Case No. 18-cv-80176-BLOOM/Reinhart  7  As for the Sunbiz filings, the Defendant contends that the March 28, 2014, Sunbiz filing  evidences that Nguyen and Coin Exch were members, because Nguyen listed herself as the  registered agent and “MS,” and Coin Exch as “DR.”Id.At the Hearing, the Defendant argued that  “DR” stood for “director” but that there was some ambiguity as to what “MS” possibly meant.  Defendant claims that “M” could be an abbreviation for “manager,” however, it could also stand  for “member.” ECF No. [256], at 35:13-16 (“But Judge, for the purpose of this discussion, we can  think of ‘M’ as manager. But I just want to suggest to the Court the way the State sets this up  there’s an ambiguity and it could also mean member.”).  Taking the 2014 Sunbiz filing at face value, it cannot be discerned that Nguyen nor Coin-  Exch were listed as membersof W&K. Indeed, in the March 2014 Sunbiz filing, Nguyen solely  listed herself as W&K’s “registered agent” and “MS.” ECF No. [83-25]. Nguyen further listed  Coin Exch as holding the position of “DR.”Id.Sunbiz provides a “Title Abbreviations” index for  the public to utilize.SeeECF No. [159-3]. This index states that the list of abbreviations is not  exhaustive and further, that other abbreviations “may be used that are not identified.” However,  the index provides that the listed abbreviations can hold the following meanings: 1) M = Manager;  2) S = Secretary; and 3) D = Director. ECF No. [159-3], at 3-4. Therefore, the evidence the  Defendant attempts to utilize to support the additional membership of Nguyen and Coin-Exch in  W&K is completely speculative in nature.  Concerning the May 1, 2014, letter from Ira Kleiman to the ATO, this document evidences  solely Ira Kleiman’s belief that Nguyen was a director of W&K.SeeECF No. [144-7], at 2 (“I  understand that Ms[.] Nguyen was appointed as a director [of W&K].”). Even the Defendant   Defendant claims he has not been in contact with Nguyen “in years,” the Court questioned how the Defendant came into possession of the emails. The Defendant claimed he received them as “records” from companies when he left Australia.  Case 9:18-cv-80176-BB Document 265 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/15/2019 Page 7 of 12