limited purpose of challenging this Court's jurisdiction over him, contending that he has not been doing business in Florida, he has no nexus with Florida and that, while he is an attorney, he is not licensed to practice in Florida and his relationship with the Debtor was not an attorney client relationship. Mr. Mahler claims that he merely acted as a liaison between the Debtor and the Debtor's then counsel of record, the law firm of Miller and Hollander. Mr. Mahler also urged that in the event this Court rejects the jurisdictional challenge that the funds he admittedly received came from properties which were exempt and would not be subject to the administration by the Trustee in a Chapter case. He also contends that $2,500.00 of the moneyObjection to the Debtor's claim of homestead exemption and to the exemption of funds in the IRA account. The validity of the Trustee's challenge to the Debtor's homestead claim and to the funds in the IRA account has been set for hearing on September 21, 2006 at 9:00 a.m. The funds in the Debtor's IRA are not exempt until this Court has ruled and resolved the dispute in favor of the Debtor and overrules the Trustee's Objection concerning the homestead claim and the exemption claim in the IRA. Consequently, this Court is satisfied that Mr. Mahler's alternative argument is without merit.
Based on the foregoing, this Court is satisfied that Mr. Mahler's challenge to the personal jurisdiction over his person is without merit and his contention that the funds