{00642054.DOC;1 }

ROBINSON BROG LEINWAND GREENE

GENOVESE & GLUCK P.C.

875 Third Avenue

New York, New York 10022-0123

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-------------------------------------------------------x

GRANGE CONSULTING GROUP, MD : SUPERIOR COURT

TABLET and PARMJIT SINGH OF NEW JERSEY

PARMAR, :

CHANCERY DIVISION

Plaintiffs, MONMOUTH COUNTY

:

-against- Docket No. C-0085-12

: Docketed Judgment

GRISHMA GANGAR, PINEBOARD No. J30694-13

HOLDINGS, INC., ROBERT B. :

SILVERMAN, ALBERT HALLAC, AFFIDAVIT OF PLAINTIFF

WESTON CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, : PARMJIT SINGH PARMAR IN

LLC, ANYTIME BUSINESS OPPOSITION TO JUDGMENT

CONSULTING, EDWIN MARTINEZ, : CREDITORS’ MOTION TO

SOVRIN HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC. ENFORCE THE JUDGMENT AND

and LAWRENCE TWERSKY, : IN SUPPORT OF CROSS-MOTION

TO STAY ENFORCEMENT

Defendants. : OF THE JUDGMENT

-------------------------------------------------------x

COUNTY OF NEW YORK )

) ss.:

STATE OF NEW YORK )

PARMJIT SINGH PARMAR, being duly sworn, deposes and says:

1. I am a plaintiff in this action together with two companies, Grange

Consulting Group (“Grange”) and MD Tablet (“MDT”). I submit this affidavit: (a) in opposition

to the motion by the Defendants for turnover of funds, sale of assets and entry upon property

(“Defendants’ Asset Turnover Motion”); and (b) in support of Plaintiffs’ cross-motion to stay

enforcement of the judgment entered in this action.

{00642054.DOC;1 }

2. I met David Bergstein the principal strategist for the Defendants

(“Bergstein”) approximately 7 years ago when Bergstein, who previously had to file for personal

bankruptcy, came to New Jersey with his hat in hand desperate for money to finance a new deal.

3. Despite hearing from countless people that Bergstein could not be trusted

and that he never pays people back, I provided Bergstein with a 10 million dollar loan to be used

for the making of the movie “Before the Devil Knows Your Dead”. I made the loan because

David provided me with diligence, including pre sales data showing revenue of in excess of 18

million dollars and thus it was my understanding that my money would be paid back in full

shortly.

4. The movie by all accounts was highly successful, making in excess of 50

million dollars. Despite the films profitability I was never paid back, and I have come to

understand that Bergstein diverted the films profits internationally. Attached as Exhibit 1 is an

email from Bergstein diverting monies to a foreign corporation in lieu of paying back his debt

obligations. The ten million dollar loan to date remains unpaid.

5. Over the next 6 months Bergstein proceeded to borrow in excess of 47

million dollars from me. To date all principal, fees, penalties, and interest remain unpaid.

6. I considered Bergstein to be a friend and treated him like a family member

often having him come to my home in New Jersey and helping him out of many difficult

financial times, always putting his interest ahead of my own, and often times to my own

detriment.

7. When bankruptcy proceedings were instituted against various business

entities owned and controlled by Bergstein, Bergstein misrepresented and fraudulently induced

me under the pretext that he had made a deal with a third party investor to renegotiate my debt.

{00642054.DOC;1 }

After much debate, upon the reliance of the fraudulent statements made by Bergstein I was

induced into entering into agreements with Bergstein to renegotiate the debts that Bergstein

owed me.

8. Despite my generosity in helping to restructure Bergstein’s balance sheet,

Bergstein still refused to pay his debts to me and instead set up an elaborate scheme to defraud

and extort me.

9. I formed MDT for the purpose of developing a business that would

provide medical doctors with a service by which they could manage patient information. In

2011, I agreed to sell MDT to Defendant Pineboard Holdings, Inc. (“Pineboard”). In September

2011, I provided Pineboard with MDT ownership documents. A copy of those ownership

documents was also provided to Defendant Albert Hallac (“Hallac”) in January 2012. The

purpose of those ownership documents was to distinguish between MDT assets purchased by

Pineboard and other assets owned by me, Grange and other entities under my control.

10. Pineboard subsequently took complete possession and control of all of

MDT’s assets having a value of in excess of $50 million, but has failed and refused to pay the

full purchase price for those assets.

11. Bergstein, despite my friendship, counsel, and generosity, in continuing to

loan money to him, with the assistance of Hallac, extorted me during the period now known as

the Great Recession.

12. Bergstein and Hallac refused to wire me the 2.2 million dollars they owed

me in payments for the Pinboard transaction and waited for others who I had promised payments

to put the proverbial gun to my head.

{00642054.DOC;1 }

13. With full knowledge of my financial situation and with creditors swarming

Bergstein stated that I would only get the money he owed me from the Pinboard transaction, the

2.2 million dollars, if I released him from his other obligations that he owed me, which at that

time was approximately 100 million dollars.

14. Hallac also refused to wire the money and claimed he had issues with his

bank making the wire. In reality Hallac was working with Bergstein to delay paying me the

money I was contractually owed so that they could extort me.

15. With what I believed was no choice, I signed a partial release of the

obligation Bergstein owed me, and Bergstein, on behalf of Pinboard, wired the 2.2 million

dollars into my account.

16. The 2.2 million dollars was supposed to have been paid by Bergstein and

Hallac 90 days prior to the actual date of the wire.

17. Pineboard utilized the purchase of MDT’s assets as a pretext to enter upon

the premises occupied by MDT and other companies under my control, including Grange.

18. Pineboard utilized that entry to steal computer servers that were the

property of Grange having a value of not less than $2.75 million. Attached are the purchase and

shipping documents for four purchases of computer servers in 2008 at a cost of $482,227.90

(Exhibit 2), $178,316.00 (Exhibit 3), $288,939.45 (Exhibit 4), and $461,231.19 (Exhibit 5). The

other bills are not available as they are on the stolen servers.

19. Weston Capital, along with associates representing Hallac and two

associates of Bergstein came to New Jersey, and stole the valuable servers from Grange, all

while threatening harm to its employee Grishma.

{00642054.DOC;1 }

20. Grishma, stated that the group following orders from Bergstein “actually

threatened me” at page 2, Grishma went on to state that “they said if I contact you [Parmar] then

they will do take some action against me.” At page 4 of Exhibit 6.

21. It should be noted that Grishma was on a work permit issued by the

Homeland Security & Immigration Office to work for the company “General Health” a non-

party to the Pineboard transaction. Bergstein knew this fact and was told about the serious

consequences of breaching Grishma’s agreement with the government that any breach by

Grishma would result in her deportation. Therefore when agents of Bergstein and Hallac issued

orders to Grishma and threatened her with her job and thus deportation if she did not comply to

their wishes, they knowingly and purposely violated the H1-B government issued permit.

Bergstein’s and Hallac’s agents threatened to have Grishma deported if she notified me during

the theft of the servers. The Grishma transcript is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.

22. Bergstein, Hallac and their agents entreating into any agreement with

Grishma is a violation under the immigration laws under which work permits are issued, a fact to

which Bergstein had knowledge.

23. I then commenced the instant action as the servers contain trade secrets,

including 18 years of business emails and contacts which have been taken from me and are vital

to me being able to go back into business and work my way back up.

24. In response, Bergstein strenuously insisted that I dismiss this action and

represented and warranted that the Grange computer servers were “mistakenly” removed and

would be returned, but only after this action was dismissed.

25. Over the months of May through September, Bergstein repeatedly stated

that the only way for a settlement which would include the return of the servers and the money

{00642054.DOC;1 }

he owed me would be for me to dismiss the complaint and only after the dismissal would

Bergstein have settlement discussions.

26. From May through September Bergstein and I spoke on the phone about

the action and he continuously insisted that he would not discuss settlement without the case

being dismissed, and noted that he would aggressively respond to the complaint. In fact

Bergstein told me that “if I decide to dismiss the case and act “correctly” I have a chance of

making this right.

27. On June 28, 2012 Bergstein wrote me “You can resolve this if you want.

So do so if you mean it. All that will occur in the meantime are responses to your advances.”

This email is one of many like it and is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

28. In September, after I still had not dismissed the case, Bergstein called me

and threatened me stating that “I will not be the first one to pay a harsh penalty for this

confusion” meaning to me that I would pay a harsh penalty, be punished for not dismissing the

complaint.

29. Realizing that litigation with Bergstein is futile, and feeling continuously

threatened by Bergstein, I relied upon Bergstein’s representation of a settlement, and I directed

the attorneys representing the Plaintiffs at that time to file a notice of withdrawal of this action

without prejudice. A withdrawal notice, dated September 27, 2012, was filed.

30. Pineboard then not only failed to return the stolen servers but also

promptly filed a motion for an award of sanctions against Grange, MDT and me.

31. “Defendants’ Notice of Motion for Sanctions Arising Out of Frivolous

Litigation” was dated October 17, 2012 (“Sanctions Motion”), and was supported by a

certification of Alex M. Weingarten, Esq. (“Weingarten”), dated October 15, 2012,

{00642054.DOC;1 }

(“Weingarten Certification”) The Sanctions Motion was filed against all three Plaintiffs: myself,

Grange and MDT.

32. Weingarten falsely certified that: “On September 27, 2012, Plaintiffs

dismissed this action, without prior notice or any communication of such intent.” Id., at ¶ 4.

33. The instant action had only been pending since May 30, 2012, but the

Weingarten Certification claimed that Defendants had incurred attorneys’ fees through

September 30, 2012 in the amount of $125,467.00. Id., at ¶ 7. Weingarten then filed a

supplemental certification, dated November 12, 2012, certifying that:

“From October 1, 2012 through October 31, 2012, additional

Weingarten Brown fees and costs in the amount of $26,035.13

were incurred by Defendants in connection with this matter. In the

month of October 2012, Weingarten Brown attorneys and staff

members billed approximately 73 hours in relation to Plaintiffs’

frivolous claims.”

See Supplemental Certification of Alex M. Weingarten, Esq. in Support of Defendants’ Motion

for Sanctions Arising Out of Plaintiffs’ Frivolous Litigation, sworn to on November 12, 2012, at

¶ 1. This Court entered a judgment for $197,320.46 (“Judgment”) noting in oral argument,

however, that the amount was “very, very high.”

34. Pineboard, together with the other Defendants, was seeking an award of

attorneys’ fees against a company that it had purchased, and whose assets it had taken possession

of, but as to which Pineboard had failed to pay the full purchase price. Pineboard was also

seeking an award of attorneys’ fees against Grange, a company with which it had no involvement

whatsoever, other than the fact that Pineboard had utilized the purported MDT purchase to steal

all of the computer servers on the premises occupied by MDT, Grange and other companies

under my control.

{00642054.DOC;1 }

35. The reason that Pineboard wanted all of the computer servers was that

principals of Pineboard, including Bergstein, Silverman and Hallac, believed those computer

servers would contain recordings of telephone conversations that I had with Bergstein.

36. Pineboard and its principals have failed to pay the full purchase price for

MDT, a company having at least $50 million in assets, and have stolen Grange computer servers,

a company which is independent from the Pineboard transaction and a company to which Parmar

never owned, having a value of not less than $2.75 million. Having been unjustly and illegally

enriched by millions of dollars of assets, Pineboard and its principals are attempting to enforce a

judgment for $197,320.46 in attorneys’ fees against me, the company that it purchased but didn’t

pay for, and a company that it didn’t purchase but whose computer servers it stole. Weingarten,

Defendants’ California attorney admitted pro hac vice in this case, filed the false Weingarten

Certification in support of that award of attorneys’ fees.

37. Moreover, those attorneys’ fees are sought in a case that I dismissed

without prejudice on the basis of the representation by Pineboard’s principal, Bergstein, that

doing so was an essential prerequisite to the return of the “mistakenly” taken computer servers.

38. This is not the first case where these attorneys and Bergstein have played

these unscrupulous tricks in an attempt to manipulate the court. In fact a Central District of

California Bankruptcy Judge stated that: “Number one, he can’t – Mr. Bergstein, aside from

everything else, could not be trusted.” See October 29, 2012 transcript of motion argument in In

re Thinkfilm, LLC, Case No. LA10-19912-BR (U.S.B.C., C.D. CA) (“Thinkfilm Action”), at p.

91, attached here to as Exhibit 8 (emphasis added).

39. The same Bankruptcy Judge later identified what was “sort of a smoking

gun” concerning Bergstein, and Bergstein’s counsel admitted: “First, the smoking gun. My firm

{00642054.DOC;1 }

is responsible and my client is responsible for whatever we file with the Court, and to put it as

clearly as I can I don’t know why the mistake was made but we made a mistake about who hired

Mr. Weinstein’s law firm.” See February 16, 2012 transcript of oral argument in In re: R2D2,

LLC, Case No. LA10-19924-BR (U.S.B.C., C.D. CA), at pp. 2/4-6 & 9/2-7, attached here to as

Exhibit 9.

40. A United States District Court Judge for the Central District of California

issued a decision quoting a judge’s statement in a bankruptcy hearing transcript that: “He asked

legitimate questions, which you basically just ignored, which shows me you’re really – Mr.

Bergstein is – it’s clear, he’s out to punish these folks as much as he can. And I’m not going to

allow the powers of the trustee to be used by him, given the history of this case and the total lack

of merits of the motion that is actually before me.” See Order Denying Appellant’s Motion for

Leave to Appeal Bankruptcy Court Order, dated May 22, 2013, in Thinkfilm Action, at p. 5,

attached hereto as Exhibit 10.

41. This Court should further be aware of Bergstein’s prior gamesmanship in

filing motions and actions. a prior Court has noted Bergstein’s penchant to “simply bring

actions”:

“This is about refusal of the information, essentially from Mr.

Bergstein and others to be candid and come forward with the

evidence.

“There’s no showing at all that there’s any damage to these

debtors. It’s clear to me. This is basically that Mr. Bergstein –

apparently the approach is that anybody who gets in his way, to

simply bring actions. I guess that can be effective, but it’s not

going to work in this Court.”

“So I don’t think there’s been any colorable claims.”

October 29, 2012 transcript in Thinkfilm Action, at p. 92/11-20, attached here to as Exhibit 11

(emphasis added).

{00642054.DOC;1 }

42. This Court should also be aware that Bergstein told me that he is trying to

reach out to a known prostitute Erica, who Bergstein claimed the Judge presiding over

Bergstein’s bankruptcy cases was seeing. Bergstein told me that he was going to have the

prostitute to give him evidence against the federal judge because Bergstein claimed the federal

judge’s rulings were “killing him” and thus Bergstein needs to get rid of the federal judge

without it looking like an extortion. It is very interesting how Bergstein could coincidently and

innocently come across this information. Attached as Exhibit 12 is the transcript in which

Bergstein told me that he had to get rid of the federal judge.

43. This Court is reminded that Bergstein himself implored me to dismiss the

Complaint countless times over a four month period promising me that he would negotiate in

good faith once the complaint was dismissed.

44. Under these circumstances, an order should be entered staying

enforcement of the Judgment. There are four specific grounds for a stay order, each of which

constitutes a fully adequate basis for issuance of a stay order.

45. First, as noted above, Pineboard and its principals have failed to pay the

full purchase price for MDT, a company having at least $50 million in assets, and have stolen

Grange computer servers having a value of not less than $2.75 million. Pineboard has been

grossly, unjustly and unlawfully enriched.

46. Second, Defendants’ Asset Turnover Motion seeks property which does

not belong to me and/or is subject to pre-existing liens in excess of in excess of $50 million

dollars.

47. Third, Defendants have already levied against my bank deposits in the

amount of $10,685.93.

{00642054.DOC;1 }

48. Fourth I am the caretaker to my 72 year old frail father and brother and

levying against my chattels will constitute an extreme inconvenience because they both depend

on me for support.

49. The Judgment therefore should be stayed and the Defendants’ Asset

Turnover Motion should be denied in its entirety.

___________________________

PAUL PARMAR

Sworn to before me this

__th day of September, 2013

_______________________

Notary Public