Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct

The Lawsuit – CV 2017-055490 Cont…
  U.S. BANK – Subpoena duces tecum  In June 2018, the Casavellis requested a copy of the subpoena from U.S. Bank’s legal department.
 On July 6, 2018 Casavelli’s received a letter from U.S. Bank from the legal records coordinator Peggy Moore inclosing a copy of the alleged subpoena served and a copy of an alleged affidavit of service of process.
 Neither of these documents had the Casavellis seen before before and prior counsel had no knowledge of the documents either.
 The Casavellis then placed a call to U.S. Bank legal department and spoke with Ms. Shannon Miltner.
 Ms. Miltner stated how the documents were obtained by Bryan Eastin. This method is not in compliances with the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 45 (d) Service.
 Ms. Miltner stated on February 21, 2019 (telephone conversation, recorded and transcribed), Bryan Eastin contacted one of U.S. banks administrator and sent a copy of the subpoena and Ms. Miltner was sure with a copy of the subpoena was a “proof of service”.
 Bryan Eastin contacted Ms. Miltner again on March 12, 2019, requesting from U.S. Bank N.A. an affidavit in the attempt to validate the alleged served subpoena.
 Ms. Miltner complied and sent Bryan Eastin the affidavit requested.
 The affidavit Ms. Miltner sent displayed the date of March 12, 2019, and the accompanying letter depicts Brian Eastin emailed the forged subpoena and forged affidavit of service to U.S. Bank on November 9, 2017.
 Bryan Eastin has not submitted any documentation that validates actual service of process of the subpoena upon U.S. Bank.
 The Casavellis have requested a copy of “all the documentation provided by U.S. Bank”, Bryan Eastin has not complied.
 After Ms. Miltner received the email from Bryan Eastin and Bryan Eastin attested that he served the alleged subpoena upon U.S. Bank in Arizona, Ms. Miltner was directed to fulfill the subpoena by the bank administration.
 According to Ms. Miltner no subpoena was served upon the bank.
 Knowing these actions are illegal and obtaining the Casavelli’s financial information from both banks with the intent to cause the Casavellis financial damage.
 Bryan Eastin, Provident law, Donna J. Johanson, estate of Gary T. Johanson, Garpdon LLC and Johanson family revocable trust, recklessly distributed the Casavelli’s personal and business private information obtained by the use of forged and supplemental fraudulent documentation submitted to BBVA bank and U.S. Bank.
 These acts by the people named above resulted in misappropriating trade secrets.
 The Casavellis business accounts were obtained from BBVA bank and U.S. Bank.
 Subsequently, one or all of the Bryan Eastin, Provident law, Donna J. Johanson, estate of Gary T. Johanson, Garpdon LLC and Johanson family revocable trust, discovered the Casavellis contracted employer.
 Bryan Eastin sent or directed a copy of the complaint to be sent containing intentional misrepresentations and filed in the state court action to the Casavelli’s contracted employers, with the allegations contained in the complaint, the Casavellis employment was terminated.
 The sub-contracted work the Casavellis performed, was outsourced work for a wellknown entertainment company, who does not/did not want their sources/resources for production of intellectual copyrighted material made public.
 A private cause of action exists under 18 U.S. Code § 1836.

 The alleged documents provided by U.S. Bank and submitted into discovery by Brian Eastin in April 10, 2018, vastly differ in amount and content.
 These documents Defendant Brian Eastin had in his possession from November 2017 (actually August 2017) to April 2018.
 Without the Casavellis’ counsel or Plaintiffs knowledge.
 The Casavellis have noticed alteration in these financial records allegedly belonging to the Casavellis.
 The Casavellis requested a rule 16 conference, judge Bruce R. Cohen set a hearing for April 8, 2019. At the hearing Brian Eastin stated to judge Bruce R. Cohen “…in regards to the allegations that we manufactured or did anything fraudulent, we categorically deny Your Honor. It’s absurd. Um, I brought with me, if you would like to see it, the internal check we issued to have two subpoenas issued on the date stated for these two subpoenas. I have a receipt from the Maricopa County Court indicating that two subpoenas were issued.”
 There is two problems with this receipt. First, Subpoena prices was $30.00 dollars.
 Second, Eastin stated “the process server (John Root) obtained and served” the Subpoenas. The name: atty Christopher Charles/ Johanson does not appear on the alledged check that alledgelly paid for the subpoenas.
 The Clerk of the court puts the name of the purchaser (the person in front of them at the counter) on the receipt if they put a name on the receipt.
 Additionally, subpoenas are available to members of the state bar 24 hours a day. Also, the clerk of the superior court in maricopa county states; “you must already have an OPEN case in the Superior Court of Arizona.” A case is considered “open” when the service of process or acceptance of service is filed with the clerk of the court. Bryan Eastin’s forged Court seals on the Fake subpoena.

 The request for rule 16 conference is in the minute entry, however, no discussion was made concerning the issues of the subpoenas in regards for the rule 16 conference, confirmed by the official “FTR” court video recordings.
 These documents, Brian Eastin, Donna J. Johanson, estate of Gary T. Johanson, Garpdon LLC and Johanson family revocable trust are indicating to be true, were submitted in efforts to validate the forged subpoena to BBVA bank and the subpoena to U.S. Bank to be genuine, these documents, are known to be forged.

The Lawsuit
  U.S. BANK – Subpoena duces tecum 
 
 Statements from Shannon Miltner (paralegal for U.S. Bank) contradict what Brian Eastin stated to the court concerning these documents, although, declared by Brian Eastin as to be true and correct and how he obtained the alleged subpoena. It Was’nt.
 On May 7, 2019 the Casavellis filed a request for rule 16 conference again, to address to the court (Judge Bruce R. Cohen) about the forged documents contained in the 11th disclosure statement disclosed on March 28, 2019 by Brian Eastin, Donna J. Johanson, estate of Gary T. Johanson, Garpdon LLC and Johanson family revocable trust.
 On May 23, 2019 the court denied the Casavelli’s request for rule 16 conference in regards to the forged documents.
 The Court violated the Casavelli’s 14th amendment, due process and equal protection rights for the court’s refusal to acknowledge the forged documents and the fraud committed by Bryan Eastin, Donna J. Johanson, estate of Gary T. Johanson, Garpdon LLC and Johanson family revocable trust (Johanson et. al.
 The Casavellis requested information from the clerk of the court as to how many subpoenas had been issued in this litigation, this was requested in person at the Northwest courthouse in surprise Arizona on August 24, 2020.
 The clerk of the court stated they had a record for receiving payment for only four subpoenas in the state court action as of August 24, 2020. The Casavellis had four subpoenas issued.   Assignment of Interest

 Other forged documents have been submitted by Bryan Eastin, Donna J. Johanson, estate of Gary T. Johanson, Garpdon LLC and Johanson family revocable trust, on February 12, 2020, in a response to, the Casavellis’ motion to supplement pleadings to counterclaim, Bryan Eastin submits as exhibit “A” a document named “IRREVOCABLE ASSIGNMENT OF CLAIM”.
 The Casavelli’s “reply to motion to supplement pleadings to counterclaim” dated February 26th 2020, this document was addressed to the court as being forged.
 This document was forged by Brian Eastin and was not disclosed until more than two years after the litigation was initiated.
 The purported entity on the assignment of claim, Gary T. and Donna J. Johanson claim to be trustees of “Johanson Family Trust ult/a December 31, 1999”, was a trust originally formed in Chicago Illinois, and the new or restated family trust in Arizona in 2006 to “Johanson Family Revocable Trust dated 5/26/2006”, this is the trust name associated with Garpdon LLC and listed on the Arizona Corporation commission “ACC” website.
 This is also the entity named as manager (Johanson Family Revocable Trust) for Garpdon LLC at the time of formation on November 28, 2011, to current date.
 Gary T. Johanson (now the estate of Gary T. Johanson) and Donna J. Johanson, would know the name of their family trust.
 This irrevocable assignment of claim alleges that Garpdon LLC is assigning all its interest to Gary and Donna Johanson.
 According to the Arizona Corporation Commission this is not possible without filing documentation of assignment of interest with the Arizona Corporation Commision (“ACC”).
 If the purported assignment of interest did occur, with filing the necessary documentation of assignment of interest, this would be effectively closing the LLC.
 Bryan Eastin is claiming it’s possible to make this type of interest assignment without filing the necessary documentation of assignment of interest with the ACC.
 First of all, this is not possible because the wrong entity is assigning interest and would be rejected by the ACC, furthermore, this does not relieve Garpdon LLC of liability (until the assignee[s] apply and become members of the LLC), and does not validate any assignment of interest (until interest assignment and membership to the LLC is filed with the ACC.), because no assignment of interest was filed with the Arizona Corporation commission.
 Simply, the Johansons as members of the LLC can’t assign interest from the LLC to themselves as non-members for the purpose to file any legal claims assigned from Garpdon LLC to the Johanson personally without becoming members of Garpdon LLC, without membership to Garpdon LLC, the Johansons do not have legal standing to persue any legal claims from an LLC as non-members. Only the LLC has legal standing to file claims for the assignment of interest to the assignee[s], until the assignee[s] become members.
 What Eastin is trying to do is state; The Johansons are members of Garpdon LLC (Johansons are members of the “Johanson revocable Family Trust” which is the manager of Garpdon LLC.) and are assigning their interests from Garpdon LLC as members to themselves as individuals. This maybe legal if there was other members in the LLC (there isn’t), by assigning their interest to themselves, in essence, removes the Johansons as members and removes their legal standing to any legal claims that may have been assigned to the Johansons personally. To have legal standing, the Johansons would have to apply to Garpdon LLC for membership of the LLC, the LLC’s members (the Johansons) would have to grant membership to the Johansons, this can’t happen because the Johanson signed away their interest. The problem with this is, the Johansons are the only members and their manager being a trust cannot have interest in Garpdon LLC.
 What Eastin is attempting to do is relieve Garpdon LLC of any liability because of the assets Garpdon LLC has and the conflict of interest of Nick Casavelli being agent for Garpdon LLC (through an operating agreement) and Eastin’s legal representing Garpdon LLC and Nick Casavelli prior to the filing of this lawsuit (CV 2017-044590). As it stands, only Garpdon LLC has legal standing to persue any alledged legal claims in the litigation CV 2017-044590.
 Bottom line, by the Johansons assigning interest to themselves, removed any rights related to the assigned interest from them as owners/members and prohibited them from granting themselves membership to the LLC as Assignees of interest because this act would close the LLC for lack of members of the LLC. Ownership of an LLC is by member ownership, the LLC as a structure has no interest or ownership only it’s members.
  What Eastin did by claiming the Johansons assigned their interest to themselves, was legally remove any rights to any alledged claims that the LLC may have alledgely had.

 The Casavellis filed a motion on January 23^rd., 2020, “Objection for failure to prosecute in the name of the real party in interest” and a response was filed on February 12, 2020 by Brian Eastin and Defendants Donna J. Johanson, estate of Gary T. Johanson, Garpdon LLC, Johanson family revocable trust, by the defendants are stating that the assignment is completely legal.
 The Arizona Corporation commission says it is not.
 A replied was filed on February 26, 2020.
 The State court action dismissed the motion concerning the document[s] “irrevocable assignment of claim” stating the reasons being, the statement or motion was not supported by an affidavit or declaration.