"On March 4, 2020, Mr. Randazza filed a fraudulent creditor claim in bankruptcy proceedings against the personal estate of Mr. Juravin for the amount of $481,806.98 on behalf of Consumer Opinion Corp. and Opinion Corp. d/b/a PissedConsumer.com, without a valid judgment or a good faith basis. This is a direct violation of his probation with the Nevada State Bar. “A claim is considered false if the statement contained therein are intentionally inaccurate and submitted without any good faith basis for the claim and are not the result of a mistake, clerical error or inadvertent omission.” United States v. Overmyer, 867 F.2d 937, 950 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 813 (1989), appeal after remand, 899 F.2d 457 (6th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 939 (1990)(quoting above instruction with approval.)
This false creditor claim was fraudulent filed for several reasons. First, the Court in the matter of Roca Labs. V. Consumer Opinion Corp. and Opinion Corp denied both Consumer Opinion and Opinion Corp. in their baseless motions for sanctions and motions for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, 28 .S.C. § 1927, Section 57.105, Florida Statues and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUPTA). Upon review of the record, the Court determined that the requisite showing of bad faith had not been made under the Florida statutes and similarly did not award any fees under FDUPTA. [Order Attached as Exhibit A]
Mr. Randazza unscrupulously and deceitfully worded his proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceedings [Claim attached as exhibit B] to simply reference the claims or allegations without stating the fact that the claims had been denied by the Court. secondly, the initial case was brought on by Roca Labs in its corporate capacity and the dispositive summary judgment was entered against Roca Labs, not Mr. Juravin. Secondly, this proof of claim was submitted in the personal bankruptcy proceedings of Mr. Juravin who at the time was employed by Roca Lab and was never previously named in an individual capacity in the lawsuit. The record also reflect that Roca Labs filed for bankruptcy and Mr. Randazza did not bring the claim in its bankruptcy proceeding.
Finally, Mr. Randazza was a personal signatory to the proof of claim [exhibit B Page 3]. A proof of claim is generally regarded as prima facie evidence as to the validity and amount of the claim – a “sword.” In this instance, Mr. Radanzza’s personal attestation of this claim when he has no good faith basis to believe in its validity establish clear proof of his fraudulent intent. In his deliberate attempt to circumvent the judicial process, he signed the claim of proof subjecting his client to lose attorney client privilege and work product privilege pursuant to the holding of In re Rodriguez, Bankr. No. 10-70606, Adv. No. 11-07012, 2013 WL 2450925, at *6 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. June 5, 2013) (granting in part and denying in part a motion to compel, thereby authorizing the deposition of the creditor’s attorney on the facts alleged within the proof of claim).
Mr. Radanzza’s actions taken as a whole constitute a concerted effort to circumvent the legal process and stake a false claim to the detriment of Mr. Juravin and his estate. His actions were wholly improper and amounted to a violation of his ethical obligations under the Florida Bar rules. Specifically, his actions amounted to a direct violation of Rule 4-3.3 (a)- (b) & 4.84 (c).
Marc Randazza Grievous and Repeated Violations of Florida Bar Ethical Rules and Nevada State Bar Probation Violations
Don Juravin files this Complaint against Marc Randazza based upon egregious misconduct under the ethical rules and personal persecution of Don Juravin under the guise of the law. His improper actions were not authorized or sanctioned by the law and are in direct violation of the Florida Bar Ethical Rules. “The commission by a lawyer of any act that is unlawful or contrary to honesty and justice, whether the act is committed in the course of the attorney's relations as an attorney or otherwise may constitute cause for discipline.” (Florida Bar Rule 3-4.3)
Applicable Florida Bar Rules
4–3.3(a) (“A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal; (2) fail to disclose a material fact to a tribunal when disclosure is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by the client; (3) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or (4) permit any witness, including a criminal defendant, to offer testimony or other evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. A lawyer may not offer testimony that the lawyer knows to be false in the form of a narrative unless so ordered by the tribunal. If a lawyer has offered material evidence and thereafter comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall take reasonable remedial measures.”).
4 4–3.4(a) (a lawyer shall not unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence);
4–3.4(b) (a lawyer shall not fabricate evidence); 4–3.4(c) (a lawyer shall not knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal); 4–3.4(d) (a lawyer shall not make a frivolous discovery request or intentionally fail to comply with a legally proper discovery request);
4–8.4(c) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation); and 4–8.4(d) (a lawyer shall not engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice).
4-4.4 (a) In representing a client, a lawyer may not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person or knowingly use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
Rule 4-8.4 (a-b) A Lawyer shall not: (a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another; (b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects.
Rule 4-8.4(d) A lawyer shall not. engage in conduct in connection with the practice of law that is prejudicial to the administration of justice, including to knowingly, or through callous indifference, disparage, humiliate, or discriminate against litigants, jurors, witnesses, court personnel, or other lawyers on any basis, including, but not limited to, on account of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, national origin, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, age, socioeconomic status, employment, or physical characteristic.
Rule 4-1.5 An attorney shall not enter into an agreement for, charge, or collect an illegal, prohibited, or clearly excessive fee or cost, or a fee generated by employment that was obtained through advertising or solicitation not in compliance with the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. A fee or cost is clearly excessive when: (1) after a review of the facts, a lawyer of ordinary prudence would be left with a definite and firm conviction that the fee or the cost exceeds a reasonable fee or cost for services provided to such a degree as to constitute clear overreaching or an unconscionable demand by the attorney; or (2) the fee or cost is sought or secured by the attorney by means of intentional misrepresentation or fraud upon the client.
Rule 4-3.1(A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis in law and fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law."
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment