Who is Reza Zandian?

 

By Jed Margolin

 

This article is about Reza Zandian (ďZandianĒ), specifically the Reza Zandian in:

 

 

Case No.: 09 OC 00579 1B

 

In The First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada

In and for Carson City

 

JED MARGOLIN, an individual,

                      Plaintiff,

 

           VS.

 

OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a California corporation, OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, REZA ZANDIAN aka GOLAMREZA ZANDIANJAZI aka GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN aka REZA JAZI aka J. REZA JAZl aka G. REZA JAZI aka GHONONREZA ZANDIAN JAZI, an individual, DOE Companies 1 - 10, DOE Corporations 11-20, and DOE Individuals 21-30,

           Defendants

 

 

And it is about four U.S. Patents:

United States Patent No. 5,566,073

United States Patent No. 5,904,724

United States Patent No. 5,978,488

United States Patent No. 6,377,436

(collectively "the Patents").

 

This article does not contain all of the Court documents in the case, just the ones that help tell the story.

 

I have separately posted most of the District Court documents (the important ones) click here.

 

I have also posted all of the Nevada Supreme Court documents for Zandianís three Appeals.

Appeal 1 - Zandian Appeals the Judgment - click here

Appeal 2 - Zandian Appeals the award of Attorneyís fees - click here

Appeal 3 - Zandian Appeals the Order to Appear for a Debtorís Examination and to Produce Documents -† click here

 

A.† Introduction

 

In December 2007 Zandian fraudulently filed documents with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") assigning all four of the Patents to Optima Technology Corporation. He did this by using a Power-of-Attorney that was not his. I had given the Power-of-Attorney (over the Patents) to Robert Adams, CEO of Optima Technology, Inc. (later Optima Technology Group). For Zandianís fraudulent assignments click here.

 

By the time Zandian stole the Patents, I had assigned U.S. Patents 5,566,073 and 5,904,724 to Optima Technology Group. (I still owned U.S. Patents 5,978,488 and United States Patent No. 6,377,436.)

 

Note that:

1.† Optima Technology Corporation and Optima Technology Group are two different companies.

2. †I had assigned the two patents to Optima Technology Group as per an agreement whereby I retained a substantial financial interest in the two patents.

3.† I had given the Power-of-Attorney (over the Patents) to Robert Adams.† Reza Zandian is not Robert Adams.

By an amazing coincidence Zandian stole the patents at the beginning of a vicious Declaratory Judgment patent lawsuit brought by Universal Avionics Systems Corporation (ďUASCĒ) against Optima Technology Group, Robert Adams, and myself. I believe that at least one of the reasons UASC dragged me into it was because my name is on the Patents.

 

This lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona No. CV-00588-RC:

 

UNIVERSAL AVIONICS SYSTEMS CORPORATION,

††††††††††† Plaintiff,

vs.

 

OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC., OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, ROBERT ADAMS and JED MARGOLIN,

††††††††††† Defendants.

 

 

This was not a lawsuit that we brought against UASC for patent infringement. This was a lawsuit that UASC brought against us, asking that the Court declare that the Patents were invalid, that UASC did not infringe the patents anyway, and that one of the reasons UASC did not infringe the patents owned by Optima Technology Group was that the Patents were actually owned by Optima Technology Corporation.

 

Thatís convenient, isnít it?

 

Here is another amazing and convenient coincidence. Donald L. Prunty, an attorney at the Las Vegas office of Greenberg Traurig (who represented UASC), and Paul C. Ray, an attorney at John Peter Lee (who represented Zandian), were next door neighbors. Donald L. Punty owned the house at 4720 Clay Peak Dr and Paul C. Ray owned the house at 4740 Clay Peak Dr. For the evidence click here.

 

Years later I would find evidence that Zandian and UASCís attorneys had planned to have Zandian sell UASC ďhisĒ patents. See zandian_uasc.pdf.

 

During the Arizona case, the Court ruled that:

 

This Court, having considered the Defendants' Application for Entry of Default Judgment against Cross-Defendant Optima Technology Corporation, finds no just reason to delay entry of final judgment.

 

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

 

Final Judgment is entered against Cross-Defendants Optima Technology Corporation, a California corporation, and Optima Technology Corporation, a Nevada corporation, as follows:

 

1. Optima Technology Corporation has no interest in U.S. Patents Nos. 5,566,073 and 5,904,724 ("the Patents") or the Durable Power of Attorney from Jed Margolin dated July 20, 2004 ("the Power of Attorney");

 

2. The Assignment Optima Technology Corporation filed with the USPTO is forged, invalid, void, of no force and effect, and is hereby struck from the records of the USPTO;

 

3. The USPTO is to correct its records with respect to any claim by Optima Technology Corporation to the Patents and/or the Power of Attorney; and

 

4. OTC is hereby enjoined from asserting further rights or interests in the Patents and/or Power of Attorney; and

 

5. There is no just reason to delay entry of final judgment as to Optima Technology Corporation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

 

DATED this 18th day of August, 2008.

 

____________________________

Raner C. Collins

 

 

See uasc_doc131.pdf .

 

UASC fought this ruling but the Court would not change its mind.

 

However:

1.† It cost me a bunch of money to get that far; and

2.† Zandian had screwed up a major patent licensing deal that also cost me a bunch of money.

 

B.†† We file suit in Nevada

 

Since Zandian had damaged me by his fraud, and I live in Nevada, on December 11, 2009 we filed a lawsuit against him in the First Judicial District of Nevada. Both Storey County and Carson City are in the First Judicial District and share the same Judges and Courtrooms.

 

Here is the Complaint:† 2009_1211_complaint.pdf

 

I have converted it to html to make it easier to read online and so it will be text searchable: 2009_1211_complaint.htm.

 

C.†† Serving Zandian

 

We contacted Zandianís last known attorney (John Peter Lee) and asked him for help in serving his client. John Peter Lee ignored the letter. For the letter click here.

 

We hired a Private Investigator to find Zandian. The PI reported that Zandian was living in Fair Oaks, California, so that is where we served him (and Optima Technology Corporation).

 

D.† The First Default Judgment

 

Zandian failed to respond and we obtained a Default Judgment against him.

 

03/07/11

Margolin

Notice of Entry of Default Judgment

 

 

E.† Now It Gets Interesting

 

1.† Zandian and John Peter Lee woke up. Zandian filed a Motion to Dismiss on a Special Appearance.

 

06/09/11

Zandian

Motion to Dismiss on a Special Appearance

(html)

 

He argued that:

a.† Zandian had not been properly served because he does not live in Fair Oaks, California; and

b.† Nevada does not have personal jurisdiction over Zandian in the instant action.

 

(As with most of the filings that I have converted to html I have attempted to provide active links to the cases cited.)

 

2.† We presented evidence showing that Zandian owns property and does business within Nevada. As a result, Zandian's forum activities are so "substantial" or "continuous and systematic" that he may be deemed present in the forum and therefore general jurisdiction is appropriate.

 

06/22/11

Margolin

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss and Counter Motions to Strike and for Leave to Amend the Complaint

(html)

 

3.† The Court decided that:

 

Having found that service was never effectuated, the Default Judgment entered against Defendant on March 1, 2011 shall be set aside. However, the Court declines to Dismiss the Complaint based on service of process, process or personal jurisdiction at this time. Finally, given Plaintiff's attempts at effectuating service and the difficulty that Plaintiff has faced in serving Defendant, Plaintiff shall be given additional time to effectuate proper service upon Defendant.

 

08/03/11

Court

Order Setting Aside Default, Denying Motion to Dismiss and Granting Extension of Time for Service

(html)

 

4.† We asked John Peter Lee to accept service for Zandian and to give us Zandianís address.

††††††††††† 2011_0804_wr_request.pdf

 

John Peter Lee responded with a defiant ďNoĒ.

 

Your letter of August 4, 2011, is acknowledged. Our response is as follows:

 

We cannot accept service, nor can we give you Reza Zandianís current address. Except to indicate

that he does not reside in Nevada at the present time and is not subject to the jurisdiction of the

courts of this State within the provisions of the litigation commenced by your firm involving an

Arizona judgment which cannot be domesticated in Nevada.

 

See 2011_0808_jplee_answer.pdf

 

5.† We asked the Court for permission to serve Zandian by Publication

08/11/11

Margolin

Motion to Serve by Publication

 

 

6.† We also amended the Complaint

08/11/11

Margolin

Amended Complaint

(html)

 

 

7.† The Court gave us permission to serve Zandian by Publication.

09/27/11

Court

Amended Order Allowing Service by Publication

(html)

 

 

8.† We served Zandian by Publication in Las Vegas, Reno, and San Diego.

11/07/11

Margolin

SUMMONS ON AMENDED COMPLAINT & (2) ADD'L SUMMONS ON AMENDED COMPLAINT

Summons on Amended Complaint

Additional Summons on Amended Complaint

Additional Summons on Amended Complaint

 

 

9. ††Zandian filed another Motion to Dismiss on a Special Appearance where he again said:

a.† Zandian had not been properly served; and

b.† Nevada does not have personal jurisdiction over Zandian in the instant action.

 

11/17/11

Zandian

Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint on Special Appearance

(html)

 

 

10.† We opposed his Motion, pointing out:

a.† Zandianís attorney had refused to accept service for Zandian

b. †With the Courtís permission we served Zandian by publication;

c. †We presented evidence showing that Zandian owns property and does business within the forum state. As a result, Zandian's forum activities are so "substantial" or "continuous and systematic" that he may be deemed present in the forum and therefore general jurisdiction is appropriate.

 

12/05/11

Margolin

Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

(html)

 

 

11.†† The Court denied Zandianís Motion to Dismiss.

02/21/12

Court

Order Denying Defendantís Motion to Dismiss

(html)

 

 

12.† Zandian finally Answered the Complaint.

03/06/12

Zandian

General Denial 

(html)

 

Things to note:

 

a.† This was a General Denial. Zandian did not answer each allegation separately.

 

COMES NOW the Defendant, REZA ZANDIAN aka GOLAMREZA ZANDIANJAZI aka GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN aka REZA JAZI aka J. REZA JAZI AKA G. REZA JAZI aka GHONONREZA ZANDIAN JAZI, by and through his attorney of record, JOHN PETER LEE, LTD., and files his General Denial as follows:

 

The Defendant denies each and every allegation contained in the Amended Complaint on file herein.

 

b.† Zandian did not provide an Affirmative Defense. (How could he? He doesnít have one. He did the deed.)

 

c.† Zandian brazenly demands his attorneyís fees and costs.

 

ATTORNEYS' FEES

 

Defendant has been required to retain the services of JOHN PETER LEE, LTD. to defend against this action, and he is entitled to reasonable attorneys' fees therefor.

 

WHEREFORE, Defendant(s) pray(s) judgment as follows:

 

1. That Plaintiff take nothing by virtue of his Complaint on file herein and that the same be forthwith dismissed with prejudice;

 

2. Reasonable attorneys' fees;

 

3. Costs incurred herein;

 

4. And for such other and further relief as to this Court may seem proper.

 

Zandian cites no authority (statutory or case law) for this demand.

 

Later, Zandianís Answer was stricken as a Sanction for his behavior.

 

13.† The next day John Peter Lee moved to withdraw from the case, citing:

 

4.† The primary reason for requesting withdrawal is that the client no longer wishes to pay fees to John Peter Lee, Ltd. for services rendered, or to be rendered, in the instant case.

 

03/07/12

Zandian

John Peter Lee's Motion to Withdraw from Representation of Defendant Zandian

 

First Judicial District Court Rule 22(3) expressly states that:

3.† Any form of order permitting withdrawal of an attorney submitted to the Court for signature shall contain the address at which the party is to be served with notice of all further proceedings.

 

John Peter Lee provided Zandianís San Diego address, the address that appears on many of Zandianís legal documents:

Reza Zandian

8775 Costa Verde Blvd.

San Diego, California† 92122

 

So that is the address we used.

 

BTW, John Peter Lee sued Zandian for non-payment of a debt and received a default judgment against him. The case was F & C Collections Inc vs. Reza Zandian, Case Number A685127 in Clark County , Nevada, filed 07/15/2013. Click here. At the time the case was filed John Peter Lee was the President and sole officer of F & C Collections. Click here.

 

14.†† On July 16, 2012, we served Zandian with Margolin's First Set of Requests for Admission, First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production of Documents. Responses to these discovery requests were due on August 20, 2012.† Zandian never provided any responses or documents.

 

On September 10, 2012, we mailed a meet and confer letter to Zandian demanding that he serve responses and documents to the aforementioned discovery no later than September 17, 2012. †Zandian ignored that too.

 

So, on December 14, 2012 we moved for sanctions against Zandian.

 

While Margolin understands and appreciates the nature of the sanctions contained in this Motion, the requested relief is necessitated by Zandian's willful violations of the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure. Simply put, common law and NRCP 37(d) dictate that Margolin is entitled to an Order striking Zandian's General Denial, and awarding Margolin his attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this Motion. See supra., NRCP 37(d)(2-3), NRCP 37(b)(2)(A-C).

 

12/14/12

Margolin

Plaintiffís Motion for Sanctions Under NRCP 37  (Zandian)

(html)

 

15.†† The Motion for Sanctions was granted.

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for sanctions under NRCP 37 is granted;

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the General Denial filed by Zandian on or about March 5, 2012 is stricken; and

 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be awarded his fees and costs incurred his motion, and file an application for fees and a memorandum of costs relating to his motion.

 

01/15/13

Court

Order Granting Plaintiffís Motion for Sanctions Under NRCP 37

(html)

 

 

16.† On June 24, 2013 we got a Default Judgment against Zandian and Optima Technology Corporation.

 

06/24/13

Court

Default Judgment

(html)

 

The Judgment was entered on June 27, 2013.

 

06/27/13

Margolin

Notice of Entry of Judgment

 

It has been 3 years, 6 months, and 16 days since we filed the lawsuit.

 

 

F.†† We spent the next several months subpoenaing Zandianís records from several financial institutions. He had moved all his money away. We also started the process of having Zandianís properties seized by the Sheriffs of the various counties and sold at public auction.

 

And then Zandian showed up again. With a new attorney.

 

1.†† Zandianís new attorney is Johnathon Fayeghi of Hawkins Melendrez. click here.

 

In addition to being Zandianís new attorney Johnathon Fayeghi is also a partner with Zandian in two parcels in Lyon County: 015-311-18 and 015-311-19. click here.

 

It also appears that Johnathon Fayeghi is related to Sean S. Fayeghi who is Zandianís partner in several LLCs:

Sparks Village LLC†††††††

I-50 Plaza LLC

11000 Reno Highway, Fallon, LLC

Reno Highway LLC

Dayton Plaza

 

2.† Zandian filed a Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment.

12/20/13

Zandian

Defendant Zandianís Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment 

(html)

 

Zandian argued that the reason he hadnít responded to any of the documents that had been sent to him was because:

1.† John Peter Lee had given an incorrect address for him;

2.† Zandian had moved to France in August 2011.

 

Zandian also argued that he had used the French address in another case where the opposing party had been represented by a different attorney in a different office of my law firm. Apparently, what one attorney in a law firm knows must be known by all the attorneys in the law firm no matter where they are or what case they are on.† (Perhaps this is a new form of quantum entanglement.)

 

We Opposed it.

01/09/14

Margolin

Opposition to Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment

(html)

 

Because of the records we had received from the various financial institutions we showed that Zandian continued to maintain the same San Diego address that John Peter Lee had given us. Indeed, we had copies of checks that had been sent to Zandian at the San Diego address as late as 1/30/13 and which Zandian had endorsed. (See PDF Page 21.)

 

Zandianís Motion was denied.

02/06/14

Court

Order Denying Defendant Zandianís Motion to Set Aside Default Judgment 

(html)

 

The Court made the correct decision. If you cannot rely on the address given by a withdrawing attorney then you must oppose every motion to withdraw made by every attorney in every case. Otherwise you will have to spend a considerable amount of time and money to continually chase after the opposing party in case they decide to move. Or if they simply decide to use a different address. It would be Whack-a-Mole.

 

Note that First Judicial District Court Rule 22(3) says that an attorney who withdraws must give the address at which the party is to be served with notice of all further proceedings. It does not require the withdrawing attorney to give the address where the party has his domicile. There are many rich people who have a number of homes all over the world.

 

3.† ††Meanwhile, back in December we had filed a Motion for Judgment Debtor Examination and to Produce Documents

12/11/13

Margolin

Motion for Judgment Debtor Examination and to Produce Documents

(html)

 

Zandian hadnít opposed it so the Motion was granted.

01/13/14

Court

Order Granting Plaintiffís Motion for Debtor Examination and to Produce Documents

(html)

 

The order was entered January 17, 2014. Zandian was ordered to:

a. †Appear before the Court and answer upon oath or affirmation concerning his property at a Judgment Debtor Examination under the authority of a Judge of the Court on February 11, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.; and,

b.† To produce to Plaintiffs counsel at least one week prior to the Judgment Debtor Examination, all information and documents identifying, related to, and/or comprising the following:† ............

 

Zandian did not appear for the Debtorís Examination, and he did not provide any information or documents.

 

We filed a Motion to Show Cause Regarding Contempt.

02/12/14

Margolin

Motion for Order to Show Cause Regarding Contempt

(html)

 

 

G.†† Zandian did three things.

 

1.† He got a new attorney. His new attorney is Jason Woodbury of Kaempfer Crowell in Carson City.

02/21/14

Zandian

Substitution of Counsel

(html)

 

2.† He opposed the Motion to Show Cause.

03/03/14

Zandian

Opposition to Motion for Order to Show Cause Regarding Contempt

(html)

 

3.†† He filed an appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court of the District Courtís Order denying Zandianís Motion to set aside the Judgment.

03/12/14

Zandian

Notice of Appeal   Receipt: 3325 1   Date: 03/12/2014  (Appeal of Courtís Order denying Zandianís Motion to set aside the Judgment, 2/6/2014)

 

This is case number 65205: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=33398

 

I have made a local copy of the documents and converted the important ones to html with active links to the cases cited. Click Here.

 

When you file an Appeal, the District Court is divested of jurisdiction to address issues that are pending before the Nevada Supreme Court. As a result our Request For Submission of the Motion to Show Cause Regarding Contempt was denied.

 

03/17/14

Court

Order Denying Request for Submission

(html)

 

And then Zandian filed a bizarre Motion to Dismiss. He did this in proper person even though he had an attorney. You are not supposed to do that. Later, we did his attorney the professional courtesy of allowing him to withdraw it. However, even though it was withdrawn it was not sealed so it is still in the Public Record.

 

Zandianís bizarre Motion and Affidavit is almost entirely: Defamatory toward Margolin and his attorneys; Scandalous; Morally contemptible; and Irrelevant. Some parts are interesting so I have posted them.

 

03/24/14

Zandian

Motion (Zandianís Bizarre - in proper person - Motion)†† Was withdrawn 4/17/2014

 

 

H. †The District Court is not divested of all authority regarding the case.

 

1.† We moved for Post-Judgment Interest and Attorneysí fees and costs.

 

Zandian fought against it very vigorously. He lost, and was ordered to pay

Post-Judgments costs:

$† 1,355.17

Post-Judgment attorneyís fees:

$31,247,50

Post-Judgment Interest:†

$63,684.40

 

for a total of $96,287.07

 

05/19/14

Court

Order on Motion for Order Allowing Costs and Necessary Disbursements and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof

(html)

 

Zandian was ordered to pay it within 10 days after notice of entry of the Order.

 

The Order was entered 5/21/2014.

 

Zandian didnít pay it. Not even a little bit of it.

 

Instead, he filed a Notice that he is unable to pay.

06/09/14

Zandian

Notice (Zandian says he is unable to pay)

(html)

 

Such a Notice has no legal meaning. It is frivolous and both Zandian and his attorney (at the time Woodbury) and/or the law firm of Kaempfer Crowell deserve to be sanctioned for it.

 

The fact is that Zandian has once again ignored an Order of the Court.

 

While Zandian claims he does not have the money to pay me, he does have the money to appeal the Order of the Court.

 

06/23/14

Zandian

Notice of Appeal Filed  Receipt: 34909  Date: 06/23/2014 (Appeal of Order on Motion for Order Allowing Costs and Necessary Disbursements, 5/19/2014)

 

 

This is case number 65960: http://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseView.do?csIID=34157

 

I have made a local copy of the documents and converted the important ones to html with active links to the cases cited. Click Here.

 

 

 

How is Zandian paying his attorney (Jason Woodbury)?

 

Is Woodbury working for free?

 

I doubt it. Woodbury is running for Carson City District Attorney. {Spoiler: He won.}

 

 

2.† An area where the District Court is not divested of jurisdiction during an Appeal is the Execution of the Judgment when the Appellant has not posted a supersedeas bond. A supersedeas bond, also known as a defendant's appeal bond, is a type of surety bond that a court requires from an appellant who wants to delay payment of a judgment until the appeal is over. An appellant's bond stays the execution on a judgment during the pendency of the appeal.

 

Zandian refused to post a supersedeas bond.

 

What he did do was dirty-up the titles to all of the property that he owns in Nevada. He also withdrew from several of his LLCs.

 

We documented this in our Reply in Support of Motion for Judgment Debtor Examination. (We decided to take another shot at forcing Zandian to disclose his assets.)

 

07/10/15

Margolin

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR JUDGMENT DEBTOR EXAMINATION

html

 

Note that when Jason Woodbury was elected Carson City District Attorney he turned the case over to Severin Carlson. Carlson has now turned the case over to another attorney, Tara Zimmerman. Tara Zimmerman used to be Judge Russellís law clerk.

 

See Footnote 9 on Page 9:

[9] Counsel are attempting to resolve the issue related to the fact that Tara Zimmerman was a law clerk to Judge James Russell at the same time this matter was pending before Judge Russell. To date, the matter has not been resolved and therefore Plaintiff believes it is inappropriate for Ms. Zimmerman to represent Zandian until there has been a resolution of the matter in accordance with the Nevada Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rule 1.11.

 

It has been 5 years, 6 months, 29 days since we filed the lawsuit.

 

 

I.†† October 19, 2015 - The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the District Court on both of Zandianís appeals. (Zandian lost.)

 

Filed Order of Affirmance. "We perceive no abuse of discretion in this district court's decision and affirm its award of attorney fees and costs." [We elect to consolidate these appeals for disposition.] NNP15-NS/MG/KP Nos. 65205/65960.

 

See Nevada Supreme Court Decision:†††††††††† PDF†††††††††††††††† html

 

 

J.†† November 5, 2015 - Hearing on Motion for Judgment Debtor Examination††††††††††††††††

††††††††††† WMV (54Mbytes)††††† MP4 (for Android, 34 Mbytes)††††††††† MP3 (3.6 Mbytes)†††††

 

The Debtorís Examination will take place in San Diego County, California in February 2016.

 

Zandian is to produce the requested documents within 45 days. The documents will go back to the date the Complaint was filed (December 11, 2009).

 

11/06/15

Court

Order Granting Plaintiffís Motion for Debtorís Examination and to Produce Documents

html

 

 

K.†† December 10, 2015 - Zandianís attorneys filed:

 

1.†† Notice of Appeal - Zandian is appealing the Order to appear for a Debtorís Examination and to produce documents.

 

2.† Case Appeal Statement

 

3.† Motion to Withdraw -† For html click here.

 

On December 15, 2015 Zandianís attorneys filed Errata to Motion to Withdraw - For html click here.

 

They amended the Santa Ana address to show that it is Alborz Zandianís address.

 

These are Severin Carlsonís reasons for moving to withdraw:

 

In this case, Defendant has not only substantially failed to fulfill his obligations to Kaempfer Crowell regarding its services, but also insists upon taking action that the lawyer considers to be repugnant or with which the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement. Consequently, Counsel hereby requests that the Court issue an order allowing withdrawal as Defendant's counsel.

 

What, exactly, has Zandian insisted that Severin Carlson do that he considers repugnant?

 

Has Severin Carlson already done something for Zandian that Carlson considers repugnant? If he has, what was it, and why did he do it if he considered it repugnant?

 

Here is what I find repugnant (or at least really cheesy). Severin Carlson (Kaempfer Crowell) has given Zandian two different names, each with his own address. Someone not familiar with the case might assume that they are two different people:

 

Reza Zandian†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††† [amended 12/15/2015]

c/o Alborz Zandian

9 MacArthur Place, Unit 2105

Santa Ana, California 92707-6753

 

Gholam Reza Zandian Jazi

6 rue Edouard Fournier

75116 Paris

France

 

If Severin Carlson had read even the title of the case he would know that Reza Zandian and Gholam Reza Zandian Jazi are one and the same.

 

Since the casual reader of this article might not have read the title carefully (and I wouldnít blame you) it is:

 

JED MARGOLIN, an individual,

††††††††††† Plaintiff,

VS.

 

OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a California corporation, OPTIMA TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION, a Nevada corporation, REZA ZANDIAN aka GOLAMREZA ZANDIANJAZI aka GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN aka REZA JAZI aka J. REZA JAZI aka G. REZA JAZI aka GHONONREZA ZANDIAN JAZI, an individual, DOE Companies 1-10, DOE Corporations 11-20, and DOE Individuals 21-30,

††††††††† Defendants.

 

 

L.† Then a bunch of things happened.

 

1.†† The Santa Ana address is for Alborz Zandian, Reza Zandianís son.

12/15/15

Zandian

Errata to Motion to Withdraw

html

 

 

2.†† We opposed Carlsonís Motion to Withdraw mainly because we do not believe the addresses he gave for Zandian are reliable.

12/28/15

Margolin

Opposition to Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

html

 

There was another reason, too. Zandian had argued that the Default Judgment against him should be set aside because the reason he had not responded to any of the documents we had sent him (Interrogatories, Request for Production of Documents, etc.) was that he had not received them.

 

He said that the reason he had not received them was because when John Peter Lee (his first attorney) withdrew he had given an incorrect address for Zandian and that Zandian had actually moved to France in August 2011.†

 

The District Court didnít buy it. It wasnít an incorrect address, Zandian had never notified us or the Court of a new address, and the evidence showed that Zandian continued to live (or at least get mail) in Southern California for some time after August 2011. He might even be living there now.

 

When Kaempfer Crowell (Woodbury and Carlson) appealed the District Courtís decision to the Nevada Supreme Court it was based on that argument, that we should not have relied on the address that John Peter Lee had given us when he withdrew.

 

Now he wants us to rely on the addresses that he is giving us.

 

Therefore, another reason we opposed Carlsonís Motion to Withdraw was because I wanted him hoist by his own petard.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard#.22Hoist_with_his_own_petard.22

 

 

Pťtard comes from the Middle French pťter, to break wind, from the root pet, expulsion of intestinal gas, derived from the Latin peditus, past participle of pedere, to break wind, and akin to the Greek bdein, to break wind (Merriam-Webster). In modern French, a pťtard is a firecracker (and it is the basis for the word for firecracker in several other European languages).

 

Pťtardiers were deployed during sieges of castles or fortified cities. The pťtard, a rather primitive and exceedingly dangerous explosive device, comprised a brass or iron bell-shaped device filled with gunpowder and affixed to a wooden base called a madrier. This was attached to a wall or gate using hooks and rings, the fuse lit and, if successful, the resulting explosive force, concentrated at the target point, would blow a hole in the obstruction, allowing assault troops to enter.

 

Shakespeare's phrase, "hoist with his own petar" remains in modern usage as "hoist with one's own petard", meaning: "to be harmed by one's own plan to harm someone else" or "to fall into one's own trap", implying that one could be lifted (blown) upward by one's own bomb, or in other words, be foiled by one's own plan.

 

 

 

3.† The Court granted Carlsonís Motion to Withdraw, then realized that we had opposed the motion, and amended the Order granting the Motion to Withdraw.

 

12/31/15

Court

Order Granting Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

 

1/7/16

Court

Amended Order Granting Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

html

 

 

 

The Amended Order says:

 

1. That the Motion to Withdraw as Counsel is hereby GRANTED upon the condition that a valid address is provided by Defendant in California and/or Nevada for the purpose of service of any and all documents; and

 

2. That Kaempfer Crowell, Severin A. Carlson, and Tara C. Zimmerman shall no longer be counsel of record for Defendant Reza Zandian upon the providing of the address for service in Nevada and/or California.

 

3. That the Defendant, Reza Zandian, is ordered to comply with this Court's Order of November 6, 2015 as to appearing at a Judgment Debtor's Examination at a specific location chosen by Plaintiff; and

 

4. Failure of Defendant, Reza Zandian, to comply with this Order will result in this Court issuing an Order to Show Cause as to why said defendant should not be held in contempt.

 

4.† Carlson filed this:

 

1/13/16

Zandian

Affidavit of Severin Carlson in response to Amended Order Granting Motion to Withdraw

html

 

Note that even though the Court had ordered him to provide a valid address for Zandian in California and/or Nevada he still insisted that Zandian lives in France. As proof he included Zandianís French Residency Permit. It has Zandianís picture on it, but it is very poorly reproduced. Carlsonís office sent us a better reproduction. Click here.)

 

5.†† Zandian failed to produce any of the documents he has been ordered to produce by the 11/06/15 Order for Debtorís Examination and to Produce Documents so we filed:

 

1/13/16

Margolin

Motion for Order to Show Cause and Ex Parte Motion for Order Shortening Time

html

 

 

6.† In the middle of all this the Nevada Supreme Court issued an Order to Carlson.

 

1/7/16

Nevada Supreme Court

..., it appears that the judgment or order designated in the notice of appeal is not substantively appealable. See NRAP 3A(b). This court has jurisdiction to consider an appeal only when the appeal is authorized by statute or court rule.

 

...† No statute or court rule provides for an appeal from an order directing a debtor's examination or to produce documents. ...

 

Accordingly, appellant shall have 30 days from the date of this order within which to show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

 

We defer ruling on appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw as counsel pending resolution of this jurisdictional question.

 

 

 

PDF

 

 

html

 

A Big Oops! for Carlson.

 

This should be interesting.

 

7. ††Zandian has been ordered to appear and to bring the ordered documents with him. Will he do it?

 

1/22/16

Court

Order to Show Cause

 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a hearing will be held on February 3, 2016, at 9:30 a.m., in Department One of the First Judicial District Court, 885 E. Musser Street, Carson City, Nevada, for the Defendant to appear to show cause as to why he should not be held in contempt for failure to comply with the Order of this Court.

 

IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant shall produce the ordered documents at the February 3, 2016 hearing.

html

 

 

8. †Nope. He failed to produce the documents and he failed to appear.

 

2/3/16

Court

Order Holding Defendant in Contempt of Court

html

 

This matter is before this Court pursuant to Plaintiff s Motion to Show Cause Regarding Contempt and Ex Parte Motion For Order Shortening Time filed on January 14, 2016. Thereafter, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause on January 22, 2016. A hearing was held on the matter on February 3, 2016. Present on behalf of Plaintiff was Adam McMillen, Esq. Defendant failed to appear.

 

Based on Defendant's failure to comply with this Court's Order and additionally failing to appear before this Court, Defendant is in contempt of this Court pursuant to NRS 22.010.

 

Therefore, based on the foregoing and good cause appearing,

  

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant shall be held in contempt of Court, a bench warrant shall be issued, and the Plaintiff is duly awarded his attorney fees incurred as a result of the contempt.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

and

 

2/3/16

Court

Warrant of Arrest

html

 

TO THE SHERIFF OF CARSON CITY, NEVADA:

 

An Order adjudging Defendant in contempt of court and Order Issuing of Arrest Warrant having been heretofore entered by the Judge of the above-entitled Court.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of this Warrant of Arrest, you are hereby commanded to arrest the above-named Defendant, and bring him before this Court, pursuant to NRS 22.010; 22.040; 22.050 and 22.100.

 

That the said Defendant, REZA ZANDIAN aka GOLAMREZA ZANDIANJAZI aka GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN aka REZA JAZI aka J REZA JAZI aka G. REZA JAZI aka GHONOREZA ZANDIAN JAZI, may be released pending a hearing or by the posting of bail, cash only, in the sum of $100,000.00. Extradition Nevada/California only.

 

WITNESS my hand this 3rd day of February, 2016, and I direct that this Warrant may be served at any hour of the day or night.

 

ATTEST: SUSAN MERRIWETHER

Clerk of the First Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Carson City

 

By_________________† Deputy

 

 

Things are not looking good for Zandian.

 

That is REZA ZANDIAN aka GOLAMREZA ZANDIANJAZI aka GHOLAM REZA ZANDIAN aka REZA JAZI aka J. REZA JAZI aka G. REZA JAZI aka GHONONREZA ZANDIAN JAZI.

 

Has anyone seen Zandian lately?

 

Does anyone know where he hides his money?

 

 

M.† The Nevada Supreme Court dismissed Zandianís appeal of the District Courtís Order to appear for a Debtorís Examination and to produce documents.

 

Appellant concedes that no statute or rule specifically provides for an appeal from the order at issue, but argues that the order constitutes a special order after final judgment pursuant to Gumm v. Mainor, 118 Nev. 912, 59 P.3d 1220 (2002) because it "affects the Appellant's rights relative to Respondent's rights to execute the judgment." We disagree. "[T]o be appealable under NRAP 3A(b)(2), a special order after final judgment must be an order affecting the rights of some party to the action, growing out of the judgment previously entered. It must be an order affecting rights incorporated in the judgment." Id. at 914, 59 P.3d at 1221; see also Wilkinson v. Wilkinson, 73 Nev. 143, 145, 311 P.2d 735, 736 (1957) (the order "must affect the rights of the parties growing out of final judgment."). Any rights respondent has to execute upon the judgment arise out of the final judgment itself, not from the order directing a debtor's examination.

 

As a result, we conclude that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal, and we

 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED.[FN1]

 

[FN1] We deny as moot appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw.

 

03/04/2016

Order/Dispositional

 

Filed Order Dismissing Appeal. "ORDER this appeal DISMISSED." fn1[We deny as moot appellant's counsel's motion to withdraw.] NNP16D-MC/MD/MG

 

16-07061

 

html

 

 

We moved to have the Supreme Court sanction Zandian for his frivolous appeal.

03/11/2016

Motion

Filed Motion for Sanctions

 

16-07804

 

html

 

 

The Supreme Court said No.

04/01/2016

Order

Order Denying Motions

 

16-10297

 

html

 

 

 

N.†† We filed a Motion to Void Zandianís Dirty Deeds.

 

05/03/16

Margolin

Motion to Void Deeds, Assign Property, For Writ of Execution, and to Convey (Motion, Affidavit of Adam McMillen, and Exhibits - 302 pages)

html

 

Zandian failed to Oppose it.

 

And then this happened.

 

06/02/16

Canet

Notice of Pendency of Chapter 15 Petition for Recognition of a Foreign Proceeding

html

 

 

 

 

06/03/16

Court

Notice of Bankruptcy Filing and Automatic Stay

html

 

 

 

 

†††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††††

 

Zandian used to own a company in France called Computer World. He also owned a Computer World in the U.S.

 

Computer World in France went bankrupt and the French Court ordered Zandian to personally pay the companyís debts, up to 20M francs.

 

This order of the French Court is dated April 3, 1998. Patrick Canet is the French Liquidation Attorney assigned to collect the judgment from Zandian.

 

At the time, and during times since then, Zandian has owned significant assets in the U.S. (Optima Technology Corporation in California and property in Nevada).

 

Both California and Nevada law permitted Canet to domesticate his foreign-country judgment against Zandian and seize Zandianís assets.

 

Why did Canet wait 18 years to do this?

 

Consider that:

 

1.† Of the judgment of up-to 20M francs, Bank Melli was owed 19M francs. That is 95% of the judgment.

 

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

 

3.† The sanctions against Iran (31 CFR 560 and Executive Order 13599) prohibited sending the Government of Iran any money either directly or indirectly. Persons (including natural persons and entities such as companies) were required to block such attempts. There were civil and criminal penalties for failing to follow these laws.

 

If Canet had attempted to seize Zandianís assets, sell them, and send the money (95% of it) to Bank Melli he would have been breaking the law and been subject to civil and criminal penalties in the U.S.

 

4.† Although most of the sanctions against Iran have been lifted (in 2016) not all of them have been lifted, including the prohibition against sending money to the Government of Iran either directly of indirectly.

 

Why is Canet breaking the law now?

 

Perhaps with our Motion to Void Deeds he saw his opportunity to get Zandianís Nevada properties slipping away and he decided to take the chance that no one would notice that he was committing an illegal act.

 

Canet failed to disclose to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court that Bank Melli is the largest creditor in the French action. Indeed Jeffrey Hartman (Canetís U.S. attorney) has consistently failed to provide us with information we have asked for.

 

I am the one who discovered that Bank Melli is the largest creditor, that Bank Melli is on the EO 13599 List, and that sending them money is still illegal.

 

I also discovered that Hartman also represents Zandian. Click here.

 

As an Article III Court the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada should respect the express wishes of Congress (31 CFR ß560) and the Executive Branch

(Executive Order 13599) unless it finds a Constitutional reason for setting them aside.

 

The actions in U.S. Bankruptcy Court are here.

 

 

References

 

31 CFR 560: http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title31/31cfr560_main_02.tpl

 

Executive Order 13599: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Pages/13599_list.aspx

 

Direct link to 13599 List: https://www.treasury.gov/ofac/downloads/13599/13599list.pdf

For a mirrored copy click here.

 

FAQ: What sanctions are still in place: https://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/sanctions/Programs/Documents/jcpoa_faqs.pdf

For a mirrored copy click here.

 

Penalties for violating 31 CFR and EO 13599 are in 31 CFR 560.701 - Penalties.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/560.701

 

 

Jed Margolin

Virginia City Highlands, Nevada

Last Updated 10/20/2016