however, consistently showed that Ferber’s role was solely advisory in nature. Ferber provided his clients with debt financing and financial planning advice. There was no evidence presented in the government’s case that tended to show that Ferber was ever given the authority to alter the legal relationship between the Public Entity Clients and third parties. While Ferber often made suggestions or recommendations concerning various courses of action, the power to actually act on those decisions was retained by the Public Entity Clients themselves. Nor was there any evidence presented during the case-in-chief that Ferber’s Public Entity Clients controlled the means by which he provided his financial advisory services. Cf. United States v. Tianello, 860 F.Supp. 1521, 1524 (M.D.Fla.1994) (<HOLDING>). For these reasons, this Court concluded that
holding that questioning of a juvenile by a principal in presence of a police officer did not constitute an interrogation because principal was sole questioner and was not acting as an agent for police holding that the lack of evidence of the alleged principals control over the alleged agent precludes the finding of an agency relationship holding that an agent owes a fiduciary duty to his principal holding that defendant was not an agent because alleged principal did not control means by which the defendants accomplished their duties holding that a principal is bound by a contract entered into by the principals agent on her behalf if the agent had authority to bind the principal