One who intends to leave others better off for his having existed.

10/28/13

Hartzman v. Wells Fargo; Response to Wells' motion to quash subpoenas; Part 1



“Each of the “subpoenas” contains a vague, unduly burdensome request for production of documents concerning information which is completely irrelevant to this action.”

“The subpoenas are vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and request production of documents concerning information which is, in part, irrelevant to this proceeding, or is privileged.”

“Mr. Hartzman’s purported subpoenas seek information outside the scope of discovery.”

Wells Fargo
.
.
Wells Fargo doesn’t identify what specific information requests are irrelevant, meaning “all” of “Each of the “subpoenas” are “completely irrelevant to this action”.

Wells Fargo uses a stereotypical generalization characterizing “Each of the “subpoenas”, meaning “all” of the requested information is irrelevant.

Wells Fargo is saying “all” aspects of “all” the subpoenas are seeking “information outside the scope of discovery”, therefore, if any of the information requested is relevant or inside the scope of discovery, then all the requests are valid, by Wells Fargo’s logical premise and conclusion.

Wells Fargo doesn’t identify which specific aspects of which subpoenas are outside of “the scope of discovery”, meaning the “scope of discovery” argument appears to be false, as Wells Fargo fails to provide explanation of how “all” the requests are outside “the scope of discovery”.
.
.
“the subpoenas issued lack specificity, are vague as to the documents being requested, request privileged information, are overly broad, and request information which is not “relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding” as required by 29 CFR 18.14”

Wells Fargo
.
.
From Attachment A, Wells subpoena signed by Judge Krantz on 11/13/2013;

“Please provide “the independent review” and determinations of “Mr. Hartzman’s allegations regarding both “secret” loans and Envision [that Wells Fargo concluded] were meritless”, which Wells Fargo refused to provide George Hartzman and the Department of Labor’s William Peterson, Regional Investigator, USDOL-OSHA - Raleigh Area Office, of which the same issues were “extensively researched” in NC Securities Division File No. 12 SEC 84, in which North Carolina Securities investigators thought enough of to contact both the SEC and FINRA and forward the file on to federal authorities through official channels.”
.
.
Complainant’s subpoena is specific and not “vague as to the documents being requested”, as Wells Fargo claims all the subpoenas “lack specificity “ and are vague, meaning Wells Fargo’s argument to quash all the subpoenas is specious, and should be denied.
.
.
“The subpoenas are vague, overly broad, unduly burdensome, and request production of documents concerning information which is, in part, irrelevant to this proceeding,
or is privileged.”

Wells Fargo
.
.
29 CFR 18.14 - Scope of discovery states; “Unless otherwise limited by order of the administrative law judge in accordance with these rules, the parties may obtain discovery regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding, including the existence, description, nature, custody, condition, and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter.

…A party may obtain discovery of documents and tangible things …only upon a showing that the party seeking discovery has substantial need of the materials in the preparation of his or her case and that he or she is unable without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent of the materials by other means.

In ordering discovery of such materials when the required showing has been made, the administrative law judge shall protect against disclosure of the mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of a party concerning the proceeding."
.
.
Wikipedia states "...The United States Supreme Court has stated that by assuring confidentiality, the privilege encourages clients to make "full and frank" disclosures to their attorneys, who are then better able to provide candid advice and effective representation.

Although there are minor variations, the elements necessary to establish the existence of the attorney client privilege are:

The asserted holder of the privilege is (or sought to become) a client; and …in connection with this communication, is acting as an attorney; and …The communication was for the purpose of securing legal advice.

There are a number of exceptions to the privilege in most jurisdictions, chief among them:

The communication was made in the presence of individuals who were neither attorney nor client, or was disclosed to such individuals, the communication was made for the purpose of committing a crime or tort, the client has waived the privilege (for example by publicly disclosing the communication)."
.
.
As made clear on the following [documentation provided by Wells Fargo], From the background portion of Attachment A, Wells subpoena signed by Judge Krantz on 11/13/2013, Wells “retained an independent outside firm to review your allegations, …the investigator has now completed the independent review and concluded there is no merit to any of your concerns,” meaning Hank Sanchez of Oyster Consulting wasn’t acting as an attorney for Wells Fargo, but as an “independent outside” “investigator” “(with no oversight by WFA)”.

From the Wells Fargo July 23, 2013 final warning;


“…the investigator has now completed the independent review and concluded that there is no merit to any of your concerns.”

From Wells Fargo attorney Gregory Keating’s communications with the Department of Labor;


If Wells Fargo hired an “independent outside” “investigator” “to review your allegations” “(with no oversight by WFA)”, and publicly cited the review as evidence in documents filed with the DOL, the investigator was not operating under an attorney client privilege if he was acting independently and not as an attorney, as Wells Fargo did not hire his services for legal advice, but for impartiality.

As Wells Fargo publicly disclosed the communication and outcome of Mr. Sanchez’s determination, which is central to Wells Fargo’s assertion there was no merit to “any of my concerns, Wells Fargo has forfeited its right to any privilege regarding the disclosure of communications and conclusions by Hank Sanchez and/or Oyster Consulting.
.
.
Government/regulator approved insider trading and securities fraud involving Federal Reserve loans no one knew about except for a select few including some at the top who profited.

I have made everything public as the powers that be have little interest in addressing the issue, which would implicate most of the boards and executives at the largest financial institutions, their auditors and our captured regulatory infrastructure.
.
.
Securities and Exchange Commission Subpoena and Motion for the recusal of SEC Chair Mary Jo White
.
http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/10/securities-and-exchange-commission.html
.
Subpoena; Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, with some Matt Taibbi emails and SEC Chair Mary Jo White
.
http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/10/subpoena-public-company-accounting.html
.
FINRA Subpoena on Wells Fargo Envision Plans
.
http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/10/finra-subpoena-on-wells-fargo-envison.html
.
Hartzman v Wells Fargo Subpoena; Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
.
http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/10/hartzman-v-wells-fargo-subpeona-board.html
.
Hartzman v Wells Fargo Advisors Subpoena; Brian Mixdorf, Certified Fraud Examiner, Wells Fargo Corporate Investigations
.
http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/10/hartzman-v-wells-fargo-advisors.html
.
Hartzman v Wells Fargo Subpoena; FBI's Economic Crime Unit Division of the Department of Justice
.
http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/10/hartzman-v-wells-fargo-subpoena-fbis.html
.
Hartzman subpoena for an "third party" investigative review which "Wells Fargo refused to provide"
.
http://hartzman.blogspot.com/2013/10/hartzman-v-wells-fargo-advisors-llc.html

No comments: