that to be outright fraud and it disturbed me greatly that an alleged Christian organization would participate in such conduct.   I still continued to be sent deletions after this meeting.

Prior to being put on paid suspension on May 29, 2009, I viewed yet another fraudulent re-created Riskmaster claim record of an individual by the name of Arlene Mix. The  original .Riskmaster claim record came into the Riskmaster  claim system when the adverse event actually occurred and the indicator on the Riskmaster claim record reflected "equipment failure". Thereafter, AHS was served by the Mix family with a Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation. After receipt of the Notice of Intent to Initiate Litigation, a fraudulent AHS Riskmaster claim record was created to reflect that the adverse event was a "physician alleged failure", therefore, taking the blame off of AHS and the hospital facility and putting it on the unknowing doctor. This was one of many fraudulent re­ created Riskmaster claim records that I viewed. This particular "re-created" fraudulent claim record was then attached to the Mix family's Notice of Intent  to Initiate Litigation and was not the original adverse Riskmaster claim record that incriminated AHS or the facilities of AHS. What is really disturbing about this particular deletion is that I remember these individuals laughing about this case at one of the meetings.

Any information responsive to this Interrogatory, which reflect the criminal and fraudulent acts of the AHS Hierarchy and its employees have been turned over to the proper authorities specifically, including the FBI.

I was required, first and foremost, by my moral commitment to God, which I  take very seriously, the various and obvious Federal and State laws in place that prohibit this type of conduct, and by the AHS Employee Guidelines to report any criminal behavior and/or activity, and that is exactly what I did when the AHS Hierarchy/employees refused to correct their wrongdoing and criminal behavior and take the appropriate corrective action.  I did what I thought was right and found that they were not interested in the truth.  I did so with the understanding further that reporting to the proper authorities could be done without the threat of coercion, extortion, or criminal prosecution being initiated by AHS because in good faith and based on the clear objective evidence, AHS was in violation of the law. These "re-created" claim records were billed to the government and private insurance and that was wrong. The way AHS manipulated the data was wrong and someone needed to step up and do something to put a stop to it.

Due to my questioning the Hierarchy/employees of AHS Risk management and others, as listed above, regarding these criminal acts, on May 29, 2009, I was placed on administrative leave and told that I was suspended with pay until further investigation. On June 24, 2009, I was served with AHS's Verified Complaint for Temporary and Permanent Injunction, requesting the Court to Order me to keep my mouth shut regarding what I witnessed during my employment at AHS and to return any documents which prove the criminal conduct of these employees of AHS as listed above. The clear intent of the lawsuit was to pressure me into not following through to do what I knew was the right thing to do. On January 29, 2010, I was terminated by AHS. It is unequivocally clear I was terminated because I exposed the criminal conduct of AHS.

INTERROGATORY NO.4: When did you first access (directly or through any other person) AHS documents in the private or personal work folders of any AHS employee assigned to the Risk Management and/or Claims Departments?

ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 3.

INTERROGATORY NO.5: When did you last access (directly or through any other person) AHS documents in the private or personal work folders of any AHS employee assigned to the Risk Management and/or Claims Department?

ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 3.

B. Interrogatories Regarding AHS Documents which Defendant Provided to Third Parties Identified by Defendant.

INTERROGATORY NO.6: Did you at any time deliver or disclose any AHS documents to the following entities:  (i) Federal Bureau of Investigation- FBI­ Tampa/Maitland Offices; (ii) Assistant United States Attorney- Sandra Diesler; (iii) Department of Justice- Washington D.C.; (iv) Attorney General Orlando Florida­ Medical Fraud Unit; (v) Government Accountability Project- GAP; (vi) Senator Charles Grass ley- Senate Finance Committee- Washington D.C;, (vii) Project on Government Oversight- POGO.

ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 3.

INTERROGATORY NO.7: If your answer to Interrogatory No.6 is yes, identify each AHS document that you delivered or disclosed to each person or entity and describe any communications with each person or entity about those documents.

ANSWER:

See answer to Interrogatory Number 3.

INTERROGATORY NO.8: Are copies or originals of each AHS document that you provided to the individuals or entities listed in response to Interrogatory No. 6 currently in your possession or control?

ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 3.

INTERROGATORY NO.9: If your answer to Interrogatory No. 8 is no, who has possession or control of each AHS documents.

ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 3.

II. The following Supplemental Interrogatories are based on information provided by Defendant regarding her alleged status as an FBI"Informant"

INTERROGATORY NO 10: Describe your interactions with the FBI as an alleged FBI "informant." Including the beginning and ending dates of your status as an alleged FBI informant.

ANSWER:

In an abundance of caution, I am asserting my constitutional privilege, i.e., my Fifth Amendment Rights. Without waiving my Fifth Amendment rights I contacted the Maitland FBI office and spoke to an agent who told me to come
to the FBI offices in Maitland the following morning at 8:00a.m., in April 2009. I arrived at the offices of the FBI and then met with two agents. They stated that
a. 1. would have to meet with them again, they gave me their contact information, and they asked for mine. I was then assigned an agent with whom I worked for ten months. I am listed as an FBI informant because of this case, and the FBI has been investigating this situation through its Maitland office. Due to the serious nature of the situation and the investigation by law enforcement, I have been told not to discuss the matter/names of agents and I will have to refer you to the FBI offices in Tampa, 5525 W. Gray Street, Tampa, FL 33609, for any further information.

INTERROGATORY NO 11: Provide the names, job titles and contact information for the FBI officials or agents with whom you have interacted with as an alleged FBI informant.

ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 10.

INTERROGATORY NO 12:  Provide any identifying information or numbers(s) which the FBI has provided to you as an alleged FBI informant.

ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 10.

Ill. The following Supplemental Interrogatories Are Based on Defendant's Counterclaim(s) against Plaintiff

INTERROGATORY NO 13: Identify all persons who have knowledge of any facts which pertain to your counterclaim(s) against AHS in this lawsuit and describe the particular knowledge that each person possesses.

ANSWER:

I am asserting my constitutional privilege, my Fifth Amendment Right to this Interrogatory. Additionally, and without waiving my Fifth Amendment Right, on
September 1,2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Compel. In doing so, the Court directed the Plaintiff to file Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Production to clarify its requests. On September 12, 2011, the Plaintiff served its Supplemental Interrogatories Numbered 1-12. On October 14, 2011, the Law Firm of Riley Allen Law, entered its appearance. On October 21, 2011, Plaintiff served Amended Supplemental Interrogatories, however, Plaintiff was not given leave from the Court to add additional interrogatories after serving the Supplemental Interrogatories on September 12, 2011.

Please note that on May 19, 2010, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, AHS, served Fifty-One (51) Interrogatories including sub-parts upon on Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, Patricia Moleski.  Ms. Moleski answered those Interrogatories and filed the answers with the Court on August 31, 2010.

Due to the Court's Order on September 1, 2011, Ms. Moleski has now answered an additional 14 interrogatories for a total of 65 answered Interrogatories. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340 states "in part":

"The interrogatories shall not exceed 50, including all subparts, unless the court permits a larger number on motion and notice and for good cause."

The Court allowed Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, AHS to serve additional Supplemental Interrogatories in its Order executed on September 1, 2011 and those Supplemental Interrogatories were served on the Defendant/Counter­ Plaintiff on September 12, 2011.

Therefore, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Patricia Moleski objects to this Interrogatory served after the Court's September 1, 2011, Order.

INTERROGATORY NO 14: Describe any injuries and damages you have suffered due to the actions of AHS alleged in your counterclaim(s).

ANSWER:
On September 1, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiffs Motion to Compel.  In doing so, the Court directed the Plaintiff to file Supplemental Interrogatories and Request for Production to clarify its requests. On September 12, 2011, the Plaintiff served its Supplemental Interrogatories numbered 1-12.  On October 14, 2011, the Law Firm of Riley Allen Law entered its appearance. On October 21, 2011, Plaintiff served Amended Supplemental Interrogatories; however, Plaintiff was not given leave from the Court to add additional interrogatories after serving the Supplemental Interrogatories on September 12, 2011.

Please not that on May 19, 2010, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, AHS, served Fifty-One (51) Interrogatories including sub-parts upon on Defendant/Counter Plaintiff, Patricia Moleski. Ms. Moleski answered those Interrogatories and filed the answers with the Court on August 31, 2010.

Due to the Court's Order on September 1, 2011, Ms. Moleski has now answered an additional14 Interrogatories for a total of 65 answered Interrogatories. Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.340 states "in part":

''The interrogatories shall not exceed 50, including all subparts, unless the court permits a larger number on motion and notice and for good cause."

The Court allowed Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, AHS to serve additional Supplemental Interrogatories in its Order executed on September 1, 2011 and those Supplemental Interrogatories were served on the Defendant/Counter­ Plaintiff on September 12, 2011.

Therefore, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff, Patricia Moleski objects to this Interrogatory served after the Court's September 1, 2011, as harassing.

INTERROGATORY NO. 15 State the amount of money you are seeking based on your counterclaim against AHS and describes how the amount was calculated.

ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 14.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16 Please identify or describe any document(s) upon which you have based your computation of damages for your counterclaim(s) against AHS.

ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 14.

INTERROGATORY NO. 17 Have you worked in any manner for any employer or company (except AHS) between May 1, 2009, and the present. For each employer/company  please provide the following information:

a. a.  Your dates of employment, position, and job duties;

a. b.  Your gross earnings and any benefits from each employer to date;

a. c.  The reason(s) for ceasing work with each employer.

ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 14.

INTERROGATORY NO. 18 Identify every source of income you have received since May 1, 2009 (except AHS), including, but not limited to, compensation from employment, self-employment, business activities, unemployment compensation, other governmental benefits, and loans/advances from family, friends, or any other person.  For each source of income, please state the following.

a. a.  The name, address, and telephone number of each source of income;
b. b.  The amount of income received;

a. c.  The dates the income was received.
b.
ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 14.

INTERROGATORY NO. 19:  Have you applied for employment with any persons, companies or agencies since May 1, 2009?  If yes, state the following:

a. a.  The name, address, and telephone number of every person, company, or agency with whom you have applied for employment.

a. b.  The date of each employment application;
b. c.  The position applied for;
c. d.  The date and source of all offers and the salary or hourly wage promised.

ANSWER:

See Answer to Interrogatory Number 14.


MOTION FOR CIVIL COMTEMPT


1 | P a g e
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND
FOR ORANGE COUNTY, FLORIDA
CASE NO.: 2009-CA-019445-O
JUDGE PATRICIA DOHERTY
Patricia Moleski
Counter Plaintiff, Defendant
V.
Adventist Health System,
Counter Defendant, Plaintiff

eFiled in the Office of Clerk of Court, Orange County Florida 2012 Apr 18 06:01 PM Lydia Gardner

MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT AGAINST ADVENTIST HEALTH SYSTEM, LISTED JUDGES, ORANGE COUNTY COURT NINTH CIRCUIT AND AHS ACTING COUNSEL FOR:
• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL        WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS

Adventist Health System
Judge Frederick Lauten
Judge Marshall Kest
Judge Evans
Nicolette Vilmos – Broad and Cassel
Judge Patricia Doherty
Jim Kizziar – Bracewell and Guiliani
Orange County Court Ninth Circuit

I. Adventist Health System and Risk/Compliance Executives

Defendant, Patricia Moleski, files this Motion for Civil Contempt against Adventist Health System and listed Judges and acting counsel for violations of State and Federal Whistleblower laws & violations of Fifth Amendment Rights and Fraudulent/Vexatious Litigation. AHS and its affiliates are violating State and Federal Whistleblower laws through illegal manipulations in order to discredit/incriminate/set up its previous employee in retaliation for reporting intra-organizational crime to the FBI, and for her participation in an FBI investigation regarding the fraud, overdose of patients, and corruption within some of Orlando’s law firms who received kickbacks from AHS, and HIPPA violations by its Assistant Risk Director for entering into the Electronic Medical Record of patients who are litigating against Adventist Health System and/or its facilities/hospitals. Adventist Health System filed its injunction through Orange County Courts four months after Ms. Moleski reported their illegal activities to The Global Compliance Hotline and the FBI.

Ms. Moleski notified the courts at the first hearing with Judge Evans as to her status with the FBI, and the investigation of Adventist Health by the FBI .The courts allowed a continuance of this litigation despite Ms. Moleski’s status as a Federal/State Witness and Whistleblower, and after her eight document submissions to this court’s docket from AHCA, OSHA, the EEOC, Governor Crist’s OIG, Assistant U.S. Attorney Sandra Diesler, U.S. Attorney General’s office, Medical Fraud Unit – Orlando Office and the U.S. Office of Civil Rights.

Adventist Health is pursuing this issue to get their hands on information regarding the Federal investigation into Risk Management, so that they can shield themselves from incrimination from HIPPA violations, lawsuits, and State and Federal penalties. Whistleblower Patricia Moleski is being retaliated against by AHS for revealing their attachment to a ring of corruption within Orlando by taking the light off of the illegal activities of Adventist Health System executives and attempting to discredit, defamate, and push civil contempt against her through its connections to the Orange County Courts and affiliated Judges.

AHS’ acting counsel, Ms. Vilmos, Mr. Kizziar, the Orange County Courts and its appointed Judges, have been put on notice as to the investigation of Adventist Health System and law firms within the Orlando area regarding patient overdose, conspiracy to cover up HIPPA violations and kickbacks.

Ms. Moleski has submitted exhibits to show that she has participated in investigations within her Counterclaim and additional exhibits displayed on this case docket, showing her relationship with law enforcement four months prior to Adventist filing this lawsuit against her.

Ms. Moleski has shown that the courts are closely tied to the Adventist Executives through MyRegion.org and WMFE and all of their affiliates and the recusal of Judge Lauten have proven the close relationship between these entities. Ms. Moleski believes the whole court system in Orange County Florida is compromised and has a huge conflict of interest regarding this case and other cases represented by Adventist Health System that the citizens of Florida have no knowledge of, as it is shown through the monetary connections between Florida Hospital, Adventist Health System and its twenty-three located hospitals within Florida, MyRegion.org. (Judge Lauten’s wife is the president of this organization), WMFE (AHS CEO Don Jernigan is the President of this broadcasting agency), the city of Orlando, and affiliated Judges and Commissioners.

Because of these close monetary ties, Ms. Moleski believes that the Orange County Courts and acting AHS counsel are trying to set her up for criminal prosecution through false accusations and discrediting her status by violating her rights to Fifth Amendment provisions. They are manipulating agencies/the courts to accomplish this task. The charges/Motion for Civil Contempt filed on this day against Adventist Health System for:

• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
   WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE

II. Judge Lauten

Ms. Moleski has clearly shown a line of corruption through the recusal of Judge Lauten and Judge Kest. Judge Lauten sat on this case for over a year, while he knew of his wife’s’ position of President of MyRegion.org and the organizations close monetary tie to Adventist Health System and Florida Hospital. Three of AHS’ executives sit on the board of MyRegion.org as well as Judges within Orange County Courts and political figures within Florida and many law firms. Still Judge Lauten continued to misuse his status in this Whistleblower case, making comments at hearings stating that “Ms. Moleski is either a Whistleblower or a thief.” Judge Lauten then took control of a box submitted by Ms. Moleski’s previous counsel, Brad Conway after he knew of the severity of the investigation against Adventist Health System and the illegal maneuvers of AHS. The rights of Ms. Moleski were violated, including both her right to her own attorney client information and her rights to due process.

Judge Lauten misused the courts and violated judicial law by knowingly sitting on this case, while his wife sat as President of MyRegion.org along with two of Adventist Health System Executives. This shows incredible disregard for judicial law and corruption within the Ninth Circuit Courts. Ms. Moleski filed a Protective Order regarding the contents of the box and requested that Judge Lauten turn the box over to Florida AUSA Sandra Diesler, Judge Lauten denied this right to Ms. Moleski and the many victims of AHS by disclosing the investigation. Judge Lauten should not be listening to any cases in a judicial capacity for or against AHS because of the close monetary ties to he, the Orange County Courts, MyRegion.org and his wife.

Judge Lauten has abused his authority and the Judiciary Committee will be notified of this filing for civil contempt. Ms. Moleski filed for a recusal of Judge Lauten and he did submit to her request after she found that he had a monetary relationship with AHS through his wife and MyRegion.org. The charges/Motion for Civil Contempt filed on this day against Judge Frederick Lauten for:

• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
  WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS

III. Judge Kest

On August 30 and 31, 2011, Judge Kest entered and conducted a hearing regarding his in camera inspection of certain sealed documents deposited with the Court (from Ms. Moleski’s prior terminated counsel, Brad Conway) and the pending motions in this case, including AHS’ Motion to Compel. Judge Kest violated the rights of Ms. Moleski, and the thousands of overdose/fraud victims of AHS. Eight months before this hearing Ms. Moleski filed a Protective Order which was never heard by Judge Kest. Judge Kest then stated four months after the Protective Order filing that “he had already taken the box submitted by Brad Conway home for viewing 3 months prior to the August 30 & 31 hearing.”

Judge Kest’s open admission to contamination of evidence should be investigated, as Ms. Moleski submitted for his recusal publically because of his relationship with MyRegion.org and WMFE. During the hearing, the Court granted AHS’ Motion to Compel as well as all other Motions filed against Ms. Moleski, continuing to violate her rights to due process with a severe degree of bias by Judge Kest. Judge Kest additionally denied every filing made by Ms. Moleski, showing yet another act of discrimination and bias after he had documented proof of Ms. Moleski’s relationship to investigations regarding AHS. Judge Kest continued bias against Ms. Moleski showing a rabid, Roland Friesler -like mentality towards her, demanding that she testify a certain way as to disclose to AHS the totality of investigations.

Judge Kest made every effort to comply with AHS and its counsel and showed blatant favoritism towards AHS. Judge Kest went as far as to attempt to make Ms. Moleski testify regarding her knowledge of papers within a box that she did not turn over to the court, once again violating her rights as a federal witness/Whistleblower. Ms. Moleski stated that “she did not put any papers into a box and does not know how Mr. Conway received them” and that “the box should be turned over to the Assistant US Attorney’s office as not to jeopardize the investigation against AHS.” Judge Kest clearly violated all State and Federal investigations by entering into the contents of the box in the courtroom and turning materials over to AHS without the permission of law enforcement agencies and the victims of AHS’ fraud.

Judge Kest was clearly informed of all investigations, but continued to violate the rights of Ms. Moleski, the rights of patient victims of AHS and the rights of Worker Compensation recipients. Even after Ms. Moleski posted to this court’s docket letters from the Assistant US Attorney, AHCA and the Office of Inspector General with her Whistleblower Case number, Judge Kest continued his violations of judicial procedure. Then, by additionally contaminating evidence by entering the box without ever hearing Ms. Moleski’s Motion for Protective Order and “taking home its contents” after Ms. Moleski filed for his recusal regarding his close association to AHS executives stating that “he had already taken the box to his home for viewing.”

In addition, Ms. Moleski never told the court that she removed or took anything and Judge Kest allowed AHS attorney’s to leave off the word “allegedly”, within the courtroom and Motions filed, showing bias and violation of her rights to
a just and fair public jury trial. Judge Kest has denied seven of Ms Moleski’s Motions with the courts. Ms. Moleski filed for a recusal of Judge Kest after finding that he contributed yearly to WMFE (a broadcasting agency) where AHS CEO Don Jernigan was acting President of this organization. WMFE receives contributions from MyRegion.org additionally. This relationship is tied to Judge Lauten and his wife Shelly Lauten. However, Judge Kest refused Ms.Moleski’s request and finally recused himself five months later after finding that his son is a practicing attorney within the firm of Ms. Moleski’s recently withdrawn attorney, Riley Allen.

Ms. Moleski publically complained in an interview about the connection between Judge Kest and Adventist Health System and afterward he summarily ordered Ms. Moleski to appear in Orange County Courts in spite of her obvious financial and familial limitations and obligations, as she lives 1200 miles away from Orlando. Judge Kest went as far as to order her to violate the laws within the State of Ohio where she resides by leaving her son/elderly parents to attend hearings in Florida.
Ms. Moleski has informed the court that she cannot reveal the details of the FBI investigation against AHS executives and will continue to invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights.

The Orange County Courts continue to coerce Ms. Moleski and tell her that she cannot invoke her Fifth Amendment Rights and that she will have to set up a hearing to get permission from Judge Doherty to invoke those rights, yet another display of bias towards Ms. Moleski. Judge Kest is one of six Judges to sit on this case, yet another display of incredible disregard towards the rights of Ms. Moleski. This Motion shows Systemic Corruption within Orange County and the extreme monetary ties between AHS, the courts, judges, and hospitals. The Orange County Courts are illegally hearing lawsuits filed on behalf and against AHS, as there is a monetary relationship between each through MyRegion.org and WMFE.

Ms. Moleski filed a Motion to Recuse Judge Kest on the basis of bias and his affiliation to the executives of AHS monetarily. Judge Kest ignored all of Ms. Moleski’s filings with the court after she requested his recusal, by denying seven of her Motions submitted during the duration of this case. In addition, Judge Kest completely ignored ten filings from Ms. Moleski regarding her unavailability to appear in Florida. Ms. Moleski stated that she gives care to her parents and child, and is in fear for safety after the filing of sexual harassment to the EEOC regarding AHS Risk/Compliance VP, Sandra Johnson and AHS Claims Director, Bill Morgan, and the fact that she was shot at while in Florida.

After this clear biased display and disregard for Florida State and Federal Whistleblower laws, Judge Kest further ordered Moleski to answer AHS’ supplemental interrogatories within 15 days and she clearly and respectfully complied with all requests, with the exception of detailed FBI investigation information. With respect to AHS’ interrogatory regarding AHS documents in her possession or control, Judge Kest instructed Moleski that counsel will submit a follow-up interrogatory drafted very specifically and Ms.Moleski answered all of these submissions in addition, a total of 75 questions.

Even though Judge Kest clearly threatened Ms. Moleski, insisting that she violate her own rights to Fifth Amendment privileges and answer questions that would further funnel her into a tighter gauntlet of bullying designed by AHS council to lead her to self-incrimination, she still submitted the interrogatories in compliance to the court and a compliance notice was submitted to the docket. Even through this treatment, Ms. Moleski has in fact complied with all requests by the court despite the courts and AHS blatant disregard for Whistleblower Laws/Rights and violations of AHS employee handbook policy stating that AHS cannot take any action against an employee who is a Whistleblower, according to State and Federal Law. This clearly shows violations regarding the decisions/behavior and clear disregard for FBI investigations by Judge Kest and this will be reported to the Judiciary Committee. The charges/Motion for Civil Contempt filed on this day against Judge Marshall Kest for:

• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
   WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS

IV. Orange County Courts

Ms. Moleski believes that these actions show malicious litigation on the part of the Orange County Courts, Adventist Health System and it executives, and the representing counsel of AHS. Ms. Moleski intends to report the maliciousness of this case, discriminatory violations, civil rights violations regarding the Fifth Amendment and the violation of her rights to due process to the Judicial Committee, and the Attorney Disciplinary Committee designated within the State court’s jurisdiction. The Orange County Courts continue to allow Adventist Health System and affiliated hospitals to litigate within the Ninth Circuit Court with full knowledge of the monetary relationship between MyRegion.org, WMFE, Judges, and courts within seven Florida counties. Ms. Moleski has reason to believe that this case should be transferred to another court outside of the AHS region and its facilities in order to gain an unbiased and fair trial regarding this injunction and her Whistleblower counterclaim. Ms. Moleski feels that AHS is attempting to violate her right to a jury trial and her right to plead the Fifth Amendment through illegal
manipulations and she has shown this through the close monetary relationship between AHS, Myregion.org, the Orange County Courts and affiliated Judges, as AHS even has its own executives that sit on the board of these organizations and give funds to the Orange County Courts and courts within seven Florida counties. This motion will be turned over to the US Attorney General’s office to investigate the monetary connection between AHS, MyRegion.org, WMFE and the Orange County Courts and if it is legal for AHS cases to be heard in the Florida Courts that receive monetary supplication from AHS/AHS Facilities. In addition, an audit of the financial resources of Orange County Courts and each of the judges listed within this Motion, as well as AHS and all its executives will be requested and turned over to the securities exchange commission. The charges/Motion for Civil Contempt filed on this day against The Orange County Courts Ninth Circuit for:

• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
15 | P A G E
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS

V. Judge Patricia Doherty

Ms Moleski has found that the current Judge, Patricia Doherty, was an attorney with Judge Kest for numerous years in a law firm located in Orlando, and that Judge Kest showed through newspaper articles his favor of Judge Doherty’s appointment to a judicial seat. Judge Kest and Judge Doherty are personal friends outside of the courts and Ms. Moleski has been prejudiced by Judge Doherty, as she too is filing orders for Ms. Moleski to appear in Florida for a deposition, in spite of the fact that she has been repeatedly notified of Ms. Moleski’s financial inability to travel to Florida. Judge Doherty stepped beyond judicial boundaries by setting a hearing to discuss whether or not Ms. Moleski has the right to plead the Fifth Amendment. At this hearing, Ms. Moleski asked Judge Doherty if she might read a statement to the court on her own behalf regarding her rights to the Fifth Amendment. Judge Doherty asked Ms. Moleski how long the statement was and Ms. Moleski told her approximately 8-10 minutes. Judge Doherty then told her to read it. When Ms. Moleski began to read her statement, Judge Doherty was told by AHS
attorneys that they objected and kept interrupting Ms. Moleski. Judge Doherty economized the time allotted for the hearing in favor of Adventist counsel, again showing total disregard for judicial process. Judge Doherty then told her that she could not read the letter, that she already knows the contents of Ms. Moleski’s statement. Ms. Moleski told the Judge that she has the right to read her statement to protect her Constitutional Rights. Judge Doherty only allowed Ms. Moleski to represent herself in bits and pieces, blocking her from her rights to the court. Judge
Doherty then notified Ms. Moleski that she would not be able to assert her Constitutional Rights and Ms. Moleski told the Judge that she did not have the authority to take away the 5th Amendment to the Constitution. Ms. Moleski asked Judge Doherty if she is mandating a new law in her court and Judge Doherty did not respond. The whole hearing was completely corrupt. Therefore, this case is egregiously biased against Ms.Moleski, as she has yet to find uncompromised counsel and has been discriminated against within the Orange County Courts
which the case docket clearly displays. Ms. Moleski will file her 11th Notice of Unavailability and Motion to Dismiss all Orders to participate in any/all physical appearances within the State of Florida. Ms. Moleski will report this motion to the Judiciary Committee regarding these violations. The charges for Civil Contempt are filed on this day against Judge Patricia Doherty
for:

• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
   WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS

VI. Nicolette Vilmos – Broad and Cassel

Ms. Moleski believes that these actions show malicious litigation on the part of the Orange County Courts, Adventist Health System and it executives, and the representing counsel of AHS. Ms. Moleski intends to report the maliciousness of this case, discriminatory violations, civil rights violations regarding the Fifth Amendment and the violation of her rights to due process to the Judicial Committee, and the Attorney Disciplinary Committee designated within the State court’s jurisdiction regarding the behavior of AHS counsel, Broad and Cassel. Ms. Moleski has reason to believe that this case should be transferred to a court outside of the AHS region and its facilities in order to gain an unbiased and fair trial regarding this injunction and her Whistleblower counterclaim. Ms. Moleski feels that AHS is attempting to violate her right to a jury trial and her right to plead the Fifth Amendment through illegal manipulations, and she has shown this through the close monetary relationship between AHS, Myregion.org, the Orange County Courts and affiliated Judges, as AHS even has its own executives that sit on the board of
these organizations and give funds to the Orange County Courts. Ms. Vilmos has continued to ignore the fact that Ms. Moleski is a Federal Witness to a crime that she reported four months before AHS filed their injunction and therefore the actions of Ms. Vilmos as acting partner of Broad and Cassel is harassing and defamating Ms. Moleski’s character and violating the rights of thousands of AHS patients/employees. Additionally, Ms. Vilmos has hindered State and Federal Investigations against AHS and her actions will be reported to the Attorney Disciplinary Committee. Ms. Vilmos also played a part in violating U.S. Constitutional Law regarding Ms. Moleski right to the 5th Amendment. The charges for Civil Contempt are filed on this day against Ms. Nicolette Vilmos – Broad and Cassel for:

• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
19 | P A G E
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
   WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS

VII. Jim Kizziar – Bracewell and Guiliani

Ms. Moleski believes that these actions show malicious litigation on the part of the Orange County Courts, Adventist Health System and it executives, and the representing counsel of AHS. Ms. Moleski intends to report the maliciousness of this case, discriminatory violations, civil rights violations regarding the Fifth Amendment and the violation of her rights to due process to the Judicial Committee, and the Attorney Disciplinary Committee designated within the State court’s jurisdiction. Ms. Moleski has reason to believe that this case should be transferred to a court outside of the AHS region and its facilities in order to gain an unbiased and fair trial regarding this injunction and her Whistleblower counterclaim. Ms. Moleski feels that AHS is has violated her right to a jury trial and her right to plead the Fifth Amendment through illegal manipulations and she has shown this through the close monetary relationship between AHS, Myregion.org, the Orange County Courts and affiliated Judges, as AHS even has its own executives that sit on the board of these organizations and give funds to the Orange County Courts. Mr. Jim Kizziar has continued to ignore the fact that Ms. Moleski is a Federal Witness to a crime that she reported five months before AHS filed their injunction and therefore the actions
of Mr. Jim Kizziar as acting partner of Bracewell and Giuliani is harassing and defamating Ms. Moleski’s character and violating her Civil Rights. Additionally, Mr. Jim Kizziar has hindered State and Federal Investigations against AHS and his actions will be reported to the Attorney Disciplinary Committee. The charges for Civil Contempt are filed on this day against Attorney Jim Kizziar – Bracewell and Guiliani for:

• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – 5TH AMENDMENT
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
   WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS

HISTORY

In February of 2009, Ms Moleski reported to her supervisors that she was told to delete a suicide record that they reported as a duplicate and it was not. She then reported its alteration to her supervisor through email and on March 19, 2009 she filed a Global Compliance Hotline Complaint regarding the severity of the situation.

In April of 2009, Ms. Moleski then called the
Maitland FBI office regarding her fear of illegal activity. During that phone call, Ms Moleski was told to appear in their offices the following morning at 8 am. Ms. Moleski appeared and was told at this meeting by two agents that she would be reporting to one of them and they exchanged phone numbers.

Ms. Moleski also reported the situation to AHCA Outpatient Services- Jack Plagee, the EEOC and OSHA in March of 2009.

In May of 2009, Ms. Moleski was interviewed at a meeting by Sandra Johnson, AHS VP Compliance/Risk/Claims. During this meeting Ms. Johnson angrily questioned Ms. Moleski, but Ms. Moleski could not completely answer her questions, as she was told by FBI agents not to relay her participation in the FBI fraud investigation of Adventist Health System. Ms. Johnson would not allow Ms. Moleski to answer questions and kept telling Ms. Moleski to “answer yes or no,” after Ms. Johnson’s knowledge to Ms. Moleski’s Global Compliance Hotline call three months prior regarding a baby death deletion, suicide deletion and the sexual harassment EEOC report, which included Ms. Johnson. Ms. Johnson then suspended Ms. Moleski at this meeting the day after Ms. Moleski reported details regarding Ms. Johnson to AHS Human Resources regarding sexual harassment.

In June of 2009, three months after Ms. Moleski’s participation with the FBI, AHS through Sandra Johnson, then filed an injunction against Ms.Moleski falsely accusing her of violating AHS policy and HIPPA violations, after Ms. Moleski reported AHS Assistant Risk Director of entering illegally into patients medical records.

In April of 2010, Judge Lauten took control of a box from Ms. Moleski’s terminated counsel, Brad Conway, telling Ms. Moleski that he would hold the contents for her, and that a special magistrate was to determine the contents and it was of no interest to AHS. There was no proprietary information or HIPPA information. The box
had nothing, only personal emails. During this hearing Ms. Moleski filed a Counter claim (A Counter Claim is a separate suit based on totally different facts.)
 The interrogatories do not state that anything was taken or turned over to authorities; it states that they were reported to the FBI and those listed entities.

In July of 2010, Ms Moleski found that Judge Lauten was compromised and had a monetary relationship with AHS through MyRegion.org and was recused from this
case. After the recusal of Judge Lauten, Judge Kest was appointed to the case and Ms. Moleski filed for his recusal after finding he has a monetary relationship with AHS, MyRegion.org, WMFE and WMFEs’acting president AHS’ CEO Don Jernigan. Judge Kest refused the recusal and then ordered Ms. Moleski to appear in Florida when he knew of her poor financial status.

Judge Kest then recused himself from the case after finding that his son was a partner in Riley Allen law firm, who, at the time, was representing Ms. Moleski. After the recusal of Judge Kest, then Judge Julie O’Brien was appointed to the case for one month. After the abrupt recusal of Judge Julie O’Brien, long time friend of Judge Kest, Judge Patricia Doherty was appointed to the case.

Judge Doherty then set a hearing violating Ms. Moleski’s right to the 5th Amendment
stating “you do not have the right to plead the 5th Amendment and I will tell you if you can or cannot plead the 5th Amendment.”

Ms. Moleski requests the court to grant her Motion for Civil Contempt against Adventist Health System, listed Judges, and AHS acting counsel for violations of State and Federal Whistleblower laws, harassment of a Federal Witness, Fifth Amendment Violations & Fraudulent/Vexatious litigation and coercion. Ms. Moleski seeks the Court for IMPOSITION OF SANCTIONS against each listed and a dismissal of the case/injunction against her, as it shows egregiously biased decisions and violates State and Federal Whistleblower Law/Rights and her right to the 5th
Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The False Claims Act protects Ms. Moleski from this harassment and seeks the Supreme Court of Florida to review this case, along with the Federal Court of Florida. But, by way of legal history as concerns the FCA, take for example the alleged “modification-of-records” issue and whether there is a link to the government.

Each time a health care facility “manipulates” the outcome of treatment for a patient that is subsidized by the government by changing the record, i.e., because the patient was improperly overdosed and died, but the hospital does not want to admit responsibility for killing the patient so it manipulates the record, the government has been defrauded. The outcome has been changed yet the government has paid for treatment that actually killed the patient instead of helping the patient. If the government doesn’t get what it paid for (it pays for “care”), the claim is “false.”
When the alleged identified “care” is not really provided, the claim is false. If the claims submitted to the government falsely represent the underlying claims (i.e., it was an overdose and not an “unexpected” death of a baby as claimed), then the damage to the government flows from the abuse of creating the false claim. There is a “failure-of-care” component to the False Claims Act. When “care” breaks down to the point it’s no longer “care,” all the claims submitted are false. Manipulations of outcomes are false claims. The FCA speaks for itself and the exposure
for such conduct is certainly there.

Ms. Moleski will be filing another Counter Claim against all listed within this Motion for Civil Contempt, and a demand for Jury Trial to this injunction for these listed violations:

• VIOLATIONS OF STATE AND FEDERAL WHISTLEBLOWER LAWS
• HARASSMENT OF A FEDERAL & STATE WITNESS
• VIOLATIONS OF THE US CONSTITUTION – AMENDMENT 5TH
• CORRUPTION
• FRAUDULENT & VEXATIOUS LITIGATION AGAINST A STATE/FEDERAL
WITNESS
• COERCION/EXTORTION
• FALSE CLAIMS ACT VIOLATIONS
• WORKERS COMPENSATION VIOLATIONS
• SEXUAL HARASSMENT
• CONCEALING/CONTAMINATING EVIDENCE
• ATTORNEY/CLIENT PRIVILEGE VIOLATIONS

CONCLUSION

Ms. Moleski has made every effort to conclude this action but AHS, Ms. Vilmos and Mr. Kizziar, The Orange County Courts and listed Judges continue to ignore both the Florida State/Federal Whistleblower Laws, State and Federal Witness Laws, the evidence provided and registered before this injunction was ever filed, and the investigations of numerous law enforcement agencies, State agencies (see exhibits filed on 2-23-2012) and continue their harassment. For the reasons stated above, Ms. Moleski requests that this Court or The Florida Supreme Court grant this Motion.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/Patricia Moleski

IN ACCORDANCE WITH BUSINESS COURT RULE 5.3

The Pro Se counsel, Patricia Moleski, conferred with Ms. Vilmos and Mr. Kizziar on this Motion
and they have opposed.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was furnished this day of
March, 2012 via electronic mail through the Orange County Clerk of Courts ECF system to the
following:

AHS Attorneys
Attorney Nicolette Vilmos
Attorney Jim Kizziar
Ms. Moleski prior counsel
Attorney Brad Conway
Attorney Riley Allen
Attorney Joseph Egan
Judges
Judge Evans
Judge Frederick Lauten
Judge Marshall Kest
Judge Julie O’Brien
Judge Patricia Doherty