I

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

COUNTY OF NASSAU ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

R. S. RAGHAVENDRA a/k/a

Randy S. Raghavendra, Founder,

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR CLIENTS AGAINST

DISHONEST ATTORNEYS

Plaintiff,

- against-

Index # 604419/2015

LOUIS D. STOBER, Jr., et al.

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Order to Show Case

to Change Venue Out of Nassau County and in Support of His Cross-Motion for Sanctions and Injunctive Relief

August 2015

National Association for Clients Against Dishonest Attorneys

P.O. Box 7066

Hicksville, NY 11802-7066

Phone: (646) 229-9971

FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 08/10/2015 10:42 PM INDEX NO. 604419/2015

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 24 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 08/10/2015

II

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES……………………………………………………………IV

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT………………………………………………….………1

STATEMENT OF FACTS………………………………………………….…………….7

LEGAL ARGUMENT……………………………………………………………….……10

POINT I

Plaintiff, a Nassau County Resident, Has Undisputed Right to

Prosecute All of His FORTY Causes of Action Against the

Nassau County “Primary Defendant and Most Important

Witness”, Louis D. Stober. Jr., in the Nassau County Supreme

Court……….………………………………………………………………………….….……10

POINT II

Defendants’ Continuing Fraud and Deception on the

(Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Court and the State Courts

and Deliberate Misrepresentation of Material Facts, Abuse

of Judicial Process, “BRIBERY” and Other Corrupt

Attorney Practices During the Past Six Years Warrants

Sanctions………………………………………….………………………..……………......12

III

POINT III

Defendants’ CONTINUING ELABORATE SCHEME of Lies,

Perjury, Deliberate Misrepresentations of Material Facts, Fraud,

Abuse of Judicial Process, and Other Corrupt Attorney Practices

and COVER-UP Before the (Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts

and the State Courts During the Past Six Years Warrants

Appropriate Injunctive Relief, Including Mandatory Discovery

& Fact-Finding………………………………………………………….………………….16

CONCLUSION…………………………………………….………………………………19

IV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

CASES Page(s)

Amalfitano v Rosenberg,

12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]…………………………………………………..….5

Bridges v 725 Riverside Dr.,

119 AD2d 789 [1986]……………………………………………………...5

In re Gelbwaks,

260 A.D. 2d 47, 696 N.Y.S.2d 45, 47 (1999)…………………………….14

In re Leff,

213 A.D. 2d 11, 14, 630 N.Y.S.2d 372, 374 (2d Dept 1995)……………..14

Johnson, et al v. Nextel Communications, et. al,

660 F.3d 131(2d Cir. 2011.)…………………………………………….….6

Knecht v Tusa,

15 AD3d 626, 627 [2005]…………………………………………………..5

Koob v IDS Fin. Servs.,

213 AD2d 26, 33, 629 N.Y.S. 2d 426 (1995)……………………………..5

Levy v, Carol Management Corp.,

260 A.D.2d 27, 33 (1999)………………………………………………...16

Matter of Gordon v Marrone,

202 A.D.2d 104 (2d Dept 1994)……………………………………….…15

O’Connell v Kerson,

291 AD2s 386, 387 [2002]………………………………………………...5

Stow v. Stow,

262 A.D.2d 550 (2d Dept 1999)……………………………………….…15

V

Trepel v Dippold,

2005 WL 1107010, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 8541 [May 9, 2005]…………..5

Yenom Corp. v. 155 Wooster Street Inc.,

33 A.D.3d 67, 70 (2006)…………………………………………………13

STATUTES & OTHER AUTHORITIES

22 N.Y.C.R.R. 130-1.1……………………………………………………….. 15,18

22 N.Y.C.R.R. 139-1.1(d)…………………………………………………..…….13

Article 5 of the CPLR………………………………………………………...…1,18

C.P.L.R. 5104…………………………………………………………………..…18

CPLR 321………………………………………………………………………..…9

Judicial Law 487………………………………………………..1, 5, 10, 11, 13, 17

Section 503…………………………………………………………………...…1,18

1

Plaintiff, Randy S. Raghavendra (Founder, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR

CLIENTS AGAINST DISHONEST ATTORNEYS) respectfully submits this Memorandum of

Law in Opposition of Defendants’ Order to Show cause for change of venue and in Support of

his Cross-Motion for Sanctions and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff also refers to the Exhibits

included in his June 2015 Verified Complaint and his Affidavit (Pl. Af) in support of this cross

motion:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The Plaintiff has been a resident of Nassau County for over the past 25 years (Pl.

Af. Exhibit A). Further, the “Primary Defendant and Most Important Witness” in this action, his

own One-of-Four-Cases (06-cv-6841)/”Client-Betraying” Attorney, Mr. Louis D. Stober. Jr., is

also a long term attorney of Nassau County (Pl. Af. Exhibit B) and his law office is in 5–minutes

walking distance of this Nassau County Supreme Court. Plaintiff has a right to litigate all of his

FORTY different causes of action against the primary defendant (Stober) in this Court. Clearly,

the Proskauer Rose defendants are seeking an (illegal) change of venue, in violation of Article 5

of the CPLR and Section 503, to further aid and abet and cover-up the massive fraud, deception,

perjury, deliberate misrepresentations and repeated violation of judicial law 487 by Defendant

Stober in the Manhattan Courts including the First Judicial Department (Appellate Division) to

allow for further bias and deception to their benefit.

Plaintiff respectfully submits that the Proskauer Rose defendants’ order to show

cause to change venue is yet another example of their continuing pattern and practice of

deliberate lies, perjury , intentional misrepresentations, “BRIBERY” and related “Forum

Shopping”, cover-up and intent to commit further fraud on the Courts. Further, this is also an

another obvious attempt to DENY Plaintiff his constitutional right to any fact-finding and

2

or evidentiary hearings whatsoever regarding a 2009 “Illegal & Still INCOMPLETE Private

Mediation” and the resulting 1-page “PRELIMINARY/Incomplete” Term Sheet

Agreement (Pl. Af. Exhibit H) for the LIMITED settlement of JUST ONE and ONLY ONE (or

the relatively minor 06-cv-6841 or 2005-2009 Back-Pay Damages) action of the Plaintiff’s four

separate civil rights, employment discrimination, and illegal retaliation actions and on which the

Plaintiff had retained One-of- Four-Cases/Out-Going Attorney/Defendant Stober.

After deceiving both his own Client (Plaintiff) and the “Private Mediator” (Mr.

Martin Scheinman, a Nassau County Resident) into attending the 2009 “Illegal & Still

INCOMPLETE Private Mediation “ at Defendant Proskauer Rose firm, One-of-Four-Cases

/Out-Going Attorney/Defendant Stober deceived the Plaintiff into signing the July 30, 2009

Preliminary/Incomplete Term Sheet after the “Private Mediator” had already left for the day.

After seeking a “BRIBE” in the hundreds of thousands of dollars (in the guise of “BOGUS”

attorney fees) from the Proskauer Rose and Columbia Defendants, One-of-Four-Cases

Attorney/Defendant Stober has continued to betray, harass, intimidate, and coerce his own Client

(Plaintiff) to extract any “Involuntary Releases” for the Plaintiff’s three other pending actions

which were never settled at the 2009 “Illegal & Incomplete Private Mediation.”

Starting from July 2009, Defendant Stober has continued to betray and has

engaged in unprecedented litigation against his own Client (Plaintiff) on behalf of the Proskauer

Rose and Columbia Defendants by refusing to comply even with the expressly agreed upon

terms of that Preliminary/Incomplete Term Sheet that he himself had deceived the Plaintiff into

signing. Clearly, Defendant Stober has been openly colluding with the Proskauer Rose and

Columbia defendants against his own Client (Plaintiff) and has been obstructing the required

final negotiations in the “Still INCOMPLETE Private Mediation” under the expressly agreed

3

“exclusive jurisdiction” of Mr. Scheinman, who had authorized the “limited settlement” of just

one and only the 06-cv-6841 (2005-2009 Back-Pay damages) case in compliance with the New

York State Rules of Mediation (Pl. Af. Exhibit F). On July 30, 2009, in a fax to the Federal

Magaistrate Judge Henry Pitman, the Stober defendants had specifically stated and had already

admitted that one and only the 06-cv-6841 cases was settled at that “INCOMPLETE Private

Mediation.” In their 1-page fax, the Stober defendants specifically admitted and wrote (See,

Exhibit G):

Dear Judge Pitman: This letter is to inform the Court that at a full-day mediation session on July 30, 2009, the Plaintiff….reached settlement of the above captioned (06-cv-6841) matter with the Defendants.

The defendants had also expressly agreed that the “Private Mediator” (Mr.

Scheinman) will have exclusive jurisdiction over the Preliminary Term Sheet in the last

paragraph of that 1-1/2 Page Preliminary/INCOMPLETE document (See, Exhibit H,

Page 2) by specifically stating that:

“(The Private Mediator) Martin F. Scheinman retains jurisdiction over the term sheet and any disputes regarding the language of the formal settlement agreement between Raghavendra and Columbia”.

Further, given the Plaintiff’s already pending attorney misconduct claims against

Defendant Stober, the Columbia defendants had also expressly agreed that there will not be

any (“bogus’) attorney fees deductions from the agreed upon 2005-2009 back-pay compensation

to the Plaintiff for the limited settlement of just his 06-cv-6841 case in exchange for Plaintiff not

pursuing his $150 to $200 Million Dollar (Coca Cola or TEXACO) “Class Action” Claims,

without prejudice to any of his individual discrimination claims in his other three pending

4

actions. This was expressly stated in the third paragraph of that complicated “3-Way”

Preliminary/ INCOMPLETE document as follows:

“There is an ongoing dispute between the Law Offices of Louis D. Stober, Jr., LLC and Raghavendra………which will not affect Columbia’s obligation to make the $xxxxxxx payment described above.”

However, the Proskauer Rose defendants committed perjury and or made deliberate

misrepresentations and or repeated fraud on the (Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts and the

Manhattan Supreme Court during the past six years and have been openly litigating on behalf of

One-of-Four-Cases/”Client-Betraying” Attorney/Stober defendants for the payment of a

“BOGUS” attorney fee in the hundreds of thousands of dollars even before the Plaintiff is paid a

single penny.

Even before the completion of the 2009 fraudulently induced “Illegal & Still

INCOMPLETE Private Mediation” under the expressly agreed “exclusive jurisdiction” of the

“Private Mediator” (Mr Scheinman), One-of-Four-Cases/”Client-Betraying” Attorney/

Defendant Stober, in collusion with the Proskauer Rose Defendants, committed perjury, lied,

made deliberate misrepresentations, and committed fraud on the “Out-of-Jurisdiction” Federal

Courts to fraudulently-induce various “Non-Appealable” orders and in an illegal attempt to

“hijack” all of the Plaintiff’s four other actions (over 15,000 litigation hours) regarding

employment discrimination and illegal retaliation during the past thirteen years.

Starting the very next day, on July 31, 2009, the Stober and Proskauer Rose

defendants tortiously interfered in the most important (“Mr. Scheiman’s exclusive jurisdiction

for dispute resolution ”) term of that Preliminary Agreement by fraudulently seeking the

illegal or improper intervention or supplementary jurisdiction of the (“Out-of-Jurisdiction”)

District Court to illegally or improperly interpret and also enforce that “INCOMPLETE and Still

5

Being Negotiated” document. The attorneys, therefore, had committed “Non-Appealable”

fraud on the (Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts because it is well settled that the parties’ intent

with respect to the “Private Mediator’s” exclusive jurisdiction for resolving all disputes

regarding that preliminary agreement is ultimately controlling. See, Koob v IDS Fin. Servs.,

213 AD2d 26, 33, 629 N.Y.S. 2d 426 (1995).

Further, the Stober defendants also committed fraud on the New York State

Supreme Court by intentionally misleading that Court by using “BOGUS Res Judicata and

Collateral Estoppel” arguments and or by using various fraudulently-induced and “Non-

Appealable” Federal Court Orders. Clearly, the Plaintiff has the right to prosecute his

continuing claims of fraud and serious attorney misconduct committed against him and also on

the Manhattan Courts, in violation Judiciary Law § 487, before this Nassau County Supreme

Court. The Defendants are now attempting to deceive even this court by using some

fraudulently induced orders Court Orders and by also making deliberate misrepresentations.

See Amalfitano v Rosenberg, 12 NY3d 8, 14 [2009]. A violation of Judiciary Law § 487 may be

established “either by the defendant’s alleged deceit or by an alleged chronic, extreme

pattern of legal delinquency by the defendant” See Knecht v Tusa, 15 AD3d 626, 627 [2005];

O’Connell v Kerson, 291 AD2s 386, 387 [2002]; Bridges v 725 Riverside Dr., 119 AD2d 789

[1986]; Trepel v Dippold, 2005 WL 1107010, 2005 US Dist LEXIS 8541 [May 9, 2005].

Clearly, the Proskauer Rose defendants have been openly aiding and abetting

Defendant Stober’s continuing fraud, breach of contracts, abuse of judicial process, breach of

fiduciary duty, ultimate betrayal, direct intimidation, harassment, and unprecedented litigation

against his own Client (Plaintiff), after he (Stober) agreed to accept their ”BRIBE” in the

hundreds of thousands of dollars (in the guise of “bogus” attorney fees) for committing perjury

6

and fraud and “hijacking” all his own Client’s (Plaintiff’s) other three most important actions

after first DECEIVING him (Plaintiff) into ending the lawful organization of a (Coca Cola and

TEXACO style) $150 Million to $200 Million Dollars Class Action on behalf of the potentially

thousands of past and present victims of institutionalized racial discrimination at Defendant

Columbia in the 2005 to 2009 period of intense racial crisis (Pl. Af. Exhibits N & P), without

getting paid a single penny.

Previously, Defendant Proskauer Rose firm had also arranged for another one of

their clients, Nextel Communications, to pay over $7 Million Dollars as a “BRIBE” (in the

guise of “bogus” attorney fees) to another Nassau County law firm (Pl. Af. Exhibits I & J)

for betraying and deceiving their own clients (Class of hundreds of racially discriminated

employees) into totally unacceptable and or absurd settlement agreements. See Johnson, et al v.

Nextel Communications, et. al, 660 F.3d 131(2d Cir. 2011.)

The Defendants should, therefore, not be allowed to continue their obstruction of

justice and aiding and abetting of fraud being committed by “Client-Betraying” (Nassau County)

Attorney Stober by removing this case out of Nassau County. Defendant Stober had fraudulently

induced the Plaintiff and the “Private Mediator” (Mr. Scheinman) himself to attend the 2009

“Illegal & Still INCOMPLETE Private Mediation” of fraud and deception at Defendant

Proskauer Rose firm in blatant violation of almost every rule of the New York State Rules of

Mediation and the Nassau County Bar Association’s Rules of Professional/ Attorney Conduct.

All of these very serious claims against Defendant Stober, a Nassau County attorney, can be

fully and fairly litigated only before this Nassau County Supreme Court.

In the interest of justice, Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to grant this

cross-motion to deny the Proskauer Rose defendants’ OSC for change of venue and issue

7

appropriate sanctions and injunctive relief based on the fact that they have once again lied and

or deliberately misrepresented the most important facts to even this Nassau County

Supreme Court by (1) Deliberately confusing the almost totally different claims in this action

with those in the 600002-2011 prior action in the Manhattan Supreme Court; and (2) Listing

some names of totally immaterial and totally irrelevant (so-called) witnesses with whom Plaintiff

never had any direct communications whatsoever.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

This case is a compelling story of extraordinary personal SACRIFICE &

INTEGRITY of a highly accomplished 54-years old Plaintiff who gave up almost everything --

including his basic livelihood, his executive/professional career, financial survival, and

personal/family life in the prime of his life -- for bringing about Equal Opportunity and Justice

for the thousands of victims of illegal discrimination/retaliation and ending the related fraud,

bribery, and legal malpractice of any dishonest and corrupt attorneys who victimize the

victim a second time not only at the 250-years old Defendant Columbia but also at the numerous

other rich and powerful corporations across America. The Plaintiff maintains his faith in the

American Justice System in his continuing struggles for justice and ending the corrupt practices

of attorneys even though he has not been paid or gained a single penny during the past 12-years.

The overwhelming facts and evidence in this case will show how by engaging in an

elaborate scheme of fraud, deception, violation of judiciary law 487, breach of contracts, abuse

of judicial process, and or by colluding and basically "BRIBING" the Plaintiff’s own out-

going and “Dishonest & Corrupt” attorney in just one of his four cases, Defendant Stober,

to betray, deceive, and “hijack” his own Client’s (Plaintiff’s) other three most important (100%

Pro Se) actions in State and Federal Courts, the Proskauer Rose defendants PREVENTED a

8

(Coca Cola and TEXACO Style) $150 to $200 Million Dollar Class Action for Institutionalized

Racial Discrimination Practices against Defendant Columbia (Pl. Af. Exhibit E.)

The arguably most unethical attorneys at Defendant Proskauer Rose firm seem to

have mastered their modus operandi of fraud, deception, and “bribing” of the Plaintiffs’ own

attorneys in the guise of “bogus” attorney fees to induce them (Plaintiff’s attorney) to betray,

deceive, harass, intimidate, and coerce their own clients. In exchange for the “bribe”, the

Plaintiffs’ attorney would deny their own clients any justice by entrapping them into any absurd

or ridiculous settlement agreements that would only be in the attorneys’ selfish interests while

the Plaintiff or actual victim of race based employment discrimination himself/ herself is

victimized a second time and is totally destroyed by his/her own “already bribed & corrupt”

attorney who is ready and willing to “sell-out” his client in blatant violation of almost every one

of the New York State Rules of Professional Responsibility and Ethical Conduct.

In this case, the Proskauer Rose and Columbia Defendants have been exploiting

the obvious conflicts-of-interest that has existed between Plaintiff and his own One-of-Four-

Cases Attorney/Defendant Stober in the Plaintiff’s 12-years old, Multi-Action, Civil Rights

litigation and the continuing unresolved claims of obvious breach of retainer/contract,

abandonment, and legal malpractice since Defendant Stober had already filed his motion to

withdraw in June 2009 and was already in the process of being sued by his own client (Plaintiff).

The Proskauer Rose and Columbia Defendants have exploited this obvious and already admitted

conflicts-of-interest to induce Defendant Stober to commit massive FRAUD not only on his

own Client (Plaintiff) but also on the Federal and State Courts since July 2009. Therefore,

without paying the Plaintiff single penny during the past twelve years, the Proskauer Rose and

9

Columbia defendants have been using the fraudulently-induced and extremely complicated and

still UNPAID 2009 “3-Way” (Implied, Columbia-Plaintiff-Stober) Preliminary/Non-Final Terms

Sheet Agreement only to:

(A) Avoid a potentially $200 Million Dollars Class Action;

(B) Illegally or Improperly dismiss the Plaintiff’s 09-cv-0019 and 08-cv-8120 cases;

(C) Indefinitely stay or delay the Plaintiff’s 2003 “Jury Trial Ready” Main Action

(300427 TSN/06) in the Civil State Court; and

(D) Potentially paying off Plaintiff’s One-of-Four-Cases/Client-Betraying Attorney/

Defendant Stober hundreds of thousands of dollars as a “BRIBE” in the guise of

“Bogus” attorney fee claims for betraying, deceiving, and or “hijacking” his own

Client’s (Plaintiff’s) other three most important 100% Pro Se action,

by also abusing the judicial process and deliberately prejudicing and dismissing all the

continuing breach of contract and related aiding & abetting legal malpractice claims against them

in the Manhattan Supreme Court.

At the present time and at all times hereinafter mentioned, Defendant Stober

firm is still a continuing attorney of the Plaintiff in his still “UNPAID” 06-cv-6841 case

and he has NOT been relieved of his continuing attorney duties and responsibilities to the

Plaintiff in accordance with CPLR 321 and the New York State Rules of Professional/

Attorney Conduct. However, during the past several years, in an almost unbelievable and

continuing campaign of “bribery”, fraud, and corrupt practices, the Proskauer Rose and

Columbia defendants have also been openly colluding and “bribing” One-of-Four-Cases/

“Client-Betraying” Attorney/Defendant Stober to employ even more despicable tactics of

harassing and direct intimidation of his own Client (Plaintiff) to curtail and suppress his own

client’s constitutional rights for their (Proskauer Rose and Columbia Defendants’) direct benefit.

The Stober and Proskauer Rose defendants’ have been continuing their fraud on the

10

Plaintiff and the cover-up of the perjury and or lies and or deliberate misrepresentations in the

Courts, in violation of judicial law 487, by repeatedly denying the Plaintiff any fact-finding or

evidentiary hearings whatsoever after having already committed “Non-Appealable” fraud on

the (Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts

LEGAL ARGUMENT

POINT I

Plaintiff, a Nassau County Resident, Has Undisputed Right to Prosecute

All of FORTY Causes of Action Against the Nassau County “Primary

Defendant and Most Important Witness”, Louis D. Stober. Jr., in the

Nassau County Supreme Court

Given this extraordinary history of continuing fraud and deception on both the

(Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts and the Manhattan Supreme Court by the Defendants, the

Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to deny the Defendants’ OSC for change of venue and

grant his cross-motion for sanctions and injunctive relief.

Plaintiff’s new claims in his complaint before this Court includes but are not

limited to Continuing Fraud, Violation of Judicial Law 487, Breach of Contracts, Tortious

Interference, Abuse of Judicial Process, Breach of Fiduciary Duty & Disgorgement of

Fraudulent Attorney Fees, Collusion/Conspiracy, and Aiding & Abetting of Attorney

Misconduct and other Corruption Practices. These still unresolved claims in chronological order

include but are not limited to the following:

(1) Fraudulent Inducement of a July 9, 2009 Stipulation/ Agreement to cause the

indefinite stay of the (Jury) Trial in the Plaintiff’s 2003 (300427 TSN/06) Main

Action in the New York Civil Court/State Court that was originally scheduled

for a September 24, 2009 Trial.

(2) Fraud on the New York Civil Court in violation of Judicial Law 487 that caused

the July 29, 2009 “Order of Stay of Jury Trial” based on the fraudulently

11

induced July 9, 2009 Stipulation/Agreement and the Defendants’ deception, lies,

and other deliberate misrepresentations to that Court in a deliberate attempt to

indefinitely delay the Jury Trial in the Plaintiff’s 100% Pro Se 2003 Main

Action in his 12-years old, Four-Action, over 15,000 litigation hours,

institutionalized employment discrimination and Civil Rights litigation in the

State Court or Federal Court.

(3) Fraudulent Inducement of both the Plaintiff and the “Private Mediator” himself

to attend a July 30, 2009 “Illegal & Incomplete Private Mediation” at the

defendant Proskauer Rose firm by using false pretexts and without the proper or

required attorney representation in blatant violation of the New York State Rules

of Mediation.

(4) Collusion and Aiding and Abetting by the Proskauer Rose and Columbia

Defendants of the Fraud being committed by One-of-Four-Cases(06-cv-6841

supplementary action)/Conflicts-of-Interest Attorney/Stober to BETRAY,

DECEIVE and or “HIJACK” his own Client’s (Plaintiff’s) other three more

important Pro Se actions in exchange for Defendant Bollinger paying him

(Defendant Stober) hundreds of thousands of dollars as a “Bribe” in the guise

of (“Bogus”) attorney fees even before the Plaintiff is paid a single penny.

(5) Fraudulent Inducement of the (Pro Se) Plaintiff to sign the July 30, 2009

Preliminary/Non-Final “3-Way” (Implied, Columbia-Plaintiff-Stober) Terms

Sheet Agreement after the “Private Mediator” had already left for the day and

even before the completion of the mediation and even before the finalization

or clear understanding of the terms of the preliminary agreement that is to date

still only under the expressly agreed EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION of only

the “Private Mediator”.

(6) Fraud on the (Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts in violation of Judicial Law

487 by the Proskauer Rose (and Columbia Defendants) in collusion with One-

Case-Only/Conflicts-of-Interest Attorney/Stober Defendants to obtain various

“Non-Appealable” Federal Court Orders/Decisions even before the completion

of the mediation and based on only on the Defendants’ deliberate misrepresentations

and lies (and without any fact-finding whatsoever and by repeatedly denying the

Plaintiff any full and fair opportunity to litigate.)

Defendants’ have used the “fraudulently induced and non-appealable” Federal Court

Orders from 2010 to 2014 not only to directly contradict the fact that one and

only the 06-cv-6841 supplementary action was settled on July 30, 2009 but they

have also used them in a fraudulent attempt to further:

(A) Intimidate, harass, and compel the Plaintiff to sign “Involuntary Releases”

for the withdrawal/dismissal of even the Plaintiff’s other three 100% Pro

Se actions by keeping the “Private Mediator” himself out of his own

mediation and or by illegally usurping and or suppressing the expressly

12

agreed “Exclusive Jurisdiction” of the “Private Mediator” for finalizing the

specific terms and conditions of the still “Incomplete Private Mediation” of

July 30, 2009; and

(B) Illegally or Improperly seek the Supplemental Jurisdiction of the

(Out-of-Jurisdiction) District Court to issue an arguably “Bogus” and

premature attorney fee determination for defendant Stober and for using

that “BOGUS Res Judicata or Collateral Estoppel Effect” to prejudice

and dismiss all of the Plaintiff’s “Legal Malpractice Related Claims” in

State Court.

NOTE: On July 30, 2009, the “Private Mediator” had authorized the settlement

of just one and only “Non-Pro Se” 06-cv-6841 (2005-2009 Back-Pay

damages) supplementary action, without any attorney fees whatsoever,

in exchange for Defendant Bollinger avoiding a $150 to $200 Million

Dollar Class Action for Institutionalized Racial Discrimination

Practices at Defendant Columbia University.

(7) Defendants’ further Fraud in violation of Judicial law 487 even on the New

York County Supreme Court and the First Department Appellate Division from

December 2011 to May 2015 to dismiss even the Plaintiff’s already remanded

Continuing Legal Malpractice and Breach of Contract related claims in his July

2012 Complaint (filed in his 600002-2011 action) and Continuing Employment

Discrimination claims in his February 2013 Complaint (filed in his 100389-2013

action) in the New York County Courts by using the previous fraudulently

induced and “Out-of- Jurisdiction” Federal Court Orders of February 2010 and

August 2012 and related fraudulently induced Second Circuit Mandate of

November 2011 and by presenting various “BOGUS Res Judicata and Collateral

Estoppel” arguments.

POINT II

Defendants’ Continuing Fraud and Deception on the (Out-of-Jurisdiction)

Federal Court and the State Courts and Deliberate Misrepresentation of

Material Facts, Abuse of Judicial Process, “Bribery” and Other Corrupt

Attorney Practices During the Past Six Years Warrants Sanctions

During the past six years, the Defendants have repeatedly lied and deliberately

misrepresented even the most important and material facts in both the Federal courts and the

State Courts and had forced the Plaintiff to engage in totally unnecessary “harassment” litigation

that has totally destroyed almost all of his professional and personal life. The Defendants have

13

deliberately lied and repeatedly misrepresented even the following most important facts to the

Federal Courts and now to the State Courts. The Defendants have fraudulently concealed or

deliberately misrepresented to the Court that:

\

(A) The July 30, 2009 Preliminary/Non-Final Term Sheet Agreement simply CANNOT

be litigated in any court of law at all because it is still under the exclusive jurisdiction

of the “Private Mediator” (Mr. Scheinman); and

(B) Only the 06-cv-6841 (2005-2009 Back-Pay) case has been identified as a settled case

and that any other disputes regarding that term sheet have to be resolved only by the

“Private Mediator” in accordance with the New York State Rules of Mediation; and

(C) The July 30, 2009 “Private Mediation” has not been completed yet and that there is

no final settlement agreement whatsoever that has been mutually agreed and signed.

Clearly, the Defendants have knowingly committed repeated fraud on the Federal

Courts and now on the State Courts by using their “Bogus Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel”

arguments to improperly dismiss his prior action by deliberate misrepresentations and or

fraudulent concealment of the most important facts before this Court. Defendants’ previous

violation of Judicial Law 487 to obtain the arguably illegal and fraudulently induced Orders in

the “Out-of-Jurisdiction” Federal Courts will, of course, now have to be litigated for the first

time before this Nassau County Supreme court.

The Defendants have also made several deliberate false and misleading

representations that warrant the imposition of sanctions against them by this Court pursuant to its

inherent power. 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 139-1.1(d). It is well settled that the Court has the authority to

award sanctions against a party that “asserts material factual statements that are false.” Yenom

Corp. v. 155 Wooster Street Inc., 33 A.D.3d 67, 70 (2006). Clearly, the Defendants should be

appropriately sanctioned for causing the illegal or improper dismissal of his prior action(s) by

fabricating their “BOGUS Res Judicata and Collateral Estoppel” arguments that were based on

14

the fraudulently induced and “Non-Appealable” Orders/ Decisions in the “Out-of-Jurisdiction”

Federal Courts and without any fact-finding or evidentiary hearings whatsoever. See In re

Gelbwaks, 260 A.D. 2d 47, 696 N.Y.S.2d 45, 47 (1st Dep’t 1999); In re Leff, 213 A.D. 2d 11,

14, 630 N.Y.S.2d 372, 374 (2d Dept 1995) (two-year suspension from practice of law was

appropriate sanction for, inter alia attorney’s violation in representing client …in

transaction in which he had pecuniary interest (in conflict with his client)).

Clearly, the Defendants committed fraud and deceived the Federal Courts by

deliberately concealing and misrepresenting the most important and relevant fact that the

extremely complicated July 30, 2009 Preliminary/Non-Final “3-way” (Implied, Columbia-

Plaintiff-Stober) based on that day’s “Illegal & Incomplete Private Mediation” at defendant

Proskauer Rose firm cannot be litigated in the Federal Court at all because it was expressly

agreed in that same term sheet document that the “Private Mediator” will have exclusive

jurisdiction on that term sheet until any settlement agreement has been reached between the

Plaintiff and Columbia. Because the term sheet was based only on the discussions and

negotiations involving just the one and the only 06-cv-6841 (2005-2009 Back-Pay damages)

supplementary action on that date, the defendants had fraudulently sought the illegal or

improper supplemental jurisdiction of the (“Out-of-Jurisdiction”) Federal District Court to

improperly dismiss even the Plaintiff’s 09-cv-0019 and 06-cv-8120 action and to also obtain a

“bogus” or premature attorney fee determination even before the litigation of the legal

malpractice and other serious attorney misconduct claims in the New York State Supreme Court

and with the fraudulent intent to prejudice and dismiss all the Plaintiff’s initial claims in that

Court.

As evident from the facts, the Stober and Proskauer Rose defendants have

15

violated almost every one of the New York State Rules of Professional/ Attorney Conduct by

making a mockery of the justice system and have shown a complete disregard for the sanctity of

the legal system by committing fraud boldly and openly and by using the fraudulently induced

Federal Court Orders to fabricate a “Bogus res judicata and collateral estoppel” argument to

dismiss this 600002-2011 and 100389-2013 actions. Indeed, the Stober and Proskauer Rose

defendants have repeated conduct that is not only frivolous but also fraudulent and should be

sanctioned under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1. In this regard, the Stober and Proskauer Rose defendants’

actions are the epitome of frivolous conduct as they are “completely without merit in law and

cannot be supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of

existing law”, and are very clearly “undertaken to delay or prolong the resolution of the

litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another.” Stow v. Stow, 262 A.D.2d 550 (2d Dept

1999), Matter of Gordon v Marrone, 202 A.D.2d 104 (2d Dept 1994). Specifically, Section

130-1.1 of the Rules of the Chief Administrator of the Courts states in pertinent part:

(a) The Court, in its discretion, may award to any party in any civil action or proceeding

before the court, except where prohibited by law, costs in the form of reimbursement

for actual expenses reasonably incurred and reasonable attorney’s fees, resulting from

frivolous conduct as defined in this part……

(c.) For the purposes of this part, conduct is frivolous if:

it is completely without merit in law and cannot be supported by a reasonable argument

for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law;

it is undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, pr to harass

or maliciously injure another;

it asserts material factual statements that are false.

….In determining whether the conduct undertaken was frivolous, the court shall consider,

among other issues the (1) circumstances under which the Conduct took place, including

the time available for investigating the legal or factual basis of the conduct; and

16

(2) whether or not the conduct was continued when its lack of legal or factual basis was

apparent, should have been apparent, or was brought to the attention of counsel or the

party.

While the factors listed above are precatory in determining sanctionable conduct,

“what remedy [to impose] is dictated by consideration of fairness and equity.” Levy v, Carol

Management Corp., 260 A.D.2d 27, 33 (1999). Moreover, “[s]anctions are retributive in that

they punish past conduct. They are also goal oriented, in that they are useful in deterring

future frivolous conduct not only by the particular parties, but also by the bar at large. The goals

include preventing the waste of judicial resources, and deterring vexatious litigation and dilatory

or malicious litigation tactics” id.

POINT III

Defendants’ CONTINUING ELABORATE SCHEME of Lies, Perjury,

Deliberate Misrepresentations of Material Facts, Fraud, Abuse of Judicial

Process, and Other Corrupt Attorney Practices and COVER-UP Before the

(Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts and the State Courts During the Past

Six Years Warrants Appropriate Injunctive Relief, Including Mandatory

Discovery & Fact-Finding

During the past six years, the Proskauer Rose Defendants, in collusion with the

Plaintiff’s own One-of-Four-Cases/Out-Going/”Client-Betraying” Attorney/ Defendant Stober,

have engaged in an ELABORATE SCHEME OF FRAUD, DECEPTION, ABUSE OF

JUDICIAL PROCESS and other CORRUPT practices not only on the Plaintiff but also on the

Manhattan Courts, in violation of judicial law 487. By committing repeated perjury and or by

making various false statements and or by deliberately misrepresenting the most important

facts and or abusing the judicial process and making “BOGUS res judicata and collateral

estoppel” arguments, and or by tortiously interfering in the 2009 Preliminary/”Still Incomplete”

Term Sheet document, the Stober and Proskauer Rose Defendants have been abusing various

17

fraudulent “motions to dismiss” to PREVENT ANY FACT-FINDING and or EVIDENTIARY

HEARINGS WHATSOEVER in this matter.

The Plaintiff, therefore, respectfully requests the Court to grant injunctive relief

that would enjoin the Defendants from filing any other premature motions to dismiss or from

seeking any other relief even before (A) the completion of the July 30, 2009 “Illegal & Still

INCOMPLETE Private Mediation” and the finalization of the terms of the 2009 “3-Way”

(Implied, Columbia - Plaintiff-Stober) Preliminary/Incomplete Term Sheet Agreement under

the expressly agreed “exclusive jurisdiction” of only the “Private Mediator” (Mr. Scheinman);

and even before (B) the completion of all the required discovery including sworn depositions

of at least the named defendants in this action regarding the serious claims of fraud, continuing

breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, violation of Judicial Law 487, and other serious

misconduct that was already committed by the Defendants on the Plaintiff and the Manhattan

Supreme/Civil Courts and (Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts in this action before the

Nassau County Supreme Court,

Plaintiff respectfully request an injunction thatwcould end the Defendants’

continuing and chronic pattern and practice of perjury, making false statements and or

deliberate misrepresentations, abusing the judicial process, and cover-up by committing

additional fraud on the courts and without giving the Plaintiff any full and fair opportunity

for any fact-finding and or evidentiary hearings whatsoever regarding the July 30, 2009

“Illegal & Still INCOMPLETE Private Mediation” and what was actually agreed in

the resulting fraudulently induced Preliminary/Incomplete 1-Page Term Sheet “LIMITED

Agreement” and after the “Private Mediator“ himself had already left for the day.

18

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE, Appellant-Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court to

Grant this cross-motion and issue an Order pursuant to Article 5 of the C.P.L.R and

Section 503, C.P.L.R. 5104 and 22 N.Y.C.R.R. 130-1.1:

1. Denying the Defendants’ request for change of venue or order to show

cause for transfer of this proceeding to the Manhattan Supreme Court,

given that both the Plaintiff and the primary Defendant in this action,

Mr. Louis D. Stober, Jr, are long-time residents of Nassau County, and

the Plaintiff’s forty separate causes of action against Defendant Stober

including Fraud, Breach of Fiduciary Duty (by accepting an offer of

“Bribe”), Continuing Breach of Contracts, Fraud on the Manhattan

Supreme Court and First Judicial Department in violation of Judicial Law

487 and other serious claims have not yet been resolved in this Nassau

County Supreme Court.

2. Sanctioning Defendant Susan D. Friedfel and the Proskauer Rose

Defendants for committing perjury and or lying and or deliberately

misrepresenting the most important facts to deliberately mislead this

Supreme Court of Nassau County, even before any fact-finding and

evidentiary hearings whatsoever regarding any of the Plaintiff’s very

serious claims of fraud, “bribery”, continuing breach of contracts, breach

of fiduciary duty and repeated fraud on the Manhattan Supreme Court

and the First Judicial Department (Appellate Division) and the (Out-of-

Jurisdiction) Federal Court(s), in blatant violation of Judicial Law 487,

against his own One-of-Four-Cases (06-cv-6841) Attorney/Defendant

Stober and who had also caused the “improper and fraudulently-induced

dismissal” of the Plaintiff’s prior actions.

3. Ordering the Defendants to immediately answer the Complaint and

proceed to discovery without any stay or further delay.

4. Enjoining the Defendants from filing any other premature motions even

before:

(A) the complet ion of the July 30, 2009 " l11egal & Sti l lINCOMPLETE Private Mediation" and the finalization of theterms of the 2009 "3-Way" (Implied, Columbia - Plaintiff-Stober) Preliminary/Incomplete Term Sheet Agreement under theexpressly agreed "exclusive jurisdiction" of only the "PrivateMediator" (Mr. Scheinman); and even before

(B) the completion of all the required discovery including sworndepositions of at least the named defendants regarding the seriousclaims of fraud, continuing breach of contract, breach offiduciary duty, violation of Judicial Law 487, and other seriousmisconduct that was already committed by the Defendants on

the Plaintiff and the Manhattan Supreme/Civil Courts and(Out-of-Jurisdiction) Federal Courts in this action before theNassau Countv Suoreme Court.

Dated; Nassau CountyAugus t 10 ,2015

Respectful ly Submitted,

'R -t Kry/*^.n-"^/-:--R (Randy) S. RaghavendraPlaintiffx* & FounderNational Associat ion fbr Cl ients

Against Dishonest AttorneysP.O. Box 7066Hicksville (Nassau County), NYr t802-7066Phone: (646) 229-9911(.. Plaint i f f wi l l be retaining an Attorney

for Discovery and Jury Trial )

1 q