Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
* IN THE
MITUL R. PATEL *
* MARYLAND CIRCUIT COURT
Plaintiff *
* FOR BALTMORE CITY
v. *
* Case #: 24-C-16-003573
MATHEW CHAN *
*
Defendant *
*
COMES NOW, Defendant Matthew Chan (referred as Mathew Chan in the above
caption) who hereby submits to the Court supplemental exhibits in support of "Defendant's
Response to Intervenor's Motion to Intervene & Motion to Strike Judgment" filed on October 24,
2016.
1. Defendant submits articles published by the Providence Journal (Exhibit A), Public
Citizen's Consumer Law & Policy Blog (Exhibits B & C) and Washington Post's Volokh
Conspiracy (Exhibit D). In summary, the articles support and reveal the following:
A. Through the Rhode Island case, Bradley Smith v. Deborah Garcia, it has been
reported that Richart Ruddie, through his companies, filed forged documents on behalf
of his clients to obtain fraudulent consent orders, similar to the one filed against the
Defendant in this case. A copy of a check by one of Ruddie's companies was found to
District Attorney for the District of Rhode Island to open an investigation. In fact,
there is now a federal investigation into Richart Ruddie. (Following the release of the
most recent Public Citizen article [Exhibit C], Defendant placed a call to the US
Attorney's Office in Rhode Island to speak with a prosecutor. Defendant was informed
C. It is reported that Ruddie settled the Rhode Island case for $71,000 in a non-
produce documents that might reveal the knowledge and involvement his clients had
about the fraudulent lawsuit / fraudulent consent order scheme. Ruddie allegedly
settled the matter in that case to shield his clients from further discovery and scrutiny
in a civil claim. It is reported that Ruddie insisted on protecting his clients for
obtained consent orders lifted. One such case is in the Baltimore City Circuit Court,
Smith v. Levin, 24-C-15-0047889. (Defendant expects there will be new filings in the
E. It has been reported there are approximately two dozen other cases throughout the
U.S. with fraudulently-obtained consent orders that Ruddie was involved with.
Reportedly, part of Ruddie's obligations is to help resolve and lift the fraudulent
consent orders for each of those cases. (Exhibit C) [Defendant anticipates that Ruddie
may intervene in this case in the near future to support dismissing this case and
-2-
2. Although Defendant's new exhibits do not materially alter Defendant's earlier requests
from this court, Defendant hopes that the Court will take into account the breadth of new
information uncovered and appropriately exercise its full powers and authority to remedy
the situation to dissuade others who might consider such illegal and fraudulent actions in
the future.
3. Intervenor Mitul Patel stepped forward on September 21, 2016 in his "Motion to
emphasizes that Patel only did so after he was caught by Defendant (with the assistance
of Yelp) presenting a fraudulently-obtained consent order from this court to Yelp. In fact,
Patel's emails to Yelp shows when he emailed the fraudulently-obtained consent order to
Yelp and specifically requested Yelp to remove Defendant's consumer review of Patel.
(Previously submitted as an exhibit on October 24, 2016 but resubmitted here as Exhibit
Defendant's negative consumer review of his experience about Patel's business practices
4. Subsequently, the revelation of Patel's scheme against Defendant directly caused a chain
of events which ultimately led to the public reporting of this fraudulent consent order
scheme and compelled Defendant to unilaterally come forward and attempt to clean up
(Exhibits A, B, C, D), Defendant makes the additional request from the Court that
Intervenor Mitul Patel be instructed to preserve all communications, letters, emails, faxes,
-3-
other communication records, contracts, agreements, and any other business records in
Defendant feels this request is both necessary and reasonable as this court, another court,
A. Vacate the consent iudgment order and dismiss the case with prejudice with costs
B. Refer the matter to an investigative agency or authority this Court deems appropriate;
C. Instruct Intervenor Mitul Patel to preserve all letters, emails, faxes, other
contractors or any other person or entity that was involved in the filing of this
D. Such other and further relief the Court deems just and proper under the
circumstances.
-4-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that I have this 16th day of March,2017 mailed a copy of the
via First class
foregoing DEBENDAIIT'S SUBMISSION OF SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS
postage prepaid to the following:
-5-
EXHIBIT A
EXHIBIT B
EXHIBIT C
EXHIBIT D