Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Donna Geck Sets Trial Date In Michael Johnson vs RR Auction
January 17, 2017

“Johnson: Investigator?”

Jain


Click for larger image

The adjacent email was sent August 28, 2016 by Anita Jain. Anita Jain is the latest in a long line of attorneys who have represented and currently represent Defendant RR Auction in the Michael Johnson vs. RR Auction matter in Santa Barbara Superior Court.

The recipient of Anita Jain’s August 28, 2016 email is Nathan Hodges. Nathan Hodges is an attorney in Bakersfield, California and, allegedly, general counsel for a company Plaintiff’s father Lloyd Johnson founded in 1991. Mr. Hodges, currently represents the company as a Defendant in an action Plaintiff’s father brought in 2011.

The subject box of Anita Jain’s August 28, 2016 email to Nathan Hodges states: Johnson: Investigator?

Plaintiff believes the subject title of Anita Jain’s August 28, 2016 email to Nathan Hodges to mean that RR Auction is moving to set-up surveillance on Plaintiff in Bakersfield, California.

Anita Jain’s email begins asking Nathan Hodges if he has “a recommendation for an investigator to do surveillance for us in the Bakersfield area”.

Plaintiff believes “us” referenced by Anita Jain is Defendant RR Auction.

Anita Jain’s email concludes: “It looks like CKC is remaining as counsel in our case”.

Plaintiff believes “our case” referenced by Anita Jain is Defendant RR Auction.

Anita Jain refers to Nathan Hodges as “Nate” inferring that her August 28, 2016 email correspondence was not the first between Anita Jain and Nathan Hodges. The substance of Anita Jain’s email further appears to show Nathan Hodges has previously provided Anita Jain with private and confidential information about Plaintiff’s father’s health.

Anita Jain’s August 28, 2016 email was filed on or about August 29, 2016 by Nathan Hodges in Kern County Superior Court and is public record.

Convicted Felon William Boehm, Mastro Auction previous Director of Information Technology and identified “shill bidder” in numerous Mastro Auctions is named in the below videotaped deposition clips of RR Auction defendant Bobby Livingston and Defendant RR Auction employee Elizabeth Otto as RR Auctions off-site online auction manager.

CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE REJECTS RR AUCTION THIRD BID
FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER AGAINST MICHAEL JOHNSON

DEFENDANT RR AUCTION
MOTION FOR RENEWAL
OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

PLAINTIFF MICHAEL JOHNSON
OPPOSITION TO RR AUCTION
RENEWAL OF PROTECTIVE ORDER

RR AUCTION
REPLY TO
OPPOSITION

READ SANTA BARBARA
SUPERIOR COURT
JUDGE DONNA GECK’S RULING

1 - Superior Court of the County SB Tenative Rulings

RR Auction Loses Bid For Protective Order Against Michael Johnson

Read Santa Barbara Superior Court Judge Donna Geck’s Ruling

FEDERAL JUDGE REJECTS RR AUCTION BID FOR RECONSIDERATION IN NEW HAMPSHIRE LAWSUIT AGAINST MICHAEL JOHNSON

Read United States District Court District of New Hampshire Federal Judge Paul J. Barbadoro’s Ruling

RR Auction Autograph Expert and PSA/DNA Authenticator, John Reznikoff, identified as “shill bidder” in Mastro auction Federal Criminal Case November, 2015. RR Auction autograph expert, John Reznikoff,  also identified as “shill bidder” in RR Auction monthly auctions by past RR Auction employee Karen Burris in her March 13, 2008 affidavit.

New York Daily News Mastro “Shill Bidding” Article
Click Image below to view full article

yankee-Shill

Mastro Auctions Shill Bidding Documents
Click image to view full PDF

Mastro list 53

Karen Burris Affidavit
Click image to view full PDF

Karen Burris Affadavit

William Boehm Indictment
Click image to view full PDF

William Boehm Inditement

About this Lawsuit

This web site has been established to provide a venue in which interested parties may learn more about this case which is currently in litigation in Santa Barbara Superior Court. Interested parties and the general public are invited to read the complaint that was filed in this case as well as read additional information relating to the case. This web site also offers interested parties and the general public the ability to contact the attorneys who represent the Plaintiff in this matter with any questions, comments or concerns they may have.

This web site in no way seeks or attempts to disparage, embarrass, humiliate, attack, injure, slander, libel or defame the defendants in this case. The purpose of this website is to explain to interested parties and the general public the facts on which the Plaintiff filed his lawsuit.

Read More About the Case and Read the Complaint >>