Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct

The Lawsuit (Cont…)
  The Subpoena (Cont…)
 Both U.S. Bank and BBVA Bank have denied being served any subpoena[s] by Brian Eastin or the Johansons.
 At Gary and Donna Johansons’ request and after Bryan Eastin sends the forged subpoena to the local branch, BBVA bank representative Luis Cota under the supervision of manager Ignacio Herrera (branch manager) produced in September 2017, the alleged documents disclosed by Eastin and Johansons.
 The Casavellis noticed immediately the Bank records had been altered.
 Bank of America, BBVA Bank and U.S. Bank, refuted Eastin’s statements of “validly obtained and served” by the production of subpoena histories obtained by the Casavellis via subpoena duces tecum on May 14, 2019.
 The subpoenas was served individually on both Banks.
 BBVA bank denied the production of documents to any subpoens in a complaint made by the Casavellis to the Alabama’s State Banking Department (BBVA’s licensure).
 The Casavelli’s complaint to the Alabama State Banking Department, returned the results from statements by BBVA Bank Legal Department, that BBVA Bank did not respond to any subpoenas claiming to be served by the Johansons or Brian Eastin, related to the Maricopa County Superior court litigation.  The Casavellis had requested in the subpoena[s] served on the Banks, subpoena histories (any subpoena[s] served to the banks from CV 2017-55490) with the production of documents from the banks (Bank of America and BBVA Bank), the subpoena histories do not show a subpoena was ever served upon any Bank by Gary and Donna Johanson or Bryan Eastin.
 Bryan Eastin, first drew attention to the forged documents on September 13, 2018.
 At a telephone hearing judge Cohen ordered Bryan Eastin to disclose copies of the alleged subpoenas duces tecum allegedly served upon the financial institutions to Plaintiffs.
 Bryan Eastin claiming to Judge Bruce R. Cohen on November 9, 2018 to have obtained not only his clients financial records, claimed as well the Casavelli’s financial records.
 Bryan Eastin stated to Judge Bruce R. Cohen on April 8, 2019, that he (Bryan Eastin) served the subpoenas on both financial institutions.
 Bryan Eastin alleges multiple parties financial documents was produced all from one subpoena to each financial institution.
 Four days after the telephone hearing on September 13, 2018, Bryan Eastin disclosed alleged conformed copies of the two subpoenas duces tecum.
 The subpoenas duces tecum allegedly stamped by the court purporting to being issued or approved by the court on October 19, 2017.
 Upon further inspection of the conformed copies submitted by Bryan Eastin to the Casavellis, the alleged court stamp reading “copy” appeared to have identical spacing from the signature line and indented with identical spacing on the signature line.
 Overlaying these two alleged conformed copies, one could easily see the alleged court stamps were identical, and identically spaced on the signature line.
 These actions created the questions of whether or not the subpoenas were actually served upon the financial institutions.

 Upon inquiry with the financial institutions, BBVA Compass Client Care Solutions representative Tina Demopoulos, stated in an email response, dated Wednesday, June 27, 2018 1:40 PM; “BBVA Compass will not make a statement about how the Plaintiffs’ (Bryan Eastin) attorney got account information because we do not know”.
 In a phone conversation, the Bank representative, Tina Demopoulos stated “the bank did not respond to any subpoenas in this litigation”.
 On June 12, 2018 at 5:20 PM, Plaintiffs received a telephone call (phone call recorded and transcribed) from Tina Demopoulos, BBVA Compass client care solutions representative, Ms. Demopoulos stated in the conversation, she wanted touch base, in regards to the alleged subpoena and stated; “from what our records show, we do not show that there was a Subpoena issued”.
 On June 15, 2018, the Casavellis at 8:39 am, received another call (Transcription) from BBVA bank representative Tina Demopoulos. From the outset in this telephone conversation Ms. Demopoulos reminded Plaintiffs that we were on a recorded line.
 In this conversation Ms. Demopoulos states, the bank; “we don’t have any idea how the other attorney got that information”.
 After receiving this information from BBVA bank representative Tina Demopoulos two complaints were made on July 10, 2018 contemporaneously with the State of Alabama, State Banking Department and the Federal Reserve, who forwarded the complaint to the consumer financial protection Board (Complaint # 180718-3327435) on July 19, 2018.
 A response to the complaint was issued from the Consumer Financial Protection Board on August 1, 2018 with BBVA stating “Bank records indicate that in June 2018, you spoke with a representative in our Client Care Solutions Department regarding bank records you believed were improperly obtained by an attorney for the Plaintiff in a lawsuit.
 You were advised that we contacted our Subpoena Department who stated they did not respond to any subpoenas for this suit.
 You requested the Bank to provide a written statement concerning how the Plaintiff’s attorney received your account information; however, the Bank was unable to comply with that request because after a thorough investigation we have been unable to determine how the Plaintiff’s attorney received that information.”
 State of Alabama State Banking Department (BBVA’s licensure) received Plaintiffs complaint on July 19, 2018, after the state Banking Department review, a response was given to the complaint on August 27, 2018, whereas, the response; “BBVA Compass reports the bank’s Subpoena Department did not respond to any subpoenas related to this lawsuit.
 Additionally, BBVA Compass reports the bank is unable to determine how the Plaintiff’s attorney received the bank records you referenced.
 BBVA Compass recommends you contact the presiding judge to determine how the records were obtained.” 
 May 14, 2019, Plaintiffs obtained a subpoena duces tecum for BBVA bank, for production of documents and a subpoena history for all subpoenas submitted to BBVA bank from the state court litigation by any party.
 May 31, 2019, BBVA bank produces the production of documents along with the subpoena history.
 The subpoena history revealed only two subpoenas had been submitted to BBVA bank from the state court action (CV 2017-055490) both subpoenas were submitted to BBVA bank by the Casavellis.
 May 14, 2019, the Casavellis obtained a subpoena duces tecum for Bank of America N.A.
  Bank of America produce documents in compliance with the subpoena duces tecum on May 31, 2019.
 In the request for production of documents, the Casavellis requested a subpoena history of all subpoenas served on Bank of America from the state court action referenced above.
 Bank of America supplied a subpoena history in compliance with the request from the subpoena.
 The subpoena history listed only one subpoena served on Bank of America, the current one that produced the production from the request on May 14, 2019, from the Casavellis.
 Eastin then stated to the court he did not get copy of the subpoenas served upon the banks.
 This is not true.
 The Casavellis served a paper copy via USPS mail to Bryan Eastin at Provident law and placed a paper copy of the subpoenas on the Johansons front door of their residence.
 Bryan Eastin made these statements only after discovering the Casavellis requested a subpoena history.
 Bryan Eastin then requested a telephone hearing with the state court.
 The telephone hearing was granted the next day on June 14, 2019.
 Bryan Eastin lied to the court that he was not copied on the subpoena served by the Casavellis.
 At this telephone hearing Bryan Eastin asked the court to order the destruction of the production from the subpoenas and all productions from all subpoenas served by the Casavellis.
 The court did not comply.
 Bryan Eastin between June 14, 2019 and June 20, 2019, sent a forged copy of an original subpoena duces tecum allegedly served on October 19, 2017, by Bryan Eastin and the Johansons, to BBVA bank, via email or by USPS.
 BBVA upon receiving the forged subpoena, sent a copy to Plaintiffs (Nick and Nicolina Casavelli) on June 20, 2019 via certified US mail, plaintiffs received the certified mail on June 24, 2019.
 Plaintiffs noticed on the forged subpoena, the court stamp “original” and purported “Lincoln” stamp on the last page, appeared obviously forged.
 This forged subpoena was on provident law stationary.
 Accompanying the forged subpoena was a document “service of process transmittal” purporting to be from CT Corporation address to BBVA bank.
 This document has a handwritten production number of 10-17-2287, written on the top center of the page.
 This information from BBVA bank caused further investigative action to be taken and incurring more cost to Plaintiffs i.e. subpoenas, process servers, certified mail, legal research, consultant fees, research with Arizona Corporation commission etc. Bryan Eastin and the Johansons intended to engage in the conduct described with actual knowledge of the illegal activities.
 Bryan Eastin committed this action in the attempt to have BBVA bank alter their Business Bank records to include the forged subpoena, as to appear on a subpoena history if requested.
 BBVA bank did not comply. Due to the actions of Bryan Eastin, transmitting the forged subpoena to BBVA bank, then BBVA forwarding the forged documents to Plaintiffs.
 Plaintiffs obtain another subpoena on June 27, 2019 with a request of information from BBVA bank of any and all information concerning all information of the production pertaining to 10-17-2287 ( Bryan Eastin claiming ownership of #10-17-2287 file/production number), and requesting a subpoena history of all subpoenas received, fulfilled or not fulfilled, in the state court litigation. BBVA complied and produce documents on July 2, 2019, the production of documents contained 40 pgs. of assorted documents referencing three subpoenas in the history only, all served by the Casavelli’s.
 On February 8, 2019, Plaintiffs had obtained a subpoena and served upon BBVA bank requesting “any and all records” related to the Casavelli’s financial accounts.
 Monday, March 4, 2019, BBVA bank fulfilled the subpoena request.
 When requesting the documents from BBVA bank, the Plaintiffs used the exact template Bryan Eastin allegedly used to obtain financial records from BBVA bank. Only the necessary account numbers and names were changed to create a near exact duplicate (the Plaintiffs copy had to contain the verbiage of a need for a translator for the recipient of the subpoena) of the alleged subpoena duces tecum, requesting the same documentation in the same time frame requested allegedly subpoenaed by Bryan Eastin.
 The documentation supplied by BBVA bank contained a notarized affidavit of electronic business records.
 Stating what documents were produced and the quantity of 670 pages.
 Comparing the affidavit issued by BBVA bank to Plaintiffs production of documents, to the affidavit allegedly issued by BBVA bank to Bryan Eastin and the Johansons, and disclosed by Bryan Eastin on or about December 12, 2018.
 There is a vast difference in the appearance of the affidavit itself, the signature on the affidavit (signature is from the same person, Lesa Moore), the alleged subpoena number handwritten on the affidavit and the page count.
 The page count on the Casavelli’s subpoena requesting their own bank records in February 2019, is 670 pages, the page count on the alleged affidavit issued by BBVA bank disclose by Bryan Eastin and his clients page count is 970 pages.
 On March 28, 2019 contained in the Johanson’s 11th disclosure statement, contained a document purported to be an invoice from BBVA bank. The invoice contains BBVA Compass Letterhead, has Bryan L Eastin of provident law, and Provident laws address. With the subject; RE: 10-17-2287/Garpdon, LLC, GarpdonLLC is not a litigant party, and in compliance with Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure could not have obtained a subpoena duces tecum from BBVA bank.
 Further review of the disclose financial documents (Johanson’s initial disclosure statement) in April 2018 (unsigned and not dated) discrepancies were noticed in deposit amounts and dates of deposits from both financial institutions (U.S. Bank, BBVA bank) that Bryan Eastin’s alleged subpoenas were served upon.