Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
David Gingras Affidavit re anti-slapp
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

David Gingras Affidavit re anti-slapp

368

Published on

Published in: Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
368
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3961E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#111-243 PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 David S. Gingras, #021097 Gingras Law Office, PLLC 3961 E. Chandler Blvd., #111-243 Phoenix, AZ 85048 Tel.: (480) 668-3623 Fax: (480) 248-3196 David@GingrasLaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Xcentric Ventures, LLC UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, Plaintiff, v. LISA JEAN BORODKIN et al., Defendants. RAYMOND MOBREZ, Counterclaimant, v. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC and EDWARD MAGEDSON, Counterdefendants. Case No.: 11-CV-1426-GMS AFFIDAVIT OF DAVID S. GINGRAS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS RAYMOND MOBREZ AND ILIANA LLANERAS’S SPECIAL MOTION TO STRIKE AND MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY 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 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 1 of 48
  • 2. 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3961E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#111-243 PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 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 true and correct copy of an affidavit of Ed Magedson filed in the California Litigation on May 11, 2010. 5. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an affidavit of Ed Magedson filed in the California Litigation on May 24, 2010. 6. Attached hereto as Exhibit C are certain highlighted portions of the deposition transcript of Iliana Llaneras. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit D are certain highlighted portions of the deposition transcript of Raymond Mobrez. 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 24, 2012. GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC /S/ David S. Gingras David S. Gingras Attorney for Xcentric Ventures, LLC Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 2 of 48
  • 3. 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 3961E.CHANDLERBLVD.,#111-243 PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on December 24, 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 Square Two North Central Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2391 Attorney for Defendant Lisa J. Borodkin Raymond Mobrez Iliana Llaneras PO BOX 3663 Santa Monica, CA 90408 Defendants Pro Se And a courtesy copy of the foregoing delivered to: HONORABLE G. MURRAY SNOW United States District Court Sandra Day O’Connor U.S. Courthouse, Suite 622 401 West Washington Street, SPC 80 Phoenix, AZ 85003-215 /s/David S. Gingras Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 3 of 48
  • 4. Exhibit A Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 4 of 48
  • 5. AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 David S. Gingras, CSB #218793 Gingras Law Office, PLLC 4072 E Mountain Vista Dr. Phoenix, AZ 85048 Tel.: (480) 639-4996 Fax: (480) 668-3623 David.Gingras@webmail.azbar.org Attorneys for Defendants Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No: 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON I, Edward Magedson, declare as follows: 1. My name is Ed Magedson. 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. CORRECTION OF STATEMENTS ABOUT THREATS FROM MR. MOBREZ 2. On March 22, 2010, I filed an Affidavit in this matter entitled “Affidavit of Ed Magedson In Support of Defendants’ Special Motion to Strike” (the “March 22 Affidavit”) which covered numerous topics. Among other things, one of the topics that I covered in the March 22 Affidavit was a series of telephone conversations I had with Raymond Mobrez which took place in April and May 2009. At the time, I did not know Mr. Mobrez, but I am now aware that he is one of the plaintiffs in this case. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 5 of 48
  • 6. 2 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 3. In paragraph 31 of the March 22 Affidavit, I testified among other things: “During my phone conversations with Mr. Mobrez, he became very threatening towards me, stating that he ‘had people in Arizona’ who could ‘find me’ which I interpreted as a threat.” I repeated this same statement in another short affidavit filed in this matter on April 5, 2010. At the time I made the allegations regarding Mr. Mobrez threatening me, I believed those statements to be true. 4. As I explained in ¶ 4 of my April 5, 2010 Affidavit, I have received many threats in the past. Many of these past threats have included statements similar to those which I attributed to Mr. Mobrez – people sometimes state that they are going to try to find me or my home which is a very serious safety concern to me. 5. I believed that Mr. Mobrez was one of the people who threatened me because my email to Mr. Mobrez on July 24, 2009 said that I lived in California (which was not true). I concluded that I probably made that statement to Mr. Mobrez in response to a statement from him which threatened to find me in Arizona, or to have someone else do so. This is why I thought that Mr. Mobrez made such threats. 6. After these affidavits were filed, I recalled that I had recordings of all of my telephone conversations with Mr. Mobrez which had taken place approximately a year earlier. I had not yet retrieved or listened to any of these recordings before my affidavits were filed with the court. 7. At the request of my attorneys following the Court’s denial of our anti- SLAPP motion on April 19, 2010, on April 20, 2010 I spent several hours conducting a search of my records. I was able to eventually locate six recordings of calls and/or voicemails from Raymond Mobrez to the main number for the Ripoff Report site; (602) 359-4357. The first time I listened to any of these recordings was on April 20, 2010. I also provided copies of these calls to my counsel for the first time on that same day. 8. After listening to each of these recordings, I was surprised to find that they do not contain any threats from Mr. Mobrez as outlined in my March 22 or April 5 Affidavits. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 6 of 48
  • 7. 3 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 9. Having reviewed the recordings, I believe that I was mistaken when I testified in my affidavits that Mr. Mobrez made such threats towards me. I must have confused Mr. Mobrez with someone else. 10. Upon reviewing the six recordings of the calls/voicemails from Mr. Mobrez which took place approximately a year ago, I realize now that I may not have accurately recalled the substance of those calls. These recordings do not contain any threats by Mr. Mobrez to locate me in Arizona and to the extent that my previous affidavits stated that such a threat occurred during those calls, I must have been mistaken. RESPONSE TO ALLEGATIONS OF EXTORTION 11. I have reviewed the Declarations of Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras filed in this case on May 3, 2010. I am aware from reviewing these declarations that Mr. Mobrez claims that in a telephone conversation that took place on May 5, 200, I asked him for a payment of $5,000 plus a monthly monitoring fee in order to help remedy negative postings about AEI on the Ripoff Report site. I am aware that Mr. Mobrez claims that during other calls, I told him that if he paid this fee, all of the negative would be changed into a positive. I am also aware that Mr. Mobrez claims that I bragged about Ripoff Report being at the top of all of the search engines, that any lawsuit against us would be fruitless, and that it was therefore best for him to just “go with the [CAP] program.” I understand that Ms. Llaneras claims to have been listening in to several of these calls without my knowledge, and I am aware that she testified in her declaration that Mr. Mobrez had accurately recounted each of these conversations in his declaration. 12. I am aware that at the time their declarations were filed on May 3, 2010, Mr. Mobrez and Ms. Llaneras did not know that these calls had been recorded. I am also aware that the existence of these recordings was revealed to Mr. Mobrez and Ms. Llaneras for the first time during the deposition of Mr. Mobrez on May 7, 2010. 13. The six audio recordings that were played during the deposition of Mr. Mobrez were true, complete, and unaltered copies of recordings which Xcentric Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 7 of 48
  • 8. 4 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 automatically creates and routinely maintains as part of its business records. I did not alter, edit, or modify these recordings in any way. 14. As clearly demonstrated in these recordings, none of Mr. Mobrez’s allegations are true. Although I did have four telephone conversations with Mr. Mobrez in April and May 2009 (all of which were initiated by him; I never called him), I never asked Mr. Mobrez for money, I never asked Mr. Mobrez whether his company was profitable or how it made money, I never told him that payment of a fee to Xcentric would result in negative information being changed into a positive, and I never bragged about Ripoff Report being at the top of any search engines. Excluding general comments which are found on the Ripoff Report website here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/ConsumersSayThankYou/WantToSueRipoffReport.aspx, I never personally told Mr. Mobrez that Ripoff Report was immune under the law, I never told him that a lawsuit against us was likely to fail, I never bragged about having a team of lawyers who would fight him, and I never told him that it was “best to just join the [CAP] program.” All of these allegations are blatant lies—they are pure fabrications that Mr. Mobrez created in order to falsely malign me and the Ripoff Report site and to gain unjustified sympathy for himself. 15. Rather, as the recordings of these phone calls clearly show, the topic of the Corporate Advocacy Program was first brought up by Mr. Mobrez, not by me. In fact, each time he called, Mr. Mobrez repeatedly tried to engage me in conversation about the Corporate Advocacy Program and each time he did so, I refused to discuss the program with him. Listening to these recordings now, I believe it is very clear that Mr. Mobrez was attempting to lead me into asking for money from him, but I firmly refused to do so. 16. As a matter of general policy and in order to preempt exactly the type of false and fabricated allegations present in this case, I do not discuss the Corporate Advocacy Program by telephone with anyone unless and until they have contacted us in writing to apply for the program. Because Mr. Mobrez never applied for the program, I did not speak to him about it even though he repeatedly asked me to do so. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 8 of 48
  • 9. 5 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 17. As I explained to Mr. Mobrez several times, I will not to speak to anyone about the CAP program by telephone unless they first fill out a form about their company. Only after a company fills out the form will I agree to discuss any specific details of the CAP program by phone. Because Mr. Mobrez never did this, I did not and would not discuss the program with him in any detail. 18. In the case of AEI and Mr. Mobrez and as clearly demonstrated by the recordings of the phone conversations between us, I never discussed any aspect of the program with Mr. Mobrez by telephone except for explaining that if Mr. Mobrez wanted to receive more information, he would need to review the page about the program contained on our website and then complete a short application form which is available here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/CorporateAdvocacy/Application.aspx. 19. As shown on the recordings, Mr. Mobrez initially indicated or implied that he would go to the site and complete this application, but he never did so. During my subsequent conversations with Mr. Mobrez in which he attempted to engage me in discussions about the Corporate Advocacy Program, I repeatedly told him that “there is nothing we can discuss by phone until I receive your information via email”. This statement (which was made to Mr. Mobrez numerous times) was a reference to my policy against discussing the CAP program by phone, and the email I was referring to is the email generated by our system each time a person completes the CAP application form. 20. I am aware that in ¶ 13 of his May 3, 2010 declaration, Mr. Mobrez claims that a discussion took place between us at around 1:05 PM on May 5, 2009 in which he claims that I demanded a payment of at least “five grand” ($5,000) plus a monthly monitoring fee to enroll Mr. Mobrez in the Corporate Advocacy Program. I understand that Mr. Mobrez’s wife, Iliana Llaneras, claims in her declaration that she was eavesdropping on this call and that she confirms Mr. Mobrez’s version of what was said. 21. Both Mr. Mobrez and Ms. Llaneras are lying about the conversation that took place on May 5, 2009. This call was automatically recorded by Xcentric and the Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 9 of 48
  • 10. 6 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 actual recording of the call (which has a total running time of 35 seconds) was played during the deposition of Mr. Mobrez. As clearly shown in the recording of this call, my actual conversation with Mr. Mobrez during this call lasted approximately 13 seconds. After Mr. Mobrez began speaking and I recognized his voice, I immediately hung up the phone. Mr. Mobrez continued speaking for a few seconds until he realized that the call had been disconnected. The remainder of the recording shows Mr. Mobrez repeatedly saying, “Hello? Hello? Hello?” As the recording clearly shows, I never demanded $5,000 (or any other amount) during this call, nor did I ever ask Mr. Mobrez for any money at any time. In addition, I never made any of the other statements that Mr. Mobrez attributed to me during this call such as informing him that the more money a company made, the more I would charge that company for membership in the CAP program. These statements are simply inflammatory, malicious and offensive lies that Mr. Mobrez and Ms. Llaneras created in order to defame, discredit, and attack me. 22. I understand that according to the phone bills produced by Mr. Mobrez, his bill reflects that the total duration of the call on May 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM was 2.2 minutes which is obviously longer than the 35 seconds of audio recording that were actually captured. The reason for this difference (which is present in each of the six recordings) is that when a person calls the main phone number for the Ripoff Report site (602-359- 4357), they are not connected directly to me. Rather, callers are required to navigate through a series of phone menus where they must listen to numerous choices and then select which option they want. 23. In order to reach me directly, a caller is required to listen to two different series of options and then push two different keys to indicate that they would like to speak to the Ripoff Report’s editor. Listening to only the main menu of options takes 40 seconds. If the caller chooses option 1, which relates to requests to remove reports, they get a recorded message regarding our policy, including the policy to not speak by telephone. It takes one minute and thirty seconds to listen to the main menu plus the recorded message in option 1. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 10 of 48
  • 11. 7 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 24. If the caller follows the phone tree to reach me, the phone system then asks the caller to state their name which is recorded, and then they are placed on hold while the system forwards the call to me. The automatic recording process does not begin unless and until the caller is connected directly to me, and the audio recording only captures what was said after the call is connected to me. So, for instance, if a person spent 1 ½ minutes navigating through the phone menu system and waiting for the system to connect the call and then spoke to me for a total of 30 seconds, Xcentric’s system would only record the actual length of the conversation (30 seconds), but the caller’s phone bill would likely indicate a total call duration of around 2.0 minutes. 25. Although a person could reach me in under a minute if they knew the exact sequence of buttons to push and did not wait to hear each menu listing, normally completing each step of the phone menu process takes anywhere from approximately one minute to nearly two minutes. It is my belief that the time it takes to complete this process is why Mr. Mobrez’s phone bills show that each call was approximately 90 seconds longer than the audio recording that was captured for each call. 26. To be clear—I did not delete any audio from these recordings nor did I edit them in any way whatsoever. The recordings that have been supplied to Mr. Mobrez’s attorneys are a complete and accurate reflection of the recordings made by Xcentric’s system. 27. The first call was made by Mr. Mobrez on April 27, 2009 at 3:21 PM and his phone bill shows the total length of the call was 3.5 minutes. According to Xcentric’s recording of this call, the total amount of audio captured was 1:35 (one minute, thirty-five seconds), but it is obvious from the recording itself that the entire conversation was actually recorded. This implies that it took Mr. Mobrez about two minutes to navigate through the menu system during this first call. 28. The second call from Mr. Mobrez was on April 27, 2009 at 3:27 PM. His telephone bill shows the total length of this call was 1.0 minute. Xcentric’s system did not record any audio from this call which I believe is due to the fact that the call was Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 11 of 48
  • 12. 8 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 either dropped for some reason, or Mr. Mobrez hung up before he completed the phone menu process. Because Mr. Mobrez never spoke to me during this call, no recording was made. 29. The third call from Mr. Mobrez took place on April 27, 2009 at 3:28 PM. His telephone bill shows that the total length of this call was 2.9 minutes. According to ¶ 8 of Mr. Mobrez’s May 3, 2010 declaration, he claims that this third call involved a conversation between he and I in which I talked to him about the CAP program. That statement is false. According to Xcentric’s recordings, this third call was actually a voicemail that Mr. Mobrez left on our phone system. The total duration of this voicemail was 1:20 (one minute, twenty seconds) which again is consistent with the amount of time that Mr. Mobrez would spent navigating through Xcentric’s phone menu system before he could leave a message for me. 30. During my final telephone conversation with Mr. Mobrez on May 12, 2009 and as clearly shown in the recording of that call, I told him as I had in previous conversations that I needed to receive his email before I could engage in any further discussions with him. At some point during that call, Mr. Mobrez became frustrated and he told me that he had previously emailed me which I understood to mean that he had previously completed the CAP application form. 31. As clearly shown in the recording of this call, Mr. Mobrez also continued trying to “bait” me into asking him for money, which again I refused to do. In fact, at one point during the call, Mr. Mobrez apparently became frustrated that I had not asked him for money, and he said to me, “Look, if you want to fix this, we can take care of it right away...” suggesting that if I would just request money from him, he was willing to pay immediately. As was true of every other instance that Mr. Mobrez tried to make me ask him for money, I refused to do so. 32. Instead, I responded by telling Mr. Mobrez that I would search for his email to confirm that I had received his application form, but after several minutes of searching I was not able to locate any such emails from him. I then repeated my Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 12 of 48
  • 13. 9 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 previous statements to the effect that I would not and could not discuss the program with him until I could confirm receipt of his application. 33. After our call ended on May 12, 2009, I continued looking for the CAP application form which I thought Mr. Mobrez said he had sent. Eventually, I was able to determine that Mr. Mobrez had never sent me any such form, and I therefore sent him an email in which I expressed my frustration at having spent time looking for something that did not exist. 34. When I told Mr. Mobrez that he “drove me crazy,” in my email to following our discussion on May 12, 2009, I was not angry that he had not applied for the CAP program. Rather, this statement was simply a reference to the fact that I was frustrated that I had spent so much time looking for an email that Mr. Mobrez suggested he had already sent when, in truth, the email had not been sent. 35. Based on my review of the declarations filed by Mr. Mobrez and his wife Ms. Lllaneras, based on a review of the recordings of every telephone call described in those declarations, based on my practice of refusing to have conversations about CAP before an application is submitted, and based on my own personal memory and recollection of these conversations, it is clear that Mr. Mobrez has lied about every material aspect of our communications. 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: May 11, 2010. ______________________________________ Edward Magedson Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 13 of 48
  • 14. 10 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 11, 2010 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 CM/ECF registrants: Mr. Daniel F. Blackert, Esq. Asia Economic Institute 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 260 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Attorneys for Plaintiffs And a courtesy copy of the foregoing delivered to: Honorable Stephen V. Wilson U.S. District Judge /s/David S. Gingras Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 14 of 48
  • 15. Exhibit B Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 15 of 48
  • 16. AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 David S. Gingras, CSB #218793 Gingras Law Office, PLLC 4072 E Mountain Vista Dr. Phoenix, AZ 85048 Tel.: (480) 639-4996 Fax: (480) 668-3623 David.Gingras@webmail.azbar.org Maria Crimi Speth, (Admitted Pro Hac Vice) Jaburg & Wilk, P.C. 3200 N. Central Ave., Suite 2000 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Tel: (602) 248-1000 Fax: (602) 248-0522 mcs@jaburgwilk.com Paul S. Berra, CSB #186675 Law Offices of Paul S. Berra 1404 3rd Street Promenade, Suite 205 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Tel: (310) 394-9700 Fax: (310) 394-9755 Paul@Berra.org Attorneys for Defendants Xcentric Ventures, LLC and Edward Magedson UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, et al., Defendants. Case No: 2:10-cv-01360-SVW-PJW AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Hearing Date: June 28, 2010 Time: 1:30 PM Courtroom: 6 (Hon. Stephen Wilson) Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 16 of 48
  • 17. 2 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 I, Edward Magedson, declare as follows: 1. My name is Ed Magedson. I am 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. 2. I am the manager of Xcentric Ventures, LLC (“Xcentric”) and the founder and “ED”itor of the website www.RipoffReport.com which I started in 1998. The Ripoff Report site is operated by Xcentric. Serving as a forum for speech concerning bad business practices among other things, the Ripoff Report is the leading complaint reporting website and is one of the most ardent supporters of free speech anywhere. 3. In my capacity as the Editor of the Ripoff Report I have worked closely with all levels of federal, state, and local law enforcement, including, but not limited to, various state attorneys general, county attorneys, Homeland Security, the United States Justice Department, United States Secret Service, FBI, FTC, SEC, US Postal inspectors, and local police, providing them with information used to locate victims, detect patterns of deceptive business practices and to prosecute violations of consumer protection laws, among other things. 4. The Ripoff Report is 100% free to use—it charges nothing whatsoever to users who create reports, nothing to viewers who read reports, and nothing to anyone wishing to respond to reports. SUMMARY OF THE CORPORATE ADVOCACY PROGRAM 5. I have personally reviewed the Complaint filed against me in this matter by Plaintiffs Asia Economic Institute, Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras. Based on this review, I understand that a large portion of this action is founded upon Plaintiffs’ misunderstanding of the Ripoff Report’s Corporate Advocacy Program or “CAP”. Because an accurate understanding of the CAP program is essential to understanding why Plaintiffs’ allegations of “extortion” are groundless, I will briefly explain the program before addressing the specific details of Plaintiffs’ Complaint. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 17 of 48
  • 18. 3 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 6. First of all, it is false to imply that the Ripoff Report is an “extortion” scheme in which reports are solicited for the purpose of victimizing and extracting money from those named in a report. If a company or individual is named in a report which appears on the Ripoff Report, they always have the option of creating and posting a response (called a “rebuttal”) which explains their side of the story. Ripoff Report charges nothing whatsoever to anyone who wishes to post a rebuttal; they are 100% free. 7. When I am contacted by anyone who states that they have been targeted by a false or inaccurate report, my first suggestion to them is to file a free rebuttal. In my experience, the vast majority of complaints regarding unfair reports can be quickly and inexpensively resolved by posting a well-written rebuttal. 8. As I stated above, I always recommend that companies file a rebuttal as their primary recourse against any report they feel is inaccurate. However, in some instances, companies may feel that additional assistance is needed in order to help them improve customer satisfaction and resolve pending complaints. This is where the Corporate Advocacy Program comes in. 9. When a company becomes a member of the CAP program, several different elements are involved. First, the goal of the program is to ensure that complaints submitted by unhappy customers are resolved and that the root problems which caused these complaints are fixed so that future complaints can be reduced or avoided. 10. To achieve these goals, a company who joins the CAP program must agree, in writing, to work with Ripoff Report and the unhappy customers who have filed reports in order to resolve their complaints. This must include offering full refunds if requested by the customer. 11. During this process, Ripoff Report acts as a liaison between the CAP member and its customers by contacting each author who has submitted a report to our site about the company. The email we send to each author explains that the company has joined our program and has made a commitment to resolve the customer’s complaint quickly and fairly. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 18 of 48
  • 19. 4 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 12. Regardless of the resolution of each specific complaint, when a company joins the CAP program I will post information explaining this fact as an introduction to each complaint about the company on the Ripoff Report site. The purpose of this is to allow readers to see that the CAP member has joined our program and that the company has made a firm commitment to increasing its customer satisfaction by working with Ripoff Report to resolve all past and any future complaints. 13. CAP membership never includes the removal of reports, nor is the text of existing reports changed in any way. The only alteration made is to add an introduction to each report explaining that the company has joined our program, and this change is made only after the company has consented in writing to permit Ripoff Report to make the change. Other than adding this new information, existing reports remain visible on the site in their exact original form. 14. I frequently explain to people that one of the benefits of joining the CAP program is that they can “turn a negative into a positive”. When I say this, it is not meant to imply that by joining the program, the text of existing complaints will be changed or that negative statements will be changed. Rather, what I mean when I say this is that people who visit the Ripoff Report understand that when a company joins the CAP program, that company has made a visible, tangible commitment to increasing customer satisfaction. As such, when someone reviews a report about a CAP member, in addition to seeing the original complaint, they will also see that the company has joined our program and this will cause the reader (assuming they are a potential customer) to realize that the company can be trusted with their business. Because I strongly believe that customers prefer to do business with a company that has shown a willingness to admit their mistakes and to fix them, I feel that even negative complaints will produce a positive effect for our CAP members in the long run. 15. Because the purpose of the CAP program is to help increase customer satisfaction, I generally require companies to accept some level of responsibility for customer complaints even if they do not agree with them. I do this because I do not want Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 19 of 48
  • 20. 5 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 a company to participate in the program half-heartedly without having made a sincere commitment to improving customer relations. If a company thinks they can simply join the CAP program and expect to receive no additional complaints in the future without making any changes to their practices, I would not be interested in having this company as a member in our program. 16. I do not perform any kind of active marketing for the CAP program other than providing general information about the program on the Ripoff Report website here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/CorporateAdvocacy.aspx. I also include a few comments about this program as well as a link to the above page in a standard form email that I send in response to anyone who contacts the site asking about how to resolve a report. 17. In my standard email (a copy of which is attached as an exhibit to the Plaintiffs’ Complaint), I also encourage the recipient to file a free rebuttal as their first course of action. Specifically, my email states: “You can simply file a rebuttal and explain your side of the story … it’s free … and you don’t have to even read any further, just log on and file a rebuttal telling your side of the story, best not to be combative or insulting.” This point is repeated several times throughout the email. 18. Nothing in my email demands money to change or remove reports. In fact, my email clearly explains that we will NEVER remove reports in exchange for money: [A]s a matter of policy, we do not remove a submitted Rip-off Report, and we never will. Some people claim that we remove reports for money, but that is just plain false. We have been offered as much as $50,000 to remove just one Rip-off Report, but we declined because doing so is in violation of our policy, and more importantly, goes against what we what we stand for ... Please understand our position. SUMMARY OF CONTACT WITH PLAINTIFFS 19. I understand from reviewing the Complaint and the declarations filed by Plaintiffs in this matter that Plaintiffs have accused me of attempting to “extort” money from them during a series of telephone calls that took place in late April and early May 2009. This allegation is completely and totally false. In fact, each and every one of my telephone conversations with Mr. Mobrez was automatically recorded by Xcentric’s Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 20 of 48
  • 21. 6 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 phone system and these recordings prove conclusively that Mr. Mobrez and Ms. Llaneras have perjured themselves in this case. 20. I understand that Mr. Mobrez alleges that on February 15, 2009, he sent an email to info@ripoffreport.com which asked us to remove a report about him from our site. Although I do have access to the email address info@ripoffreport.com, it is not my primary email address; my primary email is Editor@ripoffreport.com. I have no specific recollection of receiving the February 15, 2009 email from Mr. Mobrez, and I am fairly certain that I never responded to it. It is also possible that due to problems with Xcentric’s email server, this email may never have arrived. 21. I understand that Mr. Mobrez alleges that on April 28, 2009, he sent me an email which began “Dear Editor, I spoke with someone at your office yesterday … .” Although I have seen this email during the course of this lawsuit, I do not specifically recall receiving it at the time, and I am fairly certain that I never responded to it. 22. On May 5, 2009, Mr. Mobrez re-sent me a copy of the email he previously sent on April 28, 2009 which also began “Dear Editor, I spoke with someone at your office yesterday … .” I do recall receiving this email on May 5, 2009, and consistent with my normal practice, I briefly reviewed it and then I responded later that same day with a lengthy “form email” which I normally send to people who email me asking about their options for responding to a report. The “form email” I sent to Mr. Mobrez on May 5, 2009 does not demand money and does not contain any threats; it simply explains my views on various options for anyone wishing to address a report on our site. 23. I have reviewed the Declarations of Raymond Mobrez and Iliana Llaneras filed in this case on May 3, 2010. I am aware from reviewing these declarations that Mr. Mobrez claims that in a telephone conversation that took place on May 5, 2009, I asked him for a payment of $5,000 plus a monthly monitoring fee in order to help remedy negative postings about AEI on the Ripoff Report site. I am aware that Mr. Mobrez claims that during other calls, I told him that if he paid this fee, all of the negative would be changed into a positive. I am also aware that Mr. Mobrez claims that I bragged about Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 21 of 48
  • 22. 7 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 Ripoff Report being at the top of all of the search engines, that any lawsuit against us would be fruitless, and that it was therefore best for him to just “go with the [CAP] program.” I understand that Ms. Llaneras claims to have been listening in to several of these calls without my knowledge, and I am aware that she testified in her declaration that Mr. Mobrez had accurately recounted each of these conversations in his declaration. 24. I am aware that at the time their declarations were filed on May 3, 2010, Mr. Mobrez and Ms. Llaneras did not know that these calls had been recorded. I am also aware that the existence of these recordings was revealed to Mr. Mobrez and Ms. Llaneras for the first time during the deposition of Mr. Mobrez on May 7, 2010. 25. The six audio recordings that were played during the deposition of Mr. Mobrez on May 7, 2010 were true, complete, and unaltered copies of recordings which Xcentric automatically creates and routinely maintains as part of its business records. I did not alter, edit, or modify these recordings in any way. 26. After the denial of Defendants’ anti-SLAPP motion on April 19, 2010, the following day (on April 20, 2010) I began a search for any audio recordings that might exist of conversations between Mr. Mobrez and myself. Because of the significant amount of time involved, I did not conduct a search for these recordings prior to April 19, 2010 because I believed the anti-SLAPP motion was likely to succeed, and until it was denied, I did not know whether any phone conversations between me and Mr. Mobrez would be necessary or relevant to the case. 27. As of April 20, 2010, I did not know exactly when Mr. Mobrez alleged that he had spoken to me and I did not know what phone number(s) he was calling from. For that reason, in order to locate any and all possible calls from Mr. Mobrez, I had to review recordings of every call made to the Ripoff Report’s main telephone number (602) 359- 4357 over a period spanning several months. This search took me about 4–5 hours. 28. Following my search, I was able to locate recordings of six phone calls from Mr. Mobrez to the Ripoff Report’s main number. All of these calls occurred in April and May 2009. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 22 of 48
  • 23. 8 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 29. Xcentric employs the services of a third-party vendor who automatically records all telephone calls to Ripoff Report’s main phone number; (602) 359-4357. These recordings occur off-site, and I do not have access to any of the equipment used to record the calls nor do I have access to the recordings until they are sent to me via email. 30. When a call is recorded, the third-party vendor’s system emails me an audio file which contains a copy of the call. This audio file includes certain data about the call in the file’s header such as information from the caller ID, the number the caller is calling from, the date of the call and the time the recording ended. 31. According to my search, Xcentric’s phone system recorded six phone calls from Mr. Mobrez in April and May 2009. These calls are summarized in the table below. It should be noted that the table actually reflects a total of seven calls were made even though only six calls were recorded. 32. The only call not recorded—Call #2 in this table—was a call made from Mr. Mobrez’s office phone to the Ripoff Report on April 27, 2009. According to phone records produced by Mr. Mobrez which I have reviewed, I am aware that Call #2 was made at 3:27 PM on April 27, 2009, but the duration of the call as reflected on the phone bill was only 1.0 minute. It is my belief that no recording of this call was made because Mr. Mobrez never actually spoke to me during Call #2; this call was either dropped, did not connect successfully, or Mr. Mobrez hung up before reaching me. TABLE OF RECORDINGS Call # Date End Time Call From # Length Min:Sec 1 4/27/2009 3:25 PM (310) 806-3000 1:35 2 4/27/2009 N/A N/A N/A 3 4/27/2009 3:32 PM (310) 806-3000 1:20 4 5/5/2009 11:33 AM (310) 806-3000 0:51 5 5/5/2009 1:10 PM (310) 806-3000 0:35 6 5/9/2009 1:38 PM (310) 801-5161 1:36 7 5/12/2009 3:05 PM (310) 806-3000 14:45 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 23 of 48
  • 24. 9 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 33. In order to reach me directly, a caller is required to listen to two different series of options and then push two different keys to indicate that they would like to speak to the Ripoff Report’s editor. Listening to only the main menu of options takes 40 seconds. If the caller chooses option 1, which relates to requests to remove reports, they get a recorded message regarding our policy, including the policy to not speak by telephone. It takes one minute and thirty seconds to listen to the main menu plus the recorded message in option 1. 34. If the caller follows the phone tree to reach me, the phone system then asks the caller to state their name which is recorded, and then they are placed on hold while the system forwards the call to me. The automatic recording process does not begin unless and until the caller is connected directly to me, and the audio recording only captures what was said after the call is connected to me. So, for instance, if a person spent 1 ½ minutes navigating through the phone menu system and waiting for the system to connect the call and then spoke to me for a total of 30 seconds, Xcentric’s system would only record the actual length of the conversation (30 seconds), but the caller’s phone bill would likely indicate a total call duration of around 2.0 minutes. 35. Although a person could reach me in under a minute if they knew the exact sequence of buttons to push and did not wait to hear each menu listing, normally completing each step of the phone menu process takes anywhere from approximately one minute to nearly two minutes. It is my belief that the time it takes to complete this process is why Mr. Mobrez’s phone bills show that each call was approximately 90 seconds longer than the audio recording that was captured for each call. 36. To be clear—I did not delete any audio from these recordings nor did I edit them in any way whatsoever. The recordings that have been supplied to Mr. Mobrez’s attorneys are a complete and accurate reflection of the recordings made by Xcentric’s system. 37. As clearly demonstrated in the recordings of the six other calls, none of Mr. Mobrez’s extortion allegations are true. Of these six calls, two of them were voicemails Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 24 of 48
  • 25. 10 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 that Mr. Mobrez left for me and the other four are recordings of our actual conversations. Although I did have four brief telephone conversations with Mr. Mobrez in April and May 2009 (all of which were initiated by him; I never called him), I never asked Mr. Mobrez for money, I never asked Mr. Mobrez whether his company was profitable or how it made money, I never told him that payment of a fee to Xcentric would result in negative information being changed into a positive, and I never bragged about Ripoff Report being at the top of any search engines. All of these allegations are lies. Excluding general comments which are found on the Ripoff Report website here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/ConsumersSayThankYou/WantToSueRipoffReport.aspx, I never personally told Mr. Mobrez that Ripoff Report was immune under the law, I never told him that a lawsuit against us was likely to fail, I never bragged about having a team of lawyers who would fight him, and I never told him that it was “best to just join the [CAP] program.” All of these allegations are blatant lies—they are pure fabrications that Mr. Mobrez created in order to falsely malign me and the Ripoff Report site and to gain unjustified sympathy for himself. 38. Rather, as the recordings of these phone calls clearly show, the topic of the Corporate Advocacy Program was first brought up by Mr. Mobrez, not by me. In fact, each time he called, Mr. Mobrez repeatedly tried to engage me in conversation about the Corporate Advocacy Program and each time he did so, I refused to discuss the program with him. Listening to these recordings now, I believe it is very clear that Mr. Mobrez was attempting to lead me into asking for money from him, but I firmly refused to do so. 39. As a matter of general policy and in order to preempt exactly the type of false and fabricated allegations present in this case, I do not discuss the Corporate Advocacy Program by telephone with anyone unless and until they have contacted us in writing to apply for the program. Because Mr. Mobrez never applied for the program, I did not speak to him about it even though he repeatedly asked me to do so. 40. In the case of AEI and Mr. Mobrez and as clearly demonstrated by the recordings of the phone conversations between us, I never discussed any aspect of the Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 25 of 48
  • 26. 11 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 program with Mr. Mobrez by telephone except for explaining that if Mr. Mobrez wanted to receive more information, he would need to review the page about the program contained on our website and then complete a short application form which is available here: http://www.ripoffreport.com/CorporateAdvocacy/Application.aspx. 41. As shown on the recordings, Mr. Mobrez initially indicated or implied that he would go to the site and complete this application, but he never did so. During my subsequent conversations with Mr. Mobrez in which he attempted to engage me in discussions about the Corporate Advocacy Program, I repeatedly told him that “there is nothing we can discuss by phone until I receive your information via email”. This statement (which was made to Mr. Mobrez numerous times) was a reference to my policy against discussing the CAP program by phone, and the email I was referring to is the email generated by our system each time a person completes the CAP application form. 42. I am aware that in ¶ 13 of his May 3, 2010 declaration, Mr. Mobrez claims that a discussion took place between us at around 1:05 PM on May 5, 2009 in which he claims that I demanded a payment of at least “five grand” ($5,000) plus a monthly monitoring fee to enroll Mr. Mobrez in the Corporate Advocacy Program. I understand that Mr. Mobrez’s wife, Iliana Llaneras, claims in her declaration that she was eavesdropping on this call and that she confirms Mr. Mobrez’s version of what was said. 43. Both Mr. Mobrez and Ms. Llaneras are lying about the conversation that took place on May 5, 2009. This call was automatically recorded by Xcentric and the actual recording of the call (which has a total running time of 35 seconds) was played during the deposition of Mr. Mobrez. As clearly shown in the recording of this call, my actual conversation with Mr. Mobrez during this call lasted approximately 13 seconds. After Mr. Mobrez began speaking and I recognized his voice, I immediately hung up the phone. Mr. Mobrez continued speaking for a few seconds until he realized that the call had been disconnected. The remainder of the recording shows Mr. Mobrez repeatedly saying, “Hello? Hello? Hello?” As the recording clearly shows, I never demanded $5,000 (or any other amount) during this call, nor did I ever ask Mr. Mobrez for any Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 26 of 48
  • 27. 12 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 money at any time. In addition, I never made any of the other statements that Mr. Mobrez attributed to me during this call such as informing him that the more money a company made, the more I would charge that company for membership in the CAP program. These statements are simply inflammatory, malicious and offensive lies that Mr. Mobrez and Ms. Llaneras created in order to defame, discredit, and attack me. 44. I understand that according to the phone bills produced by Mr. Mobrez, his bill reflects that the total duration of the call on May 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM was 2.2 minutes which is obviously longer than the 35 seconds of audio recording that were actually captured. The reason for this difference (which is present in each of the six recordings) is that as explained above, anyone who calls the Ripoff Report main phone number must navigate through a series of menus before they are connected to me. This process takes an average of between one and two minutes which is why Mr. Mobrez’s phone bills show that each call he made to the Ripoff Report was approximately 90 seconds longer than the amount of audio actually recorded. 45. The first call was made by Mr. Mobrez on April 27, 2009 at 3:21 PM and his phone bill shows the total length of the call was 3.5 minutes. According to Xcentric’s recording of this call which was transcribed on pages 271:7–273:9 of Mr. Mobrez’s deposition, the total amount of audio captured was 1:35 (one minute, thirty-five seconds), but it is obvious from the recording itself that the entire conversation was actually recorded. This implies that it took Mr. Mobrez about two minutes to navigate through the menu system during this first call. 46. The second call from Mr. Mobrez was on April 27, 2009 at 3:27 PM. His telephone bill shows the total length of this call was 1.0 minute. Xcentric’s system did not record any audio from this call which I believe is due to the fact that the call was either dropped for some reason, or Mr. Mobrez hung up before he completed the phone menu process. Because Mr. Mobrez never spoke to me, no recording was made. 47. The third call from Mr. Mobrez took place on April 27, 2009 at 3:28 PM. His telephone bill shows that the total length of this call was 2.9 minutes. According to Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 27 of 48
  • 28. 13 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 ¶ 8 of Mr. Mobrez’s May 3, 2010 declaration, he claims that this third call involved a conversation between he and I in which I talked to him about the CAP program. That statement is false. According to Xcentric’s recording of this case, which was transcribed on pages 276:3–277:6 of Mr. Mobrez’s deposition, the third call was actually a voicemail that Mr. Mobrez left on our phone system. The total duration of this voicemail was 1:20 (one minute, twenty seconds) which again is consistent with the amount of time that Mr. Mobrez would have spent navigating through Xcentric’s phone menu system before he could leave a message for me. 48. The fourth call from Mr. Mobrez took place on May 5, 2009 at 11:28 AM. His telephone bill shows that the total length of this call was 2.6 minutes. According to ¶ 10 of Mr. Mobrez’s May 3, 2010 declaration, he claims that during this fourth call, he asked me for information about the CAP program, including the cost. Mr. Mobrez also claimed that I told him during this call that the Ripoff Report had immunity under the law and therefore could not be sued, and that we have a team of lawyers who would fight any lawsuit and therefore it was best to “just go with the [CAP] program”. All of these allegations are completely false. The actual recording of Call #4, which was transcribed on pages 278:12–279:10 of Mr. Mobrez’s deposition, demonstrates that Mr. Mobrez attempted to engage me in a discussion about how he could resolve a report on our site, and I expressly told him that I could not speak to him about this by phone (as I had previously told him during our first discussion). After explaining that I would not speak to him by phone, I hung up and the recording ended. The total duration of the recording was 51 seconds. 49. The fifth call from Mr. Mobrez took place on May 5, 2009 at 1:05 PM. His telephone bill shows the length of this call was 2.2 minutes. This call is described in ¶ 13 of Mr. Mobrez’s May 3, 2010 declaration, and this is the call during which Mr. Mobrez claims that I demanded $5,000 from him, plus an additional payment of several hundred dollars each month. These allegations are completely false. According to Xcentric’s recording of this call, which was transcribed on pages 280:4–281:7 of Mr. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 28 of 48
  • 29. 14 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 Mobrez’s deposition, the entire conversation during Call #5 lasted a total of 35 seconds. The call began with me asking the caller who he was, after which Mr. Mobrez responded: “I spoke to you earlier. Thank you for sending me that e-mail. I tried to understand it, but there’s nothing says what I can do there. Hello? Hello? Hello?” This represents the entire conversation that occurred during Call #5. 50. As reflected in this recording, once again I hung up the phone on Mr. Mobrez once I realized that it was the same person who had called me several times before and who I had previously told I would not speak to by phone. As reflected in the recording, I never asked Mr. Mobrez for money, never told him that our fees were based on the size of his company, and never told him that the more money he made the more he would be charged. All of these allegations are completely false as the tape recording of this call clearly shows. 51. The sixth call from Mr. Mobrez took place on May 9, 2009 at 1:36 PM. This call was another voicemail that Mr. Mobrez left from his cell phone (310-801-5161). Mr. Mobrez did not produce a copy of his cell phone records despite being asked to do so, so I do not know what the length of this call was according to his bill. According to Xcentric’s recording of this call, which was transcribed on pages 282:10–283:20 of Mr. Mobrez’s deposition, Mr. Mobrez accurately describes his previous conversations with me as being very short and ending with me hanging up on him; “I spoken about three times with the same gentleman, but it seemed to me he does not want to stay on the phone or something. He just hangs up very quickly.” 52. The seventh and final call from Mr. Mobrez took place on May 12, 2009 at 2:46 PM. This call is described in ¶ 14 of Mr. Mobrez’s May 3, 2010 declaration in which he states that I told him during the call that if he joined the CAP program and paid the fees, then “all the negative goes away and you see the positive.” As reflected in the transcript of the call, this allegation is completely false; I never told Mr. Mobrez during this call that membership in the CAP program would make all the negative go away. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 29 of 48
  • 30. 15 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 Rather, as with every other call, I specifically told Mr. Mobrez during this call that I would not and could not speak to him about CAP unless he applied for the program. 53. As clearly shown in the recording of this call, even after I told him that I would not speak to him about the CAP program, Mr. Mobrez also continued trying to “bait” me into asking him for money, which again I refused to do. In fact, at one point during the call, Mr. Mobrez apparently became frustrated that I had not asked him for money and he said to me, “Look, if you want to fix this, we can take care of it right away...” suggesting that if I would just request money from him, he was willing to pay immediately. As was true of every other instance that Mr. Mobrez tried to make me ask him for money, I refused to do so. 54. Instead, I responded by telling Mr. Mobrez that I would search for his email to confirm that I had received his application form, but after several minutes of searching I was not able to locate any such emails from him. I then repeated my previous statements to the effect that I would not and could not discuss the program with him until I could confirm receipt of his application. 55. After our call ended on May 12, 2009, I continued looking for the CAP application form which I thought Mr. Mobrez said he had sent. Eventually, I was able to determine that Mr. Mobrez had never sent me any such form, and I therefore sent him an email in which I expressed my frustration at having spent time looking for something that did not exist. 56. Mr. Mobrez never completed the CAP application, never joined the CAP program, and neither he nor Ms. Llaneras nor AEI have ever paid anything to me or to Xcentric. 57. When I told Mr. Mobrez that he “drove me crazy,” in my email to following our discussion on May 12, 2009, I was not angry that he had not applied for the CAP program. Rather, this statement was simply a reference to the fact that I was frustrated that I had spent so much time looking for an email that Mr. Mobrez suggested he had already sent when, in truth, the email had not been sent. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 30 of 48
  • 31. 16 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 58. Based on my review of the Complaint and the exhibits thereto, I am aware that there six reports which Plaintiffs allege contain various false statements about them. These reports (as is true of all new submissions to our site) are automatically assigned “report numbers” by our servers which are sequential numbers reflecting the order in which each report was received. 59. In this case, I understand that the six postings at issue are as follows: Report #417493, #423987, #457433, #502429, #564331, and #571232. I understand that screenshots of portions of the report as well as copies of the text of each of each report are attached to the Declaration of David Gingras submitted herewith as follows: 60. All of these reports and rebuttals were created by third parties, not by me or Xcentric. I had nothing to do with the creation of the six reports at issue in this case, nor did I have anything to do with the comments/rebuttals to each report. I did not create these reports or rebuttals, nor did I alter them in any way. I did not “solicit” anyone else to write these reports or rebuttals. 61. I am aware that on May 20, 2010, Mr. Mobrez filed a “corrected” affidavit in this matter in which he attempted to recant much of his prior testimony. I am also aware that in his “corrected” affidavit Mr. Mobrez testified, “In addition, there were a number of incoming calls to me from Ripoff Report.” This statement is completely false and is just another lie by Mr. Mobrez. At no time did I ever call Mr. Mobrez, nor would Exhibit Report # Submission Date 1A/B 417493 January 28, 2009 2A/B 423987 February 13, 2009 3A/B 457433 June 1, 2009 4A/B 502429 September 30, 2009 5A/B 564331 February 3, 2010 6A/B 571232 February 19, 2010 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 31 of 48
  • 32. 17 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 I have contacted him by phone for any reason. If I had wanted to contact him, I would have done so in writing via email. 62. I have been the victim of many false allegations in the past by people seeking to destroy the Ripoff Report. As a result, I am extremely cautious about who I contact by phone. Although I do accept incoming calls to the Ripoff Report, all of these calls are recorded in order to prevent people from lying about what was discussed. However, because my outgoing calls are not recorded, it is never my practice to contact anyone by phone regarding any aspect of the Ripoff Report site (including the Corporate Advocacy Program) unless I have an established relationship with the person I am calling. Because I had no relationship of any kind with Mr. Mobrez, I never contacted him by phone nor would I have done so. 63. Xcentric does not now, nor has it ever, employed, authorized, or contracted with anyone to sell or solicit the Corporate Advocacy Program. In addition, no employee of Xcentric is authorized to call anyone regarding the removal of reports or regarding the Corporate Advocacy Program. As the manager of Xcentric Ventures, I am the only person authorized by Xcentric to engage in discussions about the CAP program with potential members, and I am certain that I never had any discussions with Mr. Mobrez or Ms. Llaneras about the CAP program other than the few emails and phone calls described above. 64. At no time was I aware that AEI had valuable contracts and business expectancies with its employees. As indicated above, I had never heard of Mr. Mobrez or AEI prior to his emails to me in early 2009, and at no time during any of my limited conversations with Mr. Mobrez did he mention anything about his employees, nor did he tell me that employees had quit because of anything posted on the Ripoff Report site. 65. I am not in, nor have I ever entered into any conspiracy with anyone to harm Plaintiffs. I do not know who posted the reports about Plaintiffs. Although Xcentric maintains logs which would have information about the author(s) of each report, I have not personally reviewed this information. I am certain, however, that other than Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 32 of 48
  • 33. 18 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 Mr. Mobrez, I have never spoken to anyone about Mr. Mobrez or about AEI until this lawsuit was filed in January 2010. 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: May 24, 2010. ______________________________________ Edward Magedson Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 33 of 48
  • 34. 19 AFFIDAVIT OF ED MAGEDSON CV10-01360 SVW 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 GINGRASLAWOFFICE,PLLC 4072EASTMOUNTAINVISTADRIVE PHOENIX,ARIZONA85048 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May 24, 2010 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 CM/ECF registrants: Mr. Daniel F. Blackert, Esq. Ms. Lisa J. Borodkin, Esq. Asia Economic Institute 11766 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 260 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Attorneys for Plaintiffs And a courtesy copy of the foregoing delivered to: Honorable Stephen V. Wilson U.S. District Judge /s/David S. Gingras Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 34 of 48
  • 35. Exhibit C Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 35 of 48
  • 36. 151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 36 of 48
  • 37. 151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 3 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, at 19 355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450, Los Angeles, 20 California, beginning at 9:28 a.m. and ending at 21 1:21 p.m., on Tuesday, December 11, 2012, 22 before Carmen R. Sanchez, Certified Shorthand 23 Reporter No. 5060. 24 25 3 1 APPEARANCES: 2 For Plaintiff/Counterdefendant Xcentric Ventures, LLC: 3 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE, PLLC 4 BY: DAVID S. GINGRAS, ESQ. 3941 E. Chandler Boulevard 5 Suite 106-243 Phoenix, Arizona 85048 6 Telephone: (480) 668-3623 Facsimile: (480) 248-3196 7 E-mail: David@GingrasLaw.com 8 In Propria Persona: 9 RAYMOND MOBREZ P.O. Box 3663 10 Santa Monica, California 90408 11 Also Present: 12 David Bradley Videographer 13 Hahn & Bowersock Corporation 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 4 1 I N D E X 2 WITNESS 3 ILIANA LLANERAS 4 Examination by: Page 5 MR. GINGRAS 8 6 7 E X H I B I T S 8 Plaintiff's Page Page Exhibit Description Introduced Marked 9 Exhibit 1 Copy of Asia v. 10 ROR - Original CA Complaint 34 177 11 Exhibit 2 Copy of a series 12 of Ripoff Reports; Nos. 417493, 13 423987, 457433, 502429, 564331, 14 and 571232 45 177 15 Exhibit 3 Copy of Declaration of Raymond Mobrez 63 177 16 Exhibit 4 Copy of Declaration 17 of Iliana Llaneras 67 177 18 Exhibit 5 Copy of corrected Affidavit of 19 Iliana Llaneras 73 177 20 Exhibit 6 Copy of corrected Affidavit of 21 Raymond Mobrez 74 177 22 23 24 Continued .... 25 5 1 I N D E X (CONTINUED) 2 3 E X H I B I T S 4 Plaintiff's Page Page Exhibit Description Introduced Marked 5 Exhibit 7 Copy of AEI 6 Confidential Settlement 7 Conference Statement 75 177 8 Exhibit 8 Copy of Asia v. 9 ROR - First Amended Complaint 86 177 10 Exhibit 9 Copy of an E-mail 11 from Lisa Borodkin, dated 7/15/2010 12 Re: Deposition 83 177 13 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 RICO 16 Wire Fraud 84 177 17 Exhibit 11 Copy of AEI Rule 56(f) 18 Motion 167 177 19 Exhibit 12 Copy of Asia v. ROR - Proposed 20 Second Amended Complaint 169 177 21 Exhibit 13 Copy of Defendants' 22 Discovery Responses 170 177 23 24 Continued .... 25 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 37 of 48
  • 38. 151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398 66 1 forward, are you saying that on May 5th, 2009, 2 there was a different conversation -- you heard -- 3 you heard the recordings that I played during 4 Raymond's deposition; right? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Okay. And I have them again, and I 7 don't want to play them again. 8 Are you saying that on May 5th, 9 2009, there was a different conversation between 10 Mr. Mobrez and Mr. Magedson that you heard? 11 A I don't know if it was Mr. Magedson. 12 There were many calls that came in during that time 13 frame. 14 Q Okay. 15 Same question with regard to 16 paragraph 13. Raymond is again talking about later 17 that day, and he means -- I think he's referring to 18 May 5th, 2009. Paragraph 13 he says later that day 19 there was another conversation between Mr. Magedson 20 and Raymond; and at the end of the paragraph, he 21 says, "Again, Ms. Llaneras listened from her office 22 phone." 23 Is that accurate? 24 A I don't know. We're not sure. I'm 25 not sure. He's provided a corrected statement to 67 1 this. 2 Q Okay. 3 Paragraph 14 on page 5, again, 4 line 24, Raymond in his declaration says, 5 "Ms. Llaneras witnessed this conversation from her 6 office," and he's talking about a phone call that 7 occurred on May 12th, 2009. 8 Do you remember listening to -- and 9 he describes it as being approximately 17 minutes, 10 which is roughly the length of the recording we 11 have. It's slightly shorter. 12 Do you recall listening to a roughly 13 17-minute phone conversation on May 12th, 2009? 14 A I'm not sure. 15 Q Okay. 16 You submitted a declaration 17 initially, which is Exhibit 4. Do you remember 18 this? 19 A Yes. 20 Q And in your declaration, you said, 21 among other things, paragraph 4, you said that 22 you've never spoken with Ed Magedson. 23 (As read): "However, I 24 witnessed the conversations that took 25 place between Mr. Mobrez and Mr. Magedson 68 1 on May 5th and 12th, 2009." 2 Was that statement true? 3 A I had believed it was true at the 4 time that I made the statement. 5 Q Did something happen in the future 6 that caused you to believe that wasn't true? 7 A You played the tapes; and, 8 obviously, it was not that; so I had to present a 9 corrected statement. 10 Q Okay. 11 Before we get to your corrected 12 statement, look at Exhibit A to Exhibit 4. 13 Exhibit A to your declaration. There are some 14 notes there. Do you see them? They're very light, 15 and I apologize. 16 A Yes. 17 Q That's how I received them. 18 A Yes. 19 Q Did you take these while you were 20 listening to the phone calls on May 5th and 21 May 12th? 22 A No. 23 Q When did you take these notes? 24 A These were reconstructed notes. 25 Q Okay. 69 1 On the second to the last page, 2 there's kind of a header that the Court adds there, 3 where it has the case number. Do you see that? 4 A Right. 5 Q It says, "Page 7 of 8"; so we can 6 use that to refer. 7 A Yes. 8 Q This appears to say -- these appear 9 to be notes that have a date, May 5th, 2009, 10 1:00 p.m. Do you see that? 11 A Yes. 12 Q And there's a statement here that 13 says -- or notation that appears to say, "5,000 + 14 monthly," I think is what -- I think there's a 15 darker version of this easier to read. 16 Was that statement truthful in your 17 notes that there was some mention of $5,000 and 18 monthly on May 5th, 2009? 19 A Based on my recollection at the 20 time. 21 Q Can you estimate when you 22 reconstructed these notes? 23 A Yes. We had our original notes in a 24 file, and we were ordered by the Court to provide a 25 declaration and to attach anything that -- that we Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 38 of 48
  • 39. 151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398 70 1 had related to those conversations and -- and, 2 unfortunately, we had misplaced it; and we told our 3 attorney that we're trying to locate them, and he 4 says, "Well, we have to -- we have to oblige by the 5 time line; so at least reconstruct it. Go back to 6 your records, phone records, et cetera. We can 7 always -- as soon as you find them, you can always 8 submit them to the Court"; so these .... 9 Q Did Lisa -- Lisa Borodkin's name and 10 bar number are on the first page of Exhibit 4 and 11 Exhibit 3. Do you recall that she was involved in 12 any way with drafting these or helping you prepare 13 these? 14 A No. 15 Q Who was involved in helping you 16 prepare these? 17 A Blackert. 18 Q Only? 19 A Yes. 20 Q Okay. In your declaration, in 21 paragraph 6, you say (as read): 22 "Attached as EXHIBIT A is a 23 true and correct copy of the handwritten 24 notes I took during these conversations as 25 they occurred." 71 1 Why didn't you say in that paragraph 2 that these notes were not true and accurate copies 3 of the notes you took while the conversations were 4 occurring? 5 A That was a typo. 6 Q That was a typo? 7 A That was a typo, and we didn't see 8 that until it came up. 9 Q You meant to say that they were 10 reconstructed? 11 A Reconstructed; correct. During the 12 rush, I didn't catch it. My attorney didn't catch 13 it; and, unfortunately, it was filed. 14 Q So when you -- do you remember 15 preparing this affidavit sometime around May 3rd of 16 2010? 17 A Our attorney prepared it; so .... 18 Q Okay. But did he talk to you before 19 he prepared it? How -- 20 A Yes. 21 Q -- did he know what to say? 22 A Yes, he talked to me about it, yes. 23 Q Okay. So you told him the details 24 to include in here? 25 A Yes, we spoke about it. Well, he -- 72 1 you know, we spoke about it and he prepared it. 2 Q Okay. 3 One thing that I'm kind of focused 4 on is during Raymond's deposition in 2010, I -- 5 obviously, I played the recordings for him, and I 6 played the recording of the long call, which was 7 the last one on May 12th, 2009. And during that 8 call, you were in the room when it was played. 9 During that call, according to the deposition 10 transcript -- and the court reporter was 11 transcribing Raymond's conversation from the 12 recording -- Raymond said -- and this is, again, 13 this is May 12th, 2009. He said -- he's talking to 14 Mr. Magedson, and he says (as read): 15 "I went there, and it was a little 16 bit confusing to me. It is also -- it 17 doesn't say what the -- what do you call -- 18 the cost or something? It doesn't give 19 me ...." 20 And they're talking about the CAP 21 program. 22 Do you know why on May 12th, 2009, 23 Raymond would have said to Mr. Magedson that he 24 didn't know the cost of CAP, when you said on 25 May 5th the amount was $5,000 that was discussed? 73 1 A No, I'm not sure. 2 Q You're not sure why? 3 A No. 4 Q Because are your notes not accurate? 5 A We're not sure if those discussions 6 were with Magedson or someone else of, you know, 7 Xcentric or Ripoff. We're not sure. 8 Q Okay. Well, let's look at your 9 corrected declaration, then, Exhibit 5. 10 This is dated May 20th, 2010. And 11 you remember signing this and filing it in the 12 prior California case? 13 A Yes. 14 Q Again, did Lisa Borodkin have any 15 role in preparing this? 16 A Blackert prepared it for us. 17 Q Okay. 18 Based on your corrected declaration, 19 I don't see anything in here that claims that 20 Ed Magedson ever asked for money that you were 21 aware of. Is that consistent with your memory? 22 A I had to make the correction because 23 I wasn't sure who the person was. I wasn't sure if 24 it was Magedson or not. 25 Q Okay. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 39 of 48
  • 40. Exhibit D Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 40 of 48
  • 41. 151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC, ) et al., ) ) Case No.: Plaintiffs, ) 2:10-CV-01360- ) SVW-PJW v. ) ) XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ___________________________________) DEPOSITION OF RAYMOND MOBREZ Los Angeles, California May 7, 2010 Reported by: Yaelle Daneshrad CSR No. 11754 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 41 of 48
  • 42. 151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398 2 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 ASIA ECONOMIC INSTITUTE, LLC, ) et al., ) 5 ) Case No.: Plaintiffs, ) 2:10-CV-01360- 6 ) SVW-PJW v. ) 7 ) XCENTRIC VENTURES, LLC, et al., ) 8 ) Defendants. ) 9 ___________________________________) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DEPOSITION OF RAYMOND MOBREZ, 17 taken on behalf of the Defendants, 18 at 777 South Figueroa Street, 47th Floor, 19 Los Angeles, California, commencing at 20 10:12 A.M., Friday, May 7, 2010, before 21 Yaelle Daneshrad, Certified Shorthand 22 Reporter No. 11754. 23 24 25 3 1 APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL: 2 For Plaintiffs: 3 LISA BORODKIN, ESQ. (Through page 210) -and- 4 DANIEL BLACKERT, ESQ. 11766 Wilshire Boulevard 5 Suite 260 Los Angeles, California 90025 6 (310) 806-3000 7 8 For Defendants: 9 GINGRAS LAW OFFICE BY: DAVID S. GINGRAS, ESQ. 10 4072 East Mountain Vista Drive Phoenix, Arizona 85048 11 (480) 639-4996 12 JABURG WILK 13 BY: MARIA CRIMI SPETH, ESQ. 3200 North Central Avenue 14 20th Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85012 15 (602) 248-1089 16 17 ALSO PRESENT: 18 ILIANA LLANERAS 19 JULIO PENA, Videographer 20 21 22 23 24 25 4 1 I N D E X 2 3 DEPONENT EXAMINED BY PAGE 4 RAYMOND MOBREZ MR. GINGRAS 8 5 6 E X H I B I T S 7 EXHIBIT PAGE 8 Exhibit 1A - Screen shot of Ripoff 40 Report 9 Exhibit 1B - Ripoff Report text 40 10 Exhibit 2A - Screen shot of Ripoff 40 11 Report 12 Exhibit 2B - Ripoff Report text 40 13 Exhibit 3A - Screen shot of Ripoff 40 Report 14 Exhibit 3B - Ripoff Report text 40 15 Exhibit 4A - Screen shot of Ripoff 40 16 Report 17 Exhibit 4B - Ripoff Report text 40 18 Exhibit 5A - Screen shot of Ripoff 40 Report 19 Exhibit 5B - Ripoff Report text 40 20 Exhibit 6A - Screen shot of Ripoff 40 21 Report 22 Exhibit 6B - Ripoff Report text 40 23 24 25 5 1 E X H I B I T S 2 EXHIBIT PAGE 3 Exhibit 7 - California Secretary of State 44 Business Entity Detail 4 Exhibit 8 - "Who Is" Search Results 46 5 Exhibit 9 - "El Rodeo" publication 59 6 Exhibit 10 - Complaint 70 7 Exhibit 11 - Asia Economic Institute 83 8 Links Exchange 9 Exhibit 12A - "Who Is" Search Results 188 10 Exhibit 12 - Asia Business printout 187 11 Exhibit 13 - February 15, 2009, 192 e-mail 12 Exhibit 14 - April 28, 2009, e-mail 194 13 Exhibit 15 - May 5, 2009, e-mail 196 14 Exhibit 16 - May 5, 2009, e-mail 198 15 Exhibit 17 - May 12, 2009, e-mail 204 16 Exhibit 18 - July 24, 2009, e-mail 207 17 Exhibit 19 - Declaration of Raymond 214 18 Mobrez Pursuant to the Court's Order on April 19, 2010, Regarding Plaintiffs' 19 RICO and Extortion Causes of Action 20 Exhibit 20 - Handwritten notes 227 21 Exhibit 21 - Phone bills of Mr. Mobrez 232 22 Exhibit 22 - Subpoena to Produce 256 Documents, Information, or Objects or to Permit 23 Inspection of Premises in a Civil Action 24 Exhibit 23 - Affidavit of Raymond Mobrez 261 in Opposition to Defendants' Special 25 Motion to Strike Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 42 of 48
  • 43. 151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398 42 1 Q All right. While we're finishing up with 2 that, again, I don't want to get into each specific 3 statement that you're concerned about because I 4 think it will take too much time. 5 But I would like you to spend time with 6 these and highlight or underline in whatever way you 7 wish the exact statements that you claim are false 8 and that you claim have hurt you in some way. 9 Do you understand that? 10 A Correct. 11 Q Okay. Let's go back to AEI for a minute. 12 What kind of business is AEI? 13 A Publication, news about economics and 14 financial. 15 Q Does AEI or did AEI ever sell any goods? 16 A No. 17 Q Did it ever sell any services? 18 A No. 19 Q How did AEI make money or try to make 20 money? 21 A AEI was in the R and D stage, and 22 practically they reached the finish line. We were 23 about to put our seminars, conferences, perhaps 24 selling a membership to some of the programs. 25 Q Is that everything? 43 1 A That's about -- 2 Q I'm still not clear at all on how you 3 intended to make money through AEI. Can you just 4 sort of explain to me what services or products -- 5 A Seminars, conferences. 6 Q What do you mean by seminars? 7 A Seminars. 8 Q Seminars on what? 9 A In economics, finance. 10 Q So your intent was to put on a seminar 11 where you would speak on some issue and then you 12 would charge money for people to come there? 13 A Not personally but, yes. Conferences and 14 seminars are conducted not by the, only the 15 principal. There's other people that come into 16 these forums. 17 Q You'd hire speakers or -- 18 A Yeah, yes. 19 Q Did AEI ever actually do that? 20 A It's about to do it. 21 Q That wasn't my question. In the past has 22 AEI ever put on any seminars? 23 A No. 24 Q Has AEI ever made any money? 25 A No. 44 1 Q I think I read in your declaration, and 2 we'll get to that in a minute, that AEI has been in 3 business for nine years; is that right? 4 A Correct, existence. 5 MR. GINGRAS: Can I have Exhibit 7, 6 please. 7 MS. SPETH: So you're not going to use 1 8 through 6? You needed me to mark them. 9 MR. GINGRAS: They're there. 10 MS. SPETH: Okay. 11 MR. GINGRAS: Did you give -- 12 MS. SPETH: I gave them their set, yes. 13 BY MR. GINGRAS: 14 Q Do you have 1 through 6 in front of you? 15 A I have one -- 16 Q I'm sorry. She gave them to me, and I 17 didn't give them to you. That's the problem. 18 A So where is the one? Or doesn't matter 19 what order? 20 Q You know, I do have a couple of specific 21 questions about reports, and we'll get to them in a 22 minute, so if you can just keep them in order as 23 best you can. 24 A Okay. 25 (Whereupon, Exhibit 7 was marked for 45 1 identification and is bound under separate 2 cover.) 3 BY MR. GINGRAS: 4 Q I'll show you what I've marked as 5 Exhibit 7. Exhibit 7 is a printout of the 6 California Secretary of State website where you can 7 find information on companies. And I printed this 8 out myself some time ago. 9 And it occurred -- it appears here that 10 Asia Economic Institute, LLC, was formed on 11 February 7th, 2007. 12 Do you see that date on Exhibit 7? 13 A Yes, I do. 14 Q Does that date accurately reflect the date 15 that AEI was formed as an LLC? 16 A Yes. 17 Q Prior to February of 2007, did AEI exist 18 as simply a sole proprietorship or some kind of 19 unincorporated business? 20 A Unincorporated. 21 Q Right. Was it a DBA of something else? 22 A I believe maybe a DBA, yes. 23 Q Of one of your other companies? 24 A Yes. 25 Q Do you know which one? Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 43 of 48
  • 44. 151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398 46 1 A Not any of the companies. DBA by itself. 2 Q Okay. Does AEI have a website? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Is that website located at 5 www.AsiaEcon.org? 6 A Yes. 7 (Whereupon, Exhibit 8 was marked for 8 identification and is bound under separate 9 cover.) 10 BY MR. GINGRAS: 11 Q Exhibit 8. Mr. Mobrez, I'll show you what 12 I've marked as Exhibit 8 to your deposition. This 13 is a "Who Is" search for the website AsiaEcon.org. 14 This document appears to reflect the date 15 that that domain name was purchased as being the 16 26th of January 2007. Is that about what your 17 memory is as to the date that you first created the 18 or purchased the AsiaEcon.org domain name? 19 A Domain, yes. 20 Q Prior to January 26, 2007, did AEI have 21 any other website that it used for business? 22 A No. 23 Q It simply just didn't have a web presence? 24 A Exactly. 25 Q Prior to that date. 47 1 Okay. How many people currently work at 2 AEI? 3 A There's nobody working at AEI. 4 Q Okay. In the past, what was the largest 5 number of employees that you had at any one time? 6 And for the purposes of that question, let's define 7 "employees" as including W-2 employees, independent 8 contractors, interns, exchange students, anybody 9 that showed up to work at AEI on a more or less 10 regular basis. 11 What's the largest number of people that 12 you had working for AEI at any one time? 13 A Twenty-seven, 25. 14 Q And do you have records showing who those 15 people were? 16 A I'm assuming, yes, we had some records, 17 yes. 18 Q Would those people have worked for AEI 19 before or after it was formed as an LLC? 20 A After. 21 Q Prior to it being formed as an LLC, did it 22 have any employees, AEI? 23 A No. 24 Q Okay. During -- when did AEI actually 25 cease doing business? Obviously it began in 48 1 February of 2007. And I think you just said it's 2 been out of business for at least a year. Your 3 testimony is what it is. 4 When, when did AEI last engage in anything 5 that you would consider doing business? 6 MR. BLACKERT: Objection. Vague and 7 ambiguous. 8 THE WITNESS: Maybe June -- 9 BY MR. GINGRAS: 10 Q Of what year? 11 A 2009. 12 Q June of 2009? 13 A Uh-huh. 14 Q And from the time that AEI was formed in 15 February of 2007 until June of 2009, what do you 16 think is the total number of employees -- again, I'm 17 defining that term more broadly than just W-2 18 employees -- what do you think is the total number 19 of people who came through your doors as employees? 20 A It's a very broad question. I don't 21 remember exactly. 22 Q You said there were 27 people or so 23 working there at one time. Are we talking about 27 24 or maybe 30 employees in the lifetime of the 25 company, or was it more than that? 49 1 A I -- 2 Q My question is whether or not you had 3 somebody who came in, worked for a week and then 4 left. 5 A For a weekend or a week? 6 Q A week, a day, a month, whatever. 7 A Many. 8 Q You have many people? 9 A Yeah. 10 Q And do you have records referring to who 11 those people are? 12 A Depends. If it's an outside contractor, a 13 lot of times we did not retain the information. 14 Q Well, you would have some sort of -- you 15 would have paid them something, wouldn't you? 16 A I assume, yes. 17 Q Tell me, when people work at AEI, what do 18 they do? 19 A Web development, structuring this web 20 itself, building up the site, content management, 21 developing the programs. 22 Q And I assume that you had at least one W-2 23 employee. Do you know what I mean when I say W-2? 24 A On the payroll? 25 Q Right. Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 44 of 48
  • 45. 151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398 50 1 A Yes. 2 Q How many employees did you have that were 3 not W-2 employees? How many workers? Let's use 4 that word. 5 A I don't remember exactly. 6 Q Majority of them? 7 A Because we were in a stage of development 8 of the site, predominantly the technicians or web 9 developers are independent contractors. 10 Q Did you ever have people that worked for 11 you for free? 12 A Yes. 13 Q How many? 14 A A few. 15 Q How many is a few? 16 A Five, 10, 20. 17 Q Could it have been more than that? 18 A Worked for free what purpose? 19 Q I don't know, but I don't really care. 20 I'm just asking you if people worked there who 21 didn't get paid, because they were interns, because 22 they were students, whatever. 23 A Because they were sent by universities? 24 Q Sure. 25 A Yes. 51 1 Q Okay. Just to rewind slightly, you said 2 that AEI basically ceased doing business in June of 3 2009; is that right? 4 A Yes. 5 Q Is there some specific event that sticks 6 out in your mind as the day that you closed the 7 doors or turned off the lights? Is there something 8 that happened in June that made you make a decision 9 to stop doing business with AEI? 10 A We were basically this reports, Ripoff 11 Report, was in our throat and we were suffocating. 12 I don't know what time the last breath came out. 13 You're asking me when was the last breath, 14 I don't know exact moments of it. But it did die, 15 yes. 16 Q Mr. Mobrez, an important issue in this 17 case is whether or not the reports that you have in 18 front of you actually caused AEI to suffer any 19 losses. Okay? 20 And I think you just explained to me that 21 AEI never made any money ever; right? 22 A We, we -- 23 Q It's a yes-or-no question. 24 A Answer is no and also yes. You open an 25 ice cream shop, you sign a lease, and something 52 1 horrible happens the day you open it, and nobody 2 comes back again to that shop. 3 Did it make money? No. Did it make an 4 effort to make the money? Yes, they did. Every 5 business is the same. 6 Q What effort did you make to make money? 7 You said that you never actually held any seminars, 8 so how do you know how successful that seminar would 9 have been if you had had one? 10 MR. BLACKERT: Objection. Overbroad. 11 Calls for speculation. Vague and ambiguous. 12 BY MR. GINGRAS: 13 Q You can answer the question. 14 A Seminar business, it's a model that has 15 been very successful throughout the United States 16 and the world. Challenging that particular how the 17 people will go there and why they would go there, I 18 can't speak of that. 19 All I can tell you, the same thing as 20 University of Phoenix. Opens it up the door, 21 classrooms comes in, students will come and pay for 22 the class. But you can't say if we would not have 23 built the building, how will you know somebody will 24 go to the building. I can't speak to the 25 speculation of that. 53 1 Q Two things. First of all, how much 2 seminar experience do you have? 3 A I've been doing seminar, going myself to, 4 religiously to all kinds of seminars almost 25, 27 5 years. 6 Q But in terms of putting on seminars, 7 managing seminars and charging people to attend 8 seminars, how much experience do you have doing any 9 of those things in your life? 10 A This is not a business that you need to 11 have a personal experience as much as you need to 12 have a content, the subject matter and understanding 13 of the, the business. 14 Q So the answer is that you've never had any 15 experience doing seminars but you think you would 16 have been good at it? 17 MR. BLACKERT: Objection. 18 Mischaracterizes witness's testimony. 19 THE WITNESS: Not myself. I can -- you're 20 talking about who would manage day-to-day 21 operation of a seminar? Those are 22 seminar-operating people. 23 BY MR. GINGRAS: 24 Q But you yourself never ran any seminar 25 businesses in the past? Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 45 of 48
  • 46. 151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398 54 1 A No. 2 Q Okay. And you made me lose my train of 3 thought. Give me just a second. 4 MR. BLACKERT: You want to break for a 5 couple minutes? Or you want to keep -- 6 MR. GINGRAS: No, no, let's keep going. 7 Q Mr. Mobrez, you would agree with me, you 8 used the ice cream shop example; right? You would 9 agree with me that some people open ice cream shops 10 and they fail despite their best efforts? Isn't 11 that a fair statement? 12 MR. BLACKERT: Objection. Vague and 13 ambiguous. 14 THE WITNESS: They would sell at least one 15 ice cream first day. 16 BY MR. GINGRAS: 17 Q I would hope so. But sometimes businesses 18 fail just because that's the way businesses work? 19 Isn't that a fair statement? 20 MR. BLACKERT: Objection. Call for 21 speculation. 22 THE WITNESS: It's a very peculiar, it's a 23 very peculiar way of looking at the businesses. 24 BY MR. GINGRAS: 25 Q Are you saying that no business ever 55 1 fails? 2 A Businesses fails in different manners and 3 shapes and forms. 4 Q Well, and most people wouldn't reach the 5 conclusion that their business had failed until they 6 had at least tried selling one ice cream cone; 7 right? 8 MR. BLACKERT: Objection. Vague and 9 ambiguous. Calls for speculation. Overbroad. 10 BY MR. GINGRAS: 11 Q Don't answer, don't answer the question. 12 What I'm trying to get at is couldn't -- 13 isn't it fair to say that you could try to put on a 14 seminar tomorrow; right? There's no reason you 15 couldn't try? 16 A Sir, this is not an intelligent 17 conversation. I will say over and over, there's no 18 one will go to my seminar tomorrow when my name is 19 tarnished and name of the organization is tarnished. 20 Q I understand Moses won't go to your 21 seminar. But how do you know that other people 22 won't unless you try? 23 MR. BLACKERT: Objection. Calls for 24 speculation. Harassing. 25 56 1 BY MR. GINGRAS: 2 Q All right. Do you want to move on or -- I 3 jut want your testimony on this. You're going to 4 have to explain it to a jury if you don't explain it 5 to me, so I'd like to know. 6 A I'll explain to you and the jury the same 7 way. 8 MR. BLACKERT: Objection. Harassing. 9 MS. BORODKIN: Can we go off the record 10 for a second? 11 MR. GINGRAS: No, we cannot. 12 MS. BORODKIN: It's not a jury trial. 13 MR. GINGRAS: Yes, it is. Read the 14 Court's order. 15 Q Mr. Mobrez, I just want to understand your 16 position. I'm not trying to be harassing. I'm 17 trying to have you tell me what I'm not getting 18 clearly. Is there anything -- 19 A What is your question? 20 Q My question is how do you know that your 21 business has failed if you've never tried putting on 22 any seminars? 23 A Sir, I used to go out and hand my business 24 card. People would love to contact me again, talk 25 to me. Asia Economics. And they wanted to know 57 1 more about Asia. 2 Today I hand a business card or I would 3 have handed a business card in six, nine months ago, 4 nobody will even contact me back again. 5 Q Okay. 6 A The pattern changed drastically. 7 Q Let's move on a little bit. I think 8 everyone would agree it's time to do that. 9 Your complaint references a report on my 10 client's website that talks about a person who said 11 that they had a job interview with you and accepted 12 the job interview, I think, and then they were going 13 to report for work the next day but they Googled 14 your name, found these reports and decided to blow 15 you off. Does that ring a bell generally? 16 A I have seen it on your report. 17 Q See if you can find Exhibit 4. 18 A So which one is -- I apologize. Okay, 19 thank you. Four, yes. 20 Q And 4A specifically is kind of a screen 21 print of the Ripoff Report website. And then 4B is 22 the actual text of what's there, minus the 23 surrounding art and so forth. 24 Do you remember interviewing a person who 25 you offered a job to -- I'm just going to, I'm just Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 46 of 48
  • 47. 151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398 162 1 mentioned about a truck run over you and ice cream. 2 This is worse than an ice cream truck -- truck run 3 over me. And we went back to make sure every bones 4 are there to make sure it's absolutely dead. 5 Q But who's driving that truck? 6 A Ed Magedson. 7 Q Is he? 8 A Who owns this Ripoff Report? 9 Q I think in your example, Mr. Magedson 10 would be more like the truck manufacturer and the 11 author would be a little more like the driver. 12 Don't you think that is a fair characterization? 13 A No. The driver is Mr. Magedson, owns the 14 truck and drives over it. He has every rights, he 15 has -- he has to be precaution himself and say "Why 16 am I driving over this person?" 17 I offered him everything in the beginning 18 to rectify all of this. He's not interested on 19 that. 20 Q But the people that are reading the report 21 would be, wouldn't they? 22 A How they would be interested in we -- we 23 finished that discussion long ago, about two hours 24 ago, that when you post this rebuttal, as you are 25 referring to, it is all the way down and it is 163 1 sometimes it's there, sometimes it's not there. 2 Even if it's there, let's say the perfect 3 scenario, people will not go to do business with you 4 when they will find out you are a child molester. 5 And you are not a child molester. How would you 6 feel about it? 7 Q I'd be very angry at the person that wrote 8 that. 9 A And then you would contact Google, and 10 they will tell you go and tell them to take it off. 11 Q Well, we're getting a little far afield. 12 Let's, let's get back. Unless, I mean, you're 13 welcome to stay here until midnight with me. I 14 don't want to keep you that long. So let's, we'll 15 both try to focus ourselves. 16 Getting back to your unfair business 17 practices claim, I will tell you as a legal 18 principle, I'm not asking you for your feelings 19 about it, but California law generally limits your 20 recovery to what's called restitution. Okay? That 21 would be money that the defendant improperly took as 22 a result of whatever these acts are. 23 What money do you believe Xcentric should 24 have to pay back as restitution under your unfair 25 business practices claim? 164 1 MR. BLACKERT: Objection. Calls for a 2 legal conclusion. 3 THE WITNESS: This is a legal question. I 4 can't respond to a legal -- I'm not a legal 5 expert. I'm just a normal person. 6 BY MR. GINGRAS: 7 Q Okay. Is there money that you paid to 8 Xcentric that you're looking to recover? 9 A I don't have to pay him. He was asking 10 for it. I couldn't afford to pay him. 11 Q So you actually paid nothing to Xcentric? 12 A I didn't. 13 Q Okay. Do you have any evidence that 14 Xcentric received any money from anyone else as a 15 result of these postings on the -- the specific six 16 postings about you on the Ripoff Report website? 17 A I can't speak of that because I don't know 18 what between them happened until you provide me your 19 information. Your information is going to show if 20 Mr. Magedson get paid or didn't get paid. 21 Q Let's look at page 21 of Exhibit 10, the 22 complaint in front of you. 23 A Twenty-one? 24 Q I'm not sure why I just said that. I was 25 actually looking for paragraph 93, which is not on 165 1 21. It is on 27. Are you there now? 2 A Page 27? 3 Q Page 27, paragraph 93. Do you see that 4 paragraph? 5 A Yes. 6 Q Talks about contractual relationships with 7 current and former employees of AEI who but for 8 defendant's publications would have entered into 9 valid contractual relationships. 10 What employees are you referring to in 11 paragraph 93? What are their names? 12 A I don't have the names front of me. They 13 were people at that time they were working and 14 depending on this institute. 15 Q And is it your position that people that 16 worked for you quit because of Ripoff Report? 17 A Absolutely. 18 Q Who? 19 A Everybody. 20 Q They told you that they quit because of 21 Ripoff Report? Or you simply assumed that they did? 22 A Well, it was e-mail exchange with some of 23 them. I found out that later, that also they were 24 saying, "Did you see this report about AEI?" 25 Would you work for AEI if you would have Q Talks about contractual relationshipsQ Talks about contractual relationships with current and former employees of AEI who but for7 defendant's publications would have entered into8 valid contractual relationships.9 What employees are you referring to in10 paragraph 93? What are their names?11 A I don't have the names front of me. TA I don't have the names front of me. They12 were people at that time they were working and13 depending on this institute.14 Q And is it your position that people thQ And is it your position that people that15 worked for you quit because of Ripoff Report?16 A Absolutely.A Absolutely.17 Q Who?Q Who?18 A Everybody.A Everybody.19 Q They told you that they quit because oQ They told you that they quit because of20 Ripoff Report? Or you simply assumed that they did?21 A Well, it was e-mail exchange with someA Well, it was e-mail exchange with some of22 them. I found out that later, that also they were23 saying, "Did you see this report about AEI?"24 Would you work for AEI if you would have25 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 47 of 48
  • 48. 151 KALMUS DRIVE, SUITE L1 COSTA MESA, CA 92626 HAHN & BOWERSOCK 800-660-3187 FAX 714-662-1398 166 1 had such a report as these are scam artists and they 2 took people -- you think somebody will hire you if 3 they will know you are a child molester? 4 Q Was that answering the question? 5 A I apologize. 6 Q First of all, you mentioned e-mails. What 7 e-mails are you referring to? 8 A Between two people that were working at 9 the institute. 10 Q These are e-mails that you saw? 11 A I've seen them. 12 Q And you still have them? 13 A I have to look for it. 14 Q And you can't tell me the names of any of 15 these people who were talking about the Ripoff 16 Report posting who then quit? 17 A It's year and a half has passed. It's 18 more than 15 months has passed. I don't have the -- 19 it's been very devastating for me mentally and 20 emotionally that this will happen to me. You're 21 treating this very lightly. 22 Q I'm sorry. I'm treating it lightly? 23 A This is -- you're treating very lightly. 24 Q I'm actually treating it very seriously. 25 A Thank you. 167 1 Q I'm treating it very seriously, and I 2 really do want to understand your case because, if I 3 understand your case, you don't know me, you don't 4 know the kind of person that I am, but if I 5 understand your case and I'm convinced that your 6 case is legitimate and valid, I would take that 7 extremely seriously. 8 My reputation is on the line as far as I'm 9 defending someone that is accused of doing very bad 10 things. If that person is guilty of those things, I 11 don't want to be associated with that person. Do 12 you understand -- 13 A I hope you do. 14 Q So I want you to help me understand 15 whether or not I'm working for a bad guy. 16 A I'm sure by now you know who he is. 17 Q I think that's fair, I do. But I'm trying 18 to understand your case and your claims and why you 19 think he's so bad. 20 Let me ask you this, Mr. Mobrez. 21 Something I'm troubled with is this: The reports, 22 the six of them there, there are a lot of factual 23 statements in there, but if you want to generalize, 24 a couple of them kind of talk about don't work at 25 AEI because you're not a nice man and it's not a 168 1 good place to work. 2 Do you think it's kind of a fair way of 3 characterizing just generally a couple of those 4 reports? 5 A I can't speak of what somebody else says. 6 But I can tell you many, many people, they work 7 there, and one of them went even from out of his way 8 and wrote from bottom of his heart the rebuttal that 9 you are characterizing as a rebuttal. This says 10 this is a good place to be in. 11 Q But these reports generally say that 12 working there is not a good thing; right? 13 A I can't speak of somebody -- I don't know 14 who they are. I mean, I have no idea if they even 15 worked there. 16 MS. SPETH: We should take a break maybe. 17 MR. GINGRAS: No, we shouldn't. I need to 18 keep going here. Just hang on. 19 Q Do you recall reading one of the reports 20 that said something about you shouldn't work there 21 because you'd have more self-respect cleaning 22 toilets or working in a fast food place or something 23 like that? Does that ring a bell to you? 24 A I saw something about cleaning toilets. 25 And obviously that tells you that the writer's 169 1 demeanor -- I don't know if that's a true statement. 2 Q Here's the part that troubles me. Okay? 3 If AEI is a good place to work and if the statements 4 that say you don't pay your employees overtime or 5 you don't pay them fairly, if those statements are 6 false, the people that work there would know that, 7 wouldn't they? 8 MR. BLACKERT: Objection. Statements 9 speak for themselves. Calls for a 10 conclusion -- 11 BY MR. GINGRAS: 12 Q I mean, if you tell me that I shouldn't go 13 outside because it's raining too hard and I look out 14 the window and see that it's sunny, I don't 15 understand how your statement about it raining is 16 going to impact me in any way. 17 Can you help me understand that? 18 MR. BLACKERT: Objection. Hypothetical. 19 Irrelevant. Vague and ambiguous. 20 THE WITNESS: This is a very, very 21 hypothetical question. Because it doesn't help 22 if somebody -- I have no idea -- you have to 23 provide us first who they are. Then I can make 24 intelligent assessment. 25 And you keep saying hypothetically there's had such a report as these are scam artists and they1 took people -- you think somebody will hire you if2 they will know you are a child molester?3 Q Was that answering the question?Q Was that answering the question?4 Q And you can't tell me the names of anyQ And you can't tell me the names of any of1414 these people who were talking about the Ripoff1515 Report posting who then quit?1616 A It's year and a half has passed. It'sA It's year and a half has passed. It's1717 more than 15 months has passed. I don't have the --1818 it's been very devastating for me mentally and1919 emotionally that this will happen to me. You're2020 treating this very lightly.2121 Q I'm sorry. I'm treating it lightly?Q I'm sorry. I'm treating it lightly?2222 A This is -- you're treating very lightlA This is -- you're treating very lightly.2323 Q I'm actually treating it very seriouslQ I'm actually treating it very seriously.Q I'm actually treating it very seriousl2424 A Thank you.A Thank you.2525 Case 2:11-cv-01426-GMS Document 181-1 Filed 12/24/12 Page 48 of 48

×