Summary of the Evidence Against Zandian - With my Commentary††† Jed Margolin


Part 1 - Bank Melli† {Click here}


A.† In the French Courtís decision of April 3, 1998 concerning the insolvency of Computer World Zandian was ordered to personally assume Computer Worldís debts of up to 20M francs.


B.† Canet failed to state the names of Computer Worldís creditors and the amounts owned but through our own efforts we discovered that one of Computer Worldís creditors was Bank Melli and that the amount owed to Bank Melli was 19M francs. This is 95% of the judgment.


C.† Bank Melli is owned and operated by the Government of Iran.


1. ††Although most of the sanctions against Iran that were put in place by 31 CFR ß560 and Executive Order 13599 have been lifted, it is still illegal to pay money to the Government of Iran and, therefore, Bank Melli (either directly or through Canet) because Bank Melli is owned by the Government of Iran. Since 95% of the judgment against Zandian is for the benefit of Bank Melli/The Government of Iran Canetís Petition may be considered an attempt to circumvent the law and thereby be itself an illegal act.


2.† In 1993 Zandian and his American partner Charles Reeger were arrested for trying to illegally export a high-performance IBM computer to Iran through France. Zandian somehow beat the rap but he and his companies were banned from exporting equipment for ten years. (Charles Reeger beat the rap by apparently dying.)


The buyer of the IBM computer was the Iran Ministry of Agriculture so the inescapable conclusion is that Bank Melliís loan to Zandian was for the purpose of committing the illegal act of buying the high-performance IBM computer and sending it to Iran (through France).


While the act was probably not illegal in Iran or France, it was illegal in the U.S. In the U.S. contracts for illegal acts are not enforceable. It follows that loans to commit illegal acts are not collectible. It is a matter of Public Policy.


D.†† At some point the French Court must have restated the judgment in Euros but Canet has produced no evidence of this and his Petition is stated in French francs, which is no longer a legal currency. However, the judgment against Zandian was stated as 3,048,980 Euros in a document dated April 3, 2001.


1.† In 2002 the value of the euro (averaged over the year) was 1.071653 euros for one US Dollar ($1.00).† Therefore, in 2002, 19 Million French francs would be worth 2,896,531 euros, which would be worth† $2,702,864 US Dollars.† If we subtract 2,896,542 euros (the amount claimed by Bank Melli) from 3,048,980 euros (the total amount)† we are left with 152,449 euros. At the 2002 conversion rate that would be $142,256 US Dollars.


2.† Canet has already collected more than the 152,449 euros from Zandian. In French Court Document 2011L00791 we learn that:


a. ††Canet had sold a property belonging to Zandian at 23 Louis Poney Street, in Puteaux, France for 300,000 Euros;


b.†† Zandian had also paid Canet 150,000 Euros;


c.† The debt to Bank Melli had not been definitely approved, at least not then in 2011.


Therefore, we know that as of 2011 Canet had already collected at least 450,000 euros from Zandian and that because the claim by Bank Melli/The Government of Iran had not (at least by that point in time) been definitely approved, that all of Zandianís other creditors (whose claims had apparently been approved) should have already been paid.†


In addition, it appears that Zandianís apartment at† 6 Fournier Street, Paris (the address that Zandian still uses) had been sold for 1.6M francs. (If this is correct then where is Zandian living?) Therefore, Canet may have already collected as much as 2,050,000 euros from Zandian. †


In any event the above discussion and evidence means that all of Zandianís remaining debt is owed to Bank Melli/The Government of Iran (assuming it has since been approved by the French Court) and that all of Canetís fees and costs since then have been incurred in trying to collect the debt owed to Bank Melli/The Government of Iran.


E.† The above information had to be pieced together from translations of documents from the French Court. That is because Canet/Hartman failed to disclose it to the Court and to us. Canet/Hartmanís failure to disclose this to the Court is a serious act of omission constituting inequitable conduct and should be sanctioned.


It is reasonable to believe that the reason they failed to disclose the information is because they were aware it shows that they are conspiring to commit an act that is illegal under U.S. law.



Part 2 - Canetís Failure to Act††††† {Click here}


A.†† The French Courtís judgment against Zandian was issued April 3, 1998. Canet has had the past 18 years to come after Zandianís assets in the U.S. but has failed to do so. Even though Chapter 15 was not added to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code until 2005 Canet could have domesticated a Judgment against Zandian in the two places where Zandian is known to have had assets.


1.† Optima Technology Corporation.


Zandian owned Optima Technology Corporation (OTC) in California, started in 1990. Today, OTC is moribund† but in 1999 OTC was a very viable company that sold storage solutions for the Apple Mac. OTC even had a patent for its technology. Canet could have seized OTC at that point and probably gotten fully paid. See California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1713-1724.


OTC may still have assets (such as real property) in California. The California counties do not allow online search of property records by the ownerís name. OTCís Registered Agent is Alborz Zandian, Reza Zandianís son by his first wife. Alborz can be subpoenaed but he has his fatherís talent for evading legal service.


2.† Zandianís personal property in Nevada


Zandian has owned property in Nevada since at least 2005. Canet could have seized Zandianís properties under Nevada Revised Statutes - Chapter 17 Judgments as a foreign-country money judgment. However, under† NRS 17.800 the statute of limitations for commencing this action is 15 years from the date that the foreign-country judgment became effective in the foreign country. Canetís judgment against Zandian is dated April 3, 1998. Add 15 years and we get April 3, 2013. Canet would have missed his deadline to have Nevada recognize his French judgment. Canet effectively had 11 years to seize Zandianís personal properties. Why didnít he do that?


3.††† Zandian was a partner in at least fifteen Nevada LLCs, most of which own (or owned) valuable property in Nevada. Canet could have seized Zandianís interest in these LLCs but failed to do that. The LLCs include: Gold Canyon Development LLC; Misfits Development LLC; Stagecoach Valley Development LLC; I-50 Plaza LLC; Dayton Plaza LLC; Sparks Village LLC; 11,000 Reno Highway Fallon LLC; Nevada Land & Water Resources LLC; High-Tech Development LLC; Lyon Park Development LLC; Churchill Park Development LLC; Optima Technology Corporation (NV); Elko North 5th Ave LLC; Reno Highway Plaza LLC; Wendover Project LLC; and Big Spring Ranch LLC



It is reasonable to believe that the reason Canet failed to seize Zandianís assets in California and Nevada is because:

a.† He knew that most of the French Judgment was for Bank Melli/The Government of Iran and that U.S. Sanctions would have prevented him from sending any money to them produced by selling Zandianís U.S. assets; and


b.† Because the media has been reporting that sanctions against Iran have been lifted, that neither we nor the Court would know that the sanction prohibiting the sending money either directly or indirectly to the Government of Iran remains in place.



B.† We recorded my Judgment against Zandian in the several Nevada counties where Zandian owned property. Canet failed to record his judgment.