david gingras declaration

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

GIN

GR

AS

LAW

OFF

ICE,

PLLC

3961

E.C

HA

ND

LER

BLV

D.,

#111

-243

PHO

ENIX

,AR

IZO

NA

8504

8

David S. Gingras, #021097Gingras Law Office, PLLC3961 E. Chandler Blvd., #111-243Phoenix, AZ 85048Tel.: (480) 668-3623Fax: (480) [email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff/CounterdefendantXcentric Ventures, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, anArizona limited liability company,

Plaintiff,

v.

LISA JEAN BORODKIN et al.,

Defendants.

RAYMOND MOBREZ,

Counterclaimant,

v.

XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC andEDWARD MAGEDSON,

Counterdefendants.

Case No.: 11-CV-1426-GMS

AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID S. GINGRAS INSUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSETO NON-PARTY LISA BORODKIN’SMOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILEMOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDERAND MOTION TO QUASH AND FORSANCTIONS

I, David S. Gingras declare as follows:

1. My name is David Gingras. I am a United States citizen, a resident of the

State of Arizona, am over the age of 18 years, and if called to testify in court or other

proceeding I could and would give the following testimony which is based upon my own

personal knowledge unless otherwise stated.

Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 183-1 Filed 12/28/12 of 22

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

GIN

GR

AS

LAW

OFF

ICE,

PLLC

3961

E.C

HA

ND

LER

BLV

D.,

#111

-243

PHO

ENIX

,AR

IZO

NA

8504

8

2. I am an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of Arizona and

California, I am an active member in good standing with the State Bars of Arizona and

California and I am admitted to practice and in good standing with the United States

District Court for the District of Arizona and the United States District Court for the

Northern, Central, and Eastern Districts of California.

3. I represented Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson in the lawsuit

filed against them in California entitled Asia Economic Institute, LLC, et al. v. Xcentric

Ventures, LLC, et al., Case No. 10-cv-1360 (the “California Litigation”).

4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a highlighted copy of an email I received

from Lisa Borodkin on July 15, 2010.

5. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of discovery

responses I received from Mr. Mobrez in this case dated December 6, 2012.

6. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are certain highlighted portions of the

deposition transcript of Raymond Mobrez dated December 11, 2012.

7. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are certain highlighted portions of the

deposition transcript of Iliana Llaneras dated December 11, 2012.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the

United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct.

EXECUTED ON: December 28, 2012.

GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC/S/ David S. GingrasDavid S. GingrasAttorney for Xcentric Ventures, LLC


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

GIN

GR

AS

LAW

OFF

ICE,

PLLC

3961

E.C

HA

ND

LER

BLV

D.,

#111

-243

PHO

ENIX

,AR

IZO

NA

8504

8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on December 28, 2012 I electronically transmitted the attached

document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing, and for transmittal

of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following:

John S. Craiger, Esq.David E. Funkhouser III, Esq.

Krystal M. Aspey, Esq.Quarles & Brady LLP

One Renaissance SquareTwo North Central Avenue

Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2391Attorney for Lisa J. Borodkin

Raymond MobrezIliana LlanerasPO BOX 3663

Santa Monica, CA 90408Defendants Pro Se

And a courtesy copy of the foregoing delivered to:HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW

United States District CourtSandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 622

401 West Washington Street, SPC 80Phoenix, AZ 85003-215

/s/David S. Gingras


Exhibit A


David Gingras

From: Lisa Borodkin [[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2010 2:54 PM

To: Maria Crimi Speth

Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]

Subject: Re: Deposition

Page 1 of 1

12/28/2012

Maria,

As you know, David, Daniel and I were all on the call with the Court on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 and were heard at length.

The Court was kind enough to stay past normal Court hours to hear each side thoroughly, including each parties' understanding of the Court's oral comments from Monday and your 11th-hour request to continue the mandatory settlement conference originally scheduled for yesterday.

After hearing oral argument on all the issues and the complete background and context from all counsel, the Court worked out a compromise.

We believe the matters scheduled for Tuesday, July 20 serve three goals:

(1) enabling the parties to refine and evaluate any allegations that you may later contend are not supported by investigation, to further assist in evaluating the case for settlement,

(2) having an in-person, frank settlement discussion between the clients that may hasten the early settlement of this case, while accommodating your client's request to be excused from the settlement conference originally set for Wednesday, July 14, and

(3) allowing you to take our client's deposition, at our expense, with a waiver of attorney-client privilege on any grounds that support your long and continuing history of threatening to sue Plaintiffs' counsel for malicious prosecution and abuse of process, to give Mr. Blackert and myself some peace of mind and allow us to focus on the merits.

We have already booked travel arrangements and engaged a court reporting service based on that compromise.

You had the opportunity to appear and be heard by Magistrate Walsh. Apparently, you declined. According to our last discussion with Mr. Gingras, he has it in his calendar and can obtain space at your law firm.

Therefore, we would like to continue as agreed.

Lisa


DG

Highlight

Exhibit B


Exhibit C


151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626

HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398


DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, an ) Case No.

Arizona limited liability ) 11-CV-1426-GMS

company, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

Lisa Jean Borodkin, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________)

Raymond Mobrez, )

)

Counterclaimant, )

)

v. )

)

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, and )

Edward Magedson, )

)

Counterdefendants. )

)

______________________________)

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF RAYMOND MOBREZ

Los Angeles, California

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Reported by:

Carmen R. Sanchez

CSR No. 5060




2

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT2 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA3

4 Xcentric Ventures, LLC, an ) Case No. Arizona limited liability ) 11-CV-1426-GMS

5 company, ) )

6 Plaintiff, ) )

7 V. ) )

8 Lisa Jean Borodkin, et al., ) )

9 Defendants. ) ______________________________)

10 Raymond Mobrez, ) )

11 Counterclaimant, ) )

12 v. ) )

13 Xcentric Ventures, LLC, and ) Edward Magedson, )

14 ) Counterdefendants. )

15 ) ______________________________)

16

17 Videotaped deposition of RAYMOND MOBREZ,18 taken on behalf of Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, at19 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450, Los Angeles,20 California, beginning at 2:02 p.m. and ending at21 4:03 p.m., on Tuesday, December 11, 2012,22 before Carmen R. Sanchez, Certified Shorthand23 Reporter No. 5060.24

25

3

1 APPEARANCES:2 For Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Xcentric Ventures,

LLC:3

GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC4 BY: DAVID S. GINGRAS, ESQ.

3941 E. Chandler Boulevard5 Suite 106-243

Phoenix, Arizona 850486 Telephone: (480) 668-3623

Facsimile: (480) 248-31967 E-mail: [email protected] In Propria Persona:9 RAYMOND MOBREZ

P.O. Box 366310 Santa Monica, California 9040811 Also Present:12 David Bradley

Videographer13 Hahn & Bowersock Corporation14 Iliana Llaneras15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

1

2 I N D E X3 WITNESS4 RAYMOND MOBREZ5 Examination by: Page6 MR. GINGRAS 67

8 E X H I B I T S9 (None offered.)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

5

1 Los Angeles, California

2 Tuesday, December 11, 2012, 2:02 p.m. - 4:03 p.m.

3 -oOo-

4

5 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Here begins the

6 videotaped deposition of Raymond Mobrez, Tape 1,

7 Volume I, in the matter of Xcentric Ventures, LLC

8 vs. Borodkin. Today's date, December 11th, 2012,

9 and the time on the video monitor is 2:02 p.m. The

10 video operator is David Bradley, representing

11 Hahn & Bowersock Court Reporters, and the

12 court reporter is Carmen Sanchez, reporting on

13 behalf of Hahn & Bowersock court reporters.

14 Today's deposition is being taken at

15 355 South Grand Avenue, located in Los Angeles,

16 California. Counsel, please introduce yourselves

17 and state whom you represent.

18 MR. GINGRAS: Good afternoon. My name is

19 David Gingras. I represent plaintiff,

20 Xcentric Ventures, LLC, which is also a

21 counterdefendant, in addition to Edward Magedson,

22 who is a counterdefendant.

23 THE WITNESS: Raymond Mobrez. I'm a

24 defendant.

25 MS. LLANERAS: Iliana Llaneras, defendant.




66

1 Look at the top of page 4, if you2 turn the page. There's an explanation that3 Lisa Borodkin gave (as read):4 "The public relies on these5 statements, believes them to be true6 and infers that non-CAP members are not7 as committed to excellent customer service8 as CAP members."9 Do you see that?

10 A Yes.11 Q Was that statement intended to12 reflect your position, or did it reflect your13 position?14 A I think I just said almost similar15 to that.16 Q You sure did. That's why --17 A And I was not -- I had never seen18 this document, and I don't want to convert this19 more than what it is. I don't want to convert this20 to a psychic friends sitting and talking, and21 that's exactly what it is.22 Q Well, so you're saying that you23 agree with what Ms. Borodkin wrote here?24 A I'm not agreeing with anything. I'm25 just saying that's what I see it there, and I

67

1 explained to you a little bit more in-depth, and

2 you told me to turn the page, and it turned out to

3 be exactly what it is, almost.

4 Q Okay. So you believe that

5 Ripoff Report's scheme to defraud through the wires

6 by including false statements in CAP investigations

7 that businesses are safe, reliable, or otherwise

8 can be trusted caused harm to you because the

9 general public believed those comments and inferred

10 that non-CAP members, like yourself, are therefore

11 not as committed to excellent customer service as

12 CAP members? Is that an accurate summary of your

13 position?

14 A I can say one more time that

15 Ripoff Report, it appears to be a either one-man

16 show with some lawyers, or it's one man with a

17 couple of friends and partners, and it doesn't have

18 the -- it gives the impression of Better Business

19 Bureau and others that they have 10,000 employees,

20 but it doesn't do, except that it's just -- I think

21 this is the facade for the business model that

22 Ripoff Report is in.

23 Q Okay.

24 Other than what you just said, can

25 you tell me any other reason that you believe that

68

1 you were harmed by the comment or alleged false

2 statement in Bullet Point No. 7 regarding CAP

3 investigation reports not being accurate?

4 A This is all-inclusive. I cannot

5 dissect the one statement or one sentence out and

6 say, "What would you say about that?" So it's, as a

7 whole, it explains some legal theory on legal

8 issues that I am not in a position to analyze that.

9 Q Okay.

10 Do you agree that you never did any

11 business with a CAP member? You never bought any

12 products or services from CAP members?

13 A No, I didn't.

14 Q Okay. So you weren't damaged in

15 that way, were you?

16 A No, I don't think so.

17 MR. GINGRAS: Okay. Let's take five.

18 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: We're going off the

19 record. The time is 3:27 p.m.

20 (A recess was taken.)

21 THE VIDEOGRAPHER: Back on the record. The

22 time is 3:59 p.m. [sic].

23 BY MR. GINGRAS:

24 Q Raymond, before the break, I think

25 we were talking about an E-mail, dated

69

1 July 15th, 2010, which is Exhibit 10 in your

2 booklet there, which is from Lisa Borodkin to some

3 people; and this E-mail kind of sets forth -- the

4 subject line is: "Laymen's Description of theory

5 of RICO Wire Fraud," and I think we talked about

6 the fact that you are a not a lawyer, and you don't

7 understand all these things. But other than what's

8 in this E-mail, can you generally in layman's terms

9 tell me what you think was the basis of your RICO

10 wire fraud claim against Xcentric and Magedson?

11 A That's the only area I can tell you

12 that I relied on our attorneys' research and

13 paperwork and homework and their decision to --

14 based on what they heard from me. I rely on them.

15 Q You relied on your lawyers' advice.

16 You told them some facts and then asked them

17 whether those facts would be sufficient to support

18 a wire fraud claim?

19 A Yes.

20 Q And they told you, "Yes"?

21 A That's what it is. Is it -- is that

22 the wire fraud continued, or what happened? I

23 don't know. I apologize.

24 Q I don't know if I understand what

25 you're asking me. But in any event, trying to move

in this E-mail, can you generally in layman's terms

tell me what you think was the basis of your RICO9

wire fraud claim against Xcentric and Magedson?10

A That's the only area I can tell A That's the only area I can tell you11

that I relied on our attorneys' research and12

paperwork and homework and their decision to --13

based on what they heard from me. I rely on them.14

Q You relied on your lawyers' advi Q You relied on your lawyers' advice.15

You told them some facts and then asked them16

whether those facts would be sufficient to support17

a wire fraud claim?18

A Yes. A Yes.19


Exhibit D





DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, an ) Case No.

Arizona limited liability ) 11-CV-1426-GMS

company, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

Lisa Jean Borodkin, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

______________________________)

Raymond Mobrez, )

)

Counterclaimant, )

)

v. )

)

Xcentric Ventures, LLC, and )

Edward Magedson, )

)

Counterdefendants. )

)

______________________________)

VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF ILIANA LLANERAS

Los Angeles, California

Tuesday, December 11, 2012

Reported by:

Carmen R. Sanchez

CSR No. 5060




2

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT2 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA3

4 Xcentric Ventures, LLC, an ) Case No. Arizona limited liability ) 11-CV-1426-GMS

5 company, ) )

6 Plaintiff, ) )

7 v. ) )

8 Lisa Jean Borodkin, et al., ) )

9 Defendants. ) ______________________________)

10 Raymond Mobrez, ) )

11 Counterclaimant, ) )

12 v. ) )

13 Xcentric Ventures, LLC, and ) Edward Magedson, )

14 ) Counterdefendants. )

15 ) ______________________________)

16

17 Videotaped deposition of ILIANA LLANERAS,18 taken on behalf of Plaintiff/Counterdefendant, at19 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450, Los Angeles,20 California, beginning at 9:28 a.m. and ending at21 1:21 p.m., on Tuesday, December 11, 2012,22 before Carmen R. Sanchez, Certified Shorthand23 Reporter No. 5060.24

25

3

1 APPEARANCES:2 For Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Xcentric Ventures,

LLC:3

GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC4 BY: DAVID S. GINGRAS, ESQ.

3941 E. Chandler Boulevard5 Suite 106-243

Phoenix, Arizona 850486 Telephone: (480) 668-3623

Facsimile: (480) 248-31967 E-mail: [email protected] In Propria Persona:9 RAYMOND MOBREZ

P.O. Box 366310 Santa Monica, California 9040811 Also Present:12 David Bradley

Videographer13 Hahn & Bowersock Corporation14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

4

1 I N D E X2 WITNESS3 ILIANA LLANERAS4 Examination by: Page5 MR. GINGRAS 86

7 E X H I B I T S8 Plaintiff's Page Page

Exhibit Description Introduced Marked9

Exhibit 1 Copy of Asia v.10 ROR - Original

CA Complaint 34 17711

Exhibit 2 Copy of a series12 of Ripoff Reports;

Nos. 417493,13 423987, 457433,

502429, 564331,14 and 571232 45 17715 Exhibit 3 Copy of Declaration

of Raymond Mobrez 63 17716

Exhibit 4 Copy of Declaration17 of Iliana Llaneras 67 17718 Exhibit 5 Copy of corrected

Affidavit of19 Iliana Llaneras 73 17720 Exhibit 6 Copy of corrected

Affidavit of21 Raymond Mobrez 74 17722

23

24 Continued ....25

5

1 I N D E X (CONTINUED)2

3 E X H I B I T S4 Plaintiff's Page Page

Exhibit Description Introduced Marked5

Exhibit 7 Copy of AEI6 Confidential

Settlement7 Conference

Statement 75 1778

Exhibit 8 Copy of Asia v.9 ROR - First

Amended Complaint 86 17710

Exhibit 9 Copy of an E-mail11 from Lisa Borodkin,

dated 7/15/201012 Re: Deposition 83 17713 Exhibit 10 Copy of an E-mail

from Lisa Borodkin,14 dated 7/15/2010

Re: AEI v. Xcentric:15 Laymen's Description

of theory of RICO16 Wire Fraud 84 17717 Exhibit 11 Copy of AEI

Rule 56(f)18 Motion 167 17719 Exhibit 12 Copy of Asia v.

ROR - Proposed20 Second Amended

Complaint 169 17721

Exhibit 13 Copy of Defendants'22 Discovery Responses 170 17723

24 Continued ....25




82

1 THE WITNESS: Yes, Friday.

2 BY MR. GINGRAS:

3 Q And one of the things -- and they're

4 in here, and I'll talk to you about them a little

5 bit later. But one of the things that was in your

6 discovery responses was -- and, again, I understand

7 you're not a lawyer; so you communicate things as

8 best you can, but one of the things that I saw in

9 there was the concept that you relied on the advice

10 of your lawyers at a lot of different phases of

11 this case; right? The decision to file it

12 initially; the decision to continue it. Is that

13 your position that you relied on the advice of your

14 lawyers?

15 A Yes, they were our attorneys

16 representing us.

17 Q Okay.

18 Is that a defense that you're going

19 to be raising in this case?

20 A I don't know.

21 Q I'll tell you why I'm asking. Under

22 California law, it is a defense to malicious

23 prosecution that you relied on the advice of

24 counsel, but there's a catch, like so many things.

25 The defense only applies when you have fully and

83

1 truthfully disclosed all relevant facts to your

2 counsel, and you've acted in good faith.

3 Obviously, I'm not your lawyer. I'm not giving you

4 legal advice. But do you think that that's a

5 defense that you intend to invoke in this case?

6 A I don't know.

7 Q Flipping ahead, there was -- look at

8 exhibit -- it's nine. Nine.

9 Have you ever seen this before?

10 A I don't think so. No, I didn't.

11 Q I'll tell you, this is an E-mail

12 that I received from Lisa Borodkin on July 15th,

13 2010. It was actually sent to Maria Speth, but she

14 -- Lisa copied me, and it looks like Blackert and

15 Alexandra. Who's [email protected]?

16 A That was Blackert's assistants or

17 whatever. They worked for Blackert.

18 Q Did you pay Alexandra anything?

19 A I made payments. We made payments

20 to Blackert and their assistants.

21 Q Okay. And do you remember

22 Alexandra's last name?

23 A Not at the moment.

24 Q How about Kristi?

25 A Not at the moment.

84

1 Q Is it Janke or something?

2 A I don't recall exactly.

3 Q Okay. So this E-mail here, you

4 didn't see it before it was sent. Do you recall

5 being bcc'd on it?

6 A I don't -- no, I don't recall.

7 Q Did you talk to Lisa around this

8 time? Again, this is mid-July 2010. Did you talk

9 to Lisa about -- this is -- she's talking about the

10 settlement conference that we were going to have, I

11 think, for July 20th in Phoenix.

12 Do you remember talking to Lisa

13 about the concept of -- in Point No. 3 of her

14 E-mail she says (as read):

15 "Allowing you," meaning I guess

16 Xcentric or Maria, "to take our client's

17 deposition, at our expense, with a waiver

18 of attorney-client privilege on any grounds

19 that support your long and continuing

20 history of threatening to sue Plaintiff's

21 counsel for malicious prosecution ...."

22 Do you see that little bullet point

23 "(3)" there?

24 A Yeah, but I'm not aware of that.

25 Q Lisa never talked to you about

85

1 possibly waiving attorney-client privilege so that

2 we could take your deposition and find out more

3 information about your case?

4 A I'm not aware of that.

5 Q You're not aware that you ever had

6 that conversation with Lisa or you --

7 A I don't recall that conversation.

8 Q As we sit here today, are you

9 willing to waive attorney-client privilege to allow

10 me to find out whether or not you fully and

11 truthfully disclosed all relevant facts to your

12 counsel during the prior case?

13 A I am here in good faith to respond

14 to questions, but I am not here to waive

15 attorney-client because I'm not sure -- I'm not an

16 attorney; so I'm not sure if it's appropriate or

17 not.

18 Q Okay.

19 Have you talked to Raymond about

20 whether or not he would be willing to waive

21 attorney-client privilege?

22 A No, I haven't.

23 Q Okay.

24 Do you think Lisa sent this without

25 your permission?

initially; the decision to continue it. Is that

your position that you relied on the advice of your13

lawyers?14

15 A Yes, they were our attorneys A Yes, they were our attorneys

16 representing us.

Q Okay. Q Okay.17

Is that a defense that you're going18

to be raising in this case?19

20 A I don't know. A I don't know.




86

1 A I don't know. I'm not aware of this

2 E-mail or its contents; so I couldn't respond.

3 Q All right.4 Let's go back and look at Exhibit 8.5 Do you recognize this?6 A Hold on. Let me see it. It's the

7 first amended complaint?

8 Q Right. I'll tell you, this is the9 pleading that was filed in the prior California

10 case on July 27th, 2010. It's the first amended11 complaint on behalf of Asia Economic Institute,12 Raymond Mobrez, and Iliana Llaneras against13 Xcentric and others.14 Did you -- did you review this15 before it was filed?16 A I did review it briefly, yes.

17 Q Do you recall talking to your18 lawyers, either Blackert or Borodkin about this19 before it was filed?20 A We did have a discussion. We did

21 have a meeting on it.

22 Q When do you think that meeting23 occurred?24 A I don't remember exactly.

25 Q Do you remember how long the meeting

87

1 was?2 A No, I don't.

3 Q Prior to filing this, I assume that4 you're going to take the position that you fully5 and truthfully disclosed all relevant facts to your6 lawyers --7 A Yes.

8 Q -- before this was filed?9 A We did, of course.

10 Q Okay. But you're not going to allow11 me to know what those facts were that were12 disclosed?13 A I think that's attorney-client

14 privilege.

15 Q Okay. All right.16 Do you have any knowledge of who17 drafted this?18 A I think it was Lisa Borodkin.

19 Q Okay. And you said you saw a draft20 before it was filed. As we sit here today, are all21 facts in the first amended complaint true to the22 best of your knowledge?23 A I believe it is, yes. I didn't

24 draft the first one so ....

25 Q Okay.

88

1 Do you recall you, Iliana,2 personally performing any investigation before this3 was filed in July of 2010?4 A No, I didn't do any investigations.

5 Q Who did?6 A Our attorneys did the

7 investigations.

8 Q Dan and Lisa?9 A Yes.

10 Q Anyone else besides them?11 A I don't know.

12 Q Did you get -- did you get any kind13 of billing statement from the lawyers explaining14 what sort of work they were doing, things of that15 nature?16 A I don't -- I don't think so, no.

17 Q How did you know how much to pay18 them?19 A Raymond had mentioned to me --

20 Q Who --21 A -- how much.

22 Q -- wrote the checks to them?23 A Either I did or Raymond did, one or

24 -- either one of us.

25 Q And did you ever review anything

89

1 that explained the type of work that was being done

2 by your lawyers that you were paying them for?

3 A Raymond was more focused on that.

4 Q Okay.

5 Whether or not Raymond was more

6 focused on it, did you ever see anything

7 summarizing the work that was done? Sometimes --

8 not every lawyer does a billing statement, either

9 monthly or weekly or whatever; but most of them do.

10 I'm asking if you ever saw anything like that?

11 A I -- I don't think I did.

12 Q Okay.

13 Can you, as we sit here today, can

14 you explain to me the basis of your RICO wire fraud

15 claim in the first amended complaint?

16 A I'd have to object to that because I

17 think that's attorney-client privilege; so I didn't

18 draft that and ....

19 Q This document was filed with the

20 Court, and it's not privileged in any way. What

21 I'm asking you to do is tell me -- again, I know

22 you're not a lawyer. I'm not expecting you to cite

23 statutes or cases. I'm just asking you to explain

24 to me in layman's terms how you feel that Xcentric

25 or Magedson committed a wire fraud against you,


DG

Highlight

DG

Highlight

DG

Highlight

DG

Highlight

david gingras declaration

Business

david gingras

gingras david

gingras case

llc case

states of arizona

gingras attorney

arizona85048 david

gingras law office