SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT NO.

308 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, HON. JANE L. JOHNSON, JUDGE

) ) ) PLAINTIFF, ) ) VS. ) ) THE LAW OFFICES OF KRAMER & ) KASLOW, ET AL., ) ) DEFENDANTS. ) ______________________________)

NO. LC094571

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON EX PARTE APPLICATIONS WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2011

(APPEARANCES ON NEXT PAGE.)

DANA L. SHELLEY, RPR, CSR #10177 OFFICIAL REPORTER

APPEARANCES: FOR THE PEOPLE: STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BY: JAMES TOMA TINA CHAROENPONG DEPUTY ATTYS. GENERAL 300 SOUTH SPRING STREET SUITE 1702 LOS ANGELES, CA 90013 (213) 897-2128 THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA BY: BLITHE C. LEECE DEPUTY TRIAL COUNSEL 1149 SOUTH HILL STREET LOS ANGELES, CA 90015 (213) 765-1161 BALLARD SPAHR BY: DANIEL M. BENJAMIN 655 WEST BROADWAY SUITE 1600 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 (619) 696-9200 M. JONATHAN HAYES 9700 RESEDA BOULEVARD SUITE 201 NORTHRIDGE, CA 91324 (818) 882-5600 ERIKSON M. DAVIS 11574 IOWA AVENUE SUITE 104 LOS ANGELES, CA 90025 (310) 231-7808 MJS & ASSOCIATES BY: MITCHELL J. STEIN IN PROPRIA PERSONA 28720 CANWOOD STREET SECOND FLOOR AGOURA HILLS, CA 91302 (877) 475-2448 FOR DEFENDANT STEPHENSON: BILL STEPHENSON IN PROPRIA PERSONA 21741 CRIPTANA MISSION VIEJO, CA 92692 (949) 892-7446

FOR PLAINTIFF CALIFORNIA STATE BAR:

FOR THE RECEIVER:

FOR DEFENDANT KRAMER:

FOR DEFENDANT STEIN:

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RECORD. MR. TOMA: GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR. JAMES TOMA THE COURT: GOOD AFTERNOON. WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE AND I'M GOING TO CALL BOTH CASE NUMBER: CASE NAME: DEPARTMENT: REPORTER: LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA TIME: APPEARANCES: 308 LC094571 PEOPLE VS. KRAMER & KASLOW HON. JANE L. JOHNSON DANA SHELLEY, RPR, CSR #10177 WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2011 1:52 P.M. (AS HERETOFORE NOTED.)

ALL RIGHT.

INDEPENDENT MATTERS GOING TODAY.

OF THEM AND HAVE THE ATTORNEYS ANNOUNCE THEIR PRESENCE. OKAY. CALLING PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF

CALIFORNIA VS. THE LAW OFFICES OF KRAMER & KRAMER (SIC), ET AL., AND IN RE THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OVER THE LAW PRACTICE OF MITCHELL J. STEIN. PLEASE STATE YOUR APPEARANCES FOR THE

ON BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE. MS. CHAROENPONG: AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. THE PEOPLE. MS. LEECE: CALIFORNIA. MR. BENJAMIN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. DANIEL BLITHE LEECE FOR THE STATE BAR OF GOOD MORNING, YOUR HONOR -- GOOD TINA CHAROENPONG ON BEHALF OF

BENJAMIN FOR THE RECEIVER. THE COURT: OKAY.

2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER. YOU MAY SIT DOWN. (PAUSE IN PROCEEDINGS.) THE COURT: MY THOUGHT WAS THAT WE SHOULD TAKE THE MR. STEIN: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. MITCHELL

STEIN, IN PROPRIA PERSONA; AND TO THE EXTENT RELEVANT, FOR MITCHELL J. STEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP. MR. DAVIS: GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR. ERIKSON

DAVIS FOR DEFENDANT AND RESPONDENT MITCHELL J. STEIN. THE COURT: NO? OKAY. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE APPEARING?

(DISCUSSION HELD OFF THE RECORD BETWEEN THE COURT AND CLERK.) THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I'LL TALK A LITTLE LOUDER.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE THIS IN A LOGICAL

OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IN THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. THE LAW OFFICES OF KRAMER & KRAMER FIRST -- KRAMER & KASLOW FIRST. SENSE? AND THEN MOVE ON TO THE OSC RE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OVER THE LAW PRACTICE OF MITCHELL STEIN SECOND. AND THEN LASTLY, WE CAN GO TO THE EX PARTE THAT AND DOES THAT SEEM TO MAKE

WAS INCLUDED IN MR. STEIN'S OMNIBUS OPPOSITION.

THEN, I GUESS, LATER WE HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE RECEIVER. THAT WAS A CONTINUED HEARING. AND THE ATTORNEY THAT WILL BE REPRESENTING MR. KRAMER IS GOING TO BE A LITTLE LATE, SO WE CAN TAKE THAT LAST.

3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AGO. TABLE. STEIN. MR. STEIN: THE COURT: GOOD. AND SO MY QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU READ THING. MR. STEIN: THE COURT: OH, OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO BE VERY BUSY, MR. OKAY. NOW, MY FIRST QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU

HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ THE TENTATIVE? MR. TOMA: THE COURT: YES, YOUR HONOR. AND WE'RE TALKING NOW ABOUT THE OSC RE

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. MR. STEIN: THE ORDER -THE COURT: NO, NO, NO. KRAMER IS A WHOLE 'NOTHER REGARDING KRAMER OR REGARDING -- IN

THE TENTATIVE IN THE OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION? MR. STEIN: I WAS JUST GIVEN THAT. I THOUGHT I

THERE WERE TWO TENTATIVES -- AND THIS IS MUCH LONGER.

HAVE NOT COMPLETELY READ IT; BUT BECAUSE OF THE OVERLAP, YOUR HONOR, WITH THE ASSUMPTION ISSUES, I THINK WE CAN ADDRESS IT. BUT I HAVE NOT COMPLETELY READ EVERY SENTENCE OF IT BECAUSE IT'S JUST TOO LONG. IT FIVE MINUTES AGO. THE COURT: ABOUT A HALF HOUR AGO, IT WAS ON THE I WAS HANDED

THAT'S WHY I CAME OUT HERE, TO SEE IF EVERYBODY

HAD A COPY OF THE TENTATIVE. MR. STEIN: AND I WAS JUST GIVEN IT FIVE MINUTES

BUT I'M WILLING TO PROCEED.

4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OSC'S. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I ASSUME THAT THE PEOPLE

SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE. MR. TOMA: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: YES, YOUR HONOR. OKAY. YOUR HONOR, THE WAY THAT WE HAD

PLANNED TO ARGUE THIS -IF I MAY STAND, GIVEN THAT I'M ADDRESSING? THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THE WAY THAT WE HAD PLANNED TO ADDRESS THIS WAS THAT I WAS GOING TO ADDRESS MATTERS REGARDING THE ASSUMPTION -- GIVEN THAT THERE'S THREE OSC'S; MR. DAVIS WAS GOING TO ADDRESS MATTERS REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. GIVEN THAT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS SOME 15 PAGES LONGER THAN THE OTHER TWO TENTATIVES, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT BOTH MYSELF AND MR. DAVIS BE ENTITLED TO ADDRESS THE ISSUES IN THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, IF THAT PLEASES THE COURT. THE COURT: WELL, I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT -- I

MEAN, YOU CHOSE TO FILE AN OMNIBUS OPPOSITION; RIGHT? MR. STEIN: WE DID, BUT THERE ARE THREE OSC'S.

BUT THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR, WE DID. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: OKAY. AND -- THREE OSC'S?

I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO OR THREE

THERE'S ONE OSC FOR THE ASSUMPTION OF

JURISDICTION OVER THE LAW FIRM, THERE'S ONE OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, AND THERE'S ONE OSC RE THE FREEZING OF ASSETS. SO THERE ARE THREE OSC'S THAT I

5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER? MR. STEIN: NO. OF COURSE, I WOULD TAKE IT IN THE WHAT I WOULD RESPECTFULLY BELIEVE I'M RESPONDING TO. MR. TOMA: IF I MAY CLARIFY, YOUR HONOR.

THERE IS AN OSC REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ASSET FREEZE ORDER. SAME ORDER. THE COURT: MR. TOMA: ALL RIGHT. THERE IS ALSO AN OSC REGARDING I JUST BOTH OF THAT'S PART OF THE

CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER. WANTED TO DRAW THAT TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION.

THOSE PROPOSED ORDERS WERE LODGED WITH THE COURT AND SERVED UPON DEFENDANTS. AND THEN THE STATE BAR HAS THEIR OWN OSC. THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

WELL, DID YOU WANT TO TAKE IT IN A DIFFERENT

ORDER THE COURT WISHED.

REQUEST IS THAT I MAKE CERTAIN OF THE ARGUMENTS REGARDING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND THAT MR. DAVIS MAKE HIS ARGUMENTS, AND THEN WE MOVE TO THE ISSUE OF FREEZING ACCOUNTS. AND WHEN WE MOVE TO THE ISSUE OF THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION, I WILL BE THE SOLE PERSON ADDRESSING THOSE TWO ISSUES. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

YOUR HONOR, I HAVE WITH ME, THAT PERTAIN TO THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, SOME DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS

6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHICH I HAVE EIGHT-BY-TENS OF. I'D LIKE TO SUBMIT THESE

TO THE COURT SO IT CAN READ ALONG WHILE I SHOW THE COURT THE BLOWUPS. I'VE PROVIDED THEM TO COUNSEL. IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? THE COURT: THEY ARE. WELL, FIRST, YOU HAVE TO TELL ME WHAT

AND THEN I HAVE TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT

THE MOVING PARTIES OBJECT. MR. STEIN: OKAY. ONE OF THEM IS AN EMAIL FROM

THE STATE BAR, DATED OCTOBER 12, TO A CLIENT THAT THE STATE BAR HAS OVER 2,000 CLIENT FILES, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE STATE BAR'S REPRESENTATION TO THE COURT AT THE SEPTEMBER 29TH HEARING AND AT THE SEPTEMBER 19TH HEARING. THE SECOND IS SOMETHING THAT I REFERRED TO IN MY DECLARATION, REGARDING THE WEBSITE OF MITCHELL J. STEIN & ASSOCIATES AND HOW CLIENTS COME TO THE FIRM, WHICH IS SIMPLY SOMETHING THAT COMES OFF THE WEBSITE. THE THIRD IS THE MAILER OF BROOKSTONE THAT IS NOT BEING ENFORCED. AND THE FOURTH IS THE CERTIFICATE OF LLP, WHICH APPEARS TO BE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. AND THAT'S IT. THAT I WISH TO DISCUSS. IT'S THOSE FOUR EXHIBITS

AND I'LL BE DISCUSSING THEM.

IF I'M NOT ALLOWED TO SHOW THEM IN A BLOWUP, THAT'S FINE. IF THE COURT IS DISINTERESTED IN THEM, I'LL JUST

BE MAKING A RECORD. THE COURT: NO, I'M NOT DISINTERESTED IN THEM. I'M

BUT YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO FILE AN OPPOSITION.

7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WONDERING WHY IT WASN'T INCLUDED. MR. STEIN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, THE EXHIBIT

REGARDING THE 2,000 CLIENT FILES IS DATED OCTOBER 12. THAT WAS SIX DAYS AFTER WE FILED OUR OPPOSITION. SO IT

WAS PHYSIOLOGICALLY AND HUMANLY IMPOSSIBLE TO SUBMIT THAT TO THE COURT AT THAT TIME. THE CUSTOM FORM SUBMISSION FROM MY WEBSITE, WHICH SHOWS WHERE THE CLIENTS COME FROM, WAS DISCUSSED IN MY PAPERS, AND I INDICATED THAT I WOULD BE BRINGING THAT TO COURT. AND THE UNLAWFUL MAILER FROM BROOKSTONE, WHICH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS DONE NOTHING ABOUT, WAS ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT 2 TO THE EX PARTE APPLICATION SUBMITTED TO THE COURT ON SEPTEMBER 19TH. AND SO I'M

JUST RE-REFERRING TO THAT, BUT I WOULD LIKE IT BLOWN UP BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT. AND SO ALL THESE WERE EITHER DISCLOSED TO THE COURT -- AND THEN THE LLP IS -- WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT A MILLION TIMES, AND THAT'S EXHIBIT 1. THE COURT: BUT WHAT I REALLY WANT YOU TO ADDRESS

IS YOUR POSITION THAT YOU DIDN'T KNOW THESE OTHER PEOPLE AND THAT YOU WERE NOT INVOLVED. INTERESTED IN. MR. STEIN: I'LL BE ADDRESSING THAT, AS WELL, IN THAT IS WHAT I AM MOST

DETAIL; BUT THERE ARE -- THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT ARE INTERTWINED WITH THOSE. AND I HAVE SPECIFIC

EVIDENTIARY PIECES FROM THE PAPERS SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE REGARDING THOSE EXHIBITS THAT DIRECTLY ADDRESS

8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BAR. WE'RE GOING TO OBJECT TO THIS EMAIL ON THE BASIS OF HEARSAY. FIRST OF ALL, WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE SOME OF THE COURT'S EVIDENTIARY CONCERNS. BUT THERE ARE SOME PROCEDURAL ISSUES, AS WELL, THAT I'D LIKE IT ADDRESS IN MY PRESENTATION ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION -- NOT THE ASSUMPTION, NOT THE FREEZING; WILL PROBABLY BE LESS THAN 20 MINUTES. BUT I DO THINK THOSE EXHIBITS ARE IMPORTANT, BUT I DO INTEND TO TALK ABOUT SPECIFIC EXHIBITS AND SPECIFIC EVIDENCE. THE COURT: MS. LEECE: OKAY -- DO. YOUR HONOR, BLITHE LEECE FOR THE STATE

PERSON IS THAT SUPPOSEDLY SENT IT FROM THE STATE BAR. THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO CONTEXT IN TERMS OF THE MESSAGE THAT WAS SENT TO THE STATE BAR AS TO WHAT QUESTION WAS ASKED. AND WE DON'T KNOW -BOTH OF THESE STATEMENTS ARE COMING IN FOR THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED. WE'RE OBJECTING ON THAT BASIS. MR. STEIN: YOUR HONOR, THEY -- I AM NOT IT'S CLEARLY HEARSAY.

SUBMITTING THEM FOR THE PROOF OF THE MATTER ASSERTED. IF THE STATE BAR SUBMITS THAT THE EMAIL THAT SAYS THERE ARE 2,000 CLIENT FILES THAT THE STATE BAR IS HOLDING IS NOT AUTHENTIC, AND THEY'RE WILLING TO SIGN A DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY BASED ON THAT REPRESENTATION, I WON'T ADDRESS IT. THE COURT: WELL, WAIT A MINUTE.

9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MOVE ON. MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: WELL, AND I'VE MADE THE RECORD -YES, YOU HAVE. -- THAT THERE'S 2,000 FILES. AND THE COURT. HONOR. MR. STEIN: THEY CAN'T PLAY HOT AND COLD, YOUR

I'M JUST MAKING A RECORD. THE COURT: YOU KNOW, DON'T INTERRUPT ME. JUST A

MINUTE. MR. STEIN: THE COURT: I'M SORRY, YOUR HONOR. JUST A MINUTE.

YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO ADMIT INTO EVIDENCE -AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WOULD DO IT FOR OTHER THAN THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED -- A PIECE OF PAPER THAT PURPORTS TO BE AN EMAIL FROM THE STATE BAR. BAR? MS. LEECE: THE COURT: THE OBJECTION. MR. STEIN: YOUR HONOR, WE'RE OFFICERS OF THE YES. THE STATE BAR. I'M GOING TO SUSTAIN THE STATE

THE STATE BAR STATED TO THIS COURT, AS WELL AS I'M --

TO JUDGE ELIAS, THAT THEY HAD 240 FILES. THE COURT: OKAY. THAT'S FINE.

BUT I AM NOT

GOING TO TAKE THIS AS EVIDENCE THAT DISPUTES WHATEVER REPRESENTATION WAS MADE BY THE STATE BAR BECAUSE I HAVE TO HAVE AUTHENTICATED EVIDENCE. NOW, I AM GOING TO SUSTAIN THE OBJECTION.

STATE BAR HAS THE CAPACITY TO TELL THE COURT WHETHER OR NOT --

10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE COURT: NO. YOU'VE MADE THE RECORD THAT YOU

HOLD A PIECE PAPER THAT IS NOT ADMISSIBLE THAT THE STATE BAR HAS -MR. STEIN: AND I'D LIKE AN OFFICER OF THE COURT

TO TELL US WHETHER IT'S TRUE OR NOT. THE COURT: WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY SITTING

HERE COULD POSSIBLY DO THAT NOW. MR. STEIN: THE COURT: AFTERNOON. RECORD. OKAY. NOW, MR. STEIN, WE DON'T HAVE ALL YOU'VE MADE YOUR

I'VE MADE A RULING.

MOVE ON. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL MOVE ON. THANK YOU. I HAVE THAT PIECE OF EVIDENCE WITH ME.

MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN:

ARE THERE ANY OTHER OBJECTIONS TO THE OTHER THREE EXHIBITS? THE COURT: MR. TOMA: DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? YES, YOUR HONOR. WE WOULD OBJECT TO

THE FOLLOWING EXHIBITS.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE'VE SEEN THIS RE CUSTOM

SECOND EXHIBIT, WHICH IS TITLED "SUBJECT: FORM SUBMISSION."

IT SEEMS TO BE OFFERED FOR THE TRUTH THERE'S NO NAMES ASSOCIATED

OF THE MATTER ASSERTED. WITH IT.

WE OBJECT ON LACK OF FOUNDATION, HEARSAY. MR. STEIN: YOUR HONOR, I SPECIFICALLY THE

AUTHENTICATED THESE DOCUMENTS IN MY DECLARATION.

11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NAMES HAVE BEEN REDACTED BECAUSE THEY'RE PRIVATE. PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO RIGHTS OF PRIVACY. THE COURT: THESE ATTACHED? MR. STEIN: NO. I REFERENCED THEM AND SAID I AND YEAH, BUT ARE THEY ATTACHED? ARE THESE

WOULD BRING AS MANY AS I HAD TO THE COURT WITH ME. I'M HERE. I'M AN OFFICER OF THE COURT. I REPRESENT

THESE COME FROM MY WEBSITE. I'VE MADE THE RECORD. SO IF THE COURT WANTS

TO SUSTAIN THAT OBJECTION, I'VE MADE THAT RECORD, AS WELL, AND I'LL PUT THAT ONE DOWN. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: OKAY. I'LL MAKE IT EASY. AS LONG AS I MAKE

THE RECORD, I'M HAPPY. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THAT'S FINE. AND I APPRECIATE THE COURT'S

INDULGENCE IN THAT REGARD. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THAT'S FINE. THE THIRD EXHIBIT IS WHAT AN UNLAWFUL THIS WAS ATTACHED TO MY IT WAS

MAILER REALLY LOOKS LIKE. DECLARATION.

IT WAS AUTHENTICATED BEFORE.

ATTACHED TWICE:

IT WAS ATTACHED TO THE EX PARTE AND

ATTACHED TO THE OMNIBUS, AS THE COURT INDICATED. AND I'D LIKE TO REFER TO THAT, AS WELL, BECAUSE COMPLAINTS, INCLUDING MINE, HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE REGARDING THESE ILLEGAL MAILERS THAT ARE ACTUALLY OCCURRING. THERE'S A DECLARATION OF MR. --

12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TALK ABOUT. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: THE SAME PAGE. MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: PRESENTATION. YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. OKAY. THAT IS APPROXIMATELY A ONE-MINUTE IS THIS THE BROOKSTONE? YES. OKAY. YES. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ON

I JUST WANT TO OUTLINE ONE THING ON IT.

THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER ONE THAT I HAVE, GIVEN THAT THE COURT SUSTAINED THE OBJECTIONS TO THE -AND THEN THE LLP I THINK I SHOULD BE ABLE TO SINCE THE COURT'S CLAIMING IT DOESN'T EXIST

OR IT HASN'T BEEN AUTHENTICATED, I'D LIKE TO -THE COURT: I'M NOT CLAIMING ANYTHING. I'M JUST

SAYING YOU DIDN'T -MR. STEIN: THE COURT HAS RULED THAT -- OR

TENTATIVELY RULED THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST. AND THAT'S THE LAST ONE. AND I'VE ALREADY

ATTACHED THAT AS EXHIBIT 1 TO MY DECLARATION ON SEPTEMBER 19. THAT'S IT. THERE'S NO OTHER

DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS. THE COURT: OKAY. NOW, WITH RESPECT TO -- HAVE

THE MOVING PAPERS SEEN THIS EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE LLP? MS. LEECE: MR. STEIN: IS THIS WHAT YOU JUST HANDED ME? IT'S EXHIBIT 1 TO MY EX PARTE

13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COPY. BUT I GUESS, WITH RESPECT TO THE LLP, I REALLY WOULD LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO RECORD WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE SITE. MR. STEIN: WHEN DID YOU FORM THIS LLP? APPLICATION, FILED ON SEPTEMBER 19. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: UNAUTHENTICATED. HEARSAY. OH, THE CERTIFICATE? CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S ALL IT IS.

WELL, I'VE ALREADY -- IT'S

IT'S UNAUTHENTICATED, AND IT'S PURE

I THINK I ALREADY INDICATED THAT IN MY RULING. YEAH. AND ALL I WISH TO DO IS TO MAKE I DISAGREE WITH THAT

MR. STEIN:

A RECORD REGARDING THAT RULING. RULING, RESPECTFULLY. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: OKAY.

AND I'D LIKE TO -- I THINK A RECORD

THAT THE COURT CAN PULL UP ON ITS COMPUTER IS AUTHENTIC; BUT IF THE COURT IS GOING TO RULE THAT IT'S HEARSAY, AT LEAST I'VE MADE MY RECORD. INTEND TO DO. THE COURT: I THINK YOU HAD TO SUBMIT A CERTIFIED SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING I

I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT BY

REFERRING TO THE EXHIBIT; BUT THE APPLICATION WAS FILED IN MARCH, AND THE APPROVAL -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: TO WHOM? TO THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE. AND

IT WAS FILED BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR THE LLP.

APPROVAL WAS RENDERED BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE IN APRIL

14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AND BY THE STATE BAR ON MAY 2. AND I UNDERSTAND AND

RESPECT, IF THE COURT WISHES TO SUSTAIN A HEARSAY OBJECTION TO EVERYTHING I'M SAYING, BUT I STILL WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE RECORD. THE COURT: OKAY. BUT DIDN'T YOU HAVE TO BE

REGISTERED AS AN LLP WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE? MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: AND WE WERE. AND THE ANSWER --

WELL, WHERE ARE THOSE DOCUMENTS? WHAT'S THAT? WHERE ARE THOSE DOCUMENTS? THE FACE OF THE LLP DOCUMENT SAYS:

"THE STATE BAR FINDING THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FORMATION OF AN LLP BEING SATISFIED, HEREBY ISSUES THE FOLLOWING CERTIFICATE." THE COURT: THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE

CORPORATIONS CODE REQUIREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE FORMATION. WHERE ARE THOSE DOCUMENTS? THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE ON LINE. BUT THE

MR. STEIN:

STATE BAR HAS NEVER OBJECTED OR EVEN STATED -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: NOT ON LINE. MR. STEIN: WELL, IF THAT'S THE COURT'S STATEMENT, THEY'RE NOT --- THAT THE LLP DOESN'T EXIST. THEY ARE NOT ON LINE. OKAY? THEY ARE

AND I'M SITTING HERE WITH A CERTIFICATE FROM THE STATE BAR, I PRESUME A TRIER OF LAW OR TRIER OF FACT CAN DETERMINE WHO IS RIGHT; BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE

15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ARGUMENT AND MAKE THE PROOF. I RESPECT THE COURT'S RULING. COURT'S THOUGHTS ON THE MATTER. TO BE ON THE RECORD, AS WELL. THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, COULD YOU TELL ME, WHO I RESPECT THE

I JUST WANT MY THOUGHTS

WAS YOUR OTHER PARTNER? MR. STEIN: THE PARTNERS OF THE LLP, AS I'VE

INDICATED AT THE BEGINNING -- WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS FIRST FILED, THE PARTNERS, IN AN APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE STATE BAR, WERE MICHAEL RILEY, MITCHELL STEIN, AND ERIKSON DAVIS, AT THE BEGINNING. ERIKSON DAVIS -- HIS PARTNERSHIP WAS TERMINABLE AT WILL; I'VE TESTIFIED TO THAT. WAS APPROVED, AND THOSE ARE THE PARTNERS. AND THE LLP THERE WAS A

PARTNERSHIP OFFER MADE TO A SUBSEQUENT LOS ANGELES LAWYER THREE DAYS BEFORE THE RAID OCCURRED, AND OBVIOUSLY, THAT CHILLED ANY PARTNERSHIP DISCUSSIONS WITH THAT INDIVIDUAL. ACTUALLY, IT DIDN'T CHILL THEM, BUT IT DELAYED THEM. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. SO IT WAS ORIGINALLY

ERIKSON DAVIS, MR. RILEY, AND YOU? MR. STEIN: THAT'S CORRECT. AND

AND THE STATE BAR ISSUED A CERTIFICATE.

THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THE FREEZE ORDERS THAT I THINK THE COURT HAS VERY THOUGHTFULLY ADDRESSED IN ITS TENTATIVE BECAUSE YESTERDAY THERE WAS A HEARING IN THE

16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE HEARING. THE HEARING. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT IN FLORIDA. AND WE HAD SOME EMAILS LAST NIGHT REGARDING THERE'S A DISPUTE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT'S OF NO MOMENT. BUT THE RECEIVER

WANTS A CHANCE TO STUDY THE WRITTEN ORDER, I BELIEVE, OF THE -BY THE WAY, THE CALIFORNIA ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS PRESENT -- NOT HERSELF, BUT AN OFFICER OF THE OFFICE WAS PRESENT -- IN FLORIDA YESTERDAY. TELEPHONE THING. SO THIS WASN'T A

THIS WAS A -- THEY FLEW TO FLORIDA.

AND THE COURT RULED THAT PRIOR TO HIM APPROVING ANY FREEZE ORDER, NONE OF MY PERSONAL ACCOUNTS, NONE OF MY DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION ACCOUNTS, CAN BE FROZEN. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE DOESN'T THINK THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. AND I'M

TELLING -- I'M REPRESENTING TO THE COURT THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. AND THE HEARING WAS YESTERDAY. AND THE FREEZE ORDER -- THE COURT HAD INDICATED ON ITS TENTATIVE, I THINK, WITH REGARD TO ONE OF THE EX PARTES THAT THE RECEIVER SAID HE NEVER TOOK ANY OF MY PERSONAL ACCOUNTS. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: WELL, WE'LL GET THERE. AND SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO GO INTO

THE LLP, BECAUSE EVEN -- BECAUSE NOTWITHSTANDING WHATEVER ORDERS THERE ARE REGARDING THE LLP, THERE ARE FIVE LLP BANK ACCOUNTS THAT THE STATE BAR HAS FROZEN. AND THE LLP REPRESENTS CLIENTS.

17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AND THE BANK THOUGHT THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS AN LLP. THE STATE BAR THOUGHT THERE WAS

THERE WAS ENOUGH EVIDENCE THERE WAS AN LLP. NEVER ANY QUESTION. FROZEN.

AND THOSE ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN

SO IF IT DOESN'T EXIST, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE THERE'S NO MONEY IN

NO PROBLEM UNFREEZING THE ACCOUNTS. THEM, BUT THE LLP CAN'T OPERATE.

IT CAN'T DO BUSINESS.

AND THAT -- SOME OF THE -- THE INJUNCTION, YOUR HONOR, JUST ADDRESSES THINGS THAT I'M NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT I CLAIM I NEVER DID. EVIDENCE REGARDING THAT. AND I'LL GO INTO THE

SO THAT'S WHY I KEEP

GRAVITATING OVER TO CURRENT OPERATIONS. THE PEOPLE ARE IN THIS COURTROOM TODAY BECAUSE THEIR HOUSES ARE UNDER ATTACK. IT'S NOT

RELEVANT, AS THE COURT HAS INDICATED, WHETHER THEY'RE RIGHT OR WRONG OR THEIR LAWSUITS ARE RIGHT OR WRONG, BUT THEY'RE HERE FOR THIS REASON. THE LLP REPRESENTS THEM, AND THE LLP WOULD LIKE TO DO BUSINESS. AND IF THE -- AND THE STATE HAS

SAID IN ITS PAPERS THAT THEY DON'T CARE WHAT LLP MITCHELL J. STEIN WORKS FOR. THEY JUST WANT TO TAKE AND I'LL BE

OVER THE PRACTICE OF MITCHELL J. STEIN. ADDRESSING WHETHER THAT'S PROPER OR NOT.

BUT THESE PEOPLE ARE REPRESENTED BY AN LLP, AND MITCHELL J. STEIN IS A PARTNER OF THE LLP. AND THE

STATE BAR HAS NO PROBLEM WITH -- AND SPECIFICALLY, IN THEIR BRIEF, AS THE COURT READ, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ME PRACTICING LAW IN BEHALF OF AN LLP.

18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BEFORE. LLP. RIGHT? SO THESE CLIENTS ARE HERE -THE COURT: SAYING. MR. STEIN: THE COURT: WELL, I CAN READ -YOU DON'T SUDDENLY -- YOU ARE NOT AN ALL I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE

YOU ARE AN ATTORNEY, INDIVIDUALLY, FIRST.

WHAT THEY ARE SEEKING TO DO IS HAVE YOU -- TO

ASSUME YOUR PRACTICE. MR. STEIN: I DON'T HAVE A PRACTICE, YOUR HONOR,

SO -- YOU KNOW, WE CAN GO INTO 6180.14, WHICH SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT A LAW PRACTICE IS DEFINED, IF IT IS A PARTNERSHIP, AS A SITUATION WHERE ALL THE PARTNERS ARE INCOMPETENT. I DON'T HAVE A LAW PRACTICE. I TRANSFERRED

EVERY ASSET TO THE LLP, IN ACCORDANCE WITH A BANKRUPTCY PLAN OF REORGANIZATION APPROVED BY THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT IN JANUARY -- THE END OF JANUARY. I DON'T HAVE A LAW PRACTICE. I HAD ONE

I'M WILLING TO ADDRESS -- AND THE ISSUES OF

WRONGDOING BEFORE -AND THE EXAMPLE THAT THE STATE BAR GIVES IS, IF PAUL HASTINGS -- I THINK THE COURT REMEMBERS. PAUL HASTINGS HAD A PARTNER THAT WAS ILLEGALLY MARKETING, THEY COULD GO IN TO PAUL HASTINGS, AFTER GOING INTO COURT -- THEY WOULD GET A COURT ORDER; THEY COULD GO IN AND TAKE ALL THE FILES THAT THEY BELIEVED THAT LAWYER HAD. AND YOUR HONOR, RESPECTFULLY, THAT IS THE IF

19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THERE. MR. STEIN: YOUR HONOR, EXHIBIT 4 TO THE EX PARTE DO. WORST AND MOST PREPOSTEROUS ARGUMENT I'VE EVER HEARD. CAN YOU IMAGINE WHAT PAUL HASTINGS WOULD DO IF THE STATE BAR EVEN MADE AN APPLICATION TO GO INTO THEIR FILE ROOM AND SEIZE ALL THEIR FILES AND CLOSE THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS, BASED ON THE ACTIONS OF ONE PARTNER? THE COURT: YEAH, I THINK I KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD

SOMEBODY ELSE FROM PAUL HASTINGS, WHO THE STATE BAR

DID NOT SEEK TO ASSUME -- EXCUSE ME, DID NOT SEEK TO ASSUME THE JURISDICTION OVER THAT INDIVIDUAL'S PRACTICE, WOULD STEP IN AND TAKE OVER THOSE CASES. MR. STEIN: WANTED TO DO. THE COURT: NO, NO. YOU HAVE A FLORIDA -- YOU AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS LLP

HAVE A FLORIDA ATTORNEY, WHO IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA. AND MR. ERIKSON DAVIS IS

OPERATING AS THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIKSON DAVIS AND NOT AS A MEMBER OF YOUR LLP. SO I THINK I SET THAT FORTH IN THE TENTATIVE

APPLICATION ON THE 19TH WAS A DOCUMENT THIS COURT IS REQUIRED TO TAKE JUDICIAL NOTICE OF, AND THAT IS THE FOUR FILINGS MADE IN THIS COURTHOUSE BEFORE JUDGE HIGHBERGER, IN WHICH MR. DAVIS SUBSTITUTED THE LLP IN PLACE AND INSTEAD OF MITCHELL STEIN, THE INDIVIDUAL, AT THE BEGINNING OF MAY AND SAID THAT HE WAS A MEMBER OF THE LLP. THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE COURT RECORD.

20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THIS STATE. SO -THE COURT: HEREIN LIES THE REAL PROBLEM, BECAUSE

YOU AND MR. DAVIDSON (SIC) KEEP TAKING DIFFERENT POSITIONS. MR. DAVIDSON HAS FILED PAPERS IN THIS

COURTROOM UNDER THE LAW OFFICES OF ERIKSON DAVIS. I HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT AN LLP WAS FORMED IN I'VE SET FORTH EVERYTHING. WE'RE NOT GOING

TO TALK ABOUT IT ANYMORE, UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING NEW TO GIVE ME ON THAT ONE. MR. STEIN: I HAVE NOTHING NEW TO GIVE YOU, OTHER

THAN, WHEN THE STATE BAR RAIDS AN LLP THAT THE COURT IS NOW FINDING DOESN'T EXIST, MR. DAVIS, AS AN EMANCIPATED HUMAN BEING -- SLAVERY HAVING BEEN ABOLISHED -- HAS THE RIGHT TO GO DO BUSINESS UNDER -- AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T BREACH THE LLP AGREEMENT, UNDER ANY FIRM HE WANTS. HE WENT AND DID THAT, TO PROTECT THE CLIENTS. I BELIEVE AN OFFICER OF THE COURT AND A LAWYER HAS A DUTY TO PROTECT THE CLIENTS. SO THE FACT AND

THAT HE, AFTER THE RAID, SAID, "I'M NOW GOING TO DO WHAT THE LLP CONTRACT SAYS AND OPERATE MYSELF, SO THE CLIENTS HAVE CONTINUITY," I DON'T SEE HOW THAT WOULD POSSIBLY BE CRITICIZED. IT'S NOT AN INCONSISTENT POSITION. THOSE

DOCUMENTS ARE SPECIFICALLY OF RECORD. SO YOU KNOW, THE -- THAT'S MY RESPONSE TO THE INCONSISTENT POSITION. THE COURT: SO YOU CONFIRM THAT HE IS PRACTICING

AS AN INDIVIDUAL PRACTITIONER, SOLE PRACTITIONER? MR. STEIN: AS OF TODAY, AS OF -- EXCUSE ME. AS

21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OF THE DATE OF THE RAID, TWO DAYS AFTERWARDS, YES, HE WAS PRACTICING AS A SOLE PRACTITIONER. THE COURT: OKAY. NOW --

SO NOW LET ME JUST STOP YOU,

AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON. BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE AN LLP THAT HAS -- IF ONE EXISTS, AND I DON'T HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF THAT, ANY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; AND IT'S NEVER BEEN ON ANY LETTERHEAD I'VE SEEN. BUT ANYWAY, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WE HAVE YOU, MR. STEIN, AND A FLORIDA LAWYER, WHO CANNOT PRACTICE IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SO THERE'S NOBODY

IN YOUR FIRM THAT CAN STEP IN AND TAKE OVER THE CASES FOR THE LLP. NOW, THAT'S IT. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT

ISSUE, OR WE'LL BE HERE ALL DAY. MR. STEIN: AND I -- AND THE RECORD IS, I DISAGREE BUT I RESPECT WHAT THE

WITH THAT CHARACTERIZATION.

COURT HAS SAID, AND I'LL MOVE ON. THE COURT: YEAH. I REALLY WANT YOU TO ADDRESS

THE REAL ISSUE ABOUT YOUR POSITION THAT YOU WERE NOT INVOLVED IN THIS, IN VIEW OF THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT YOU WERE. MR. STEIN: WELL, YOUR HONOR, FIRST OF ALL,

IT'S -- THERE ARE NUMEROUS THINGS THAT ARE UNDISPUTED BY THE STATE, AND THEY ALL PERTAIN TO EVIDENCE. AND I'M

GOING TO BE REFERRING TO VARIOUS PIECES OF EVIDENCE. THEY DON'T DISPUTE THAT I'VE NEVER MET OR SPOKEN WITH 24 OF THE OTHER DEFENDANTS THAT WERE

22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INVOLVED IN THIS ENTERPRISE. HAVEN'T. THEY DON'T DISPUTE IT. I

THEY SAY THAT I SPOKE -WHO HAVE YOU NOT SPOKEN TO? IF I WERE TO GO THROUGH A FULL CAPTION

THE COURT: MR. STEIN:

PAGE OF THE COMPLAINT -- I'VE ALREADY LISTED IT, BUT -(LOCATES DOCUMENT.) MR. TOMA: POINT OF -MR. STEIN: MR. TOMA: I HAVE IT. -- ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION. YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD JUST MAKE ONE

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE 24 DEFENDANTS IN THIS CASE. OUR COUNT HAS ALWAYS BEEN 21.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE OPPOSITION IS THAT IT STATED ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION THAT MR. STEIN HAS NOT MET WITH 24 OF THE DEFENDANTS. AND I INTERPRET

THAT TO MEAN HE'S SAYING THAT HE'S NOT MET OR WORKED WITH ANY OF THE DEFENDANTS MENTIONED IN THE CASE, ALTHOUGH THERE'S CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE OPPOSITION ABOUT WHO HE HAS MET AND WORKED WITH. BUT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE DO NOT COUNT 24 DEFENDANTS; BUT I'M UNDERSTANDING, WHEN MR. STEIN USED THAT NUMBER, HE MEANS ALL THE OTHER DEFENDANTS. MR. STEIN: AND YOUR HONOR, IN MY DECLARATION I

SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT HOW IT IS I MET PHIL KRAMER AND WHAT WORK I DID WITH PHIL KRAMER. SO I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT SAYING I NEVER WORKED WITH PHIL KRAMER, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH WORKING TOGETHER WITH A LAWYER IN THE BANK

23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FIELD. THE COURT: I'VE GOT TO TELL YOU, THE TENTATIVE

THAT YOU DID NOT READ SETS FORTH LOTS OF EVIDENCE THAT TIE YOU TO MANY OF THE DEFENDANTS. TIE YOU TO EVERY DEFENDANT. THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO

THEY HAD TO TIE YOU AS

BEING PART OF THE SCHEME, AND THEY DID, SUCCESSFULLY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT YOU TO ADDRESS. MR. STEIN: AND THAT'S WHAT I'M ADDRESSING. SO

THE COURT FIRST ASKED ME WHAT DEFENDANTS HAVE I NEVER MET OR SPOKEN WITH. MASS LITIGATION ALLIANCE, I TOLD -- IT'S UNDISPUTED THAT I TOLD THE STATE BAR ABOUT THEIR WRONGDOING. AND I'VE NEVER MET THEM AND NEVER

INTERACTED WITH THEM. A MAN BY THE NAME OF MATTHEW DAVIS, WHO SUBMITTED A DECLARATION. IT'S UNDISPUTED -- IT'S IN HIS

DECLARATION, AND I'LL QUOTE THE EVIDENCE -- THAT I'VE NEVER MET HIM. IT'S UNDISPUTED THAT I TOLD HIM HE

COULDN'T USE MY NAME. THE COURT: NO, NO, NO. IT'S NOT UNDISPUTED. IT

IS NOT UNDISPUTED THAT YOU NEVER MET HIM OR NEVER TALKED TO HIM OR HE NEVER DID WORK FOR YOU. MR. TOMA: YOUR HONOR, MATTHEW DAVIS IS NOT A

DEFENDANT, JUST, AGAIN, FOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: RIGHT. OKAY.

NO, BUT HIS COMPANY IS.

YOUR HONOR, JUST BY WAY OF EXAMPLE, EXHIBIT 22 TO THE DECLARATION OF MATTHEW DAVIS -- I'M READING

24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ME. FROM THE STATE'S PAPERS, NOT FROM MINE -- SAYS -FROM -- AND THIS IS FROM PHILIP KRAMER TO MATTHEW DAVIS. I'M NOT COPIED ON IT; IT'S NOT ALLEGED I'M COPIED ON IT. IT SAYS THAT: "MR. STEIN PLANNED TO SIGN THEM, SET A DATE TO DO SO, AND NOTICE TO YOU BY EMAIL WAS GIVEN. AND THEN HE CHANGED HIS MIND." AND HIS EMAIL STATES, QUOTE: "MITCHELL J. STEIN & ASSOCIATES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MATT DAVIS OR MASS LITIGATION ALLIANCE." THEN THERE IS ANOTHER -- THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, THERE'S AN EMAIL -- AND THIS WAS ALSO EXHIBIT 22 TO THE DECLARATION OF MATTHEW DAVIS. AND IT SAYS: "STEIN MAY CLAIM HE'S NEVER MET ME, BUT THE SIMPLE FACT IS, I WAS HIRED BY HIS OF COUNSEL ATTORNEY, PHILIP KRAMER, TO ASSIST WITH FILES." PHILIP KRAMER IS NOT ME. HE HAS NEVER MET

AND HE SAYS I MAY CLAIM I'VE NEVER MET HIM, AND

THEN HIS RESPONSE TO THAT IS, HE MET PHIL KRAMER. THIS HAS BEEN ON MY WEBSITE AND WAS REPORTED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LAST YEAR. THEN -- WE'RE STILL ON THE SAME EXHIBIT, AND THAT'S EXHIBIT 22 TO THE DECLARATION OF MATTHEW DAVIS, FILED ON AUGUST 15. AND IT IS FROM ME. SO THIS IS

EVIDENCE THAT IS AUTHENTICATED BY MR. DAVIS, AND I'M NOT

25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OBJECTING TO IT. I'M NOT OBJECTING. EVIDENCE. IT'S FROM ME, RC ADMINISTRATION. MICHAEL WIEDERHOLD. AND IT SAYS: MITCHELL J. STEIN AND IT'S TO THE STATE PUT IT INTO EVIDENCE, AND SO THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO THE

"MR. WIEDERHOLD:

ASSOCIATES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MATT DAVIS OR MASS LITIGATION ALLIANCE. HAVE NEVER MET MATT DAVIS. I PERSONALLY THERE HAS NEVER

BEEN A TIME WHEN I HAVE SEEN A RETENTION AGREEMENT SIGNED BY YOU. "I HAVE RECEIVED DOZENS OF TELEPHONE CALLS WITH PEOPLE CLAIMING THE SAME PROBLEM. TO THE EXTENT YOU WISH TO BECOME A CLIENT OF MITCHELL J. STEIN & ASSOCIATES, OUR TELEPHONE NUMBERS AND WEBSITE ADDRESS ARE LISTED ON THE STATE BAR'S WEBSITE" -WHICH THEY ARE, AND THEY STILL ARE. -- "OR YOU CAN CALL ME DIRECTLY BY EMAILING ME OR SIMPLY ASKING ME TO DO SO. KIND REGARDS, MITCH." NOW -- AND THIS IS TO A CLIENT. NOW, THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS COURT TO ISSUE AN INJUNCTION BECAUSE OF THE -- AND EVEN IN THE DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING, THE REQUIREMENT IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE; IT'S NOT A PREPONDERANCE. GOT TO BE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. THIS PERSON'S NAME IS MICHAEL WIEDERHOLD. THERE'S

26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEETING. OKAY? I'VE NEVER MET THIS PERSON. HE'S A CLIENT. HE

WROTE ME THIS EMAIL. THE CORRECT THING FOR A TRIAL LAWYER TO DO, IF THERE WAS A JURY THERE, WOULD BE TO GO TO MR. WIEDERHOLD AND SAY, AS AN EXAMPLE, "DID YOU -- DO YOU HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT MR. STEIN AND MR. DAVIS EVER MET?" AND TO ASK HIM. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THE STATE BAR INVESTIGATOR WENT TO MR. WIEDERHOLD OR THAT ANYTHING I SAID IN MY EMAIL, WHICH IS AUTHENTIC, IS UNTRUE. ALL

YOU -- WHAT THE COURT HAS, WHAT THE COURT IS REFERRING TO AS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, IS DECLARATIONS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED WRONGDOING, SAYING THEY MET ME IN 2010. I HAVE ADMITTED I MET MR. RENEAU. I HAVE

ADMITTED I MET GARY -- I DON'T REMEMBER HIS LAST NAME, BUT IT'S A LONG LAST NAME; I REMEMBER MEETING HIM. I

REMEMBER TALKING TO THEM ABOUT DOING SERVICING REGARDING AN EVER-EXPANDING CLIENT BASE. AND I DON'T REMEMBER MR. PHANCO AND BUTT, OR WHATEVER THEIR NAME WAS, BUT I DIDN'T DENY MEETING THEM. THERE IS NO OTHER PERSON THAT I REMEMBER AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT I'VE EVER MET THERE'S JUST STATEMENTS BY THESE

WITH ANY OTHER PEOPLE.

PEOPLE THAT I TOLD THEM TO DO X, Y, AND Z. PRESUMING ARGUENDO THAT I TOLD MR. RENEAU TO DO SOMETHING IN NOVEMBER OF 2010, AND I NEVER TALKED TO HIM AGAIN, THAT IS NOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE

27 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EVIDENCE. THAT I ENGAGED IN ANY SORT OF SCAM. THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE REQUIRES THAT THE COURT FOLLOW THE MONEY. THE STATE HAS HAD THE

BANK RECORDS OF MR. KRAMER FOR EIGHT MONTHS, AND THE STATE CANNOT TIE ONE ENTRY IN THE BANK RECORDS TO ONE ENTRY IN MY FIVE ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE LLP AND THEN FIVE ACCOUNTS AFTER, WHICH IS TEN ACCOUNTS. ZERO DOLLARS.

SO I ENGAGED IN A SCAM REGARDING ZERO DOLLARS. AND THE STATE SAYS, "WE'LL COME UP WITH SUCH WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT IN THE FUTURE. MAYBE

MR. STEIN HAD A HIDDEN ACCOUNT," ET CETERA, ET CETERA. THAT'S NOT THE WAY -- YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT READY, SHOOT, AIM. IT'S READY, AIM, SHOOT.

THEY DID AN INVESTIGATION OF MR. KRAMER, AND THEY SERVED HIM WITH A SUBPOENA. I CAN REFERENCE THAT

TO THE COURT, IF THE COURT IS NOT AWARE OF THAT, BUT THEY SERVED MR. KRAMER WITH A SUBPOENA. LAWFULLY COMPLIED. MR. KRAMER

FOR EVERYTHING I KNOW, HE IS A HE

FANTASTIC MARTINDALE-HUBBELL A-RATED LAWYER.

COMPLIED WITH THE SUBPOENA, WROTE CEASE-AND-DESIST LETTERS. BUT MY LAW FIRM OR ME, I WAS NEVER SERVED WITH SUBPOENA. IF I HAD BEEN SERVED WITH A SUBPOENA,

AND THE RECEIVER COULD THEN GO THROUGH THE SUBPOENA AND SEE, "DID MR. STEIN RECEIVE ANY MONEY," AND I HAD RECEIVED SOME MONEY, I WOULD BE HERE STIPULATING TO IT. BUT THE FACT THAT YOU CAN'T FOLLOW THE TRAIL OF ONE DOLLAR TO ME -- "YOU," MEANING THE STATE -- MEANS

28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 TO ME -- AND OBVIOUSLY, NOT TO THIS COURT; AND I RESPECT THIS COURT'S TENTATIVE RULINGS. BUT TO ME, IT MEANS

THAT SOMEONE IS GOING TO BE IN A HEAP OF TROUBLE, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ME, BECAUSE I DIDN'T GET ONE PENNY. NOW, DID I MEET WITH PEOPLE AND EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT I HAD BEEN DOING SINCE 2009 IN FIGHTING WITH THE BANKS? YES. BUT THE COURT IS DISINTERESTED AND HAS

INSTRUCTED ME -THE COURT: WAS DISINTERESTED. MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: NO, BUT I'M AGREEING WITH YOU. I AM NOT DISINTERESTED. THE COURT HAS INDICATED -I HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS, OKAY. NOW, I WISH YOU WOULDN'T SAY I

MR. STEIN, AND I WROTE AN EXTENSIVE TENTATIVE SETTING FORTH VERY DIRECT PIECES OF EVIDENCE THAT TIE YOU TO THIS. MR. STEIN: EVIDENCE. THE COURT: SO YOU CAN STAND -- NO, YOU'RE NOT. OKAY. AND I'M RESPONDING TO THE

YOU'RE PICKING OUT OTHER KINDS OF THINGS, BUT YOU'RE NOT RESPONDING TO THE EVIDENCE THAT'S SET FORTH THERE. MR. STEIN: WELL, WHY DON'T I -- FIRST OF ALL, THE

ONLY THING I SAID -- AND I APOLOGIZE FOR SAYING "DISINTERESTED." I SAID THE COURT SAID IT IS NOT

RELEVANT WHETHER OR NOT THE CASES ARE GOOD OR BAD. THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO. THE COURT: NO, IT REALLY ISN'T. IT REALLY ISN'T.

29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR. STEIN: THE COURT: DEAL OF MERIT. RIGHT. AND SO --

I'M SURE THAT THE CASES HAVE A GREAT THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE

PROMISES THAT WERE MADE TO THESE PEOPLE HAVE ANY BASIS IN REALITY, NUMBER ONE; AND NUMBER TWO, THE MARKETING SCHEME THAT YOU ENGAGED IN AND ASKED FOR MONEY UP FRONT; AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU JOINED THESE PEOPLE IN ANY ACTIONS. SOME OF THEM, YOU PROBABLY DID. WELL, LET -SO THAT IS THE QUESTION, AS TO WHETHER

MR. STEIN: THE COURT:

OR NOT YOU ENGAGED IN UNFAIR COMPETITION AND -MR. STEIN: THE COURT: QUESTION HERE. MR. STEIN: LET'S SPECIFICALLY, RATHER THAN -UNFAIR --- DECEPTIVE ADVERTISING. THAT IS THE

RATHER THAN CITE THE COURT TO CONTRARY EVIDENCE IN THE STATE'S PAPERS, I WILL JUST INDICATE THAT EVERY ITEM IN THE COURT'S TENTATIVE RULING IS CONTRADICTED BY DECLARATIONS THAT THE STATE HAS SUBMITTED. AND I WILL POINT OUT THOSE DECLARATIONS AND THAT EVIDENCE, JUST LIKE I HAVE DONE. THE COURT HAS ASKED ME. COURT'S EVIDENCE NOW. THE COURT: OKAY. NOW, LET ME TELL YOU THIS. I WILL DO WHAT

I'LL REFER DIRECTLY TO THE

YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT WAS AT THE TIME YOU FILED YOUR OPPOSITION, AND I AM NOT GIVING YOU FIVE HOURS TO ARGUE. I'M GOING TO SET SOME TIME NOW BECAUSE WE DON'T

SEEM TO HAVE MUCH FOCUS.

30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A QUOTE. SAYS: "DEFENDANTS' SCHEME HAS LURED THOUSANDS OF DESPERATE HOMEOWNERS FACING DISCLOSURE INTO PAYING THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS EACH, BASED ON FALSE CLAIMS AND PROMISES. KRAMER & KASLOW MINUTES. THAT'S IT. MR. STEIN: INJUNCTION -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THAT'S ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. NOT ON THE ASSUMPTION. NOT ON THE ASSUMPTION. YOUR HONOR, MY RESPONSE TO THE COURT'S IS THAT ON THE PRELIMINARY SO WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN GOING AT THIS FOR 45 I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU 20 MORE MINUTES, AND

STATEMENT THAT MY PAPERS WERE THE CHANCE TO RESPOND TO THE STATE'S ALLEGATIONS. THE STATE MUST APPROVE ITS AND IF THEY

CASE BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

HAVEN'T DONE IT, AND THEY HAVEN'T, THEN I HAVE TAKEN MY OPPORTUNITY AND STATED THAT. I WILL NOW ADDRESS THE COURT'S TENTATIVE AND THE EVIDENCE ADDRESSED THEREIN BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT THE COURT WISHES ME TO DO. ON PAGE 2 OF THE COURT'S TENTATIVE, THERE'S IT SAYS -- ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE. IT

TOOK IN 7 MILLION IN DEPOSITS INTO JUST THREE BANK ACCOUNTS IN A LIMITED TIME FRAME. IN

THAT SAME TIME, KRAMER & KASLOW PAID OVER 1.4 MILLION TO DI GIROLAMO, APC, AND OVER

31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 $2.3 MILLION TO RENAULT'S LITIGATION PROFESSIONALS, THE TWO PROCESSING CENTERS WHICH OVERSAW THE MASS JOINDER MARKETING, SALES, AND CLIENT SOLICITATIONS" -THE COURT: SOMETHING. OKAY. NOW, I'M GOING TO TELL YOU

THAT'S NOT THE EVIDENCE. THE EVIDENCE -- I WAS ABOUT TO GET TO IT SAYS:

MR. STEIN: THE LAST SENTENCE.

"ACCORDING TO THE REPLY, CONSUMERS HAD NO IDEA THAT MOST OF THE MONEY THEY PAID WENT TO SALES AGENTS AND NOT THEIR LITIGATION." THIS IS "THE ALLEGED SCHEME," SUBSECTION A. MY NAME, ON THE COURT'S TENTATIVE, APPEARS IN SUBSECTION A ON PAGE 2 -- AND THIS IS ONLY SUBSECTION A -- ONE TIME, AT THE NEW PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE PAGE. QUOTE: "DEFENDANTS TELL HOMEOWNERS THAT A SETTLEMENT COULD HAPPEN AT ANY TIME, AND ONLY THOSE WHO JOIN THE LAWSUIT WILL RECEIVE BENEFITS. DEFENDANTS REPEATEDLY MAKE FALSE AND IT SAYS,

AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS TO GET HOMEOWNERS TO SIGN THE KRAMER OR STEIN ATTORNEY RETAINER AGREEMENTS AND PAY THE RETAINER FEE." I'M STOPPING THERE. THE STATE HAS NOT PUT INTO EVIDENCE ONE SUCH RETAINER AGREEMENT SIGNED BY ME, AND THEY HAVE NOT PUT IN ONE DOLLAR OF RETAINER FEES PAID TO ME UNDER ANY ALLEGED SCAM. THAT'S A FACT. AND THEY HAVE TO DO IT BY

32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4. CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. IF THE COURT OR THE PEOPLE BELIEVE THEY HAVE PUT SUCH EVIDENCE IN, JUST REFERENCE THE EVIDENCE TO ME, AND I'LL LOOK AT IT AND RESPOND TO IT. THERE. BUT IT'S NOT

I DON'T NEED TO REFERENCE THE EVIDENCE. THERE'S NOT ONE RETAINER AGREEMENT OF MINE

IN EVIDENCE, AND THERE'S NOT ONE DOLLAR OF MONEY PAID TO ME IN EVIDENCE. AND THE STANDARD IS CLEAR AND

CONVINCING EVIDENCE. I'LL NOW GO TO SUBSECTION B OF THE COURT'S TENTATIVE, WHICH IS ENTITLED "GENERAL ALLEGATIONS AGAINST DEFENDANT STEIN AND STEIN & ASSOCIATES." THE COURT: MR. STEIN: OKAY. SO THESE ARE ALLEGATIONS. AND IF YOU WANT ME JUST TO

CORRECT.

GO TO THE EVIDENCE, IF THAT'S BETTER, GIVEN THAT I'M LIMITED ON TIME -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: YOU'VE GOT YOUR 20 MINUTES. OKAY. USE IT HOWEVER YOU WANT. I'VE

INDICATED THAT THERE'S SPECIFIC EVIDENCE IN THERE. MR. STEIN: PARAGRAPHS 72 AND -- NOW I'M ON PAGE I'M ON PAGE 4, "C. EVIDENCE,

I'M GOING TO EVIDENCE.

APPROVAL OF THE FRAUDULENT MAILERS." "ACCORDING TO PARAGRAPHS 72 AND 73 OF THE THOMAS LAYTON DECLARATION" -- WHO NEVER INTERVIEWED ME OR ANYBODY THAT WORKS FOR ME -QUOTE: "'DURING MY INVESTIGATION, I BECAME

33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AWARE OF DAMIAN KUTZNER'" -WHO IS AT BROOKSTONE, WHO WE KNOW HAS ISSUED AN UNLAWFUL MAILER, I ARGUE. WITH ME, BUT IT'S OF RECORD. -- "'WHO IS A NONATTORNEY THAT HAS HAD A BUSINESS RELATIONSHIP WITH KRAMER, STEIN. MET ON JULY 12, 2011 IN PERSON. INFORMED ME'" -AND I OBJECTED TO THIS, AND THE COURT SUSTAINED THE OBJECTION, SO I'M NOT GOING TO READ ANY MORE. THAT EVIDENCE IS GONE. IF THE COURT WANTS ME TO CONTINUE TO TALK ABOUT KUTZNER AND THE $8 MILLION FTC JUDGMENT AGAINST HIM, I WILL. PARTE. I'VE SUBMITTED THAT INTO EVIDENCE IN MY EX KUTZNER WE THE COURT MAY DISAGREE

AND SO THE REST OF THAT IS GONE. SO NOW THE EVIDENCE ON PAGE 4, BOTTOM OF THE

PAGE, IS GONE. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: LAYTON. THE COURT: THE MONEY." IT. YEAH, AND THAT'S IT. "IT'S ALL ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE IS GONE? I'M SORRY.

THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT KUTZNER TOLD MR.

THAT IS WHAT I SUSTAINED IT TO, AND THAT'S

NOT THAT THERE WAS A CONVERSATION, NOT THAT HE SO THE ONLY

WASN'T INVOLVED WITH YOU, NOT -- OKAY.

OBJECTION THAT I SUSTAINED WAS WHAT YOU SAID. MR. STEIN: THE COURT: RIGHT. YOU HELD UP THE CHECKS AND SAID, "IT'S

ALL ABOUT THE MONEY."

34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR. STEIN: THE COURT: THIS CASE. MR. STEIN: SUSTAINED TO IT. AND THE COURT HAS IN ITS FILES, FILED ON SEPTEMBER 19, A MAILER THAT IS CRIMINAL IN NATURE, BY BROOKSTONE LAW, AND IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE THAT DAMIAN KUTZNER, AS THE COO OF THAT COMPANY -- IF THE COURT BELIEVES THAT KUTZNER'S STATEMENT TO MR. LAYTON OF WHAT HAPPENED WHEN HE MET WITH ME IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, I'M JUST GOING TO GO ON. RECORD. I'VE MADE THE WELL, IN ANY EVENT, THE OBJECTION WAS THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT YOU --

BUT THAT WAS NOT DECISIVE IN

I ALREADY MADE THE RECORD IN THE EX PARTE. NO. 2: "RELATIONSHIP WITH GARY D.

DI GIROLAMO." STATING:

DEFENDANT STEIN PUT OUT A PRESS RELEASE

"CONTRARY TO THE COUNTERFEIT SOLICITATION AND PUBLIC STATEMENTS, MITCHELL J. STEIN & ASSOCIATES IS NOT AFFILIATED WITH MATT DAVIS, GARY DI GIROLAMO, CHRIS FOX, AND BILL STEPHENSON OR WITH ANY OF THEIR ASSOCIATES OR COMPANIES. (SEE EXHIBIT 2 TO

THE DECLARATION OF JAMES TOMA.) "HOWEVER, ON MAY 4, GARY DI GIROLAMO SUBMITTED A RESPONSE TO JAMES TOMA OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WHERE HE INDICATES IN ANSWER 23 THAT, QUOTE, 'I HAVE BEEN AFFILIATED WITH MITCHELL J. STEIN. THIS

35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 QUOTING ME. "IN LATE 2010, I AGREED TO ALLOW ATTORNEY PROCESSING CENTER TO PERFORM SERVICING FUNCTIONS FOR THE FIRM'S CLIENTS," PERIOD, END OF QUOTE. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT I DID. "INDEED, THERE ARE SEVERAL EMAILS BETWEEN STEIN AND DI GIROLAMO DISCUSSING THE RONALD ACTION, AS WELL AS OTHER BUSINESS DETAILS. SEE EXHIBIT 7 TO DECLARATION OF SEE EXHIBIT 23 OF MATTHEW DAVIS'S WAS IN A DATA MANAGEMENT AND FILE MANAGEMENT ROLE, UNDER MR. STEIN'S DIRECTION AND CONTROL,'" PERIOD, END OF QUOTE. 7 TO DECLARATION OF JAMES TOMA." I ADMITTED THAT IN MY DECLARATION. I "SEE EXHIBIT

ATTEMPTED TO USE MR. DI GIROLAMO FOR DATA MANAGEMENT AND FILE MANAGEMENT. THAT IS NOT UNFAIR COMPETITION. THAT

IS COMPUTERS AND FILE MANAGEMENT OF MY CLIENTS. THEN LATER IT SAYS, "IN LATE" -- IT'S

JAMES TOMA. DECLARATION."

EXHIBIT 23 OF MATTHEW DAVIS'S DECLARATION ABOUT THESE SUPPOSED EMAILS IS -- "YOU SAID, 'SEND THE HANDWRITTEN NOTE'" -- THIS IS THE EVIDENCE THAT'S BEING RELIED UPON. "GARY, YOU SAID, 'SEND THE HANDWRITTEN NOTE TO THE CLIENTS THAT I GAVE YOU.'" THAT'S THE DATA BASE CLIENTS THAT WERE MY

36 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COMPETITION. CLIENTS. "PLEASE SEND ME THE FORMAT AND ANY DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING THE HANDWRITTEN NOTE. THEN I WILL DETERMINE WHAT TO DO NEXT. THANKS, MITCH." I DON'T BELIEVE THAT AMOUNTS TO UNFAIR THE HANDWRITTEN NOTE, YOUR HONOR -- AND IF

YOU LOOK AT DECEMBER 20TH -- WAS A CHRISTMAS CARD TO ALL OF MY CLIENTS, DECEMBER 20TH BEING FIVE DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS. IF THE COURT FINDS THAT ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO ISSUE A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, IT'S FINE. THE RECORD. NOW WE'LL GO ON WITH THE EVIDENCE AGAINST MITCHELL STEIN. A CHRISTMAS CARD AND -- SO FAR, AND A WE'VE MADE

DECLARATION OF THOMAS LAYTON, WHERE HE MET WITH SOMEBODY AT A STARBUCKS -- WHICH IS HEARSAY -- AND WHICH THAT PERSON ISSUED A FRAUDULENT MAILER AND HAS NEVER HAD ANYTHING HAPPEN TO HIM. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THAT THAT PERSON HAS STOLEN MONEY FROM LEGASPI, A DECLARATION THAT WE SUBMITTED, WHICH ISN'T DISCUSSED IN HERE. AND I THINK THAT DAMIAN KUTZNER IS NOT A BELIEVABLE WITNESS. I WOULD OBVIOUSLY REMIND THE COURT A WITNESS FALSE IN ONE PART OF

WHAT IT ALREADY KNOWS:

HIS TESTIMONY, THE COURT IS ENTITLED TO DISBELIEVE EVERYTHING HE SAYS. THE COURT: NORMAL CACI INSTRUCTION. IF A

THAT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT:

37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WITNESS IS FALSE IN ONE PART OF THEIR TESTIMONY, THE COURT IS ENTITLED TO IGNORE EVERYTHING ELSE THEY SAY. MR. STEIN: THE NEXT THING SAYS:

"FORWARDED NUMBER WILL BE ANSWERED, 'LAW OFFICES. MAY I HELP YOU?' SEE TOMA

DECLARATION." I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THERE'S ANY UNFAIR COMPETITION THERE. SERVICE MY CLIENTS. HE WAS FOR TWO MONTHS GOING TO TO THE EXTENT THEY CALLED AND THEY

NEEDED A DOCUMENT OUT OF HIS COMPUTERS, HE WOULD SEND IT TO THEM. THE NEXT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS: ADVISING" -- I'M ON THE -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: WAS HE AT YOUR OFFICES? I'M SORRY. WHAT? "STEIN

WAS HE AT YOUR OFFICES? NEVER. HE HAD AN OFFICE IN ORANGE

COUNTY, AS I UNDERSTOOD IT. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: IS HE A LAWYER? MR. DI GIROLAMO -- HE'S NOT A LAWYER. NO. AND HE WAS SUPPOSED TO -"LAW OFFICES." OKAY.

HE IS SUPPOSED TO -HE ANSWERED, "LAW OFFICES." THAT'S CORRECT, BECAUSE AS A STAFF

MEMBER OF MY LAW OFFICE, HE WOULD ANSWER, "LAW OFFICES." THE PERSON WOULD STATE WHAT THEY WANTED, AND HE WOULD

38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 REFER THE CALL TO MYSELF OR ONE OF THE SEVEN LAWYERS THEN WORKING FOR ME. AND THAT'S ALL I AUTHORIZED HIM TO DO, AS THE TOMA DECLARATION, EXHIBIT 7(D), SAYS. I'M STILL ON THE TOP OF PAGE 6: "STEIN ADVISING DI GIROLAMO THAT HE SHOULD NOT USE THE IRVINE ADDRESS" -THAT'S FURTHER EVIDENCE THAT I DIDN'T WANT HIM HOLDING HIMSELF OUT AS HIS LAWYER. -- "BUT SHOULD USE THE WALNUT CREEK ADDRESS. AS STEIN NOTES IN HIS EMAIL," QUOTE,

"'YOU MUST STOP USING IRVINE AS MITCHELL J. STEIN'S ADDRESS BECAUSE IT IS AN ADDRESS THAT I DO NOT UTILIZE ACTIVELY, AND I AM UNCOMFORTABLE HAVING DOCUMENTS BEARING THAT ADDRESS ASSOCIATED WITH ME.'" THIS IS -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: IS THAT MR. DI GIROLAMO? NO, THAT'S ME SAYING THIS TO

DI GIROLAMO, COMPLAINING. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: I KNOW, BUT IS THAT HIS ADDRESS? I BELIEVED IRVINE WAS HIS ADDRESS.

AND HE DID STOP AT THAT POINT, AND THAT WAS IN DECEMBER OF 2010. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: OKAY. THE NEXT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS, ON

DECEMBER 16TH, I WROTE MR. DI GIROLAMO AND SAID: "WITH REGARD TO AN EMAIL ADDRESS, I WILL

39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FORM A NEW ONE ON GMAIL AND GIVE YOU THE PASS CODE. THEN YOU CAN USE THAT EMAIL ADDRESS AND

YOUR NEW 310 FAX NUMBER TO GET ALL THE INFORMATION YOU WANT TO PROPERLY PROTECT THE CLIENTS." WE NEED DEEDS OF TRUST, MORTGAGES, CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE BANKS. COMPUTER SYSTEM. WE NEED THEM PUT INTO A

THAT'S WHAT A SERVICING AGENT DOES.

THAT ENTIRE ARRANGEMENT CEASED AS OF THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY AND, AS THE RECEIVER ADMITTED, COMPLETELY CEASED AS OF FEBRUARY, WHEN THE HEARING IN FRONT OF JUDGE HIGHBERGER HAPPENED. I WAS ATTEMPTING TO USE OUTSOURCING SERVICING OF CLIENTS, AND DETERMINED THAT IT ALL HAD TO BE DONE UNDER ONE ROOF BECAUSE ALL THESE ENTITIES WERE FORMING. THAT IS NOT CLEAR -- I WOULD ARGUE, IS NOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE OF ANY WRONGDOING WHATSOEVER. IT'S EVIDENCE OF ME TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO

ACT THE WAY I WANTED THEM TO, NOT BEING ABLE TO, AND CHANGING. AND I DID. HAD MR. LAYTON INTERVIEWED MR. BUTTERWORTH, WHO IS THE COURTROOM TODAY, OR MS. SOTO OR ANY OF THE OTHER -- OR MS. KRANTZ, OR ANY OF THE OTHER PEOPLE THAT WORKED FOR MITCHELL J. STEIN & ASSOCIATES, THEY WOULD HAVE LEARNED THE TRUTH. AND THESE PEOPLE SUBMITTED AFFIDAVITS TO THE COURT OF EXACTLY WHAT I DID DO, THE COURT DOESN'T

40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 POINT. UNDERSTAND. THE -AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, THIS PARTICULAR IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE REMEMBERED, THIS IS THE MENTION ANY OF THE EVIDENCE IN THOSE AFFIDAVITS IN HERE. AND THEN IT SAYS: "THUS, CONTRARY TO THE PRESS RELEASE OF MARCH 17, STEIN CLEARLY WAS IN BUSINESS WITH DI GIROLAMO AND ATTORNEY PROCESSING CENTER." THAT'S A CONCLUSION BASED ON THE EVIDENCE, I AND I COMPLETELY DISAGREE WITH THAT.

POINT THAT I WISH THE COURT TO REMEMBER, IN GOOD FAITH. ON PAGE 5, AT THE BEGINNING OF PARAGRAPH 2, "RELATIONSHIP WITH GARY DI GIROLAMO," THE COURT SAYS: "ON MARCH 17, 2011, STEIN PUT OUT A PRESS RELEASE STATING: 'CONTRARY TO THE

COUNTERFEIT SOLICITATIONS'" -I'M NOT AFFILIATED WITH GARY DI GIROLAMO, MATT DAVIS, ET CETERA. THAT'S MARCH 17.

THE COURT CONCLUDES THAT THAT'S A LIE BECAUSE ON DECEMBER 20, I'M WRITING MR. DI GIROLAMO A LETTER. THAT'S JUST UNFAIR AND WRONG. I WAS INVOLVED

WITH MR. DI GIROLAMO ON DECEMBER 20, BUT NOT ON MARCH 17. AND FOR THE COURT TO CONCLUDE THAT THE MARCH 17 PRESS RELEASE WAS WRONG BECAUSE I WROTE SOMETHING ON DECEMBER 20TH, IT'S THE SAME ILLOGICAL, RIDICULOUS CONCLUSIONS THAT THE STATE ARE MAKING. HOW -- ON MARCH 17 -- WHERE'S THE EMAIL

41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AFTER MARCH 17, OR EVEN WITHIN A MONTH OF MARCH 17, FROM ME TO GARY DI GIROLAMO SHOWING THAT WE'RE STILL IN BUSINESS? THE EMAIL IS FROM DECEMBER. WHY IN THE WORLD IS A TRIER OF FACT, UNDER CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, REACHING THE CONCLUSION THAT IN MARCH, I WAS INVOLVED WITH A PERSON WHO I EMAILED IN DECEMBER? THE COURT: MR. STEIN: AND THAT YOU WERE IN BUSINESS WITH. I WAS IN BUSINESS WITH. HOW -- WHAT

IS THAT CONCLUSION BASED ON?

WHAT OTHER EVIDENCE DO I

HAVE TO ADDRESS FOR THE COURT SO THAT I CAN CLEAR UP THIS SITUATION, WHICH HURTS THOUSANDS OF CLIENTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY? ALTHOUGH, WHEN WE GET TO THE LAW PRACTICE PROCEEDING, THE STATE HAS SAID I COULD PRACTICE WITH ANY LLP I WANT. AGAINST ME. THEY CAN BRING A DISCIPLINARY ACTION THEY'RE GOING TO LOSE BECAUSE IN THE STATE

BAR COURT AND THE SUPREME COURT, A DECEMBER 20 EMAIL DOES NOT PROVE I'M IN BUSINESS WITH SOMEONE ON MARCH 17 OF THE NEXT YEAR. THE COURT: NO, IT'S THE COLLECTIVE EVIDENCE THAT

SHOWS YOU ENGAGED IN THIS. MR. STEIN: THE COURT: IS OVERWHELMING. MR. STEIN: SO WHAT IS THE OTHER EVIDENCE? I'VE I'VE OKAY. WELL, LET'S GO INTO THE --

IT IS THE COLLECTIVE EVIDENCE, AND IT

RECITED SO FAR -- AND I'LL CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH. RECITED --

42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 GLEN STATES: "I'M AN EMPLOYEE OF K2 LAW...THE ATTORNEYS IN THAT CASE ARE.. MITCHELL STEIN... K2 LAW HAS A REFERRAL ARRANGEMENT WITH MITCHELL J. STEIN." THESE ARE ALL STATEMENTS WITH GLEN RENEAU. ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 6: "STEIN ADMITS HAVING MET RENEAU" -I DID MEET RENEAU; THAT'S CORRECT. RENEAU EMAILED ME, STATING WHETHER THERE WERE ANY CONCRETE RESULTS SO FAR IN THE RONALD CASE. RESPONSE, STEIN INDICATED THE FOLLOWING RESULTS WERE OKAY TO REPRESENT. AND THEN THERE'S A QUOTATION ON THE TOP OF PAGE 7 THAT COMES FROM AN EMAIL FROM RENEAU. AGREED TO THIS EMAIL. TO DO THAT. I NEVER IN THE COURT: MR. STEIN: YOU NOW HAVE SEVEN MINUTES. OKAY. I'LL CONTINUE TO GO THROUGH.

NO. 3, "RELATIONSHIP WITH GLEN RENEAU."

I NEVER WROTE HIM SAYING HE HAS THESE

THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT I DID THAT.

WERE THE THINGS THAT CAUSED ME TO BECOME UNINVOLVED WITH THESE PEOPLE. HOWEVER, THERE WERE SIX NOTICES OF DEFAULT RESCINDED IN THE RONALD CASE. THAT IS A FACT. IT WAS

DONE AT AN EX PARTE HEARING BY STIPULATION INSTEAD OF COURT ORDER. THERE WERE SALE DATES POSTPONED BY

STIPULATION AND EX PARTE HEARING. THEY SIMPLY PUFFED IT INTO OBTAINING

43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 INJUNCTIONS FROM JUDGE CHANEY, WHO -- AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO INTO THE -- WHETHER THE CASE IS GOOD OR BAD, BUT THOSE RESULTS DID HAPPEN. PUT THIS OUT. CALL CENTERS. THERE IS SIMPLY -- ON PAGE 7, BUT I NEVER TOLD HIM TO

MY NAME IS SIMPLY NOT MENTIONED, OTHER THAN THE MOVING PAPERS, WHICH, I BELIEVE, IS NOT EVIDENCE. NOT MENTIONED. MY NAME IS

IT'S JUST TALKING ABOUT THOMAS LAYTON;

JUANA DALY, WHO I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT IS; AND MITIGATION PROFESSIONALS. AND THEN MATTHEW DAVIS SAYS DI GIROLAMO EXPLAINED TO HIM THE LOAN MODIFICATION SHOPS WERE BECOMING LAW FIRMS SO THEY WOULD REFER CLIENTS TO KRAMER, NOT TO MITCHELL STEIN. EVERYTHING IN HERE TALKS ABOUT KRAMER AND IS EVIDENCE FROM PEOPLE THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN FOUND TO HAVE RECEIVED MONEY. MONEY. THERE'S NO EVIDENCE I RECEIVED ANY

THERE'S NO EVIDENCE I EVER WROTE ANY OF THESE

PEOPLE AND TOLD THEM TO DO THAT. THE ONLY EVIDENCE IS, I MET WITH THEM WHEN THE FEDERAL INVESTIGATION STARTED AT END OF 2010, AND I WAS DONE WITH THEM IN JANUARY OF 2011. EVIDENCE THAT I SUBMITTED. STATE SUBMITTED. AND THERE'S REALLY NO REASON TO BELABOR IT. THE COURT KNOWS THIS. AND I DO APPRECIATE THE COURT HAS THE COURT BELIEVES THAT THAT'S THE

THAT'S THE EVIDENCE THAT THE

READ THESE PAPERS CAREFULLY.

THERE'S -- THAT THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING AND HAS SO

44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RULED, AND I DISAGREE. TO GO THROUGH EVERY PIECE OF EVIDENCE OF WHAT GLEN RENEAU SAID OR GARY DI GIROLAMO SAID OR WHAT EVERYONE ELSE SAID, IT'S ALL THERE FOR ANYONE TO LOOK AT. SO WE CAN -- WE OBVIOUSLY DISAGREE. THE INJUNCTION JUST SAYS I WILL NOT LIE TO ANY CONSUMERS. I'M WILLING TO STIPULATE TO THE I NEVER HAVE. THERE'S NO CONSUMER

INJUNCTION, ANYWAY. EVER STATING SUCH.

AND I CHALLENGE THE PEOPLE TO FIND ME A CONSUMER -- A CLIENT, LIKE THE PEOPLE SITTING IN THIS COURTROOM -- WHO HAVE SAID THAT I SAID ONE THING TO THEM THAT WAS FALSE, ONE THING, AND THAT I DID NOT AT ALL TIMES TELL THEM THAT I WAS UNAFFILIATED WITH THESE PEOPLE. IF THEY HAD A CLIENT DECLARATION -- THEY SUBMITTED 17 OF THEM. IF THEY SUBMITTED A CLIENT

DECLARATION THAT I SAID SOMETHING WRONG TO THEM, THIS WOULD BE A DIFFERENT CASE. THEY'RE SUBMITTING OF COURSE

DECLARATIONS OF PEOPLE WHO GOT PAID MONEY. THEY'RE GOING TO SAY THINGS. CONVINCING EVIDENCE.

THAT'S NOT CLEAR AND

I WILL END HERE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO CONSUMER DECLARATION; AND HOPEFULLY, I'VE COMPLETED IT IN UNDER 20 MINUTES. BUT I DO WISH TO

ARGUE IN DETAIL REGARDING THE FREEZE ORDERS, GIVEN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S ORDER YESTERDAY, AND PERHAPS EITHER COME TO A STIPULATION OR AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT

45 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OCCURRED. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY FROM THE

PEOPLE WANT TO ADDRESS THIS? MR. TOMA: OF THE PEOPLE. YES, YOUR HONOR. JAMES TOMA ON BEHALF

I WILL BE VERY BRIEF, YOUR HONOR.

I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT THE PEOPLE DO NOT SUBMIT TO THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE BY MR. STEIN AS TO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT YESTERDAY. JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD. AS THE COURT HAS ALREADY STATED, THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING WITH RESPECT TO MR. STEIN'S INVOLVEMENT IN THE VENTURE. WE HAVE EMAILS AND I

DECLARATIONS FROM SALES AGENTS AND MARKETERS SAYING MR. STEIN PITCHED THEM THE MARKETING REPRESENTATIONS. WE'VE TALKED BRIEFLY ABOUT THESE STATEMENTS MADE, THAT ARE PRESENTED TO THE COURT IN EXHIBIT 73, ABOUT THE ORDERS IN THE RONALD CASE, INJUNCTIONS THAT DID NOT EXIST, COUNTLESS ADDITIONAL ORDERS STOPPING FORECLOSURE SALES. THESE WERE MADE SPECIFICALLY TO DEFENDANT GLEN RENEAU, KNOWING FULL WELL THAT THESE WERE THE KINDS OF REPRESENTATIONS THAT CONSUMERS WANTED TO KNOW BEFORE THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO SIGN UP FOR A MASS JOINDER CASE. MR. STEIN DIRECTLY AUTHORIZED THOSE REPRESENTATIONS TO BE MADE. THEY APPEAR ON NUMEROUS

46 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WEBSITES THE DEFENDANTS USED, AND HE CANNOT DISCLAIM RESPONSIBILITY FOR THEM. SIMPLY BECAUSE HE MAY NOT HAVE

BEEN THE ONE WHO DIRECTLY SPOKE TO A PARTICULAR CONSUMER, HE HAD FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THESE WERE BEING USED BY SALES AGENTS FOR THEIR MARKETING SCRIPTS, AND THESE WERE PUT OUT THERE ALL OVER THE PLACE. AND THAT IS HOW CONSUMERS WERE PERSUADED TO ENTER INTO THESE JOINDERS, ON THE FALSE BELIEF THAT THESE SUCCESSES HAD BEEN ACHIEVED. EVIDENCE IS VERY CLEAR. WITH RESPECT TO THE EVIDENCE ON MR. DI GIROLAMO, THERE ARE EMAILS THAT ARE PART OF MY DECLARATION -- EXHIBIT 7(C), FOR EXAMPLE -- WHERE GARY DI GIROLAMO TOLD MR. STEIN THAT HE HAD 400 RETAINERS OUT FOR SIGNING. HE WAS CLEARLY MARKETING MR. STEIN'S RETAINER AGREEMENT. CLIENTS. HE WASN'T JUST SERVICING SOME AND HE I THINK THAT

HE WAS OUT THERE GETTING NEW CLIENTS.

ALSO REFERS TO THE FACT THAT MR. RENEAU HAS SOME ADDITIONAL RETAINERS OUT THERE. SO THEY'RE OUT THERE

GATHERING CONSUMERS AND GETTING CLIENTS FOR MR. STEIN AND MR. KRAMER. THERE IS THE EMAIL FROM THE RECEIVER EXHIBIT 73 WHERE MR. STEIN THREATENS TO BAIL OUT OF HIS ARRANGEMENT WITH MR. DI GIROLAMO BECAUSE OF ONE BOUNCED CHECK. AND THERE'S THAT BACK-AND-FORTH, WHICH SHOWS

EVIDENCE THAT MR. STEIN WAS RECEIVING MONEY THROUGH THIS PROCEDURE AND THROUGH THIS MARKETING SCHEME.

47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 AGREEMENT. MR. DI GIROLAMO RESPONDS BACK TO MR. STEIN THAT, "WE PROCESS 300-PLUS DEPOSITS A WEEK FOR YOU, AND THE CHECKS ARE ALWAYS CLEARED VIA PHIL KRAMER." WE ALSO HAVE THE MORE RECENT MAY 2011 EMAIL THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE REPLY, IN WHICH KRAMER TELLS MR. STEIN THAT HE'S ONCE AGAIN THROWN HIM UNDER THE BUS, WITH RESPECT TO REPRESENTATIONS THAT MR. STEIN MADE TO A CLIENT OR A PURPORTED CLIENT, SAYING, "I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. KRAMER. MR. KRAMER TELLS MR. STEIN, "WE HAD THIS YOU KNOW THAT WE -- I, MR. KRAMER, PAID FOR AND HERE YOU THIS IS SOMETHING ABOUT WITH YOU AND MR.

A LOT OF THINGS THROUGH OUR JOINT VENTURE.

ARE, AGAIN, THROWING ME UNDER THE BUS, WITH RESPECT TO THESE CONSUMERS AND CLIENTS THAT ARE OUT THERE." MR. STEIN REPRESENTS THAT HE WAS DONE WITH THIS WHOLE VENTURE -- I BELIEVE HE SAYS IN JANUARY. IN

FEBRUARY, YOU'LL SEE THAT MR. STEIN AND HIS ASSOCIATES TRY TO GET, BY STIPULATION, THE ADDITION OF SOME 349 CLIENTS TO THE RONALD CASE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DAVIS DECLARATION, YOU'LL SEE THE VERY DETAILED STATEMENTS ABOUT HOW THE OTHER DEFENDANTS WERE GATHERING THESE CLIENTS FOR MR. STEIN'S RONALD CASE; HOW MR. STEIN HAD REFUSED TO GO IN EX PARTE, LIKE THEY HAD EXPECTED HIM TO; AND YET MR. STEIN SAYS THAT HE WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH MR. KRAMER. THAT IN COURT ON FEBRUARY 3RD. A FEW DAYS LATER, HE PROPOSES TO ADD ABOUT HE SAYS

48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 349 CLIENTS TO HIS CASE. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE LIST OF

THE CLIENTS, WHICH IS ATTACHED TO THE CEKIRGE DECLARATION, THOSE ARE ALL CLIENTS WITH WHICH -- WHICH MATCH THE SAME CLIENTS THAT THE OTHER DEFENDANTS WERE ATTEMPTING TO SOLICIT INTO THE MASS JOINDER CASE. AND SHORTLY THEREAFTER, WHEN MR. STEIN APPARENTLY REFUSED TO ADD THEM OR GO FORWARD ON THE MATTER, SOME 300 OF THOSE CLIENTS WERE THEN SWITCHED OVER TO THE KRAMER CASE SHORTLY THEREAFTER. HE IS CLEARLY INVOLVED WITH MR. KRAMER AND THESE OTHER DEFENDANTS. THE EVIDENCE IS OVERWHELMING

WITH RESPECT TO HIS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FALSE AND MISLEADING MARKETING, WITH HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE SOLICITATIONS THROUGH SALES AGENTS, THROUGH THE RUNNING AND CAPPING AND FEE-SPLITTING SCHEME. AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THE STANDARD IS NOT CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, AS MR. STEIN CONTINUES TO SAY. IT IS -- AS DISCUSSED IN THE MOVING THAT

PAPERS, IT IS A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS. IS THE ACTUAL STANDARD.

AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE

HAVE SHOWN, BY FAR -- THROUGH A GREAT DEAL OF EVIDENCE, HAVE MET THAT STANDARD. IF THERE ARE OTHER SPECIFIC MATTERS WHICH THE COURT WOULD LIKE TO HEAR, I'D BE MORE THAN WILLING; BUT OTHERWISE, I'M GOING TO SUBMIT. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: NO, I DON'T THINK SO. I'D LIKE TO REPLY TO ONE STATEMENT. ALL RIGHT.

49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE 300 -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: WAIT. YES. WITH REGARD TO THE STATE BAR? THE STATE BAR HAS TO PROVE ANY MR. STEIN: ACTUALLY, ONE -- TWO STATEMENTS.

NUMBER ONE, I UNDERSTAND IT'S REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS THAT'S THE STANDARD, BUT THE EVIDENTIARY STANDARD WITHIN THAT INJUNCTION STANDARD IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, UNDER RULE 5.103, WITH REGARD TO THE STATE BAR. NUMBER TWO, EVIDENTIARILY, WITH REGARD TO

CASE AGAINST A LAWYER, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH THE PEOPLE OR THE STATE BAR, BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE, UNDER RULE 5.103, WHETHER THEY'RE OPERATING IN A COURT OF LAW, IN THE STATE BAR COURT, OR THE SUPREME COURT. CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. AND THEN THEY HAVE TO PROVE A REASONABLE PROBABILITY OF SUCCESS ON THE MERITS BY CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE. RULE 5.103. NUMBER TWO, YOUR HONOR -- AND THIS IS -- AND THEN I'M DONE. WITH RESPECT TO THE 350 PEOPLE, THAT EX THAT'S AT LEAST WHAT I CLAIM.

PARTE NOTICE, FIRST OF ALL, WAS ISSUED BY ERIKSON DAVIS, NOT BY ME, ON BEHALF OF THE LAW FIRM. AND ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS REGARDING THOSE PEOPLE WERE MADE IN FRONT OF JUDGE HIGHBERGER, AND HE GRANTED THE AMENDMENT AS TO THOSE PEOPLE. NONE OF THOSE

PEOPLE, ZERO OF THEM, PAID MITCHELL J. STEIN, MITCHELL J. STEIN & ASSOCIATES, OR ERIKSON DAVIS ONE PENNY FOR

50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HIGHBERGER. THE REPRESENTATION. CASE. AND THEY ARE NOW A PART OF THAT

JUDGE HIGHBERGER GRANTED -THE COURT: THESE PEOPLE WERE ALL SOLICITED,

WEREN'T THEY? MR. STEIN: THE COURT: YOU DIRECTLY. MR. STEIN: FIRST OF ALL, THE AMENDMENT WAS FOR NO. OH, THEY CAME TO YOU. ALL 300 CAME TO

160, NUMBER ONE, NOT 360. THE COURT: QUESTION I ASKED: 300? MR. STEIN: THE 160 THAT WE REPRESENT CAME TO US I'M JUST ASKING YOU. ANSWER THE

THEY ALL CAME TO YOU DIRECTLY, ALL

DIRECTLY, THE 160, AND SIGNED RETAINER AGREEMENTS WITH OUR FIRM DIRECTLY. FRONT OF JUDGE -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: WHAT HAPPENED TO THE 349? I HAVE -- ACCORDING TO MR. TOMA, THEY AND I NEVER SAID ON FEBRUARY 3RD, IN

WERE ADDED TO ANOTHER CASE BY MR. KRAMER, WHICH MAY BE TRUE. THEM. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED TO I KNOW THE 160 THAT WE ADDED;

I DON'T KNOW THEM.

THAT WE SIGNED RETAINER AGREEMENTS WITH EACH CLIENT; THAT WE INTERVIEWED EACH CLIENT; AND THAT -AND ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS WERE MADE BY JUDGE AND ON AUGUST 1ST, HE GRANTED EX PARTE AND THEY DID NOT TELL

THEIR INCLUSION INTO THE CASE.

JUDGE FRANK JOHNSON THAT THAT HAPPENED WHEN THEY MADE THE EX PARTE APPLICATION.

51 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HIGHBERGER. THOSE ARE JUST FACTS. THE COURT MAY VIEW

THOSE FACTS AS NOT WEIGHTY, BUT I'M JUST -- THAT'S MY RESPONSE TO WHAT HE'S SAYING. NUMBER TWO, YOUR HONOR, COUNSEL SAID THAT ON FEBRUARY 3RD I TOLD JUDGE HIGHBERGER I HAD NO RELATIONSHIP WITH PHIL KRAMER. TRUE. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT

WE HAD FIVE CASES ON FILE, AS OF DECEMBER 30TH.

I TOLD -- I SPECIFICALLY TOLD HIM THAT. AND WE THOSE CASES WERE RELATED BY JUDGE WE APPEARED IN THE SAME COURTROOM TOGETHER.

WE WERE OBVIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT HOW TO PROTECT PEOPLE'S HOMES WITH REGARD TO THOSE FIVE CASES. THEY'RE SEQUENTIALLY NUMBERED CASES, SO JUDGE HIGHBERGER KNEW ABOUT THE CASES. ON DECEMBER 30TH. THEY WERE FILED

THE HEARING MR. TOMA IS REFERRING TO,

I BELIEVE, IS FEBRUARY 3RD. SO THERE'S ONE THING TO -- AND WE ONLY REPRESENTED, IN TWO OF THESE CASES, 20 OF THOSE PLAINTIFFS BECAUSE IT WAS REQUIRED TO REPRESENT ALL OF THEM PRO BONO, ONCE WE INTERVIEWED THEM, BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL HARDSHIP CASES. AND I HAVE NOTHING ELSE. REPLIES, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: MR. TOMA: OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE NO OTHER

JUST FOR CLARIFICATION.

I THINK THE RECORD WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF, BUT I BELIEVE WHAT THE RECORD STATES ON THE FEBRUARY 3RD HEARING WAS, JUDGE HIGHBERGER ASKED MR. STEIN, "IS MR.

52 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HONOR. THE COURT: MR. TOMA: THE COURT: SOMEPLACE OR OTHER I HAVE THESE. YES, YOUR HONOR. BUT THERE'S NO OSC WITH RESPECT TO KRAMER AUTHORIZED TO SAY THAT HE WORKS WITH YOU IN THESE ENDEAVORS?" AND MR. STEIN SAID, "NO, HE IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SAY SO." THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. WELL, I HAVE NOT HEARD

ANYTHING THAT WOULD CHANGE MY MIND WITH RESPECT TO THE TENTATIVE RULING ON THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. WHILE I DIDN'T QUOTE ALL THE EVIDENCE IN THE TENTATIVE, IT'S AN 18-PAGE TENTATIVE. IT PROBABLY WOULD

HAVE BEEN A 65-PAGE TENTATIVE HAD I QUOTED ALL OF THE EVIDENCE. I CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS OVERWHELMING THAT MR. STEIN WAS INVOLVED IN THIS SCHEME, AND I'M GRANTING THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. NOW, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE FREEZE ORDER. WE NEED TO DO THAT NEXT, OR SHOULD WE MOVE ON TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION? MR. TOMA: YOUR HONOR, THANK YOU. DO

THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION CONTAINS THE ASSET FREEZE ORDER. THERE'S A SEPARATE ORDER JUST

CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER THAT WE HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. THE COURT: MR. TOMA: SO YOU JUST WANT ME TO SIGN THOSE. THERE'S TWO SEPARATE ORDERS, YES, YOUR

53 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THAT? MR. TOMA: THE OSC THAT WAS SCHEDULED WAS WITH

RESPECT TO BOTH THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ASSET FREEZE ORDER AND AN ORDER CONFIRMING THE APPOINTMENT OF THE RECEIVER. THE COURT: OKAY. NOW, WHAT ABOUT MR. STEIN'S

STATEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO WHAT HAPPENED YESTERDAY IN THE FLORIDA COURT -- WHICH I HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF; BUT ANYWAY, WHAT ABOUT THAT? MR. TOMA: YOUR HONOR, YESTERDAY THERE WAS A

HEARING ON -- IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN FLORIDA WITH RESPECT TO DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING THE PEOPLE'S MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT. THAT MOTION WAS GRANTED.

TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO -THE COURT: BANKRUPTCY? MR. TOMA: MR. STEIN: MR. TOMA: MR. STEIN: MR. TOMA: YES, YES. WITH OR WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND? YES. THE PLAINTIFFS -MOTION TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT IN

NO ANSWER. -- WILL BE REQUIRED TO FILE AN AMENDED

COMPLAINT, I BELIEVE, WITHIN FIVE DAYS, IN WHICH CASE WE WOULD EXPECT THAT WE WOULD FILE ANOTHER MOTION TO DISMISS AT THAT POINT. THE COURT: COMPLAINT? MR. TOMA: YES, THE ADVERSARY COMPLAINT IN THE OH, OKAY. YOU MEAN, THE ADVERSARY

54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BANKRUPTCY COURT IN FLORIDA. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: YESTERDAY? OKAY. MAY I CLARIFY WHAT I THINK HAPPENED

AND WE CAN GET -- I MEAN, I'LL HAVE A

TRANSCRIPT TONIGHT, SO I CAN SUBMIT IT TO THE -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: WERE YOU THERE? EXCUSE ME? WERE YOU THERE? NO, I WAS NOT THERE. OKAY. AND NEITHER WAS MR. TOMA. NO, I KNOW, BUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS,

THERE WAS A MOTION TO DISMISS THE ADVERSARY COMPLAINT. THAT WAS GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. MR. STEIN: THAT'S CORRECT. AND THERE WAS

ANOTHER -- THERE WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT OCCURRED, AS WELL, YOUR HONOR, AND THAT WAS THAT THE COURT STATED THAT ANY FREEZING OF DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION ACCOUNTS MUST BE APPROVED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO PROVIDE THE COURT WITH A TRANSCRIPT OF THAT. THE COURT: OKAY. BUT I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT

IS AT ISSUE, AND IT IS AT ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO YOUR EX PARTE, ARE THE ACCOUNTS THAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS ALREADY LOOKED AT. MR. STEIN: COURT RULED. NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE BANKRUPTCY

BUT I'LL -- AS I SAID, WHEN I HAVE -- WHEN

I GET THE TRANSCRIPTS --

55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IS. 2011. THE COURT: NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT YESTERDAY. THOSE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE

I'M TALKING ABOUT BEFORE.

ALREADY BEFORE THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. MR. STEIN: THEY WERE. AND THAT WAS ON AUGUST 20,

AND THAT COURT WAS PRESENTED WITH NEW EVIDENCE

AND MADE A DIFFERENT RULING YESTERDAY REGARDING THOSE PERSONAL ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN -- DIP ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN FROZEN. AND THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S RULING IS WHAT IT IT SAYS WHAT IT SAYS. AND YOU'RE RIGHT, I

WASN'T -- THE COURT IS CORRECT, I WASN'T THERE; BUT I'M POSITIVE THAT THAT'S WHAT WAS SAID. THE RECEIVER -THE COURT: LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY: I WOULD FOR I GOT AN EMAIL FROM

CONSIDER SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, BUT NOT TODAY.

ME, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BEFORE ME TODAY AS TO WHAT HAPPENED IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. MR. STEIN: WELL -YOUR HONOR, COULD I ADDRESS ONE

MR. BENJAMIN:

MATTER ON BEHALF OF THE RECEIVER, WHICH IS, WHAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED IS THAT MR. STEIN SENT AN EMAIL TO THE RECEIVER -- AMONG OTHER PEOPLE -- YESTERDAY, THREATENING TO BRING A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE RECEIVER IF THE RECEIVER DID NOT IMMEDIATELY RELEASE THOSE ACCOUNTS. THREATENED TO DO SO AT 12:15 TOMORROW. WE THEN REQUESTED A COPY OF THE ORDER WHICH HE CLAIMED EXISTED, STATING THOSE ACCOUNTS HAD TO BE HE

56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNFROZEN. AND HE ACTUALLY STATED THAT THE MOTION TO WHEN THAT REQUEST WAS

DISMISS HAD BEEN DENIED, AS WELL.

MADE OF MR. STEIN, HE REPEATED HIS REQUEST TO FILE SUIT AGAINST THE RECEIVER. SO PRESENTLY, ALTHOUGH, OBVIOUSLY, THE RECEIVER WILL CONSIDER A LAWFUL ORDER THAT'S ISSUED -WE WANT TO COMPLY WITH ORDERS -- WE BELIEVE MR. STEIN IS IN VIOLATION OF THE STAY OF ACTIONS IN THE ORDER APPOINTING THE RECEIVER, WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROHIBITS BOTH FILING SUITS AGAINST THE RECEIVER AND HARASSING THE RECEIVER TO RECEIVE ASSETS, PARTICULARLY -THERE'S ABOUT $30,000 FROZEN IN THOSE ACCOUNTS, AND MR. STEIN IS THREATENING A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE RECEIVER AT 12:00 NOON TOMORROW, WITHOUT PROVIDING US WITH THOSE ORDERS, IF WE DON'T GIVE HIM THAT $30,000. OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT WITHOUT EVIDENCE THAT, IN FACT, THE BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS SO DIRECTED; BUT IT'S CERTAINLY OF GREAT CONCERN TO THE RECEIVERSHIP, THESE THREATS BEING MADE BY MR. STEIN. MR. STEIN: YOUR HONOR, IF THIS COURT WANTS TO

MAKE AN ORDER THAT I CAN'T FILE A LAWSUIT, IT WOULD BE LOVELY. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THERE'S ALREADY ORDER IN PLACE. THERE IS NO SUCH ORDER. IT IS MY

POSITION THERE IS NO SUCH ORDER, AND SUCH AN ORDER WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL, TO BAR SOMEONE FROM SUING FOR UNLAWFUL CONDUCT. THE COURT: DIDN'T YOU LISTEN TO WHAT THE ATTORNEY

57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ME. THEM. FOR THE RECEIVER HAD TO SAY? MR. STEIN: THE COURT: YES. I THINK HE SAID --

IF YOU HAVE SUCH AN ORDER, GIVE IT TO

IF YOU HAVE SUCH AN ORDER BY THE BANKRUPTCY

COURT -MR. STEIN: NO, WHAT -- I WAS RESPONDING TO THE

RECEIVER'S STATEMENT THAT I AM BARRED FROM SUING THE RECEIVER FOR VIOLATING A COURT ORDER, NOT THAT -- NOT WHAT THE ORDER SAID YESTERDAY. AND I DON'T BELIEVE I'M I BELIEVE

BARRED FROM SUING ANYONE FOR AN UNLAWFUL ACT.

SUCH AN ORDER WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL ON ITS FACE. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: OKAY. WHAT COURT ORDER?

THE COURT ORDER THAT I BELIEVE WAS AND THE THE

ISSUED YESTERDAY BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.

RECEIVER'S RESPONSE TO ME WAS VERY REASONABLE.

RECEIVER SAID, "I WILL STUDY THE ORDER, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT." THE COURT: IT YET. MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: NOBODY HAS IT. RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT. AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT BEFORE OKAY? FINE. DONE. DONE. THEY DON'T HAVE

SO AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, IT'S STATUS QUO.

ALL RIGHT. NOW, LET'S MOVE ON, THEN, TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OVER THE LAW PRACTICE. MR. STEIN: YOUR HONOR, SINCE THE TENTATIVE IS

58 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HONOR. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AGAINST ME, I PRESUME THE COURT WANTS ME TO MAKE THE ARGUMENT. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: WELL, UNLESS -BECAUSE THE -JUST A MINUTE. I JUST WANT TO --

BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT REALLY THE MOVING PARTY. I SHOULD FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THE STATE BAR SUBMITS ON THE TENTATIVE. MS. LEECE: YES, WE SUBMIT ON THE TENTATIVE, YOUR

YOUR HONOR, MOST OF THIS OVERLAPS WITH

THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION, SO HOPEFULLY, MY BREVITY WILL BE SOMEWHAT APPRECIATED BY THE COURT ON THIS ISSUE. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THANK YOU. NUMBER ONE, 5.103 REQUIRES CLEAR AND I'VE MADE THE ARGUMENT BEFORE.

CONVINCING EVIDENCE. I'M MAKING IT AGAIN.

SECTION 6180.14 REQUIRES THAT IF THERE IS A PARTNERSHIP, THAT A FINDING BE MADE THAT ALL THE PARTNERS ARE INCOMPETENT. MR. DAVIS WAS INDISPUTABLY,

FROM THE PUBLIC RECORDS, A MEMBER OF THE PARTNERSHIP ON THE DATE OF THE RAID. THE PARTNERSHIP -- THIS COURT INDICATES THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS FORMED. AND YOUR

HONOR -- I DON'T WANT TO WALK IN THERE; BUT I REALLY, FRANKLY, IN 25 YEARS, HAVE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THIS. I'M HOLDING UP -- AND FOR THE RECORD, A

59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DIRECTOR. CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION BY THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR THAT SAYS: "THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA CERTIFIES THAT HAVING COMPLIED" -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: WHO ARE YOU HOLDING THAT UP FOR? I'M HOLDING IT UP FOR THE COURT. GOOD. THEN FACE IT TO THE COURT.

THANK YOU. MR. STEIN: IT CERTIFIES THAT HAVING --

I JUST DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE NEARSIGHTED, LIKE ME, BECAUSE I CAN'T SEE FAR. THE COURT: IT WOULDN'T HELP ME, IF YOU'RE FACING

IT IN THAT DIRECTION, WHETHER I'M NEARSIGHTED OR FARSIGHTED. MR. STEIN: (READING:)

"... CERTIFIES THAT, HAVING COMPLIED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATUTES OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND APPLICABLE RULES AND REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIPS, MITCHELL J. STEIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP, IS REGISTERED AS A LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP." SIGNED BY JOSEPH L. DUNN, EXECUTIVE CERTIFICATE NO. 54393, MAY 2, 2011. OKAY. THIS COURT'S FINDING THAT THERE IS NO

THE COURT: MR. STEIN:

EVIDENCE, ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, THAT THE RECEIVER -- THAT THE CERTIFICATE OF PARTNERSHIP IS VALID OR THAT THE LLP

60 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IS ACTUALLY IN FORMATION IS -- THE ENTIRE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION TURNS ON THAT ISSUE. BECAUSE I THINK THIS

COURT WOULD AGREE THAT UNDER 6180.14, IF THE PARTNERSHIP EXISTED, THEN THEY'VE GOT TO GO GET A FINDING OF INCOMPETENCE AS TO ALL THE PARTNERS. THE COURT: NO, I DON'T THINK SO. BUT I HAD SO I DO NOT

SEVERAL REASONS IN THERE, IN THE TENTATIVE. THINK SO. MR. STEIN: OKAY.

WELL, IF 6180.14 IS NOT

DISPOSITIVE, THEN I WILL GO ON TO THE REMAINDER OF THE ARGUMENTS; BUT I THINK THERE IS CLEAR AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE THAT THE PARTNERSHIP EXISTED, UNLESS SOMEBODY THINKS JAMES DUNN FORGED THE SIGNATURE OR THE COURT CAN'T -THE COURT: OKAY. BUT MR. STEIN, YOU'RE A TRIAL YOU KNOW WHAT

LAWYER, AND YOU'RE A GOOD TRIAL LAWYER. ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE IS, DON'T YOU? MR. STEIN: THE COURT: ABSOLUTELY.

AND I KNOW THAT UNDER --

AND FOR YOU TO SUBMIT SOMETHING LIKE

THAT, IT SHOULD BE A CERTIFIED COPY, SHOULDN'T IT, NUMBER ONE. AND NUMBER TWO, I WOULD EXPECT, IF YOU WERE GOING TO PROVE TO THIS COURT THAT YOU WERE A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, YOU WOULD SUBMIT TO THIS COURT YOUR ARTICLES AND SHOW THAT YOU ACTUALLY FORMED THAT LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS. AND YOU DIDN'T DO THAT. I WOULD EXPECT

THAT YOU WOULD DO THAT.

61 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BUT ANYWAY -MR. STEIN: THE COURT: YOUR HONOR --- THAT IS REALLY SORT OF BESIDE THE

POINT BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF A DISTRACTION HERE. BUT GO AHEAD. MR. STEIN: RIGHT. IF THE COURT'S POSITION IS

THAT ONE LAWYER INSIDE OF A PARTNERSHIP CAN HAVE -- CAN HAVE HIS FILES TAKEN OUT OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND HAVE HIS LAW PRACTICE, AS AN INDIVIDUAL WITHIN THE PARTNERSHIP, TAKEN, IN A COURT OF LAW AS OPPOSED TO IN THE STATE BAR COURT, IT IS ACADEMIC WHETHER OR NOT THE LLP EXISTS. I'LL -THE COURT: BUT I DID EXPLAIN TO YOU THAT IF THERE SO

IS -- IF THERE ARE PARTNERS -- IF THERE ARE PARTNERS THAT ARE ADEQUATE TO TAKE OVER THE CLIENTS AND CONTINUE, THEN THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION. THAT'S CERTAINLY A

QUESTION THAT CAN BE TAKEN UP WITH THE STATE BAR. BUT AS OF NOW, THERE AREN'T ANY SUCH PERSONS BECAUSE YOUR ONLY OTHER PARTNER IS SOMEONE WHO IS ONLY LICENSED TO PRACTICE IN FLORIDA. MR. STEIN: YOUR HONOR, AS OF THE DATE OF THE

RAID, THE PARTNERSHIP HAD CALIFORNIA COUNSEL THAT WAS ABLE TO TAKE OVER FOR THE PARTNERSHIP, A. B, I AM NOT -- I AM NOT -- I HAVE NOT BEEN ORDERED TO NOT PRACTICE LAW. ACCORDINGLY, ON BEHALF

OF -- AS THE STATE BAR -- AND I'LL READ THE LANGUAGE FROM THE STATE BAR'S BRIEF. IN BEHALF OF ANY LLP -- IN

THE WORDS OF THE STATE BAR, NOT MY WORDS -- I WILL

62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PRACTICE LAW, AND CONTINUE ON BEHALF OF AN LLP TO PRACTICE LAW, AND PROTECT CLIENTS UNTIL THE STATE BAR COURT BRINGS A -- HAS ONE CLIENT COMPLAINT, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ONE; BRINGS A DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST ME. IF THIS COURT WISHES TO ENJOIN ME FROM PRACTICING LAW, WHICH WOULD BE THE ONLY WAY THAT I WOULD STOP, THEN WE CAN ADDRESS THAT, AND THEN WE CAN FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S LAWFUL UNDER SECTION 6190 AND 6180. THE ISSUE OF THE LAW PRACTICE AS DEFINED AS A PARTNERSHIP IS CRITICAL. AND THIS COURT'S FINDING

THAT -- WELL, THERE'S NO REASON TO GO OVER IT AGAIN, GIVEN THAT, AS THE COURT HAS SAID, IT'S ACADEMIC. I'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE PAUL HASTINGS EXAMPLE, SO THAT'S ACADEMIC. THE COURT HAS CORRECTLY INDICATED, WITH PAUL HASTINGS, THEY WOULD HAVE ANOTHER LAWYER TO TAKE OVER. I'VE INDICATED THE PARTNERSHIP DID HAVE ANOTHER LAWYER TO TAKE OVER, MR. DAVIS. GIVEN THAT THE STATE BAR TOLD ALL OF THE CLIENTS -- AND IT'S UNDISPUTED, I THINK, THAT JUDGE FRANK JOHNSON DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE ALLEGED EXISTENCE OF AN LLP ON AUGUST 15TH -- THE ALLEGED EXISTENCE. THINK THAT'S UNDISPUTED. DISAGREEING WITH ME. I THINK THAT IT WAS INCUMBENT, AS A MEMBER OF THE BAR, ON MYSELF AND MR. DAVIS TO FORM SUCH A STRUCTURE TO PROTECT THE CLIENTS FROM FORECLOSURE. WE AND I DON'T HEAR ANYONE I

63 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 EXIST. WERE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH ALL CLIENTS BUT ONE, A MINNESOTA GENTLEMAN FROM BUFFALO, MINNESOTA, WHO HAD HIS ORIGINAL TRIPLICATE -- THREE PROMISSORY NOTES SITTING IN THE PAPER FILES OF THE OFFICE, THREE ORIGINAL NOTES WITH FORGED SIGNATURES FROM BANK OF AMERICA. AND THOSE FILES WERE TAKEN. AND THAT'S NOT I'M THAT WAS

EVIDENCE; I'M NOT SUBMITTING IT AS EVIDENCE. STATING IT FOR THE RECORD, OF WHAT HAPPENED.

THE ONLY PERSON THAT WE COULD NOT PROTECT THAT -- IN THAT FAST OF A MANNER. HOWEVER, WE HAVE PROTECTED EVERYONE ELSE. AND MR. DAVIS'S DECISION TO GO BACK INTO THE SOLE PRACTITIONERSHIP OF LAW UNTIL THIS DISPUTE WAS RESOLVED WAS IN FURTHERANCE OF PROTECTING THE CLIENTS, WHICH IS WHAT THE STATUTE WAS DRAFTED FOR. IT WAS NOT DRAFTED TO GO INTO PAUL HASTINGS, TAKE ONE LAWYER OUT, AND FIND OUT WHO -- AND GO INTO THE FILE ROOM AND TAKE 80 FILES AND FIND OUT WHO IS THERE TO PROTECT THE CLIENTS. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE. CONTINUE TO DO. THAT'S WHAT I'LL

UNDER THE CURRENT COURT ORDERS, I'M NOT AND THE STATE BAR SAID,

PRECLUDED FROM PRACTICING LAW.

"HE CAN PRACTICE LAW FOR ANY LLP THAT HE'S A MEMBER OF." AND THE COURT HAS SAID THAT THAT LLP DOESN'T AND WE PAID FOR IT, SO WE'LL BE MAKING SOME

CALLS AFTER TODAY'S HEARING ABOUT GETTING OUR MONEY BACK, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A HUNDRED DOLLARS. THE COURT: I DIDN'T SAY IT DIDN'T EXIST.

64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR. STEIN: THE COURT: ME THAT IT DOES. MR. STEIN: I THINK THE COURT ALSO INDICATED OR IT MIGHT NOT. I SAID THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IN FRONT OF

SOMETHING VERY DISCONCERTING, THAT IT'S NOT ON THE CALIFORNIA SECRETARY OF STATE PORTAL -- AND SHOWING THE EXTENSIVE AMOUNT OF WORK THE COURT HAS DONE, AND NOW SOMETHING VERY DISCONCERTING; BUT SOMETHING BESIDES THE POINT, SO I'LL GO ON TO THE REST OF IT. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: OKAY. ALL OF THE -- ALL OF THE FACTS THAT I

MENTIONED IN THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION. THE ASSUMPTION OF

JURISDICTION FINDS THAT I'M NOT COMPETENT BECAUSE I HAVE ENGAGED IN THIS SCHEME WITH THESE OTHER DEFENDANTS. AND

THE SCHEME IS UNLAWFUL, AND THEREFORE, I'M INCOMPETENT. THE STATUTE 6180, YOUR HONOR, SAYS -- AND IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, I THINK, THAT WE LOOK AT THE STATUTE. IT SAYS: "WHEN AN ATTORNEY ENGAGED IN LAW PRACTICE IN THIS STATE DIES" -- I THINK I'M ALIVE -- "RESIGNS" -- I HAVEN'T RESIGNED -"BECOMES AN INACTIVE MEMBER OF THE BAR" -WHICH I HADN'T DONE AS OF AUGUST 15TH -- "IS DISBARRED" -- HASN'T HAPPENED; CAN ONLY HAPPEN IN THE SUPREME COURT OR AS DELEGATED TO THE STATE BAR COURT; CAN'T HAPPEN HERE -- "OR IS SUSPENDED FROM THE ACTIVE PRACTICE OF LAW AND

65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IS REQUIRED BY THE ORDER OF SUSPENSION TO GIVE NOTICE OF THIS SUSPENSION" -- THAT HASN'T HAPPENED -- "NOTICE OF CESSATION OF THE LAW PRACTICE SHALL BE GIVEN, AND THE COURTS OF THIS STATE SHALL HAVE JURISDICTION, AS PROVIDED IN THIS ARTICLE." THAT'S 6180. I'M NOT DEAD, I'M NOT

INACTIVE, I HAVEN'T BEEN DISBARRED, AND I HAVEN'T BEEN SUSPENDED. I NEED SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN TO ME -- I'M HOLDING 6180; I'M JUST READING IT FOR THE PLAIN WORDS OF THE STATUTE -- WHAT UNDER THAT STATUTE PROVIDES THE STATE BAR, PRESUMING THAT THE COURT HAS FOUND OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE, ET CETERA, EVEN THOUGH ALL -EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO EVIDENCE OF ANY MONEY FLOWING TO ME. I HAVE TO ACCEPT THAT FINDING. THE COURT: OKAY, BUT LET ME JUST SAY TO YOU THAT THE APPELLATE

THE APPELLATE COURT HAS LOOKED AT THIS.

COURT HAS LOOKED AT THIS IN THIS CASE, WITH RESPECT TO MR. KRAMER, AND FOUND THAT THAT STATUTE IS APPLICABLE TO THIS SITUATION. AND IT'S A VERY BROAD APPLICATION, AND

THERE IS AN ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COURT TO THAT EFFECT. SO I'M NOT GOING TO LOOK AT THAT ISSUE AGAIN WITH RESPECT TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S APPLICABLE. MR. STEIN: THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COURT HAS

TO DEAL WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THAT CASE, AND WHAT THEY FOUND WAS A SOLE PRACTITIONERSHIP. TO THE EXTENT THAT THE RULING IS THAT THERE'S AN

66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPELLATE COURT RULING THAT CAN BE CITED WITH AUTHORITY THAT 61 -THE COURT: NO, IT'S THIS CASE. IT IS THE LAW OF

THE CASE IN THIS CASE, THIS CASE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. MR. STEIN: OKAY. AND IT'S MY POSITION THAT 6180

DOESN'T EVEN MENTION ANY OTHER GROUNDS FOR INCOMPETENCY OTHER THAN DYING OR RESIGNING. BUT IF THE COURT IS OF

THE OPINION THAT THE LAW REGARDING AN APPEAL BY MR. KRAMER APPLIES TO ME IN THIS CASE, AND THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF THE FACTS IS NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE OF THAT LAW, I UNDERSTAND, AND -- I UNDERSTAND, AND I WILL DEFER THE ISSUE. THE COURT: DIFFERENT FACTS. OKAY. I THINK THAT THERE ARE NO

THIS IS ALLEGED TO BE A SCHEME AMONG

ALL THE DEFENDANTS. MR. STEIN: A SCHEME AMONG ALL DEFENDANTS WHERE IT

IS UNDISPUTED THAT SOME $5 MILLION WENT THROUGH THE ACCOUNT OF PHIL KRAMER, AND IT'S UNDISPUTED THAT THE STATE BAR CAN'T ALLEGE THAT ANY MONEY WENT THROUGH MY ACCOUNT. AND I DON'T WANT TO REVISIT THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BECAUSE IF THE COURT FINDS THAT TO BE NOT PERSUASIVE, THEN IT'S NOT PERSUASIVE. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO THE LACK OF

JURISDICTION, THE COURT'S FINDING IS, PRIMARILY, ON PAGE 3, THAT:

67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 "STEIN HAS FAILED TO PRESENT ANY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE THAT AN LLP WAS EVER FORMED OR EVIDENCE THAT ANY MEMBER OF THE CALIFORNIA BAR IS A MEMBER OF THE ALLEGED LLP. AT BEST, STEIN SUBMITTED AN UNAUTHENTICATED CERTIFICATE FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE BAR INDICATING THAT IT IS APPROVED LLP. THERE IS

NO EVIDENCE STEIN COMPLIED WITH THE CALIFORNIA CORPORATIONS CODE, WHICH REQUIRES, IN ADDITION TO A $70.00 FILING FEE" -AND THEN AT THAT LISTS ALL OF THE -- ALL OF THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS. IN THE EVENT THAT THE -- IN THE EVENT THAT THE EXISTENCE OF AN LLP CHANGES THE OUTCOME, THEN I THINK THE CORRECT APPROACH WOULD BE TO ORDER ME TO ORDER ME TO GO TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND PROVIDE ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE THAT THE LLP EXISTS. AND AS OF

AUGUST 15TH, THE EVIDENCE IS UNDISPUTED AS TO WHO THE PARTNERS WERE. THIS IS A SERIOUS MATTER, INVOLVING A LOT OF DIFFERENT CLIENTS. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: OKAY. I CAN GO PRACTICE FOR ANOTHER LLP AND THAT'S FINE. BUT THIS LLP WAS

REPRESENT THE CLIENTS.

FORMED, AND THIS IS WHO THE CLIENTS SIGNED WITH. THE COURT: OKAY. I THINK I SAY, FINALLY AND MOST

IMPORTANTLY, I THINK THAT THE FACT THAT -- EVEN ASSUMING THERE WAS AN LLP, THE CESSATION -- LET'S SEE. THE

68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IS OVER YOUR PRACTICE, YOUR INDIVIDUAL PRACTICE AND YOUR DBA'S. MR. STEIN: UNLAWFUL -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: IF ANY. IT IS UNLAWFUL IN CALIFORNIA TO HAVE WHEN I, I DON'T HAVE -- YOUR HONOR, IT'S

TWO SEPARATE PRACTICES OF LAW SIMULTANEOUSLY. PURSUANT TO A FEDERAL COURT ORDER, WENT FROM AN

INDIVIDUAL TO AN LLP, I TRANSFERRED ALL ASSETS TO IT. IF I WAS DEFRAUDED BY THE STATE OR IF THERE WAS MUTUAL MISTAKE OR ANY OTHER EVENT -- I DON'T HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL LAW PRACTICE. TAKING JURISDICTION OVER AN

INDIVIDUAL LAW PRACTICE, WHEN I TRANSFERRED EVERYTHING TO AN LLP -- WE CAN MAKE THE ORDER, BUT THERE'S NOTHING THERE. HOWEVER, THIS THEN FLOWS OVER -- AND THE COURT MAY DISAGREE WITH THAT; IT FLOWS OVER TO THE FREEZING OF ACCOUNTS. THE RECEIVER HAS STATED THAT IT AND

DID NOT FREEZE ANY OF THE PERSONAL ACCOUNTS OF ME.

IT ALSO FROZE FIVE ACCOUNTS OF THE LLP, EVEN THOUGH THE LLP DIDN'T EXIST. I DON'T KNOW HOW WELLS FARGO BANK

COULD HAVE FIVE ACCOUNTS THAT DON'T -- BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. IF THE LLP DOESN'T EXIST, THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANY FREEZE ON THOSE ACCOUNTS. FROM THOSE ACCOUNTS. I DON'T WANT THE MONEY

I WANT A BANK ACCOUNT TO DO I DON'T CARE WHETHER IT'S A

BUSINESS IN THE FUTURE ON.

PERSONAL BANK ACCOUNT OR AN LLP BANK ACCOUNT OR I GO TO

69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 BANK OF AMERICA -- WELL, PROBABLY NOT A GOOD BANK, GIVEN THAT I'M SUING THEM. NEW ACCOUNT. RIGHT NOW, WITH THE FREEZE ORDER AND THE DEROGATORY REMARKS, I CAN'T OPEN ANY ACCOUNT. AND THAT I GO TO ANOTHER BANK AND OPEN A

WASN'T AN ORDER OF THIS COURT OR PREVIOUS JUDGE JOHNSON, JUDGE FRANK JOHNSON, THAT I CAN'T OPEN ANY ACCOUNTS. THAT'S JUST A REALITY OF THE ORDER. I WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THIS BECAUSE I HAVE NO PROBLEM CALLING THESE WITNESSES TO THE STAND, WHICH WILL HAPPEN IN THE STATE BAR COURT -- AND MAY EVEN HAPPEN HERE, IF THERE'S A JURY TRIAL; BUT THIS IS ALL EQUITABLE, SO IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAPPEN. COURT. I WOULD HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM IF I COULD JUST WALK IN AND OPEN AN ACCOUNT AND DO BUSINESS FOR THESE CLIENTS, WHO WISH TO SAVE THEIR HOMES. I BUT IT WILL HAPPEN IN THE STATE BAR

CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE, CONTRARY TO WHAT THE RECEIVER HAS STATED -AND I DON'T EVEN -- AND THE RECEIVER ONCE TOLD ME THAT IT WASN'T THEIR FAULT, THAT THE BANK DID THIS WITHOUT TALKING TO THEM. THE BANK HAS TAKEN THE FREEZING OF THE ONE ACCOUNT THAT WAS ORDERED BY JUDGE FRANK JOHNSON -- HE ORDERED ONE ACCOUNT FROZEN. AND THEY JUST SAID, "WELL, I THINK THAT'S

GIVEN THAT, WE'RE FREEZING EVERYTHING." WHAT HAPPENED. I DON'T KNOW.

I JUST KNOW THAT ALL THE

70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDERED. ACCOUNTS. ACCOUNTS WERE FROZEN. I'M NOT LOOKING FOR MONEY OUT OF THE I'M LOOKING TO OPERATE AS A LAWYER, WHICH I

HAVE A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO DO, WHATEVER THE ORDER IS -UNLESS THIS COURT INDEMNIFIES ME, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN. SO RATHER THAN ARGUE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT THE COURT HAS ALREADY THOUGHT THROUGH IN GREAT DETAIL AND ISSUED A TENTATIVE ON, I WOULD LIKE THE RECEIVER TO WORK WITH ME TO GET A BANK ACCOUNT OPENED FOR ME. VIOLATE THE INJUNCTION AGAIN, THE STATE CAN SUE ME AGAIN. AND THIS TIME, IT WILL BE SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT. BUT AS IT NOW STANDS, THE RECEIVER IS FINE WITH HAVING ALL FIVE PERSONAL ACCOUNTS FROZEN -FORGETTING WHAT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT THEY'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT ORDER, AND I I'VE TOLD THE COURT WHAT I THOUGHT THE IF I

WILL, AS WELL. ORDER WAS.

-- AND THEY'VE FROZEN THE FIVE LLP ACCOUNTS, EVEN THOUGH THE LLP -- THE LLP MAY OR MAY NOT -- IS NOT ON THE SECRETARY OF STATE PORTAL. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT THAT SITUATION BECAUSE THE COURT ORDER ONLY HAD ONE ACCOUNT IN IT. THE

COURT ORDER ISSUED BY JUDGE FRANK JOHNSON ONLY HAD ONE ACCOUNT. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. MR. BENJAMIN?

MR. BENJAMIN:

YOUR HONOR, TO ADDRESS THE POINT

REGARDING THE ACCOUNTS, THE COURT ORDER FROZE ALL OF THE

71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANTS' ACCOUNTS, INCLUDING THE ONES THAT WERE KNOWN, WHICH WERE SPECIFICALLY LISTED; BUT IT FROZE THE ACCOUNTS, WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE SPECIFICALLY LISTED, BECAUSE NOT ALL ACCOUNTS WERE NECESSARILY KNOWN. THAT WAS THE SCOPE OF THE FREEZE. SO

AND THEN THE RECEIVER

GAVE NOTICE TO THE KNOWN BANKS OF THE ORDER TO INSTITUTE THE FREEZE. SO THAT'S WHAT OCCURRED. THE RECEIVER IS APPOINTED OVER THE ASSETS OF THE ATTORNEY DEFENDANTS NOT TAKEN INTO POSSESSION BY THE STATE BAR, EXCEPT FOR ASSETS OR PERSONAL ITEMS THAT ARE WORTH LESS THAN 2500 AND EXCEPT FOR THEIR HOMES. THAT'S THE CURRENT ORDER. WE WILL CARRY OUT WHATEVER ORDER THE COURT DIRECTS US TO WITH REGARD TO THE ASSETS, BUT THE CURRENT SCOPE DOESN'T SEEM TO CONTEMPLATE MR. STEIN OPENING NEW ACCOUNTS WITH -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT FUNDS THOSE WOULD BE. IT'S VERY HARD TO ADDRESS THIS HYPOTHETICAL BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT MONEY IS COMING FROM OR ANY OF THE FACTS REGARDING IT; BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ORDER, AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS, TO CONTEMPLATE MR. STEIN HAVING THESE NEW ACCOUNTS WITH SUBSTANTIAL FUNDS. IF HE CAN MAKE A RELEVANT SHOWING TO THE COURT, OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE GOING TO CARRY OUT WHATEVER ORDER THE COURT GIVES US WITH REGARD TO MR. STEIN'S ASSETS; AND SUBJECT TO WHAT ORDERS MAY EXIST FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT, AS WELL. THE COURT: OKAY. SO THAT'S REALLY NOT ON I MEAN, THE ONLY OTHER THING SO

CALENDAR FOR TODAY, IS IT?

72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ON CALENDAR IS THE EX PARTE WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCOUNTS. MR. STEIN: WELL, THERE'S -- IN THE TENTATIVE

RULING, WITH REGARD TO THE FREEZING OF MONEY, IT SAYS, "THERE'S NO EVIDENCE" -- QUOTE, ON PAGE 1, NEW PARAGRAPH 3: "THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, THAT ANY OF THE ACCOUNTS REFERENCED IN THE EX PARTE REQUEST ARE THE PERSONAL PROPERTY OF DEFENDANT STEIN," PERIOD. BUT THERE IS EVIDENCE. THERE'S EVIDENCE SO THE --

THAT FOUR OF THEM ARE THE PERSONAL PROPERTY. THAT'S NUMBER ONE.

NUMBER TWO, THE RECEIVER JUST SAID HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND HOW I CAN OPEN AN ACCOUNT. THERE IS

NO INJUNCTION PROHIBITING ME FROM PRACTICING LAW; IS THAT CORRECT? OR INCORRECT? I DON'T THINK THERE IS AN INJUNCTION. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU PRACTICE LAW,

THE COURT: MR. STEIN:

YOU -- I DO A LOT OF PRO BONO WORK, AND I HAVE DONE IT FOR 25 YEARS, BUT YOU TEND TO GET PAID. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: I HOPE SO. SO IF THE RECEIVER IS SAYING TO THIS

COURT THAT I CAN'T OPEN UP AN ACCOUNT, I'M SAYING TO THIS COURT, "I AM GOING TO OPEN UP AN ACCOUNT TOMORROW, ONE WAY OR THE OTHER." I MEAN, I'M PRACTICING LAW.

SO THE RECEIVER IS SAYING THINGS THAT WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE IF SAID TO A PANEL OF APPELLATE

73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JUSTICES. IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTE OUTRAGE. DISCIPLINE IS

RESERVED FOR THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, NOT FOR THIS COURT AND NOT FOR THE PEOPLE. AND THE RULING OF THE CALIFORNIA APPELLATE COURT THAT THIS COURT IS REFERRING TO DOES NOT DISBAR MR. KRAMER -- I GUESS, IS THE APPELLANT IN THAT CASE, AND DOESN'T PURPORT TO DISBAR HIM. THE PEOPLE DOESN'T DO THAT. THE APPLICATION BY

IT IS LEFT TO THE SOUND

DISCRETION OF THE STATE BAR, AND THEY HAVE DELEGATED, AS OF 1955, THAT DISCRETION TO THE STATE BAR COURT. SO IF THE RECEIVER SAID THAT OR IMPLIED THAT -- I'M TELLING THE COURT RIGHT NOW, SO IF THE COURT WANTS ME TO ENJOIN ME, I WON'T DO IT -- I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO PRACTICE LAW. PROTECT THESE PEOPLE. AND I'M GOING TO PROBABLY GET PAID; PARTICULARLY WHEN I WIN, AND THERE'S A CONTINGENCY AWARD, I'M PROBABLY GOING TO GET PAID A LOT OF MONEY. AND SINCE I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY MONEY, THESE PEOPLE ARE NEVER GOING TO GET AN ORDER OF RESTITUTION BECAUSE I DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY BENEFITS FROM THIS. BUT I'M GOING TO OPEN A BANK ACCOUNT AND CONTINUE TO PRACTICE LAW. CLIENTS. I'M NOT GOING TO ABANDON I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO

I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING SO FORWARD ABOUT IT, BUT I DON'T

I CAN'T BELIEVE THE STATEMENT I JUST HEARD. THINK ANYONE IN THE COURTROOM CAN BELIEVE IT. THE COURT: EX PARTE. OKAY.

WELL, LET'S JUST DEAL WITH THE

THE EX PARTE -- IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT

74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE BANK ACCOUNTS THAT ARE AT ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THIS EX PARTE WERE ALREADY REVIEWED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. MR. TOMA: AM I RIGHT? MR. STEIN

THAT'S CORRECT, YOUR HONOR.

MADE AN EMERGENCY MOTION BACK IN AUGUST, AND THERE WAS NOTICE OF THESE FROZEN BANK ACCOUNTS. NOW, WHETHER THERE'S STILL AN ISSUE OR MR. STEIN PLANS TO BRING THIS ISSUE UP AGAIN IN THE BANKRUPTCY COURT -- THAT IS A POSSIBILITY, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING SEPARATE. I BELIEVE THE ONLY MATTER THAT HE'S BRINGING UP WITH RESPECT TO THIS COURT AND A PERCEIVED VIOLATION OF THE SEPTEMBER 6TH ORDER BY JUDGE MEISINGER IS THAT HE CLAIMS THAT THE PEOPLE ARE IN VIOLATION OF JUDGE MEISINGER'S COURT ORDER, BUT THAT COURT ORDER ONLY STATED AND WAS SET FORTH BY THE PEOPLE AS A REPRESENTATION THAT WE WOULD DO NOTHING TO SEIZE ANYTHING THAT HADN'T ALREADY BEEN DONE. EVERYONE HAD NOTICE -- INCLUDING JUDGE MEISINGER, INCLUDING MR. STEIN, INCLUDING THE BANKRUPTCY COURT IN FLORIDA -- THAT THOSE ACCOUNTS HAD ALREADY BEEN FROZEN. SINCE THAT SEPTEMBER 6 ORDER, NEITHER THE PEOPLE NOR, I BELIEVE, THE RECEIVER HAVE DONE ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO ATTEMPTING TO SEIZE ANY OF MR. STEIN'S ASSETS OR PROPERTY OR HAVE FROZEN ANY OTHER ACCOUNTS, OTHER THAN THE ONES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY FROZEN. THE COURT: AND DOESN'T INTEND TO DO SO.

75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR. TOMA: AND DOES NOT INTEND TO DO SO, ABSENT

SOME COMFORT ORDER OR SOME STATEMENT THAT IT WOULD GET FROM THE BANKRUPTCY COURT. MR. STEIN: YOUR HONOR, AFTER THE LAST THING HE I WAS ABOUT TO ADD

JUST SAID, I HAVE NO DISAGREEMENT.

TO IT THAT JUDGE MEISINGER SAID NO ASSETS WILL BE TAKEN WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING AN APPROPRIATE ORDER FROM THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION. THE BANKRUPTCY COURT'S PROBLEM IS THAT THERE'S A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION THAT WAS TWO YEARS IN THE MAKING; $200 MILLION OF LIABILITY LITIGATED, AND THERE'S A PLAN OF REORGANIZATION. THAT PLAN HAS TO BE

IMPLEMENTED THROUGH A BANK ACCOUNT SOMEWHERE. SO AT THE TIME OF AUGUST 20, THERE WAS ONLY CERTAIN BANK ACCOUNTS THAT WERE FROZEN. IT WAS UNCLEAR,

BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THE ORDER ONLY HAD ONE ACCOUNT AND OF THE FACT THAT THE LLP WAS NOT NAMED -- AND IS STILL NOT NAMED AS A DEFENDANT. AND I STILL DON'T HAVE

ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE ME, SINCE -- THAT THE LLP IS BEING ENJOINED FROM DOING ANYTHING. THE COURT: OKAY. ALL I'M SAYING IS THE

FOLLOWING, THAT THIS ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO -- I THINK THERE ARE FOUR BANK ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN FROZEN? MR. STEIN: THE COURT: FROZEN? MR. BENJAMIN: YOUR HONOR, IT'S IN OUR REPORT. TEN. TEN BANK ACCOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN

76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THERE'S ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE, FIVE IN THE NAME OF THE DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION, FIVE IN THE NAME OF THE LLP, AND THERE'S A COUPLE OTHERS IN A COUPLE OTHER NAMES THAT ARE RELATED TO MR. STEIN. SO WE'RE CLOSER TO 15 TOTAL ACCOUNTS. NUMBER OF THEM HAVE ZERO BALANCES OR EVEN NEGATIVE BALANCES. THERE'S ONLY ABOUT 30,000, TOTAL, IN ALL OF A

THE ACCOUNTS. THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, THEN, THERE WERE FIVE

THAT WERE PERSONAL ACCOUNTS? MR. BENJAMIN: WERE DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION ACCOUNTS,

I BELIEVE, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION ACCOUNTS. SO THE

BANKRUPTCY COURT HAS LOOKED AT THIS AND DID NOT ISSUE ANY ORDER TO UNFREEZE THOSE ACCOUNTS, BUT SIMPLY MADE AN ORDER WITH RESPECT TO -- ON A GOING-FORWARD BASIS; RIGHT? MR. TOMA: YOUR HONOR, NO. THE BANKRUPTCY COURT

HAS NOT MADE ANY ORDER WHATSOEVER ABOUT THOSE ACCOUNTS. THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THIS LANGUAGE ABOUT THE BANK ACCOUNTS FINDS ITSELF IN ANY ORDER IS IN THE SEPTEMBER 6TH ORDER IN THE STATE COURT, WITH JUDGE MEISINGER, WHERE THE PEOPLE REPRESENTED IN THEIR PROPOSED ORDER TO JUDGE MEISINGER THAT IT WOULD DO NOTHING AFTER SEPTEMBER 6TH OR SEPTEMBER 8TH. DATE. THE COURT: SO IT IS THEN FOR MR. STEIN TO GO TO I'M SORRY; I FORGET THE ACTUAL

THE BANKRUPTCY COURT TO SEEK TO HAVE THE

77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DO. MR. STEIN: THAT'S THE LEAVE TO AMEND THAT THE DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSION ACCOUNTS UNFROZEN. MR. TOMA: I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT HE SAID HE WOULD

DO IN HIS OPPOSITION BEFORE THIS COURT. THE COURT: OKAY. WELL, THEN THAT'S WHAT YOU CAN

COURT ISSUED, AND THE COURT SAID THAT IT AGREES THAT THE DIP ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE UNFROZEN, BUT THAT MONEY -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: YOU MEAN, THAT'S YESTERDAY? THAT'S YESTERDAY, BUT THE COURT ALSO

SAID THAT ANY MONEY IN THERE AS OF THE DATE OF THE FREEZING SHOULD GO TO THE STATE. OPINION. THE COURT: AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE THAT BEFORE ME, SO SO THAT WAS ITS

I REALLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT -MR. STEIN: THE COURT: FROM YOU AGAIN. MR. STEIN: WELL, I WOULD RATHER -- GIVEN THAT THE RIGHT. IT'S NOT FOR TODAY.

-- BUT I EXPECT I'LL PROBABLY HEAR

COURT IS ISSUING ORDERS -ALL OF WHICH DON'T AFFECT ANY OF THESE CLIENTS BECAUSE I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT THEM; OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE CONTINUED TO PROTECT THEM. MR. DAVIS

HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB IN ALL OF THE CASES. GIVEN THAT I'M GOING TO CONTINUE TO PROTECT THEM, I WOULD RATHER SIMPLY STIPULATE WITH THESE ADVERSARIES REGARDING WHAT IS TO BE DONE. BECAUSE JUDGE

HYMAN, JUDGE PAUL HYMAN, THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE FLORIDA

78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STATED. BANKRUPTCY COURT, SAID, "FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT IN FIVE DAYS. YOU'RE RIGHT." SO RATHER THAN SUE THE STATE AGAIN -THE COURT: I JUST REALLY CAN'T TAKE JUDICIAL SO IF YOU HAVE

NOTICE OF ANY OF THIS; I REALLY CAN'T.

SOMETHING ELSE THAT YOU WANT ME TO DO, BRING IT BEFORE ME WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'D LIKE ME TO DO. I'M HAPPY TO LOOK AT IT. BUT AT THIS STAGE,

I'M DEALING WITH WHAT IS THE STATE OF THE EVIDENCE RIGHT NOW. SO I'M DENYING THE EX PARTE FOR THE REASONS I'M ADOPTING MY TENTATIVE IN BOTH THE OSC RE

ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION OVER LAW PRACTICE OF MITCHELL J. STEIN AND THE OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION BEFORE THE STATE BAR. AND PEOPLE, BEFORE YOU LEAVE TODAY, I WANT YOU TO MAKE SURE YOU GET THE PROPER ORDERS IN FRONT OF ME. OKAY? MS. LEECE: THE COURT: MS. LEECE: ANOTHER COPY HERE. THE COURT: IT'S NOW 3:30. MATTER. OKAY. CAN WE JUST -- BECAUSE, REALLY, YOUR HONOR -YES. -- WE FILED AN ORDER, BUT I HAVE

I HAVE ONE OTHER -- I HAVE ONE OTHER

I THINK WE'VE DEALT WITH MR. STEIN'S MATTER.

WE HAVE THE CONTINUED EX PARTE WITH RESPECT TO THE RECEIVER AND MR. KRAMER. MR. BENJAMIN: YES, YOUR HONOR.

79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SUITE 2010. ITEMS. WHEN WE CONTINUED THIS MATTER INITIALLY, IT WAS GOING TO BE CONTINUED AS TO ALSO MR. KASSAS, BUT THAT'S NOW BEEN RESOLVED. AS TO MR. KRAMER, WE HAVE DRASTICALLY NARROWED THE ISSUE. THERE WERE TWO OFFICE SUITES. AS

TO OFFICE SUITE 2006, MR. KRAMER'S FORMER COUNSEL, PRIOR TO HER WITHDRAWAL, MS. KAUFMAN, AGREED THAT THAT LIQUIDATION COULD PROCEED. WE HAD NARROWED THE ISSUE, REALLY, DOWN TO AS TO THAT, THERE WERE CERTAIN PERSONAL

WE STATED THAT THAT WAS FINE; MR. KRAMER COULD

PICK THOSE UP, EXCEPT FOR A FEW WHICH WE'VE BEEN INFORMED MAY HAVE SUBSTANTIAL VALUE. WE STATED WE WILL

STORE THEM UNTIL THE CONCLUSION OF PROCEEDINGS. IT REALLY CAME DOWN, LITERALLY, TO A SUITE OF OFFICE FURNITURE THAT APPEARS TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL VALUE. WE HAVE OFFERED THAT IF MR. KRAMER CAN STORE

THOSE ITEMS SECURELY IN A WAY WHERE THEY WON'T BE HARMED AND IT WON'T BE ANY COST TO THE RECEIVERSHIP, THEN WE CAN WAIT ON THOSE ITEMS. BUT WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO, THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED BY MR. KRAMER'S ATTORNEY, IS THAT THE RECEIVER SHOULD CONTINUE TO LEASE THAT OFFICE SPACE AT ABOUT $900 A MONTH. OBVIOUSLY, YOUR HONOR, WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO LIQUIDATE OFFICE SPACE TO MAXIMIZE VALUE, WE DON'T WANT TO BE STORING OFFICE FURNITURE FOR MONTHS ON END OR PAYING TO MOVE IT TO ANOTHER SITE TO STORE IT. SO THE

80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ISSUE REALLY IS THAT NARROW, IS, WE DON'T WANT TO INCUR FURTHER COSTS FOR THE RECEIVERSHIP. WE WANT TO MAXIMIZE VALUE BY GOING AHEAD AND SELLING THESE ASSETS. OR MR. KRAMER WILLING TO TAKE US

UP ON OUR OFFER AND STORE THE ITEMS SECURELY AT NO COST TO THE RECEIVERSHIP. EITHER WAY, ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO

IS PROTECT THE VALUE OF THE ITEMS FOR THE RECEIVERSHIP. THE COURT: MR. HAYES: JOHN HAYES. DO WE NOW HAVE MR. KRAMER'S ATTORNEY? RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

SORRY I WAS LATE. I KNEW YOU HAD ANOTHER APPEARANCE. RIGHT.

THE COURT: MR. HAYES:

YOUR HONOR, IF I COULD, MR. BENJAMIN DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE CAR. MR. BENJAMIN: THE COURT: WE'LL REACH THE CAR IN A MOMENT. WE KIND OF LEFT THE CARS, I

YEAH.

THOUGHT, LAST TIME, ANYWAY. GO AHEAD. MR. BENJAMIN: I WANT TO ADDRESS -- I WAS GOING TO AS TO THE

ADDRESS THE CARS SEPARATELY, YOUR HONOR.

CARS, MR. KRAMER HAS COMPLIED WITH THE COURT'S DIRECTION TO IDENTIFY THE VEHICLES. HOWEVER, HE THEN STATED THAT

THEY WERE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIENS. THE PAPERS SUPPLIED TO US ARE UNSIGNED AS TO THE ALLEGED SECURITY INTEREST IN THE OLDER CAR. ALSO SUBSTANTIAL AMBIGUITY -- THERE'S TWO CARS. THERE'S ONE OF

THEM HAS A BLUE BOOK OF ABOUT 5,000; THE OTHER, 20-SOMETHOUSAND. THERE'S SUBSTANTIAL AMBIGUITY BOTH AS TO

81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 WHETHER OR NOT THE SECURITY INTEREST EXISTS AND WHETHER IT APPLIES TO THE SECOND CAR. WE'VE REQUESTED FURTHER INFORMATION FROM MR. KRAMER'S COUNSEL. RECEIVED IT. AGREEMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, THE DOCUMENTS PROVIDED AS TO THIS LIEN STATED THAT THE UNDERLYING PROMISSORY NOTE WAS TO BE PAID OFF BY JANUARY 2010. SO WE'D REQUEST AS OF TODAY, WE STILL HAVE NOT

SO WE STILL DON'T HAVE SIGNED SECURITY

INFORMATION AS TO, HAS THIS BEEN PAID OFF; AND IF NOT, WHY HAS THIS CREDITOR NOT SIMPLY SEIZED THESE ASSETS, ASSUMING THERE WAS A VALID SECURITY INTEREST. WE'VE NOT

RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION YET FROM MR. KRAMER OR HIS COUNSEL. WE HAVE OFFERED, YOUR HONOR -- MR. KRAMER HAS STATED THAT IT WOULD BE HARDSHIP TO LOSE THE VEHICLES, TO HIM AND HIS FAMILY. BASED ON EXPERIENCE

AND PRIOR RECEIVERSHIPS, WE KNOW THAT A CAR WITH A BLUE BOOK OF 5,000 VALUE, BY THE TIME THE RECEIVERSHIP IS DONE SELLING IT, IT WILL COST -WE HAVE OFFERED -- ALTHOUGH WE'D WANT THE COURT'S PERMISSION -- THAT THAT ONE VEHICLE COULD REMAIN WITH MR. KRAMER AND HIS FAMILY, ESPECIALLY IF IT TURNS OUT TO BE UNDERWATER. THE MORE SUBSTANTIALLY VALUABLE CAR, UNLESS IT TURNS OUT THAT THERE'S ALREADY A VALID SECURITY INTEREST IN IT, WE BELIEVE, SHOULD BE TURNED OVER TO RECEIVERSHIP TO PRESERVE THAT ASSET. IT'S WORTH

82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 APPROXIMATELY 20-SOME-THOUSAND DOLLARS. ALTERNATIVELY,

WE'D VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION WE'VE REQUESTED, BUT WE STILL HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT, DESPITE CONTINUING THE HEARING. MR. HAYES: YOUR HONOR, WE FILED A -- YOU KNOW, I

SUBBED INTO THIS CASE LAST WEEK. THE COURT: MR. HAYES: MONDAY AFTERNOON. YESTERDAY. YEAH. AND I ACTUALLY GOT FIVE BOXES OF FILES AND I SPOKE TO MR. BENJAMIN

WE DID FILE A RESPONSE YESTERDAY, WHICH I

WOULD BE SHOCKED IF YOU'VE ACTUALLY HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT, BUT IT DID HAVE SOME OF THE ANSWERS THAT MR. BENJAMIN WAS -THE COURT: YEAH, BUT -WAS THAT SERVED ON MY OFFICES?

MR. BENJAMIN: MR. HAYES: AFTERNOON.

WELL, WE JUST FILED IT YESTERDAY

I DON'T -- I'M NOT SURE WHETHER WE DID MORE

THAN THROW IT IN THE MAIL. MR. BENJAMIN: YOUR HONOR, I HAVEN'T SEEN THESE

DOCUMENTS, SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO RESPOND TO THEM. THE COURT: YEAH, OKAY. BECAUSE THERE WAS

SOMETHING -- I MEAN, WITH RESPECT TO THE SECURITY INTEREST, IT APPEARED AS THOUGH IT WAS A DIFFERENT CAR. THAT WAS THE PROBLEM. AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT SO --

ANOTHER CAR WAS SUBSTITUTED. MR. HAYES: THE COURT: MR. HAYES:

WELL, THAT -- I'M SORRY. NO, YOU GO AHEAD. THE SECURITY INTEREST IS WHAT'S CALLED

83 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 A BLANKET LIEN, AND IT COVERS ALL PERSONAL PROPERTY NOW OWNED OR HEREINAFTER ACQUIRED. THE COURT: MR. HAYES: IS THAT FOR THE -- LET'S SEE. IT WELL, IT COVERS ALL PERSONAL

PROPERTY, EVERYTHING HE OWNS. THE COURT: MR. HAYES: IS THAT FOR THE GARRETT COURT TRUST? RIGHT. AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO

LOCATE SIGNED COPIES. THE COURT: LAWSUIT? MR. HAYES: YES. IT'S A SETTLEMENT IN A LAWSUIT THE DECLARATION -- I'M I ASKED HIM WELL, IS THAT AS A RESULT OF A

THAT HAPPENED A FEW YEARS AGO.

SORRY MR. BENJAMIN HASN'T RECEIVED IT.

YESTERDAY IF WE COULDN'T CONTINUE THIS FOR A WEEK OR SO -THE COURT: WELL, I THINK THAT KIND OF MAKES MAYBE

SENSE, SINCE NEW COUNSEL IS IN THERE. SOMETHING -MR. HAYES:

IF I CAN TELL YOU, ALSO, YOUR HONOR, I'M A CERTIFIED SPECIALIST BY

I'M A BANKRUPTCY LAWYER.

THE STATE BAR, AND MR. KRAMER CAME TO ME ABOUT BANKRUPTCY. AND I HAVEN'T -- TO BE CANDID, I HAVEN'T

FIGURED OUT ANY WAY THAT BANKRUPTCY COULD HELP HIM RIGHT NOW. BUT IF HE DID FILE, THE CAR WOULD BE EXEMPT. UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW, THAT CAR IS EXEMPT, EVEN IF IT ISN'T UNDERWATER. THIS OFFICE EQUIPMENT THAT HE HAS

THAT MR. BENJAMIN SAID HAS SUBSTANTIAL VALUE, THE

84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 LAW. ANYWHERE. EXEMPTION IS $11,000, UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW. IT'S NOT

WORTH MORE THAN $11,000 IN GARAGE SALE PRICES THESE DAYS. AND I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER FILING SOME SORT OF

CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. AND I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER THEORIES. THE RECEIVERSHIP WAS ORDERED TO MAKE SURE THAT NO PROPERTY -- THERE WAS A BOILERPLATE COMMENT THAT PROPERTY COULD BE HIDDEN OR TRANSFERRED, AND WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO. THEY KNOW WHERE THE CAR IS. IT'S NOT GOING

THEY KNOW WHERE THE OFFICE EQUIPMENT IS.

IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE. BY THE WAY, MR. KRAMER IS NOT PRACTICING HE HAS NO INCOME. HE HAS NO MONEY. HE'S AN OLD

FRIEND OF MINE.

THAT'S WHY I'M HERE.

HE'S A GOOD MAN

AND A GOOD LAWYER. OTHER CHOICE.

AND I STEPPED IN BECAUSE HE HAS NO

AND HE NEEDS THAT CAR, AND I WOULD APPRECIATE -- AT LEAST, BRING IT ON ON REGULAR NOTICE AND GIVE US A CHANCE TO RESPOND. ANYWHERE, OR THE OFFICE EQUIPMENT. MR. BENJAMIN: YOUR HONOR, I APPRECIATE THE THE CAR IS NOT GOING

DIFFICULTY OF COUNSEL JUST COMING IN, BUT THE HISTORY, AS WE LAID OUT IN OUR ORIGINAL EX PARTE PAPERS -- IT STARTED WITH THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER THAT APPLIED TO THE CARS. THERE WAS A HEARING AND A

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. DURING ALL THAT TIME, THE RECEIVER WAS

85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ASKING FOR COOPERATION FROM MR. KRAMER AND HIS COUNSEL. WHEN WE WENT TO THE LAST HEARING, MR. KRAMER THEN FINALLY, BECAUSE THE COURT COMPELLED TO COMPELLED IT, COMPLIED WITH THESE ORDERS THAT WERE ALREADY A COUPLE MONTHS OLD BY THAT POINT. WHEN I THEN SPOKE FURTHER WITH MR. KRAMER'S COUNSEL AT THE TIME, MS. KAUFMAN -- WHO NEVER ADVISED ME THAT THEY WERE ABOUT TO CHANGE COUNSEL -- WE THEN WORKED OUT A DEAL WHERE WE WERE GOING TO GO BACK TO THIS COURT ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO FOR THIS CONTINUED HEARING, A WEEK AND A HALF AGO. AND SHE -- I SAID, "WELL, WE'D LIKE THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE CARS. WE'D LIKE TO SEE WE WERE

WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THIS OFFICE FURNITURE." TRYING TO ELIMINATE ISSUES.

AND SHE SAID, WELL, COULD WE CONTINUE IT TO THIS ALREADY ESTABLISHED DATE. AND I SAID, "OKAY. SEE IF WE CAN GET IT RESOLVED." SO THE RECEIVERSHIP IS NOW IN THE DIFFICULT POSITION WHERE, ON A RELATIVELY SIMPLE ISSUE OF THE CARS, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED, REALLY, A COUPLE MONTHS AGO, IT'S NOW BEING REQUESTED THAT WE CONTINUE IT AGAIN. AND OUR ONLY OBJECTIVE HERE IS JUST TO MAXIMIZE THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS FOR THE RECEIVERSHIP. AND THE MORE THIS KEEPS BEING DRAWN OUT BY MR. KRAMER AND HIS COUNSEL AND NOW HIS NEW COUNSEL, THE MORE COSTS LET'S DO THAT. LET'S

86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THAT CAUSES FOR THE RECEIVERSHIP. THE SCOPE OF THE ORDER IS WHAT IT IS. NOT A BANKRUPTCY MATTER; IT'S A RECEIVERSHIP. IT'S

WE'RE

GOING TO COMPLY WITH WHATEVER ORDERS, OBVIOUSLY, AND TRY AND CARRY OUT WHATEVER ORDERS THE COURT INSTITUTES, BUT ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO RIGHT NOW IS MAXIMIZE VALUE. AND HAVING MR. KRAMER AND HIS NEW COUNSEL NOW GOING TO EXTEND THIS OUT ISN'T GOING TO MAXIMIZE VALUE. IT'S GOING TO CAUSE MORE COSTS FOR THE

RECEIVERSHIP. I SPOKE -- THE SECOND WE GOT THE PAPERS, OR -- WELL, WITHIN ABOUT 12 HOURS OF GETTING THE SUBSTITUTION PAPERS, I WROTE A LETTER TO THE NEW COUNSEL. I ASKED HIM TO GIVE ME A CALL. WE WERE ABLE TO TALK ON MONDAY. THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. I ASKED FOR

I REPEATED THE SAME I TRIED TO GET

INFORMATION I'D GIVEN TO MS. KAUFMAN.

THIS RESOLVED, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND TIME ON ISSUES LIKE CARS AND OFFICE FURNITURE. BUT EXTENDING THIS OUT YET AGAIN DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO US, YOUR HONOR. THE COURT: WELL -WE THINK, AT THIS POINT, MR. KRAMER

MR. BENJAMIN:

HAS HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF THE SECURITY INTEREST. AND HE'S HAD AN OPPORTUNITY, AS

TO THE OFFICE FURNITURE, TO COME UP WITH HIS ZERO COST SOLUTION FOR THE RECEIVERSHIP. IF HE DOESN'T WANT TO DO THAT, PERHAPS THE

87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COURT WANTS TO GIVE HIM ANOTHER WEEK ARE TWO TO DO THOSE THINGS, BUT I'D HATE TO COME BACK FOR ANOTHER HEARING AND MORE COSTS ON THESE ITEMS. THE COURT: WELL, YOU KNOW, THE FACT OF THE MATTER

IS THAT THE LAST TIME I CONTINUED IT, IT WAS FOR PURPOSES OF SEEING IF THINGS COULD BE WORKED OUT. AND

YOU, IN FACT, DID WORK THINGS OUT WITH THE OTHER OFFICE LOCATION. YOU WERE ABLE TO WORK THAT OUT. I THINK THAT WHAT THE FOCUS OF MR. KRAMER'S ATTORNEYS WERE AT THE LAST HEARING -- I THINK THE WRIT WAS SORT OF OUTSTANDING. I DON'T THINK THE COURT OF AND I THINK

APPEAL HAD MADE A DECISION AT THAT POINT.

FOLLOWING THAT, THEY SUBSTITUTED OUT AND NEW COUNSEL CAME IN. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A COUPLE MORE WEEKS TO TRY TO WORK THIS OUT. AND HOPEFULLY, YOU WILL BE

ABLE TO MAXIMIZE THE ASSETS BECAUSE, HOPEFULLY, YOU DO WORK IT OUT, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME IN AGAIN. I WOULD EVEN BE HAPPY TO CONDUCT THAT HEARING BY COURT CALL, IF NECESSARY. MR. HAYES: THE COURT: MS. LEECE: FROM STATE BAR. WE ACTUALLY STILL NEED TO HAVE A HEARING AND OSC ON THE PERMANENT ORDER FOR MR. KRAMER. JUDGE GREAT. THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. YOUR HONOR, I'M SORRY. BLITHE LEECE OKAY?

MEISINGER NEVER -- WE SUBMITTED PROPOSED ORDERS AT THE LAST HEARING.

88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 THE COURT: MS. LEECE: YES. HE CROSSED OUT "PROPOSED" AND SAID HE

WANTED FURTHER BRIEFING AS TO THE ISSUE OF WHY THIS SHOULD BE PERMANENT ORDERS AND NOT PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. THE COURT: MS. LEECE: OKAY. BROOKE SCHAFER, FROM THE STATE BAR,

WROTE A BRIEF TO THAT ISSUE AND FILED IT WITH THIS COURT WHEN THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED, BUT WE STILL NEED A DATE, JUST SO THE COURT IS AWARE. AND SINCE MR. KRAMER'S COUNSEL IS HERE, MAYBE WE COULD GET A COURT DATE FOR THAT HEARING, AS WELL, SO THAT MATTER CAN -THE COURT: MR. HAYES: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: DO YOU HAVE THOSE PAPERS? I DO, YES. YOU DO? OKAY.

YOUR HONOR, WE ALSO, I THINK, NEED

DATES FOR A STATUS CONFERENCE FOR -- AND I MEAN, THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PROCEEDING IS, I PRESUME, GOING TO NOW PROCEED TO DISCOVERY AND TRIAL. SO I DON'T KNOW

IF A STATUS CONFERENCE IS RIPE TO LOOK FOR TODAY, BUT THERE'S ABOUT 150 DEPOSITIONS WE NEED TO TAKE. THE COURT: DIFFERENT THINGS. OKAY. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THREE

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A CONTINUED

HEARING ON THE RECEIVER'S EX PARTE; RIGHT? MR. BENJAMIN: THE COURT: YES, YOUR HONOR.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HEARING ON THE

ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THE ORDER WITH RESPECT TO THE

89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 STATE BAR IS PERMANENT. MS. LEECE: JURISDICTION -THE COURT: MS. LEECE: THE COURT: STATUS CONFERENCE. MR. STEIN: I THINK THAT -- MY UNDERSTANDING IS, AS TO KRAMER. EXACTLY. ALL RIGHT. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A AS TO KRAMER, THE ASSUMPTION OF

THE ASSUMPTION ORDER IS APPEALABLE, SO -- BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SEPARATE ACTION, THE RELATED ACTION BY THE PEOPLE, IS AN ONGOING LITIGATION MATTER. SO I

WAS JUST WONDERING WHETHER A STATUS CONFERENCE SHOULD BE SET REGARDING THE PEOPLE'S ACTION. THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: OKAY. THE 17200 ACTION. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S GET A DATE FOR AND

TWO WEEKS WITH RESPECT TO THE RECEIVER'S EX PARTE. THEM, IN THE MEANTIME, I ASSUME THERE WILL BE SOME FURIOUS MEET-AND-CONFERS TO TRY TO WORK IT OUT.

AND YOU

CAN JUST CALL AND TAKE IT OFF CALENDAR IF YOU WORK THINGS OUT. TWO WEEKS. THE COURT OFFICER: MR. HAYES: CAN I GET A DATE? I'M LOOKING.

YOUR HONOR, I WONDER IF THE HEARING ON I

THE STATE BAR'S ACTION -- IT'S AN OSC, I BELIEVE. WONDER IF THAT COULD BE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, TO

ALLOW -- THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY EVIDENCE TAKEN, ORALLY, OTHER THAN THE PLEADINGS THAT WERE FILED. AND WE

90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 HEARING. THE COURT: YOU DON'T THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE ADDRESS -THE COURT: MS. LEECE: I THINK IT DEALT WITH THAT, DIDN'T IT? THEY STATED, BASICALLY, DICTA, BUT HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO CROSS-EXAMINE ANY WITNESSES. AS FAR AS MAKING THIS INJUNCTION PERMANENT, I WOULD THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME TESTIMONY. SO WHEN YOU PICK A DATE, MAYBE WE CAN PICK A

DATE WHERE THERE WILL BE ENOUGH TIME TO DO THAT. MS. LEECE: WELL, YOUR HONOR, AS OF THE 6190 AND

6180, THE -- AS THE STATUTE LAYS OUT, THERE IS NO SUBSECTION THAT ADDRESS AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. IT'S

JUST A VERIFIED APPLICATION OF PETITION AND SUPPORTING DECLARATIONS, WHICH WE PROVIDED. THE WRIT FROM THE APPELLATE COURT DIDN'T

THEY DIDN'T GIVE EXACTLY -- THERE WAS NO -- THAT ISSUE WAS ACTUALLY NOT BRIEFED, I DON'T BELIEVE, SO ANY STATEMENT BY THE APPELLATE COURT WAS STRICTLY DICTA. SO WE WOULD OBJECT TO HAVING AN EVIDENTIARY

THE ISSUE BRIEFED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING? MS. LEECE: WOULD LIKE THAT. THE COURT: MR. HAYES: THE COURT: ON IT -WHY DON'T WE DO THAT -THAT'S FINE. -- AS A PRELIMINARY, HAVE A BRIEFING THAT'S FINE WITH US, IF THE COURT

91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR. HAYES: INJUNCTION. THE COURT: MR. HAYES: WITHOUT TESTIMONY. THE COURT: YEAH. SO WE CAN AGREE ON A BRIEFING PARDON? I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE ENTERED WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A PERMANENT

SCHEDULE AND A DATE FOR THE HEARING. MS. LEECE: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THAT'S FINE. OKAY. YOUR HONOR, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING

THAT THE APPELLATE COURT RULING WAS THE LAW OF THE CASE. TO THE EXTENT THERE'S GOING TO BE EVIDENCE TAKEN, WE WOULD LIKE TO -- I THINK WE HAVE A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, GIVEN THAT WE'RE BEING FOUND TO HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN A CONSPIRACY. THE COURT: OKAY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MR. KRAMER

RIGHT NOW; WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MR. KRAMER. MR. STEIN: NO, I UNDERSTAND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT

MR. KRAMER, BUT THE COURT CITED MR. KRAMER AS LAW OF THE CASE REGARDING ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION. AND NOW

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAVING AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING. SO I DON'T -- IF THERE'S AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, IT'S THE SAME ISSUE. WE'D LIKE TO PARTICIPATE THE COURT IS

IN THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING, REGARDING US.

SAYING IT'S OKAY TO ENTER AN ORDER AGAINST MITCHELL J. STEIN, BUT IT -THE COURT: PERMANENT; RIGHT? TODAY'S MOTION WAS TO MAKE THE ORDER

92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MS. LEECE: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: YES. YES. RIGHT. AND THE COURT INDICATED THAT

THE LAW OF THE CASE WAS THAT 6180 AND -90 WAS READ IN A CERTAIN WAY. AND NOW COUNSEL HAS ASKED FOR AN AND TO THE EXTENT THERE'S AN

EVIDENTIARY HEARING.

EVIDENTIARY HEARING, THOSE WITNESSES -- WE HAVE A RIGHT TO CONFRONT AND CROSS-EXAMINE THEM AND TO -THE COURT: NO, I -- OKAY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

APPLES AND ORANGES.

IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE CODE SECTION

AS COVERING THIS KIND OF BEHAVIOR. YOU SAID YOU'RE NOT DEAD, AND YOU'RE NOT AN ALCOHOLIC, AND YOU'RE NOT ALL OF THESE THINGS. AND YOU

WERE ARGUING THAT THE CODE SECTION DOESN'T APPLY TO THE SITUATION. ALL RIGHT. THE APPELLATE COURT FOUND

DIFFERENTLY AND FOUND THAT IT COULD BE READ BROADLY. THAT IS NOT THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A PERMANENT ORDER. TODAY WAS A MOTION -- WAS AN YOU DIDN'T RAISE

OSC RE MAKING THE ORDER PERMANENT.

THIS ISSUE, YOU DIDN'T ASK FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING, AND I'VE MADE THE RULING. SO WE CAN SET A HEARING ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE OUGHT TO BE AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING WITH RESPECT TO KRAMER MATTER WITH THE STATE BAR. MR. STEIN: MY OBJECTION TO SUCH A BIFURCATED

PROCEEDING IS NOTED; CORRECT? THE COURT: MR. STEIN: WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU CAN --

I JUST -- I'M JUST -- I JUST WANT IT

93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTED FOR THE RECORD. THE COURT: WELL, YOU CAN -- I THINK YOU CAN

PROBABLY RAISE THAT SOME WAY, BUT -- AND YOU DID MAKE YOUR RECORD. BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S FINE. THEN WE'LL AGREE ON A BRIEFING DO YOU THINK 45 DAYS?

MR. STEIN: THE COURT: MS. LEECE: THE COURT: SCHEDULE.

SO CAN WE GET A DATE IN 45 DAYS?

BUT WE

STILL HAVEN'T GOTTEN A DATE FOR THE TWO-WEEK, HAVE WE? MS. LEECE: WE HAVE NOT, YOUR HONOR. DECEMBER 5TH AT 1:45.

THE COURT OFFICER: THE COURT: MR. HAYES: THE COURT:

ALL RIGHT. WORKS FOR ME. OKAY. SO CAN YOU HAVE YOUR PAPERS

FILED ON THAT ISSUE ON NOVEMBER 4TH? MR. HAYES: THE COURT: SURE. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE OPPOSITION

PAPERS ON THE 18TH? 30TH? MR. HAYES: THE COURT:

AND THEN ANY REPLY ON NOVEMBER

PERFECT. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL SET A STATUS I'D LIKE A

CONFERENCE FOR THAT SAME DATE IN ALL CASES.

JOINT STATUS CONFERENCE STATEMENT FIVE COURT DAYS IN ADVANCE. MR. TOMA, CAN YOU TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR GETTING THAT TOGETHER?

94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MR. TOMA: THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: YES, YOUR HONOR. OKAY. THANK YOU.

YOUR HONOR, IS -AND THEN WE NEED A DATE IN TWO WEEKS

ON THE CONTINUATION OF THE EX PARTE -- THE RECEIVER'S EX PARTE, WITH RECEIVER AND MR. KRAMER'S ATTORNEY TO MEET AND CONFER AND TRY TO WORK THAT OUT. DATE. THE COURT OFFICER: THE COURT: MR. HAYES: OKAY. I HAVE NOVEMBER 8TH AT 2:45. NOVEMBER 8TH AT 2:45? SO A TWO-WEEK

ONE SECOND, JUDGE. THAT'S AGREEABLE WITH US, IF IT

MR. BENJAMIN: WORKS FOR COUNSEL. MR. HAYES: THE COURT:

THAT'S FINE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THEN I'M GOING TO ASK THE PEOPLE, MR. TOMA, THEN, WILL YOU GIVE NOTICE ON THIS? MR. TOMA: THE COURT: YES, YOUR HONOR. OKAY. AND THEN, LASTLY, PLEASE SUBMIT

YOUR ORDERS TO THE CLERK, AND THEN THE APPROPRIATE PARTY HAS TO RE-SERVE ALL. MS. LEECE: MR. STEIN: OKAY?

YES, YOUR HONOR. YOUR HONOR, JUST A MATTER OF CLARITY.

ARE THERE EXISTING STAYS IN THIS ACTION OF ANY KIND? YOU KNOW -THE COURT: MR. STEIN: THE COURT: EXISTING STAYS? COMPLEX LITIGATION DEPARTMENT STAYS? YEAH, UNTIL THE DATE OF THE STATUS

95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONFERENCE. MR. STEIN: THE COURT: THE STAY IS ON ANY DISCOVERY? YES. YOUR HONOR, MY NAME IS BILL AT THE LAST YOU'D

MR. STEPHENSON:

STEPHENSON, AND I'M REPRESENTING MYSELF. HEARING, WE HAD -- I SPOKE WITH MR. TOMA.

REQUESTED THAT WE GET TOGETHER AND TRY TO FREE MY -FROM THE ASSET FREEZE, TO FIGURE OUT WHAT I'M SUPPOSED TO GET. AND MR. TOMA SAID -- I TOOK MY BANK STATEMENTS AND SHOWED THAT AS OF NOVEMBER 2010 -- THAT WAS WHEN THE MASS JOINDER CAME INTO FRUITION, AND I'D ALREADY HAD $150,000 SAVED UP. EXCUSE ME.

AND SO MOVING FORWARD, HE HAD ASKED THAT I GET TOGETHER MY BANK STATEMENTS. WHEN I SPOKE, THEN, WE NEED TO GO BACK

WITH THE RECEIVER, HE SAID, "OH, NO. TO 2008."

HE SAID, "I WANT TO KNOW WHERE EVERY PENNY IS

COMING FROM." WELL, I DIDN'T WORK FOR THIS COMPANY -- I MEAN, THIS WAS A NEW VENTURE, AND IT SHOULD ONLY BE PERTAINING TO WHAT HAPPENED FROM NOVEMBER 2010 GOING FORWARD. SO WE COULDN'T COME TO A RESOLUTION. AND AGAIN, YOU HEARD MY BOSS. BUT AN EMPLOYEE WITH THE COMPANY. SORRY. THE COURT: I NEED WATER. SORRY. OKAY. I'M DRY OVER HERE. I WAS NOTHING

MR. STEPHENSON: COMPANY.

BUT I WAS AN EMPLOYEE FOR THE

MR. MC NAMARA STATED IN COURT, FROM THE FIRST

96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JUDGE, THAT MY ACCOUNT WAS OVERFROZEN. SO I'D LIKE SOME KIND OF RESTITUTION. GOT MY CHILDREN'S COLLEGE. MR. BENJAMIN: RECEIVER'S POSITION. AND I'M ILL, AS WELL. I'VE

YOUR HONOR, JUST TO CLARIFY THE THE RECEIVER STATED THAT THE ONE

DEFENDANT WHO MIGHT BE OVERFROZEN WAS MR. STEPHENSON. WE HAVE NOT AGREED THAT HE IS OR IS NOT. WHEN THE COURT INQUIRED IF THAT WAS THE ONE DEFENDANT THAT WE HAD THAT POSSIBILITY WITH, WE WOULD JUST ASK THAT HE MAKE A MOTION, IN ESSENCE, IN THE EVENT THAT HE BELIEVES HE IS OVERFROZEN, AND HE CAN SUBMIT THE FACTS TO THE COURT. BUT OBVIOUSLY, TRYING TO RESPOND TO THIS THIS AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE TIME -THE COURT: YOU'D THINK THAT MAYBE IT WOULD BE

VERY IMPORTANT -- A VERY IMPORTANT FACT, IF HE DIDN'T START WORKING FOR THE COMPANY UNTIL NOVEMBER 10 -- OR NOVEMBER OF 2010. MR. STEPHENSON: MR. BENJAMIN: RIGHT. YES, YOUR HONOR. WE'D ASK THAT HE

SUBMIT HIS RELEVANT FACTS REGARDING THAT, WITH ANY MOTION HE'D SUBMIT AS TO WHY HE BELIEVES HE IS OVERFROZEN. THE COURT: 11-8 AT 2:45. IF YOU WANT TO, YOU COULD APPEAR ON

YOU COULD HAVE A HEARING ON THAT DATE.

YOU CAN SUBMIT YOUR PAPERWORK TO THE RECEIVER PRIOR TO THAT DATE, AND TO THE COURT.

97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RIGHT. MR. STEPHENSON: I'M ILL, AND I'M STARTING TO I'M JUST GOING TO SHAKE.

SHAKE, AND I CAN'T STOP IT. BUT I'M UNDERSTANDING. THE COURT:

DO YOU NEED SOME WATER? WELL, I NEED MEDICINE. I'M A

MR. STEPHENSON:

SEVERE DIABETIC, AND I HAVE PANCREAS ISSUES. THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. I WANT YOU TO BE ALL IF THAT HELPS, YOU CAN

YOU CAN SIT DOWN TOO.

SIT DOWN. MR. STEPHENSON: THE COURT: OKAY.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAND UP.

BUT WOULD THAT DATE WORK FOR YOU? MR. STEPHENSON: THE COURT: DATE, AS WELL. ABSOLUTELY. SO WE'LL SET IT ON THAT

ALL RIGHT. OKAY? OKAY.

MR. STEPHENSON: THE COURT: OKAY.

THANK YOU.

I THINK WE'RE DONE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. TOMA: MR. STEIN: MR. DAVIS: THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR. THANK YOU, YOUR HONOR.

(PROCEEDINGS CONCLUDED AT 3:54 P.M.)