Dan Rozansky and others at Stroock, Stroock and Lavan are alleged to have been involved in, and perhaps spearheaded, the David Molner and Paul Parmar extortion plot against David Bergstein. Bergstein later filed a lawsuit against Parmar and Molner in response to said extortion plot (see attached complaint.)
In prior articles (http://www.lasplash.com/publish/Film_106/david-bergstein.php and http://www.lasplash.com/publish/Film_106/david-bergstein-vs-molner.php) we have covered the incredible scorched earth campaign launched by David Molner against David Bergstein in early 2010. By utilizing the Aramid Entertainment Fund’s remaining cash under his control, Molner seemingly spent tens of millions of dollars to hire or bribe dozens of individuals enlisted as part of a scheme to cripple David Bergstein and rob Bergstein’s entertainment related assets that were held in various controlled entities. Recall from our prior articles that David Bergstein’s long time in-house attorney, Susan Tregub, was hired by David Molner to act as a double agent within Bergstein’s organization. Molner seduced Tregub with grandiose promises and money, and together they began an intimate physical relationship one year prior to the March, 2010 launch of the involuntary filings initialed by Molner. Tregub and Molner met as a result of Tregub’s representation of Bergstein in litigation matters then existing between Bergstein and Molner. In addition to the physical relationship they shared, Molner compensated Tregub with funds from the Aramid Entertainment Fund which was under his exclusive control. Recent discovery indicates that Tregub was paid additional compensation, including a $500,000 referral fee from David Neale, the bankruptcy firm that Molner retained to represent Aramid. Tregub not only worked with Molner to devise and implement his legal strategy (which included destroying or stealing selected physical and digital records from within Bergstein’s organization), she also sifted through Bergstein’s thousands of business and personal contacts and directed Molner to those parties who would best serve to benefit Molner’s campaigns. With the more than ten years of knowledge she accumulated by working for Bergstein, Tregub was able to direct Molner to the best suited participants for Molner’s plan, and in fact directly solicited the carefully chosen targets for Molner’s scheme. From Bergstein’s vast relationships, Tregub profiled over 70 ideal targets suited for Molner’s scheme, comprised of adversaries, business partners and attorneys. One such target chosen by Tregub and ultimately enlisted by David Molner was Paul Parmar.
As with the other participants in Molner’s scheme, Parmar was carefully chosen based on his character, economic situation and vulnerabilities. At the time of Molner’s initial approach to Parmar, Parmar was in a state of financial collapse. Parmar owed millions in taxes, virtually all of his investments had failed, he was in arrears on all of his major obligations (including his $20 Million home mortgage), and was defending many litigations while unable to pay his attorneys, thereby resulting in substantial judgments against him. Parmar was in desperate need of money and financing for his then proposed business ventures. Molner initially approached Parmar by contending that Bergstein would soon be in personal bankruptcy and would eventually become incarcerated. Molner told Parmar that if he would assist in his efforts, Parmar would be handsomely rewarded, with Molner providing a range of benefits including financing for Parmar’s business endeavors and movie projects.
At that time, Bergstein was under the belief that he and Parmar were on good terms. Bergstein was in fact assisting Parmar both in the resolution of his litigation problems and by providing financing for some of Parmar’s business ventures. For a period spanning from 2010 through 2012, Bergstein was in constant communication with Parmar. During this period, unbeknownst to Bergstein, Parmar was acting as a double agent for Molner. Parmar used his personal relationship with Bergstein to funnel information back to Molner. Parmar’s primary obligation to Molner was to provide him with information that would impair Bergstein’s financial condition and reputation. Among other aspects, Parmar’s role in Molner’s scheme included generating negative press, engineering negative internet search results for Bergstein, delivering information to Molner (including illegally recorded conversations) and interference with Bergstein’s businesses and professional relationships. Molner and Parmar carefully organized subversive attacks on Bergstein, and his ongoing business. Molner also capitalized on Parmar’s expertise in IT, and Parmar’s IT outsourcing operations in India. Parmar used this expertise to defame Bergstein on the internet, ultimately culminating with strategic targeting against David Bergstein’s Wikipedia page -- an effort which began in March of 2012 and has continued to the present-day (see attached email.)
During the period which Parmar worked for Molner, Parmar illegally recorded hundreds of hours of his personal conversations with Bergstein and -- unbeknownst to Bergstein -- contemporaneously shared the contents of those recordings with Molner.
Throughout the period in which the calls were illegally recorded, Bergstein funded Parmar over $7 million for business ventures that turned out to be fraudulent. When it became apparent to Bergstein that Parmar never had any intention of providing any value for the $7 million, Bergstein demanded a return of the capital and informed Parmar that there would be no more money. Through an elaborate scheme which appears to have been engineered by Dan Rozansky of Stroock, Parmar informed Bergstein of the existence of the aforementioned tapes. Discovery obtained in 2013 revealed that it was the intent of Parmar and Molner to extract an additional $5 million from Bergstein in exchange for ostensibly destroying the tapes, but nonetheless further utilizing the tapes to assist Molner’s scheme.
Bergstein refused to pay the $5 million, ultimately filing a complaint for extortion against Parmar and Molner in 2013. Bergstein also obtained an order sealing the tapes on account of them having been obtained through illegal recordings (see attached.) After the filing of the extortion complaint and Bergstein’s refusal to pay the blackmail, Molner violated the court order sealing the tapes, and together he and Parmar arranged for the tapes to be delivered to the Hollywood Reporter.
For over two years following Molner’s initiation of the involuntary proceedings against the Bergstein entities in March of 2010, the judge presiding over bankruptcy cases issued numerous devastating rulings against Bergstein based on the allegations made by Molner. However, by the beginning of 2013, Molner’s fortunes were being reversed. Up until that point in time, Molner was simply able to make representations to the BK court of Bergstein’s alleged bad acts. Molner’s representations were given credence by the court because of the support given to Molner by the US Trustee assigned to the cases, and the press Molner had engineered. However, after three years of delays, the time came for Molner to provide proof for the allegations. None existed. It turned out that none of the allegations or assertions made by Molner could even be substantiated enough to survive a motion to dismiss. It was ultimately revealed that not only were all of Molner's allegations against Bergstein false, but that none of Molner’s entities were ever even real creditors in the bankruptcy cases initiated by Molner. The entire basis for the filings were fraudulent. Once Judge Russell realized this, the only way for Molner to continue is his plan of endless litigation was to find a way to get rid of Judge Russell and start with a new judge, which at a minimum would result in years of delay.
Molner devised a plan to have Judge Russell recused. The plan involved delivery of edited portions of tapes engineered to make it appear that Bergstein was influencing the Judge. Molner’s theory was that since Bergstein was trying to influence Judge Russell, impartiality would no longer exist. Despite a court order sealing the tapes and prohibiting their used based on illegality, Molner and Parmar arranged for the delivery of manipulated portions of the illegal tape recordings to Molner’s press partner Alex Ben Block of the Hollywood Reporter. Despite being notified in advance by Bergstein’s counsel that the tapes were sealed, and being provided with an order sealing the tapes, Ben Block published an article making allegations that Judge Russell may have been extorted which included a copy of the recordings. Ben Block represented through his article that the tapes were unsealed when in fact no such order existed (Bergstein ultimately sued the Hollywood Reporter for their role in this and their overall participation in Molner’s scheme. – see attached complaint.) Molner then used the article as a basis to file a recusal motion to have Judge Russell removed from the case. The recusal was denied, and Judge Russell noted in court that he had no doubt that Molner engineered the article in an effort to oust Judge Russell (transcript attached.) Russell insinuated that Molner’s entire scheme should be of interest to law enforcement.
During the pendency of the Tregub state court action which took place from 2010 until the end of 2012, Molner, Rozansky and Stroock were ordered to produce certain documents, including emails. Compliance with the discovery orders would have included email traffic evidencing that Molner and Stroock were involved in the scheme to use the illegally recorded tapes to further Molner and Parmar’s interests. However, none of the materials that Molner or Stroock produced in response to the court ordered discovery contained any evidence implicating Molner and Stroock.
In November of 2012, Tregub was placed into bankruptcy after a $50 million judgment was rendered against her for her role in Molner’s scheme. In 2013 and 2014, as part of the court ordered discovery in the Tregub BK case, Stroock was ordered to produce certain documents which would have substantiated, among other things, Molner’s, Stroock ‘s and Rozansky ‘s involvement in the illegal recording and extortion. Once again, Molner, Rozansky and Stroock failed to produce what was ordered. Due to overwhelming evidence that Tregub was not properly complying with discovery orders, and the fact that she deleted documents (including emails) from her computer, the BK judge ordered her third party email hosting company to turn over her email files to the trustee in Tregub’s BK case. From the files produced by Tregub’s email provider, the trustee in the Tregub case discovered a treasure trove of information, and it was revealed that Tregub, Molner, Rozansky and Stroock violated both the state and federal court orders to turn over documents.
The production, which was obtained as a result of the Tregub BK (and in regards to other litigation with Parmar), indicated that Rozansky and Stroock were an integral part of the extortion plot by Molner and Parmar. Email traffic indicates that Rozansky devised a plan to attempt to whitewash the illegally recorded tapes in such a fashion that Stroock could then utilize them. Additionally, Rozansky concealed production which Parmar made to Stroock, revealing other bad acts relating to Bergstein and the extortion.
Evidence obtained after the fact revealed that in 2012, Rozansky devised a plan where, in an unrelated case, Stroock would serve Parmar with a broad subpoena which by its nature would require Parmar to deliver any documents concerning Bergstein, including audio recordings. Rozansky could thereafter claim that whatever he received pursuant to the subpoena, including the tapes, was something unknown to him before the production under the subpoena. Rozansky clearly knew that it was illegal in California to record telephone conversations, and to make use of those tapes to extort money. However, Rozansky could whitewash the use of the tapes so that he could claim he simply received them during discovery.
At the time that Parmar was served with the subpoena from Stroock, Bergstein did not know that Parmar and Molner had been working together for years, or that the conversations were being recorded. Parmar was still pretending to be Bergstein’s friend. Upon receipt of the subpoena, Parmar contacted Bergstein and asked Bergstein to assist him with finding legal representation to defend Parmar in the subpoena. Bergstein provided a New York attorney (Paul Neihaus) to represent Parmar. When Parmar visited Neihaus, he told Neihaus that in fact he (Parmar) did not need representation for the deposition, but instead directed Neihaus to tell Bergstein that unless Bergstein paid Parmar $5 million, Parmar would deliver to Molner a series of tapes he had recorded that would be damaging to Bergstein. Parmar played the tapes for Neihaus (this is all covered in the attached complaint.) However, email traffic obtained a year after the fact in the discovery efforts discussed above revealed that by the time the subpoena was served, Parmar had already given the tapes and transcripts to Rozansky and Molner. Tregub and her associate, Teri Zimon, revealed to Bergstein in 2013 that the plan Molner and Parmar devised was for Parmar to extract $5 million from Bergstein, and then Parmar would inform Bergstein that Molner and Rozansky already had the tapes. The intent of Parmar and Molner was to both take the money and utilize the tapes.
Rozansky and Molner in fact had the tapes prior to the subpoena, and serving the subpoena was simply a way for Stroock to claim they received the tapes unwittingly and thereafter quickly utilize them before Bergstein had a chance to do something about it. In addition, during the production that Parmar provided in response to the subpoena, Parmar provided thousands of other documents (including emails) evidencing Parmar’s wrongdoings against Bergstein. Parmar willingly provided this information to Rozansky pursuant to the subpoena in order to assist Molner's efforts. This was part of the quid-pro-quo between Parmar and Molner. After delivering the materials to Rozansky, Parmar then instructed Rozansky not to provide the documents to Bergstein. Once received by Rozansky, Rozansky had a legal obligation to deliver copies to Bergstein. However, Parmar instructed Rozansky to return the documents to Parmar without providing them to Bergstein – a request that Rozansky complied with despite his obligation to turn over copies to Bergstein, in order to further conceal the truth.
In furtherance of Molner’s paper cut strategy of drowning Bergstein with a myriad litigation, Parmar filed several frivolous litigations against Bergstein and his affiliates. In total, Molner and his affiliates filed over 100 lawsuits against Bergstein and his affiliates in state and federal courts around the county. The cases filed by Parmar were not only quickly dismissed with prejudice, sanctions of over $200,000 were issued against Parmar personally in New Jersey (see attached order and court transcript.). In addition, there are several motions pending against Parmar for further monetary sanctions in both state and federal court, as well as a request for a criminal reference against him.
Bergstein reported to us that he intends to add Rozansky and Stroock as codefendants in the extortion case shortly.