1 Mitchell J. Stein (SBN 121750) In Propria Persona

2 c/o Erikson M. Davis 11574 Iowa Street Suite 104

3 Los AngeleS~CalifOrnia 90025 Phone: (310 231-7808

4 Fax: (914) 52-2431 E-mail: private.oceibod.l@gmail.com

5

Erikson M. Davis (SBN 197841) 6 LAW OFFICES OF ERIKSON M. DAVIS

11574 Iowa Avenue, Suite 104 7 Los AngeleS~ California 90025

Phone: (310 231-7808 8 Fax: (818) 97-2132

E-mail: erikdavis@att.net 9

Attorney for all Plaintiffs 10 Other tlian In Pro Per

11

12

.~ ,

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14

15 ALLANA BORONI, an individual; 16 DEAN COPPER, an individual;

BRENDA COPPER, an individual; TRACI GEHM, an individual; CHRISTOPHER GROSSMAN, an individual;

17

18

GERARD CANNELLA, an individual; 20 MELANIE CANNELLA, an individual;

REBECCA ABAD, an individual; 21 GINA ADAMS, an individual;

RICK ADAMS, an individual;

19

22 DEBBIE ABEEL, an individual;

23 BIBIAN AFABLE, an individual; MICHAEL AKIN, an individual;

24

25

26

NICOLE AKIN, an individual; SUREN ALA VERDYAN, an individual; EDEVIN ALDANA, an individual; KARL AMRINE, an individual;

27 JAMES ANTHONY ALAURIA, an individual;

28 ELMER E. ANDERSON, an individual;

Case No.

LACV 11-7 303%MU~~M0 COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 42 U.S.C. § 1983; DECLARATORY RELIEF UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2201; and INJUNCTION UNDER THE FEDERAL INJUNCTION ACT

Jury Trial Demanded

COMPLAINT

ERIC ANDERSON, an individual; 1

SABRINA ANDERSON, an individual; 2 PAMELA ANDERSON, an individual;

DONALD ANREWS, an individual; 3

DAVID APPEL, an individual; 4 SCOTT ARMSTRONG, an individual;

ALEX BACARON, an individual; 5

JOHN BAHURA, an individual; 6 CHERYL BAILAR, an individual;

WILLIAM BARBER, an individual; 7 BRUCE BARMAKIAN, an individual; 8 RODRICK BARNETT, an individual;

DAVID BEAUBIAN, an individual; 9 TOM BEINER, an individual;

10 JOSEPH E. BELL, an individual; ANDRES BENAVIDEZ, an individual;

11 GEORGE BENNETT, an individual; 12 AMANA BENNETT, an individual;

ROBERT BERRY, an individual; 13 JOHN BOOTH, an individual; 14 EDWARD BOSTOCK, an individual;

PATRICK BOYD, an individual; 15 SUZANNE BRITTAN-BERGMAN, an 16 individual;

VICKI BROCK, an individual; 17 JOAN BROWN, an individual; 18 DIANE BROWN, an individual;

DEXTER BROWN, an individual; 19 TOBY J. BUTTERWORTH, an 20 individual;

BONNIE L. BUTTERWORTH, an 21 individual; 22 EDUARDO CABASAL, an individual;

JESSICA CABASAL, an individual; 23 HARRY CAMPBELL, an individual;

NELIDA CAMPOS, an individual; 24

JOSE CAMPOS, an individual; 25 MARIA CARINO, an individual;

RICHARD CARROL, an individual; 26

SHAWN CASSIDY, an individual; 27 JOSE CASTRO, an individual;

STEVE CATER, an individual; 28

CARLA CA YLER, an individual;

2

COMPLAINT

NORM CA YLER, an individual; 1

FRANCIS CELO, an individual; 2 ELOY CERTEZA, an individual;

TINA CERTEZA, an individual; 3

JOHN CHARLSON, an individual; 4 CATHERINE CHARLSON, an

individual; 5

MARK CHASTEEN, an individual; 6 VIPIN CHATURVEDI, an individual;

JOSEPH CHA VOEN, an individual; 7 ANA VILMA GUANDIQUE 8 CISNEROS, an individual;

GRANT CLARK, an individual; 9 SONIA CLARK, an individual;

10 GEOFFREY COCKRELL, an individual; DANIELLE COCKRELL, an individual;

11 HUGH COLLINS, an individual; 12 ARTURO CONCHA, an individual;

KAT CONWAY, an individual; 13 RANDALL COOK, an individual; 14 DENISE COOK, an individual;

CARY CRUZ, an individual; 15 WILLIAM CUBIAS, an individual; 16 BARBARA CURTIS, an individual;

HOUSTON CURTIS, an individual; 17 ERIC CUTLER, an individual; 18 RICARDO DAVALOS, an individual;

DARKIS DA VODDANIEL, an 19 individual; 20 DON DECKER, an individual;

DAVID DE LEON, an individual; 21 NICHOLAS DEITEL, an individual;

PAZ DIAZ, an individual; 22

JOSE DUARTE, an individual; 23 ANA DUENAS, an individual;

OLIC DUNNING III, an individual; 24

HOTOSA EBRAHIMZADEH, an 25 individual;

STEVEN EHLERS, an individual; 26

MEHRDAD EMESHA, an individual; 27 MARTIN ESCOBEDO, an individual;

TY ETTERLEIN, an individual; 28 MICHELLE FA V AZZO, an individual;

3

COMPLAINT

1 ROGER FENSTERMACHER, an individual;

2 SALLY FIGUEIREDO, an individual; FUMIKO FISHER, an individual;

3 ROBERT FITZGERALD, an individual;

4 COREY FLINN, an individual; ROGER FOSDICK, an individual;

5 SUSAN FRANCO, an individual;

6 JAMES FRASER, an individual; D' ANN FRIEND, an individual;

7 MATTHEW FRIEND, an individual; 8 BARBARA GIBBS, an individual;

ROBERT GRAHAM, an individual; 9 WALTER GRUBIC, an individual;

10 DIANE GRUBIC, an individual; MAGDALENA GUIZAR, an individual;

11 MARIA GUZMAN, an individual; 12 RICHARD HALE, an individual;

JACK HALLEY, an individual; 13 ALLISON HANSON, an individual; 14 STEVEN HARDIE, an individual;

CINDY HARRISON, an individual; 15 TOM HERBST, an individual; 16 MARIO HERRERA, an individual;

DARLENE HOLLOWAY, an individual; 17 RALPH HOLLOWAY, an individual; 18 PAT HUNT, an individual;

HARLEY HUNTER, an individual; 19 JEAN E. HUNTER, an individual; 20 REBECCA S. IGNACIO, an individual;

JOSEPH V. IGNACIO, an individual; 21 CLARENCE IRVING, an individual; 22 EVELYN IRVING, an individual;

ART ITURBE, an individual; 23 ATHENA JACKSON, an individual;

GLEN JACKSON, an individual; 24

TYRONE N. JA VELLANA, an 25 individual;

KEVIN JOPES, an individual; 26

DIANE KEPLEY, an individual; 27 KEVIN KEEHL, an individual;

JAY KIM, an individual; 28

LYNN KIMBERLY, an individual;

4

COMPLAINT

STEVE KONG, an individual; 1

BRENT KOMOUROUS, an individual; 2 NANCY KRANTZ, an individual;

GLADYS KRANTZ, an individual; 3

DEAN KRAEMER, an individual; 4 JOSHUA KREITZER, an individual;

PETER KREUZER, an individual; 5

JACKIE KREUZER, an individual; 6 MANUEL LANDOV AZO, an individual;

STEPHANIE LANDEN an individual; 7 JENNIFER LANGLO, an individual; 8 ASHLEY LARSEN, an individual;

CHRISTIAN LARSEN, an individual; 9 BRUCE LAWSON, an individual;

10 LISA L. LAWSON, an individual; TRAVIS LEAGE, an individual;

11 ALYSSA LEIGH, an individual; 12 BOBBIE LEONARD, an individual;

KEN LEON, an individual; 13 MARK LILLY, an individual; 14 CARMEN LINARES, an individual;

JAMES LOCKER, an individual; 15 ADELFO MACASA, an individual; 16 BRUCE MACBRIDE, an individual;

CARRIE MACBRIDE, an individual; 17 MARCO MACIAS, an individual; 18 LOUIS MAGES, an individual;

STEFAN MAHALEY, an individual; 19 DENISE MANRIQUEZ, an individual; 20 JOSE MARIO, an individual;

EDUARDO MARQUEZ, an individual; 21 ELNORA MARSHALL, an individual; 22 JANET MARSHALL, an individual;

JULIO C. MARTIN, an individual; 23 FRANK MARTINEZ, an individual; 24 FRANK A. MARTINEZ, an individual;

P ATRI CK MARTINEZ, an individual; 25 ELIZABETH MATSIK, an individual;

MARY MEDINA, an individual; 26

GLORIA MELO, an individual; 27 SEAN MCDONALD, an individual;

BRUCE MILLIGAN, an individual; 28

ATTILA MOLNAR, an individual;

5

COMPLAINT

1 VERONICA MONTERRUBIO, an individual;

2 TOBY C. MOORE, an individual; LEONIDIS MORALES, an individual;

3 JUAN CARLOS MORRILLO, an

4 individual; ERICA MORGERA, an individual;

5 BASHEER MURAD, an individual;

6 YOLANA NATIVIDAD, an individual; JOE NAVARRO, an individual;

7 MICAH NEELY, an individual; 8 RICHARD NEELEY, an individual;

SCOTT NEWTON, an individual; 9 KAREN NIERHAKE, an individual;

10 EDITHA NEPOMUCENO, an individual;

11 ERNESTO NEPOMUCENO, an 12 individual;

ALAN NESS, an individual; 13 CATHERINE NUTT, an individual; 14 JOHN OCAMPO, an individual;

ROMAN OLIVOS, an individual; 10 JUAN PADILLA, an individual; 16 MACIA PADILLA, an individual;

SOCORRO P AREDA, an individual; 17 ALAN PARSONS, an individual; 18 ANGELA PARADA, an individual;

KASIMIR P ATELSKI, an individual; 19 CINDY P ATELSKI, an individual; 20 DON PEDEN, an individual;

DIANE PERRERA, an individual; 21 RAUL, PERNETT an individual; 22 JAMES PETERSON, an individual;

PAUL PIRTLE, an individual; 23 LEE POINDEXTER, an individual;

LESLIE POLLACK, an individual; 24

DOUGLAS POWERS, an individual; 25 CAROL POWERS, an individual;

ANA MARIA PREZIO, an individual; 26

STEVEN QUICK, an individual; 27 REBECCA QUICK, an individual;

WILLIAM RABELLO, an individual; 28

LUZ MIRIAM RAMIREZ, an individual;

6

COMPLAINT

SILVIA RENDON, an individual; 1

EDITHA RESTAURO, an individual; 2 NANCY HELLER RILEY, an individual;

NOOROLLAH RAHDAR, an individual; 3

SEYED RAZA VI, an individual; 4 DEBRA REIN, an individual;

ARTHUR RODRIGUEZ, an individual; 5

OFELIA ROMERO, an individual; 6 FLORENCE SABAGQUIT, an

individual; 7 JESSE SABAGQUIT, an individual; 8 SHERRY SAFKO, an individual;

DERRICK SANDERS, an individual; 9 CARL SANKO, an individual;

10 REGINALD SANTIAGO, an individual; SIMON SARIGSIAN, an individual;

11 JOSE SAUCEDO, an individual; 12 RANDY SCARBERRY, an individual;

JEANINE SCARBERRY, an individual; 13 CRANFORD L. SCOTT, an individual; 14 SHEILA SCOTT, an individual;

COURTNEY SCOTT, an individual; 15 JUANITA SCOTT, an individual; 16 BRIAN SEXSON, an individual;

TERRY SHAEFFER, an individual; 17 PETER SHELDON, an individual; 18 SCOTT SHUBB, an individual;

MARTIN SILVA, an individual; 19 KENNETH SIMONSEN, an individual; 20 SHERYL SIMONSEN, an individual;

BALDEV SINGH, an individual; 21 BALJIT SINGH, an individual;

22 NIDA SMITH an individual; MICHAEL SMITH; an individual;

23 WILLIE SMITH, an individual; MARK SMITH, an individual;

24 CHARLES CRAYTON SMITH, an

25 individual; ROBERT SMITH, an individual;

26 MILTON SMITH II, an individual;

27 ROBERT SNYDER, an individual; VALERIE SNYDER, an individual;

28 JOANNE SNYDER DAVIDSON, an

7

COMPLAINT

individual; 1

HEMALTHA SOURI-PARSONS, an 2 individual;

ILIANA J. SORENSEN, an individual; 3

ROSARIO MARIA SOTO, an individual; 4 BARBARA SPONSTER, an individual;

RAYETTA L. STANLEY, an individual; 5

DEL STAUDINGER, an individual; 6 TRACEY HAMPTON-STEIN, an

individual; 7 PAUL STROHECKER, an individual; 8 LIDIA TAPIA, an individual;

BOB TIDD, an individual; 9 BETTY TIMBERS, an individual;

10 GREG TOWNSEND, an individual; CHARLOTTE TUCKER, an individual;

11 JODI TUFT, an individual; 12 TIMOTHY TUMA, an individual;

MARY TUMA, an individual; 13 MALCOM TURNER, an individual; 14 MARINA VANDERWALL, an

individual; 15 RONNIE VAN GREEN, an individual; 16 MITCH VAN MECHLEN

LISA VASQUEZ, an individual; 17 ENRIQUE VILLANUEVA, an 18 individual;

REBECCA VILLANUEVA, an 19 individual; 20 NADIA VILLAREAL, an individual;

CHRISTOPHER VILLARUZ, an 21 individual;

LINDA H. VO, an individual; 22

HUI VO, an individual; 23 PATRICK VUONG, an individual;

LAURA WALDHEIM, an individual; 24

MICHAEL WALDHEIM, an individual; 25 VICTORIA WALLACE, an individual;

ZANE WALKER, an individual; 26

MELISSA WARNER, an individual; 27 GURMEET W ARAI CH, an individual;

HARJINDER WARAICH, an individual; 28

WALTER WEISS, an individual;

8

COMPLAINT

1 GUNTER WEISSMANN, an individual; SHERRY SMITH-WEISSMANN, an

2 individual; EDNA WENNING, an individual;

3 VERONICA WIDENER, an individual;

4 TODD WIDENER, an individual; TIMOTHY WIDLUND, an individual;

5 MELISSA WIDLUND, an individual;

6 CRAIG WILLIAMS, an individual; RICHARD WILSON, an individual;

7 JON WITHROW, an individual; 8 NAT ASHA YUSTA, an individual;

LUIS ZAVALA, an individual; 9 GEORGE K. ZINK, an individual;

10 MITCHELL J. STEIN, an individual; MITCHELL J. STEIN & ASSOCIATES

11 LLP, a California Limited Liability Partnership Approved May 2, 2011 by the

12 California State Bar, Certificate Number 54393; ROE 1, an individual; ROE 2 an individual; ROE 3, an individual; and

13 ROE 4, an individual,

14

15 Plaintiff~,

16 vs.

17 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, a iovermnent entity; COUNTY OF LOS

18 NGELES, a ~overmnent entity; CITY

OF LOS ANG LES, a iovernment 19

entity; KAMALA D. H RRIS, individua~ and in her official capacity as

20 Attorney eneral of the State of California' BENJAMIN DIEHL,

21 individually and in his capaci% as a DeRuty Attorney General for e State of

22 Ca ifornia' JAMES M. TOMA, individually and in his official ca§acity as

23 DeRuty Attorne~ General for the tate of Caifornia; TH STATEBAROF

24 CALIFORNIA, a public corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

25 Defendants.

26

27

28

9

COMPLAINT

1 Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial and alleges as follows:

2 JURISDICTION AND VENUE

3 1. Plaintiffs sue for violation of their civil rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section

4 1983. This Court has jurisdiction over such claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1331

5 and 1343. To the extent required by law -- and limited to any such extent as it may be

6 reduced or eliminated by operation of the United States Constitution, the United States

7 Bill of Rights, the foregoing Civil Rights Laws, any state or federal statute, and/or any

8 applicable judicial opinion of any appellate court of the States of California, Florida, or

9 New York, the United States of America and/or the United States Supreme Court - this

10 action is filed at the current instance, and if required by law, the only instance, "to toll

11 any applicable statute oflimitations.

12 2. The acts and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims occurred in and

13 around Los Angeles, California, and were specifically intended by Defendants to have

14 unlawful, tortious and damaging impact in this district in California and against Plaintiffs

15 most of whom reside in the State of California. Therefore the appropriate venue for this

16 action is the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

17 3. The nearly 300 Plaintiffs in this case represent U.S. citizens from

18 California, Florida and New York who have hired Mitchell J. Stein and his law firm,

19 Mitchell 1. Stein & Associates LLP ("the LLP"),to represent them in lawsuits that have

20 been filed - or will be filed -- against Bank of America and 13 other financial institutions.

21 These lenders have committed various types of mortgage fraud and then stolen, or tried to

22 steal, the homes of these Plaintiffs in violation of state and federal laws.

23 4. On August 17,2011, Defendant Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General for

24 Defendant State of California, grossly violated Plaintiffs' civil rights by seizing

25 Plaintiffs' legal files and denying Plaintiffs the right to the legal counsel of their choice.

26 Defendant Harris did this under the cover of secrecy without any public airing of the

27 facts, without proper court approval, and without allowing either Plaintiffs or their

28 counselor any court a chance to respond. Harris did so based on an inadequate

10

COMPLAINT

1 investigation while citing demonstrably false accusations against Plaintiff Mitchell J.

2 Stein, an attorney. And Harris did so at the behest of Bank of America, whose attorneys

3 had been deeply alarmed by the substantive progress that attorney Stein has achieved in

4 Plaintiffs' mass joinder case against the bank.

5 5. Defendant Harris took this action while making the transparently false

6 claim that she was protecting "consumers." Plaintiffs herein are among the consumers

7 she purports to be protecting and they hereby vigorously reject Harris' jaded

8 interpretation of "protection." Plaintiffs' desire is to continue to be represented by the

9 LLP - and one of its partners Mr. Stein -- and for him to continue to unravel the worst

10 systematic fraud committed by any fmancial institution in United States history.

11 6. On August 17, 2011, Defendants intentionally violated the due process of

12 all Plaintiffs herein when they invaded the offices of the LLP in Agoura Hills and seized

13 Plaintiffs' client files and personal property not belonging to tlle LLP, claiming to have a

14 court order that allowed them to do so, when such court order did not even name the LLP

15 as a Defendant in the underlying action that Defendant Harris had filed in superior court.

16 7. Defendants seized property and files from Plaintiff Mitchell J. Stein &

17 Associates LLP, that Defendants themselves approved as a limited liability company on

18 May 2,2011, and that Defendants know represented homeowners in states from New

19 York to California and from Florida to Washington. Defendants instructed their agents to

20 seize all of the LLP and plaintiffs' property although no court ever sanctioned or allowed

21 them to do so.

22 8. Rather than protecting consumers, Defendant Harris' actions primarily

23 benefitted Bank of America, which has sought repeatedly to discredit attorney Stein ever

24 since he filed in the original lawsuit against Bank of America in 2009, a lawsuit that the

25 attorney general herself described as the "granddaddy" of mass joinder bank cases.

26 9. Defendants' lawsuit against Stein and 26 other persons claimed, among

27 other things, that attorney Stein had participated in illegal and unethical soliciting of

28 clients through mail advertising. On February 3, 2011, Bank of America lawyer Keith

11

COMPLAINT

1 Klein went into Superior Court with the very same allegations, and was told that the bank

2 had not presented a legitimate complaint against attorney Stein. Bank of America then

3 took those same claims to Defendant Harris and arranged for her to do their bidding, after

4 Bank of America corruptly funneled money to Harris and other Defendants through the

5 banle's counsel of record against Plaintiffs.

6 10. Defendant Harris formed a mortgage fraud task force to great political

7 fanfare just three months ago. Yet that task force has taken no action whatsoever against

8 Bank of America or any other banlc Instead, Harris attacked Mitchell J. Stein who has

9 achieved the greatest progress in seeking to hold the large banks accountable for their

10 misdeeds that helped to created the country's current economic crisis.

11 II. Helped by attorney Stein's work and cooperation with federal authorities,

12 the United States of America sued Banle of America again, on Friday, August 2,2011,

13 alleging the same wrongdoings that attorney Stein alleged back in 2009. Thus,

14 Defendant Harris' and Bank of America's attempt to silence Stein -- their most feared

15 enemy - backfired.

16 12. Harris' was so bent on protecting Bank of America that she "didn't

17 appear" for a scheduled meeting with the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") jus

18 three weeks ago to discuss whether California was complying with the DHS, FDIC and

19 Comptroller directives against the nation's banks during this national crisis.

20 13. Defendant Harris discounted attorney Stein's accomplishments in the

21 California Bank of America Litigation based solely and preposterously on a declaration

22 from Bank of America's opposing counsel in that case - the same opposing counsel who

23 have not been able to obtain dismissal of said case despite years of litigation and

24 multitudes of motions.

25 14. To the contrary, on August 1,20 II, and at the request of attorney Stein, the

26 trial judge expanded the lawsuit against the banle - over banle objections identical to Ms.

27 Harris' - by adding an additional 160 plaintiffs to the case against Bank of America.

28

12

COMPLAINT

1 15. Defendant Harris disingenuously stated that "her office takes no position as

2 to the legal merits of any claims asserted in the mass joinder lawsuits filed by

3 defendants." Yet she clearly has taken a position by seeking to remove the single most

4 effective lawyer in prosecuting those cases.

5 16. Also to the benefit of Bank of America, Harris has chosen to support less

6 able competitors to pursue the mass joinder actions claims against banks. In fact, the

7 primary evidence cited by Harris against attorney Mr. Stein was provided by an affidavit

8 from attorneys at a competitor law finn, Brookstone Law Group.

9 17. Harris gave credibility to Vito Torchia, Jr. of Brooks tone Law, whose

10 previous employer, United Law Group, was shut down by the State of Georgia last year

11 and disciplined by California authorities as part of a nationwide investigation into

12 mortgage fraud.

13 18. Harris gave credibility to Brookstone Law's Damian Kutzner, who is the

14 subject of a $6 million consent decree from the Federal Trade Conmlission prohibiting

15 him from various marketing activities. (See, Exhibit 2, discussed below.) Thus,

16 Defendants' allegedly incriminating evidence against Stein has been tendered by persons

17 with judgments against them by the United States of America prohibiting them from

18 doing precisely the things Harris wrongly claims attorney Stein did.

19 19. Further, Harris and other Defendants approved and provided cover for a

20 blatantly illegal marketing mailer published and distributed by Brookstone Law Group,

21 prepared by Brookstone in conspiracy with (a) its owner Torchia, (b) its Chief Operating

22 Officer, FCC consent order defendant Kutzner, (c) Kenin M. Spivak and (d) Ellen

23 Pansky, who claims to have influence over Defendants the California State Bar. (These

24 persons are sometimes referred to hereafter as "Co-Conspirators".)

25 20. A true and correct copy of Brookstone's illegal mailer is appended hereto

26 as Exhibit 1. This mailer was sent through interstate commerce to states throughout the

27 country and it makes the sort of egregiously false claims and promises that Defendant

28 Harris claims she and her task force are concerned about. Harris and other Defendants

13

COMPLAINT

1 approved this mailer in July 2011. The mailer states unequivocally that anybody signing

2 up with Brookstone Law will receive $75,000 from a "class action settlement." The facts

3 are that such a $75,000 "class action settlement" does not exist and is not close to

4 existing. The money generated from this mailer - Exhibit 1 - has been funneled to

5 Torchia, Kutzner, Spivak and Pansky in violation of a 2009 Consent Decree issued by the

6 Federal Trade Connnission prohibiting any such marketing.

7 21. A true and correct copy of the 2009 Consent Decree barring Kutzner (or

8 any cohort) from "making money from mailers (false or not)" is appended hereto as

9 Exhibit 2.

10 22. However, Harris did not include Torchia, Kutzner, Brookstone, Spivak or

11 Pansky in her complaint against Stein and the other 26 defendants, allowing these Co-

12 Conspirators to keep disseminating their fraudulent mailers around the country. Harris

13 has not explained why the state has not taken action against Brookstone and the others

14 and instead has closed down Stein's LLP law firm without naming it in any lawsuit in

15 the United States of America. This is a blatant violation of the due process clause of the

16 United States Constitution, particularly as it pertains to homeowners across the conntry

17 being foreclosed upon and at the same time being duped by an illegal mailer sent in

18 violation of an express FTC order.

19 23. Defendant Harris has never explained why the state has not taken action

20 against these Co-Conspirators, and instead chose to attack attorney Stein, who

21 Defendants admit filed the first bank action in 2009, which action predicted what Bank 0

22 America would do and prevented at least some of its misdeeds.

23 24. Defendant Harris has never explained why she is relying on testimony from

24 discredited attorneys and their agents who have FTC Consent Orders against them for

25 illegal marketing practices, all to build a case against Mr. Stein who she lmows has been

26 actively assisting the United States Department of Homeland Security. Is it because Mr.

27 Stein is the most serious threat to Banlc of America?

28

14

COMPLAINT

1 25. On August 17, 2011, law enforcement agents under orders from Defendant

2 Harris, and armed with guns and tasers, entered the Agoura Hills offices of the LLP

3 without any court order or other subpoena providing them with such rights. These agents

4 ordered the staff of Stein's LLP to hand over all of their equipment, including personal

5 computers, hard drives, flash drives and their wallets containing money and personal

6 effects. They confiscated dozens of boxes of documents, including the personal files of

7 Plaintiffs herein although such Plaintiffs are also litigating against bank misconduct in

8 other states such as Florida, New York and Arizona.

9 26. Defendant Harris also improperly seized files of the Department of

10 Homeland Security and its representatives, to which Harris and Bank of America knew

11 Mr. Stein has been an advisor on the issue of bank fraud for more than 18 months.

12 27. Before conducting this raid, the Attorney General's office had not contacte

13 the LLP or its partners Mr. Stein and former Florida prosecutor Michael S. Riley or their

14 employees, nor had they called any of the LLP's their clients.

15 28. In contrast, Defendants' investigators contacted the other defendant

16 attorneys and their clients caught up in the same complaint. Because of this, in their first

17 court date after the August 17, 2011, raid, the appointed receiver and investigator for the

18 government admitted that he had little evidence against attorney Stein and that, in any

19 case, Mr. Stein had "de facto" ceased communications with any ofthe other 26

20 defendants starting in early February, 2011.

21 29. Harris' core substantive allegations are that Mr. Stein used deceptive and

22 fraudulent advertising to get clients and that he failed then to produce results for those

23 clients. Both allegations are false and were easily refutable had Harris bothered to she

24 conducted an adequate investigation. But Harris did not. Her investigator admitted that

25 his primary focus was on attorney Phillip Kramer. The investigator did not interview Mr.

26 Stein. He did not interview Mr. Stein's staff. He did not interview Mr. Stein's associates

27 in other states. He did not interview Mr. Stein's partner in the LLP, Mike Riley. Thus,

28

15

COMPLAINT

1 armed with no evidence, instead Harris decided that "guilt by association" was a

2 sufficient standard when seeking to achieve Bank of America's goals.

3 30. Harris thus presided over a fraud in the Van Nuys Superior Court by

4 concealing volmnes of evidence including the existence of the LLP and its relationship

5 with federal investigators who within the past two business days have sued Banle of

6 America for the fraud Mr. Stein first alleged more than two years ago, in March 2009.

7 31. Harris claimed in her complaint that all the attorneys were "veterans of the

8 loan modification" industry. However, attorney Stein has never been a participant in the

9 loan modification industry and in fact has never handled a single loan modification. Mr.

10 Stein did not and does not use deceptive and fraudulent marketing practices to lure

11 unsuspecting clients into "scam lawsuits."

12 32. In fact, unlike Brookstone and the Co-Conspirators, which have received

13 encouragement from Defendant Harris and other the Defendants to send out illegal

14 mailers making illegal claims (like a purported $75,000 "class" settlement that does not

15 exist), Stein has never sent out any mailers whatsoever.

16 33. Plaintiffs were neither induced nor deceived in any fashion before asking

17 Mr. Stein to represent them. To the contrary, had Harris taken the time to contact Stein's

18 clients, she might have learned that many ofMr. Stein's clients were referred not by

19 advertising but by the offices of California Senator Dianne Feinstein or the Department

20 of Homeland Security, who were already through being "double-talked" by Bank of

21 America and needed a competent lawyer to refer to in order to help Senator Feinstein's

22 constituents. As he is prone to do, attorney Mr. Stein helped these home owners for free

23 and these home owners are now quite confused to say the least about the workings of

24 their govermnent.

25 34. Harris could have spoken with Roger Fenstermacher, who came to Mr.

26 Stein after Harris refused to speak with him. Or Plaintiff Peter Quick, who had almost

27 given up ever getting justice from the bank which had stolen the home he had lived in for

28

16

COMPLAINT

1 generations. He credits Mr. Stein with keeping him in that home until a court is able to

2 determine whether it was right for the bank even to contact him.

3 35. These are the people who are now being forced to go to federal court just to

4 protect their right to have the attorney they interviewed, hired and trusted go to battle on

5 their behalf. Defendant Harris also might have learned that, in contrast to her wild

6 allegations, attorney Mr. Stein is representing many hardship clients for no fees at all.

7 36. Harris might have spoken with Allana Baroni, the lead plaintiff in this

8 instant litigationcase, who had scoured the country looking for legal help before tracking

9 down Mr. Stein and convincing him to take her case. (Yet another case Mr. Stein is

10 handling pro bono.) Through her research, Ms. Baroni learned that Mr. Stein was one of

11 the few attorneys who had actually gotten into a courtroom to litigate a case against Bank

12 of America for mortgage fraud. (Stein and his affiliated law finns represent plaintiffs in

13 22 states).

14 37. Mr. Stein was the first attorney to file a lawsuit against the Bank of

15 America - in the California Bank of America litigation -- laying out a massive fraud

16 against homeowners that has since been validated in reports from the Senate Permanent

17 Subcommittee on Investigations, the Government Accountability Office and the Federal

18 Reserve and in a series of lawsuits by AI G, attorneys general and - this week -- the

19 Federal Housing Finance Agency. All ofthese subsequent reports and lawsuits were

20 built on attorney Stein's foundation.

21 38. In her zeal to protect Bank of America, Defendant Kamala D. Harris simpl

22 threw attorney Stein in with dozens of lawyers, law firms, marketers and loan

23 modification businesses and then tarnished him with the blanket accusation of fraud and

24 conspiracy. This is how Bank of America wanted it. With a little lying and cheating, the

25 bank took a shot at removing from the playing field the superstar who had been beating

26 the banle to a pulp for two and a half years.

27 39. As proof of Harris' desperation in doing Banle of America's bidding, Harris

28 contends that Stein has engaged in "overblown advertising" on his company website.

17

COMPLAINT

1 The examples Harris cites are neither false nor deceptive. For example, Harris cites the

2 following postings as examples of hyperbole so dangerous that she is compelled to shut

3 down the law practice of its author - Mr. Stein:

4 • March 3: "Recent announcements by Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells

5 Fargo that they expect to pay fmes from a regulatory probe of their foreclosure

6 practices are direct admissions that the banks improperly foreclosed on homes."

7 • March 12: "Banks coming down now. Judicial action and legislative power about

8 to occur."

9 40. Harris refers to the purported fact that the California Bank of America

10 suit is in a "preliminary" stage as proof that the lawsuit is illegitimate. But attorney

11 Stein has already tal(en discovery in that case including receipt of hundreds of thousands

12 of documents and the deposition of Bank of America's custodian. In fact, given the legal

13 firepower and political clout of Bank of America, it is astonishing that this case has even

14 made it into a courtroom.

15 41. Harris states that "Bank of America has not admitted to defrauding the

16 government" as if that is evidence that Stein's lawsuit is a sham. Does that then mean

17 that the Nevada attorney general's recent lawsuit against Bank of America -- which

18 mirrors many of the same claims outlined in Stein's case -- is also a sham?

19 42. Finally, it is an indication of the absurdity of Harris' inadequate complaint

20 that she cites as an example of false advertising that Stein may have quoted ajudge's use

21 of the word "absurd" out of context.

22 43. Harris declined to include in her complaint the many times when Superior

23 Court Judge William F. Highberger, the highly-regarded trial judge in the California

24 Bank of America Litigation, has supported the validity ofMr. Stein's legal claims. The

25 Bank of America affidavit submitted by Defendant Harris and the other Defendants omits

26 Judge Highberger's on-the-record findings. For example, pages 3 and 4 of the transcript

27 of the January 11, 2011, hearing, where Judge Highberger largely denied Bank of

28 America's motion to dismiss the Ronald case, read in part as follows:

18

COMPLAINT

1 Judge Highberger: Some of the claims as pressed, if actually successful,

2 and tried to a jury with a request for punitive damages could, theoretically,

3 if the plaintiffs get things to go the way they say they want them to go,

4 to lead to such - can potentially, I'm not by any stretch of imagination

5 guaranteeing this or saying it will be the more likely or reasonable

6 outcome, but if plaintiffs get this case where they think they want to put

7 this case they are presumably going to get a judgment for billions of dollars

8 against Bank of America, potentially creating a problem of such gravity

9 that action by the central bank or a state or federal legislative body might

10 theoretically be needed.

11 Clearly Judge Highberger is not treating this case as a sham lawsuit.

12 44. The simple truth is this: Mitchell Stein and his legal associates, who have

13 built their case load not through fraudulent mailings but through tens of thousands of

14 hours of detective work, are Banle of America's biggest nightmare. And while Defendant

15 Harris claims to be on the side of the California homeowner, she is effectively trying to

16 provide Banle of America, one ofthe nation's worst corporate citizens in history who is

17 now being sued again by a very recent federal lawsuit, a "get out of jail free card" by

18 silencing attorney Stein.

19 45. In doing so, Harris has also wronged citizens of New York, Florida,

20 Arizona, Texas and other states across the country, some of which sue herein, and some

21 of which have sued in their own jurisdiction which is their right under the United States

22 Constitution.

23 46. Defendant Harris has acted as the pawn of America's most powerful banles,

24 rather than in the interests of California homeowners. Plaintiffs refuse to be made victims

25 of Harris' poor judgment.

26 47. Allana Baroni and the other Plaintiffs in this case know that Defendant

27 Kamala D. Harris is not on their side. They know their real advocate is Mitchell J. Stein,

28

19

COMPLAINT

1 the man who - since 2009 and for much of that time without any fee -- has spent hours

2 listening to their stories of frustration and fear, and who filed legal papers on their behalf.

3 48. Stein has always represented the downtrodden by going into court

4 hundreds of times against some of America's highest paid legal firepower over a 25 year

5 career. Plaintiffs herein are not going to stand by while Defendant Harris victimizes

6 them again by denying them their right to do battle with counsel of their choice against

7 banks that have stolen - or are threatening to steal- their homes using fraudulent means.

8 49. Since Defendants unlawfully shut down the LLP by duping a superior court

9 into believing that it was only shutting down Mitchell Stein's law practice, the LLP's

10 clients have not been given any information about their lawsuits from the attorney

11 general or by Defendant California State Bar, which has reportedly taken over their cases

12 nationwide. Many Plaintiffs are fearful that Defendant Harris has shared their files with

13 the very banks they are suing. Some have been told they cannot get their personal legal

14 files for at least three years. By that time, if the evidence of fraud is correct, their homes

15 will be long gone, Banle of America will no longer exist and they will have been denied

16 their day in court.

17 PARTIES

18 50.

19 51.

20 52.

21 53.

22 54.

23 New York.

24 55.

25 56.

26 York.

27 57.

28 California.

ALLANA BORONI is an individual residing in the State of California.

DEAN COPPER is an individual residing in the State of New York.

BRENDA COPPER is an individual residing in the State of New York.

TRACI GEHM is an individual residing in the State of New York.

CHRISTOPHER GROSSMAN is an individual residing in the State of

GERARD CANNELLA is an individual residing in the State of New York.

MELANIE CANNELLA is an individual residing in the State of New

Plaintiff REBECCA ABAD is an individual residing in the State of

20

COMPLAINT