UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUItrSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISIO N

RICHARD STEVENS, on behalf of himselfand all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

V.

GLOBETEL COMMUNICATIONS CORP .,TIMOTHY HUFF and LAWRENCELYNCH,

Defendants .

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CIV-ALTONAGA

MAGIS T R ,TR JUDGE

rLIR.NO'F

Plaintiff, Richard Stevens ("Plaintiff'), alleges the following for his Co iijitiu4be above-

captioned matter . Plaintiff so alleges individually and on behalf of all person and entities (the

"Class") who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of GlobeTel ommunications

Corp. ("GTE" or the "Company"), between December 30, 2005 to April 11, 2006 inclusive (the

"Class Period") . The allegations contained herein are made upon information and belief, except as

to the allegations about Plaintiff and his counsel, which are made upon personal knowledge .

Plaintiffs information and belief is based, among other things, on investigations made by and

through his attorneys. Such investigation included, but has not been limited to, the review and

analysis of: (a) filings made by GTE with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission

(the "SEC") ; (b) press releases issued by the Company ; (c) newspaper, magazine, and other

periodical articles relating to GTE and the allegations contained therein ; and (d) other matters of

public record .

NATURE OF THE ACTIO N

1 . This is a class action on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of

GTE between December 30, 2005 to April 11, 2006, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") .

2 . Based in Pembroke Pines, Florida, GTE claims to develop and provide an integrated

suite of telecommunications products and services, as well as a whole host of financial services .

3 . Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants issued several statements which toute d

the consummation of a $600 million deal with a Moscow-based company named LLC Internafta to

install wireless networks in Russia's 30 largest cities . The truth, however, was that no such company

existed and that the deal, like so many of GTE's other business ventures, was in reality a sham .

4. On April 11, 2006, on the final news of the fact that GlobeTel's Russian venture was

false, the Company's stock dropped from $2 .10 to $1 .78, a drop of 15% . During the Class Period,

the stock traded as high as $3 .92 . As a result, investors have lost millions of dollars as a result of

the acts and omissions complained of herein .

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to : (a) Section 27 of the

Exchange Act, 15 U.S .C . § 78aa ; and (b) 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337 .

6. This action arises under and pursuant to : (a) Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, 15

U.S.C. § 78j(b) ; (b) Rule lOb-5 promulgated thereunder, 17 C .F.R. § 240.10b-5; and (c) Section

20(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U .S.C. § 78t(a) .

7 . Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U .S .C .

§ 78aa.

2

8. In furtherance of and in connection with the acts alleged herein, Defendants directly

or indirectly, used the means and instrumentalities of interstate commerce, including, but not limited

to, the mails, interstate telephonic communications, the Internet, and the facilities of the American

Stock Exchange (the "AMEX"), a national securities exchange .

PARTIES

9. Plaintiff purchased the Company's securities during the Class Period, as set forth

in the attached Certification, and was damaged thereby . Plaintiff resides in Hillsborough County,

New Hampshire .

10. Defendant GlobeTel Communications Corp . ("GTE" or the "Company") is a

corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware . It maintains its principal place of

business at 9050 Pines Blvd. Suite 110 Pembroke Pines, Florida 33024 .

11 . Defendant Timothy Huff ("Huff') is a Director of the Company and its Chief

Executive Officer .

12. Defendant Lawrence Lynch ("Lynch") is the Company's Chief Operating Officer and

acting Chief Financial Officer.

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

13 . The Company began as wholly-owned subsidiary of American Diversified Group,

Inc. ("ADGI") which was incorporated under the laws of the State of Nevada as Terra West

Homes, Inc . on January 16, 1979 and changed its name to ADGI on March 15, 1995 . Prior to the

Class Period, GTE was in the home building business, then the shock absorber business,

followed by the syphilis detection business, and more recently the telecommunications and

financial services business . Up until 2000, the Company operated out of a 600 square foot offic e

3

in Hickory Hill, North Carolina . At the start of 2000, the company merged with a Miami-based

company called Global Transmedia Comrnunucations Corp. ("Global") and changed its names to

GlobeTel Communications .

14 . In early 2004, GTE acquired a telecommunications company called Sanswire

Technologies Inc . ("Sanswire") for $3 million in GTE stock . The principle business of Sanswire

was a plan to fly geosynchronous blimps, called stratellites, 12 miles above the earth where the

stratosphere meets outer space . The blimps would be used to bounce telephone calls from one to

another .

15 . Throughout 2004 and 2005 GTE continued to regularly tout its blimp project,

among other business ventures .

16 . On May 23, 2005, following a reverse 15 :1 stock split, GTE stock began trading

on the AMEX .

False Statements

17. On December 30, 2005, the Company announced a "binding agreement" between

GlobeTel Wireless Corp . ("GTEW"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of GTE, and Moscow-based

LLC Internafta ("Internafta") to install wireless communications networks connecting Russia's

30 largest cities. The deal was valued at $600 million and would offer wireless telephony,

internet and television all over the same network . According to the Company's press release :

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Dec . 30, 2005--GlobeTelCommunications Corp . (AMEX:GTE) today announced that its GlobeTelWireless subsidiary has entered into a binding agreement to install wirelesscommunications networks in 30 cities throughout the Russian Federation,providing broadband, VOIP and DECt technologies .

4

GlobeTel Wireless has entered into an agreement with LLC Internafta("Internafta") of Moscow, Russia, whereby Internafta will pay to GlobeTelWireless a series of four construction payments totaling US$600 million for theinstallation of an array of proprietary networks to be installed in Russia's 30largest cities, starting with Moscow and St . Petersburg . GlobeTel Wireless willboth manage the completed network and will retain an ongoing 50% shareholdingin the operations of the network, allowing the Company to enjoy the significantbenefits of the recurring revenue stream. GlobeTel plans to roll out the network in3 stages, comprising 10 cities each, over the next 27 months .

Over the past six months, GlobeTel has had a number of key meetings withofficials at various levels of the Russian Government, including senior membersof the Russian Parliament (the "Duma") and various branches of the Russiantelecommunications and technology establishment . In early October, followingmonths of preliminary discussions, GlobeTel CEO Timothy Huff - along withGlobeTel Wireless President, Uli Altvater and Sanswire President Bob Jones -demonstrated a working version of the HotZone 4010 equipment that will formthe backbone of the new 30-city network . At that demonstration, the HotZone4010 system successfully provided internet and DECT phone connectivity insidethe Duma Building, quickly establishing its capabilities and ease of use . Largelyupon the strength of that presentation, GlobeTel immediately entered insubstantive negotiations with a group of prominent Russian investors for theimplementation of the network which has resulted in today's agreement .

"It is beyond exciting to be able to bring this level of connectivity to Russia," saidGlobeTel CEO Tim Huff. "Russia will, quickly and at a relatively modest cost,have a wireless infrastructure that will rival any in the industrialized world . Thispresents an amazing opportunity for us, for Russia and for our Russian partners .The Russian Internet market is severely limited by a lack of infrastructure and bythe high cost to individual users of obtaining high speed internet access, even inthose relatively rare cases where it is available . The GlobeTel Wireless networkwill provide city-wide high speed, wireless connectivity with the ability to providevoice-over IP telephony along with residential and business-based DECt service .DECt technology, particularly in conjunction with low-cost VoIP service, is thekey to delivering highly affordable wireless telephone and broadband access toareas with limited or high cost service . "

"Completely apart from the obvious economic rewards associated with aninvestment in this exciting new communications technology, we are most proud ofthe social, educational and community benefits that we are able to facilitate as partof the dramatic quality-of-life attributes which are rapidly emerging throughou tthe Russian Federation," stated Maxim Chernizov, one of the Founding Principalsof Internafta . "This initial step with GlobeTel - along with other very significan t

5

technology breakthroughs to follow - will prove to be significant for all of us inthe relatively near-term," he continued .

Uli Altvater, President of GlobeTel Wireless stated : "This is a very largeundertaking that will utilize the skills or more than 1,000 people in Russia ,Europe and the United States . This transaction will catapult GlobeTel to a positionas one of the top two suppliers and operators of wireless networks in the world . "

18 . On news of this announcement, GTE stock surged from $2 .19 to $3 .68 per share,

an increase of $1 .49 or over 75% on extremely heavy volume .

19. Following the December 30, 2005 announcement, the Company issued a press

release on January 9, 2006, providing additional details regarding the Russian deal including the

fact that the planned network would be operated by NuTel Wireless ("NuTel"), described by

GTE as "a Russian company 100% owned by a European Joint Venture company established by

GlobeTel and Internafta."

20. On January 31, 2006 and March 3, 2006, the Company issued press releases

explaining why GTE had not yet received the necessary funding from Internafata .

21 . On March 13, 2006, GTE issued a press release and stated that if Internafta did

not provide the required funds within one week, GTE would exercise its right to cancel the

contract . The press release stated :

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 13, 2006--GlobeTelCommunications Corp. (AMEX:GTE) today provided a brief update on the statusof the Russian network negotiations .

CEO Timothy Huff stated, "On March 2, we advised our shareholders thatInternafta requested an additional delay in the closing of the funding until theweek of March 6 . Since then, GlobeTel has provided Internafta and its banks witha significantly expanded business plan outlining in detail the company's programfor equipment manufacturing, delivery, installation, testing, monitoring, staffing,progress payment requirements, and other pertinent information. Internafta

6

advised us that its funding has been approved by its bank syndicate, subject onlyto the bank's final review and analysis of this GTE business plan .

"Although the contract signed between GlobeTel and Internafta did not specifysuch a financing of Internafta's funding obligation, and while GlobeTel did notanticipate that such a financing by Internafta would emerge as it has, we haveagreed to a continuance of the contract with Internafta until the end of this week,pending a final decision by Internafta's bank regarding a funding commitmentsecured by Internafta's assets .

"Should such a funding commitment not be forthcoming by the end of this week,or unless the banking syndicate provides written assurances to GlobeTel of theimminent delivery of such commitment, GlobeTel will have no choice but toexercise its right to default the contract for non-payment . This outcome would beunfortunate given the time and effort that our entire staff has dedicated to thistransaction . However, we're committed to more than twenty other GlobeTelWireless network projects requiring our time and attention . Further delays in theclosing of the Internafta transaction would only serve to distract our team fromthese immediate opportunities . "

On March 13, the stock price of GTE declined from $3 .23 to $2.56 per share, a drop of $ .67 or

20%.

22. Only four days later, however, on March 17, 2006, GTE issued yet another press

release explaining that the Russian deal was once again on and moving forward . The press

release stated :

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla .--(BUSINESS WIRE)--March 17, 2006--GlobeTelCommunications Corp . (AMEX :GTE) today announced that based upondifferences between the Company and Internafta on the financing process, theparties have agreed to revise their agreement to more accurately reflect the timingof payments GlobeTel expects to receive for the build out of the 30 city wirelessnetwork in Russia and allow Internafta additional time to begin making payments .

Internafta has informed GlobeTel that its bank recommends that smaller, morefrequent, progress payments be established so that the necessary staged paymentscan be delivered to GlobeTel as and when the network is delivered and installed .These smaller, more frequent, staged payments do not reduce the total capitalvalue of the agreement with GlobeTel Wireless or change any other terms of theagreement . GlobeTel will still receive $600 million for deployment of th e

7

network. The exact amount of the new proposed initial deposit, and the size andtiming of the new proposed progress payments, will be discussed and agreed withGlobeTel once the bank has completed its due diligence and when the bank groupformally accepts the terms of Internafta's proposed banking instrument .

The December 2005 contract called for four equal payments of US$150 millioneach, of which the first payment, representing an initial deposit, was to bereceived by GlobeTel in January 2006. On January 23, 2006, Internafta presentedto GlobeTel a document represented to be a Standby Letter of Credit drawn onBanco do Brasil S .A . (Rio de Janeiro) in the amount of $300 million . ThisStandby Letter of Credit was provided to facilitate the first phase of the networkconstruction . The banking instrument had a maturity date of two years and neededto be confirmed and accepted by a correspondent bank before GlobeTel couldreceive any funds from the instrument . The terms and conditions of whatconstituted an acceptable and functional banking instrument as it related to theDecember 2005 contract became a matter of interpretation between the parties .After extensive negotiations, Internafta agreed to take sole responsibility forfacilitating the financing of their banking instrument in order to be able to presentreadily-available funds to GlobeTel .

Timothy Huff, CEO of GlobeTel stated, "We are in constant communication withInternafta and believe that so long as we feel they are continuing to work in goodfaith and so long as substantive progress is being made on the transaction, it is inthe best interests of GlobeTel and its shareholders to allow the process to continueto its ultimate conclusion . This is a very large transaction that requires solutions tomany commercial issues, the implementation of tailored banking facilities, and theconformance to many international treaties, regulatory requirements and legalmatters . The parties continue to work in good faith and remain committed tobuilding a state-of-the-art wireless network in Russia. We feel that the processmust be given every reasonable opportunity to succeed given the commercialstakes involved . "

GlobeTel is in regular contact with Internafta, both in person and via a series oftelephone conference calls, concerning the progress of the transaction . FloydBradley, Managing Director of GlobeTel Wireless, met with Maxim Chernizov,the Director General of Internafta, on March 13th and again on March 15th inGermany in order to represent GlobeTel's interests in the ongoing bankingprocess .

During those discussions, Internafta informed GlobeTel that its bankinginstrument is being syndicated by a consortium of banks and that the leadinstitution is a major European bank, instead of the bank that GlobeTel had starte dthe process with . Internafta has stated that the banks have successfully completed

8

their due diligence regarding the underlying assets of Internafta's shareholders thatcollateralize the banking instrument . The remaining financing procedures are nowunder the control of the lead bank, and GlobeTel has been told by Internafta thatall financial institutions involved in the syndication process are attempting tofacilitate the transaction on a "time-is-of-the-essence" basis .

However, Internafta has also informed GlobeTel that the lead bank requiresadditional time in order to secure an external expert opinion to verify both thefeasibility of, and GlobeTel's ability to implement, the business plan for theRussian network . GlobeTel has been told that the bank and its external expertadvisors are currently evaluating the business plan that was developed byGlobeTel as part of the commercial justification of the planned Russian network.This expanded version of the business plan was recently delivered to Internafta asrequired by the lead bank's project financing and due diligence process .

On news that the Russian deal was back on, the stock rebounded and increased from $2 .33 to

$2.83 per share, an increase of $ .50 or 21% .

23. To date, nothing has occurred in connection with the Russian deal .

The Truth is Revealed

24. On April 11, 2006, Seth Jayson, writing for The Motley Fool, published the latest

in a series of articles on GTE, detailing the numerous failures by GTE to commence the vast

majority of its touted business ventures including its latest Russian deal .

25 . In particular, it was revealed that the Moscow-based Internafta - which roughly

translates to "international oil" - does not exist . Indeed, there is no record of any company by

that name in the Moscow area, let alone a company capable of undertaking and financing a $600

million telecommunications deal . As for Maxim Chernizov, who was described by GTE as a

"Founding Principal" and "Director General" of Internafta, little is known other than GTE's

statement that he made fortunes in "rare earth minerals ." In all, it was revealed that the Russian

9

deal was a hoax, entered into with a fictional partner, and for the sole purpose of artificially

inflating the Company's stock price .

26. On news of the revelations, the Company's stock price, which had been in decline

since the failure of the Russian deal to ever commence, dropped from $2 .10 to $1 .78, a drop of

15%. During the Class Period, the stock traded as high as $3 .92. As a result, investors have lost

millions of dollars as a result of the acts and omissions complained of herein .

APPLICABILITY OF PRESUMPTION OF RELIANCE :FRAUD-ON-THE-MARKET DOCTRINE

27 . At all relevant times, the market for GTE common stock was an efficient market for

the following reasons, among others :

a. GTE common stock was listed and actively traded, on the AMEX, a highlyefficient market ;

b. As a regulated issuer, the Company filed periodic public reports with theSEC;

c . GTE regularly issued press releases which were carried by national newswires . Each of these releases was publicly available and entered the publicmarketplace; and ,

d. GTE is a member of the Russell Microcap Index as well as the small-capRussell 2000 Index .

28. As a result, the market for GTE securities promptly digested current information with

respect to the Company from all publicly -available sources and reflected such information in the

Company' s stock price . Under these circumstances , all purchasers of GTE common stock during

the Class Period suffered similar injury through their purchase of stock at artificially inflated prices

and a presumption of reli ance applies .

NO SAFE HARBO R

10

29 . The statutory safe harbor provided for forward-looking statements under certain

circumstances does not apply to any of the allegedly false statements pleaded in this complaint . To

the extent that the specific statements pleaded herein were identified as forward-looking statements,

there were no meaningful cautionary statements identifying important factors that could cause actual

results to differ materially from those in the purportedly forward-looking statements . Alternatively,

to the extent that the statutory safe harbor does apply to any forward-looking statements pleaded

herein, Defendants are liable for those false forward-looking statements because at the time each of

those forward-looking was made the particular speaker knew that the particular forward-looking

statement was false, and/or the forward-looking statement was authorized and/or approved by an

executive officer of the Company who knew that those statements were false when made .

SCIENTER ALLEGATIONS

30. As alleged herein, Defendants acted with scienter in that Defendants knew that the

public documents and statements, issued or disseminated by or in the name of the Company were

materially false and misleading ; knew or recklessly disregarded that such statements or documents

would be issued or disseminated to the investing public ; and knowingly and substantially

participated or acquiesced in the issuance or dissemination of such statements or documents as

primary violators of the federal securities laws . As set forth elsewhere herein in detail, Defendants,

by virtue of their receipt of information reflecting the true facts regarding the Company and its

business practices, their control over and/or receipt of the Company's allegedly materially misleading

misstatements and/or their associations with the Company which made them privy to confidential

proprietary information concerning GTE were active and culpable participants in the fraudulent

scheme alleged herein . Defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded the falsity and misleading

11

nature of the information which they caused to be disseminated to the investing public . This case

does not involve allegations of false forward-looking statements or projections but instead involves

false statements concerning the Company's business, finances, and operations . The ongoing

fraudulent scheme described in this complaint could not have been perpetrated over a substantial

period of time, as has occurred, without the knowledge and complicity of the personnel at the highest

level of the Company, including Defendants .

31 . Defendants engaged in such a scheme to inflate the price of GTE common stock in

order to: (a) protect and enhance their executive positions and the substantial compensation and

prestige they obtained thereby; (b) enhance the value of their personal holdings of GTE common

stock and options; and, (c) to use the Company's stock as currency for further corporate acquisitions .

32. Defendant Huff is a 40% owner of Infinity Capital Partners ("Infinity") . During the

Class Period, Infinity filed planned share sales of roughly 285,000 shares of GTE stock for proceeds

of $639,000 .

33 . Also during the Class Period, Defendant Lynch filed a planned sale of shares of

roughly 519,000 shares of GTE stock for proceeds of over $1 .3 million .

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION S

34. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure on behalf of a Class, consisting of all persons who purchased or

otherwise acquired GTE common stock between December 30, 2005 to April 11, 2006, inclusive,

and who were damaged thereby. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, members of the

immediate family of each of the Defendants, any subsidiary or affiliate of GTE and the directors,

officers, and employees of GTE or its subsidiaries or affiliates, or any entity in which any exclude d

12

person has a controlling interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any

excluded person .

35 . The members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable . While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and

can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of

members of the Class located throughout the United States . Record owners and other members of

the Class may be identified from records maintained by the Company and/or its transfer agents and

may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, using a form of notice similar to that custom-

arily used in securities class actions .

36. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the other members of the Class as all

members of the Class were similarly affected by Defendants' wrongful conduct in violation of

federal law that is complained of herein .

37 . Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class

and has retained counsel competent and experienced in class and securities litigation .

38. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and

predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members of the Class . Among the

questions of law and fact common to the Class are :

a. whether the federal securities laws were violated by Defendants' acts and

omissions as alleged herein ;

b. whether Defendants participated in and pursued the common course of

conduct complained of herein ;

13

c. whether documents, press releases, and other statements disseminated to the

investing public and the Company's shareholders during the Class Period misrepresented material

facts about the business, finances, financial condition, and prospects of GTE ;

d. whether statements made by Defendants to the investing public during the

Class Period misrepresented and/or omitted to disclose material facts about the business, finances,

value, performance, and prospects of the Company;

e. whether the market price of GTE common stock during the Class Period was

artificially inflated due to the material misrepresentations and failures to correct the material

misrepresentations complained of herein ; and

f. the extent to which the members of the Class have sustained damages and the

proper measure of damages .

39 . A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy since joinder of all members is impracticable . Furthermore, as the

damages suffered by individual Class members may be relatively small, the expense and burden of

individual litigation make it impossible for members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs

done to them . There will be no difficulty in the management of this suit as a class action .

FIRST CLAIM

(Violations Of Section 10(b) Of The Exchange Act And Rule 10b-5Promulgated Thereunder Against All Defendants )

40. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained above .

41 . Each of the Defendants : (a) knew or recklessly disregarded material adverse non-

public information about the Company's financial results and then existing business conditions ,

14

which was not disclosed ; and (b) participated in drafting, reviewing and/or approving the misleading

statements, releases, reports, and other public representations of and about GTE .

42. During the Class Period, Defendants, with knowledge of or reckless disregard for the

truth, disseminated or approved the false statements specified above, which were misleading in that

they contained misrepresentations and failed to disclose material facts necessary in order to make

the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading .

43. Defendants have violated § 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule I Ob-5 promulgated

thereunder in that they : (a) employed devices, schemes and artifices to defraud ; (b) made untrue

statements of material facts or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make statements

made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading ; or (c) engaged in

acts, practices and a course of business that operated as a fraud or deceit upon the purchasers of GTE

stock during the Class Period .

44. Plaintiff and the Class have suffered damage in that, in reliance on the integrity of the

market, they paid artificially inflated prices for GTE stock . Plaintiff and the Class would not have

purchased GTE stock at the prices they paid, or at all, if they had been aware that the market prices

had been artificially and falsely inflated by Defendants' false and misleading statements .

SECOND CLAIM

(Violation Of Section 20(a) Of The Exchange ActAgainst Defendants Huff and Lynch )

45. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained above .

46. The individual Defendants Huff and Lynch acted as controlling persons of the

Company within the me aning of § 20(a) of the Exch ange Act. By reason of their senior executive

15

positions they had the power and authority to cause the Company to engage in the wrongful conduct

complained of herein .

47. By reason of such wrongful conduct, Defendants Huff and Lynch are liable pursuant

to § 20(a) of the Exchange Act . As a direct and proximate result of their wrongful conduct, Plaintiff

and the other members of the Class suffered damages in connection with their purchases of GTE

stock during the Class Period .

PRAYER FOR RELIE F

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief and judgment, as follows :

1 . Determining that this action is a proper class action and certifying Plaintiff as class

representative under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ;

2. Awarding compensatory damages in favor of Plaintiff and the other Class members

against all Defendants, jointly and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of Defendants'

wrongdoing, in an amount to be proven at trial, including interest thereon;

3 . Awarding Plaintiff and the Class their reasonable costs and expenses incurred in this

action, including counsel fees ands expert fees ; and

4 . Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper .

16

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury .

Dated : April, 2006

Kenneth J . VianaFla. B No. 1692499 Glades Road , Suite 112Boca Raton, Florida 33431(561) 392-475 0

SHALOV STONE & BONNER LLPLee Shalov485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000New York, NY 1001 8(212) 239-434 0

SARRAF GENTILE LLPRonen SarrafJoseph Gentil e485 Seventh Avenue , Suite 1005New York, NY 1001 8(212) 868-361 0

Attorneys for Plaintiff

17

CERTIFICATION OF PLAINTIFF PURSUANT TO FEDERAL SECURITIES LAW S

A'ciI14ie,J S*Yo ✓s , make this declaration pursuant to the Federal Securities Laws .

1 . I seek to serve as plaintiff in the foregoing complaint (the "Complaint") .

2 . I have reviewed the Complaint prepared by my counsel and authorize its filing .

3. I did not purchase securities in GlobeTel Communications Corp . ("GTE" or the"Company") at the direction of my counsel in order to participate in any p rivate action arising under theFederal Securities Laws .

4. I am willing to serve as a lead plaintiff either individually or as a group. A lead plaintiffis a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the action, and whoseduties may include testifying at deposition and trial, if necessary .

5. Du ring the three year period preceding the date of my signing this Ce rtification, I havenot served nor sought to serve as a representative party on behalf of a class , except (if any) :

xYJ f7Dly ClR ,4, JouGhtT Ta Xenx ✓e-

6. My transactions in GTE du ring the Class Period are as follows :

See attached Schedule A .

7. 1 will not accept any payment for serving as a representative party on behalf of the classbeyond the pro rata share of any possible recovery, plus reasonable costs and expenses ( including lostwages) directly relating to the representation of the class , as approved by the Court .

I declare under penalty of perju ry this Iq day of ,4"#i t- 2006, that theforegoing is true and correct .

Signature

Name

Address

Email

Phone

SCHEDULE A

Date Bought Sold Share Price12/30/2005 3,000 3 .4500012/30/2005 6,000 3 .6900012/30/2005 3,500 3.9000012/30/2005 2,700 3.9700012/30/2005 2,300 3 .9800012/30/2005 2,000 3 .5700012/30/2005 10,000 3 .8800012/30/2005 5,000 3.68000

1/5/2006 1,900 3 .770001/5/2006 1,100 3 .77070

1 /31 /2006 1,000 2.610001 /31 /2006 1,000 2 .610002/9/2006 2,500 3.350002/9/2006 1,500 3.320002/9/2006 1,300 3.36000

2/21/2006 2,900 3.250002/21/2006 500 3.080002/24/2006 3,500 3.050003/3/2006 2,000 3.130003/3/2006 3,000 3.100003/3/2006 3,000 3.100003/6/2006 5,000 3.420003/6/2006 4,000 3.350003/6/2006 1,000 3.450003/4/2006 700 3.430003/4/2006 300 3.370003/8/2006 2,000 3.50000

3/13/2006 500 2.415003/13/2006 2,300 2.660003/13/2006 5,000 2 .780003/17/2006 2,700 2.500003/17/2006 1,300 2.505003/17/2006 764 2.500003/17/2006 4,500 2.494443/17/2006 18 2.490003/17/2006 282 2.550003/17/2006 3,250 2.720003/17/2006 4,900 2.850003/17/2006 2,250 3.000003/17/2006 5,100 2.850003/17/2006 3,500 2.830003/23/2006 1,500 2.530003/24/2006 5001 1 2.49000