ETHICS PANEL
Moderator HARRY GEE, JR., Houston Harry Gee, Jr. & Associates
WAFA ABDEL ABDIN, Houston Supervising Attorney Cabrini Center for Immigrant Legal Assistance, Catholic Charities
JOHN W. OWENS, Houston Managing Attorney, Houston Consumer Protection Office Office of Attorney General
Submitted by:
JOHN W. OWENS, Houston Managing Attorney, Houston Consumer Protection Office Office of Attorney General
State Bar of Texas IMMIGRATION LAW 2004 May 6-7, 2004 Houston
CHAPTER 12
Moderator
HARRY GEE, JR.
EDUCATION
Harry Gee, Jr. graduated from Rice University with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Business Administration and Economics in 1960. Thereafter, he enrolled at the University of Texas School of Law and attained his Bachelor of Law degree in 29 months when he graduated in January of 1963.
PROFESSIONAL
He was licensed to practice on April 30, 1963 and in May was appointed as Assistant Attorney General of the State of Texas where he served in the taxation; bonds, insurance and banking; and the highway divisions under Attorney General Waggoner Carr. In 1966, he began the private practice of law in Houston, Texas. When the State Bar of Texas adopted board certification, he was among the first group of attorneys to be qualified as a Board Certified Specialist in Immigration and Nationality Law in 1979. He has chaired the Examination Committee for Immigration Board Specialization for five years. Mr. Gee has been recognized as an authority in the field of immigration law, having lectured at seminars and institutes conducted by the University of Texas, Rice University, University of Oklahoma, Texas Tech University, University of Houston and the American and the Texas Immigration Lawyers Association.
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Actively involved in various legal organizations, Mr. Gee served as President of the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, 1990-91, an organization comprised of more than 6,000 attorneys of Asian ancestry throughout the country. He has also served as a member of the Board of Governors of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, Chairman of the Texas Chapter of AILA for two years, Chairman of the Immigration and the Law Day Committees of the Houston Bar Association, and as President of the Asian American Bar Association of Houston. In 1993, he was honored by his colleagues in his election to the Board of Directors of the State Bar of Texas. His family has established a Presidential Scholarship at the University of Texas in the field of Immigration Law.
CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Gee has also served the community as the President and Chairman of the Friends of the Houston Public Library. For two years, he served on the Advisory Board of the Child Abuse Prevention Council. He has also served as President of the Chinese Professional Club and during his term of office, the club raised and made its largest contribution to its scholarship fund. Harry Gee, Jr. Page 2
For two years, he had also served as President of the Chinese American Citizens Alliance and also as a Director of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, and of the Mickey Leland Kibbutz Program.
He presently serves as a member of the board of the Greater Houston Community Foundation, the Institute of International Education, the University of Houston Law School Advisory Board and the Rice University Alumni Association Board and on the Advisory Board of Chase Bank, Houston. Mr. Gee was also a founding member of the Asian American Coalition and the Institute of Chinese Culture. He is a member of the Greater Houston Partnership Board and served as chair of the Asian Business Group. He is a Senior Fellow of the American Leadership Forum
In 1999, Mr. Gee was elected as chair of LEAP, a national organization promoting the advancement of Asians into positions of leadership within their companies, educational institutions and communities and instituting research and publication of public policy analysis germane to the Asian community. He also has been selected to join the prestigious Committee of 100.
He is presently serving as President of Sister Cities of Houston, Inc., an organization dedicated to the promotion of cultural, educational and economic interests between Houston and its thirteen sister cities throughout the world. He had previously served as president of the Houston Taipei Society for three years. Also, he is Chair of the Houston Council on Foreign Relations.
Because of his concern about education, he has served as a member of the Board of Directors of St. Thomas University, the Annenberg Challenge, the Concerned Houstonians for Effective and Superior Schools Committee, the Citizen's Initiative for Higher Education, Class Chairman of the Rice University Alumni Fund Drive, President of the Rice University Chinese Alumni Association and as an Executive Advisory Committee Member of the University of Houston Creative Partnerships Campaign.
Mayor Bob Lanier appointed Mr. Gee as a founding member of the Steering Committee of Imagine Houston and appointed him as the first Asian to the board of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. Mayor Lee Brown had appointed Mr. Gee to the Board of Houston 2012, a non-profit foundation which promoted Houston as the site of the 2012 Olympics.
FAMILY
Harry has been happily married to the former Antje Wuelfrath for more than 30 years and they are the proud parents of three children: Andrew, Claudia, and Sonja, who are 1997, 1999 and 2001 graduates of Rice University respectively. w:\home\hgee\resume\hg-bio Rev. 05/2002
Wafa Abdin
Wafa Abdin is the supervising attorney at Cabrini Center for Immigrant Legal Assistance at Catholic Charities. She graduated from the University of Houston with a J.D., and also holds an M.A. from Lamar University and a B.A. from the University of Jordan. Ms. Abdin represents low- income Immigrants in removal proceedings, asylum, VAWA, citizenship, and family petition cases before the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Immigration Court, and the Board of Immigration appeals. Among her clients are detained adults and juveniles and victims of crime seeking immigration benefits. Ms. Abdin supervises two staff attorneys, three accredited representatives, and three caseworkers in their immigration work. She gives rights presentations to the public, both on site at Catholic charities and off site at schools, community centers, and hospitals and speaks about immigration law and the rights of immigrants at conferences, trainings, and lectures.
JOHN OWENS
John Owens is currently the Office Manager of the Houston Regional Office in the Consumer Protection Division of the Texas Attorney General’s Office. John graduated from the University of Texas at Austin in 1981 with an Economics degree and then attended Baylor University School of Law, obtaining his law degree in 1984. After law school, John was twice elected as County Attorney of Henderson County where he maintained a private practice in addition to his prosecutorial functions. In May of 1991, John became an Assistant Attorney General, working in the General Litigation Division of the Texas Attorney General’s Office in Austin. In October of 1994, John accepted a position in the Consumer Protection Division, operating out of Houston, where he currently resides. John received his board certification in Civil Trial Law in December of 1997.
Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
CONSUMER PROTECTION FROM THE UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF IMMIGRATION LAW
Tex. Gov't Code § 406.017 (2003)
§ 406.017. Representation as Attorney
(a) A person commits an offense if the person is a notary public and the person:
(1) states or implies that the person is an attorney licensed to practice law in this state;
(2) solicits or accepts compensation to prepare documents for or otherwise represent the interest of another in a judicial or administrative proceeding, including a proceeding relating to immigration to the United States, United States citizenship, or related matters;
(3) solicits or accepts compensation to obtain relief of any kind on behalf of another from any officer, agency, or employee of this state or the United States;
(4) uses the phrase "notario" or "notario publico" to advertise the services of a notary public, whether by signs, pamphlets, stationery, or other written communication or by radio or television; or
(5) advertises the services of a notary public in a language other than English, whether by signs, pamphlets, stationery, or other written communication or by radio or television, if the person does not post or otherwise include with the advertisement a notice that complies with Subsection (b).
(b) The notice required by Subsection (a)(5) must state that the notary public is not an attorney and must be in English and in the language of the advertisement and in letters of a conspicuous size. If the advertisement is by radio or television, the statement may be modified, but must include substantially the same message. The notice must include the fees that a notary public may charge and the following statement:
"I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN TEXAS AND MAY NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE OR ACCEPT FEES FOR LEGAL ADVICE."
(c) It is an exception to prosecution under this section that, at the time of the conduct charged, the person is licensed to practice law in this state and in good standing with the State Bar of Texas.
(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e) of this section, an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has previously been convicted under this section.
(f) Failure to comply with this section is, in addition to a violation of any other applicable law of this state, a deceptive trade practice actionable under Chapter 17, Business & Commerce Code.
1 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
OFFICE of the ATTORNEY GENERAL
GREG ABBOTT
April 9, 2003
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL 7000 1670 0009 4018 7778
Amnistia Confidencial 1550 Hawkins, Suite 7 El Paso, Texas 79925
Re: Legislation Affecting Notaries Public
Dear Business Owner:
As of September 1, 2001, Texas law specifically forbids notaries public from preparing immigration documents and from providing immigration counseling or legal advice of any kind. The new law provides for stiff fines for anyone who violates it and repeat offenders can now face criminal charges and jail time. Enclosed for your information is a description of the law and its penalty provisions.
From the advertising you present to the public, it appears that you may be in violation of this law. You will be given thirty (30) days from the date of this letter to bring yourself and your business into compliance. Our office will be vigorously enforcing this law.
Although, the Office of the Attorney General cannot represent or provide legal advice to individual consumers or businesses, we will gladly assist with any questions that arise regarding the enforcement of the new law.
Sincerely,
James A. Daross Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division El Paso Regional Office 401 E. Franklin, Suite 530 El Paso, TX 79901 915/834-5800
2 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
OFFICE of the ATTORNEY GENERAL
GREG ABBOTT
May 15, 2003
Mr. ______Director, Avenida América CERTIFIED MAIL # ______3801 N. Capital of Texas Highway, Suite E240 Austin, TX 78746
Dear Mr. Puente:
The "Páginas Amarillas de Austin" published by your company contains a section "Notarios Publicos" that could be deceptive. In Texas, a notary is someone licensed to witness the signing of legal documents. In most Latin American countries, however, a "notario" implies that the person is a licensed attorney. Texas law specifically prevents notaries from providing any type of immigration service unless they hold a separate license to practice law.
Moreover, Texas law prohibits a notary from using the phrase "notario" or "notario publico" to advertise the services of a notary public, whether by signs, pamphlets, stationary, or other written communication or by radio or television. If a notary advertises the services of a notary public in a language other than English, the advertisement must contain a notice that the notary public is not an attorney and must include the following statement "I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY LICENSED TO PRACTICE LAW IN TEXAS AND MAY NOT GIVE LEGAL ADVICE OR ACCEPT FEES FOR LEGAL ADVICE." TEX. GOV’T CODE § 406.017.
While Avenida América may not have intended to deceive the users of its Páginas Amerillas de Austin, the heading on page 90, "Notarios Publicos" is contrary to the letter and the spirit of the law intended to protect Spanish-speaking consumers. I have enclosed a copy of the page in question for your convenience.
I request that you take steps to address the reference to "Notarios Publicos" in the Páginas Amerillas de Austin. Please contact me within ten business days of receipt of this letter to inform the Office of the Attorney General what steps you have taken to remedy this situation.
Sincerely,
Leela R. Fireside Assistant Attorney General Austin Regional Office Consumer Protection Division Office of the Attorney General of Texas
Tel: (512) 475-4233 Fax: (512) 473-8301
3 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
OFFICE of the ATTORNEY GENERAL
GREG ABBOTT
April 4, 2000 VIA HAND DELIVERY
Hilda Ybarra Hernandez P.O. Box 1015 La Blanca, TX 78558
RE: Statutory Notice Prior to Lawsuit
Dear Mrs. Ybarra:
Pursuant to Section 17.47(a) of the TEXAS BUSINESS AND COMMERCE CODE, notice is hereby given that the following described conduct is believed by the Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division, to constitute a deceptive trade practice in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.41 et seq. (Vernon 1987 and Supp. 1999)(hereinafter “DTPA’), namely:
Representing that you can get legal resident status and a work permit for consumers who are ineligible for legal resident status or a work permit in the United States; and
Failing to disclose that you services would be ineffectual to achieve legal resident and work status for consumers who are ineligible for such status.
The Consumer Protection Division may request civil penalties of $2,000 per violation of this act, not to exceed a total of $10,000, an injunction to restrain and prevent violations of the act, attorney’s fees, court costs, and such orders or judgments as are necessary to restore money or property which may have been acquired by means of any unlawful act or practice.
The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer Protection Act authorizes this office to institute court action seven days after you are contacted and informed of the alleged unlawful conduct.
Sincerely,
Ric Madrigal Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division
4 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
NO. C-647-00-C
THE STATE OF TEXAS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § § v. § § HILDA YBARRA HERNANDEZ § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS d/b/a YBARRA’S IMMIGRATION § SERVICES AND § RODOLFO JAVIER JUAREZ, § d/b/a THE LAW OFFICE OF § RUDY JUAREZ, § 139th JUDICIAL DISTRICT Defendants §
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED ORIGINAL PETITION AND APPLICATION FOR INJUNCTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW THE STATE OF TEXAS, Plaintiff in the above-entitled and numbered cause, acting by and through Attorney General of Texas JOHN CORNYN, and files this first amended original petition, complaining of
HILDA YBARRA HERNANDEZ, doing business as YBARRA’S IMMIGRATION SERVICES, and RODOLFO
JAVIER JUAREZ, doing business as THE LAW OFFICE OF RUDY JUAREZ, hereinafter referred to as Defendants, and for cause of action would respectfully show:
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
1. The discovery in this case is intended to be conducted under Level 2 pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 190.2(b)(3).
NATURE OF THIS SUIT
2. The Attorney General, acting within the scope of his official duties under the authority granted to him under the
Constitution and the laws of the State of Texas, brings this lawsuit in the name of the State of Texas through his
Consumer Protection Division against Defendants for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices - Consumer
Protection Act, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 17.41, et seq. (Vernon 1987 and Supp.1999) (hereinafter “DTPA”).
The DTPA grants authority to the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief and civil penalties for violations of its provisions. TEX. BUS. & COM CODE ANN. § 17.47.
5 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
DEFENDANTS
3. Defendant HILDA YBARRA HERNANDEZ (“Ybarra”) is an individual doing business in Hidalgo County,
Texas, under the assumed name of YBARRA’S IMMIGRATION SERVICES, and resides at Mile 19 ½ Road on Farm
Market Road 493, La Blanca, Texas, 78558, Hidalgo County, Texas. Defendant Ybarra has been served with process and has answered. No service of process is necessary at this time.
4. Defendant RODOLFO JAVIER JUAREZ (“Juarez”) is an individual doing business in Hidalgo County, Texas, under the name of The Law Offices of Rudy Juarez, and residing in Hidalgo County, Texas. Defendant Juarez may be served with process at 3309 North 27 ½ Street, McAllen, Texas 78501.
JURISDICTION
5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to § 17.47(b) of the DTPA.
VENUE
6. Venue of this suit lies in Hidalgo County, Texas, for the following reasons:
A. Under TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM . CODE ANN. § 15.002(a)(1) (Vernon Supp. 1999), venue is proper because
all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the county of suit; and
B. Under DTPA § 17.47(b), venue is proper because Defendants have done business in the county of suit.
PUBLIC INTEREST
7. Plaintiff STATE OF TEXAS has reason to believe that Defendants are engaging in, have engaged in, or are about to engage in, the unlawful acts or practices set forth below, that Defendants have, by means of these unlawful acts and practices, caused damage to and acquired money or property from persons, and that Defendants adversely affects the lawful conduct of trade and commerce, thereby directly or indirectly affecting the people of this State. Therefore, the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas believes and is of the opinion that these proceedings are in the public interest.
TRADE AND COMMERCE
8. Defendants have, at all times described below, engaged in conduct which constitutes “trade” and “commerce,” as those terms are defined by § 17.45(6) of the DTPA.
6 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
ACTS OF AGENTS
9. Whenever in this petition it is alleged that Defendants did any act, it is meant that Defendants performed or participated in the act, or that the officers, agents or employees of Defendants performed or participated in the act on behalf of and under the authority of Defendants.
NOTICE BEFORE SUIT
10. The Consumer Protection Division contacted Defendant Ybarra in writing to inform her in general of the alleged unlawful conduct at least seven days before this suit was filed, as may be required by § 17.47(a) of the DTPA.
11. The Consumer Protection Division did not inform Defendant Juarez of the alleged unlawful conduct prior to filing the lawsuit because Defendant Juarez was not a named defendant at the time the original petition was filed. The factual bases for bringing this lawsuit against Defendant Juarez for violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices -
Consumer Protection Act, by joining and naming him as a party-defendant in this lawsuit, were discovered through discovery conducted in this case subsequent to the filing of this lawsuit.
NATURE OF DEFENDANTS’ OPERATIONS
12. Defendant Juarez is an attorney who was licensed to practice law in Texas1, and Defendant Ybarra holds herself out as “Immigration Specialist.” Defendants purport to provide immigration services to persons seeking legal immigrant status, but sold their services to Mexican nationals who are ineligible to immigrate legally into the United States.
SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
13. Defendant Ybarra owns and operates a business that purports to provide immigration services to persons who purchase her services. Defendant uses the name of “YBARRA’S IMMIGRATION SERVICES” to conduct business and represents herself to be an “Immigration Specialist.” She advertised her business primarily by word-of-mouth and distributes a business card, a copy of which is attached hereto as State’s Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein for all purposes. Her office is located in a mobile home in rural Hidalgo County, Texas.
14. On or about January 1998, Defendant Juarez entered into an agreement with Defendant Ybarra whereby
Defendant Juarez appointed Defendant Ybarra as his “agent for the management and administration of the business
1 Defendant Juarez’s license to practice law in Texas was suspended in May 1999 for failure to pay his State Occupational Tax and State Bar dues.
7 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12 functions and services related to [Juarez’s] provision of Immigration Services.” Under this written agreement, titled
“SERVICE AGREEMENT,” Defendant Ybarra was authorized to market and promote her immigration business, make contact with prospective clients, accept retainers on behalf of Defendant Juarez, conduct client interviews, collect biographical information supporting a client’s application/petition for immigration, complete clients’ applications/petitions for legal resident status and other forms and file them with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service (“INS”), maintain client files, bill and collect fees from clients, and keep financial records relating to clients’ accounts.
15. Defendant Ybarra was approached at her place of business by persons seeking to inquire about her services.
Defendant Ybarra offered her services for sale and at such time made misrepresentations to these persons in order to induce them into purchasing her services. Specifically, Defendant Ybarra misrepresented that she would get legal resident status and a work permit for those persons who purchased her services. Defendants’ clients were mainly
Mexican nationals who sought to immigrate legally to the United States, but who were ineligible for legal resident status or a work permit in the United States.
16. In reliance on Defendant Ybarra’s representations, consumers purchased her services by paying a fee of approximately $650.00. For these consumers, herein referred to as clients, Defendant Ybarra completed and issued a form document titled “Notice of Representation” (“Notice”). The photograph and fingerprint of the client was affixed to the Notice. The Notice was given to the clients for the purpose of being carried on their person and was used to notify
U.S. Immigration agents, in the event of a client’s apprehension, that the named client was being represented by
Defendant Juarez and that Defendant Juarez had filed a petition for legal resident status on the client’s behalf.
17. The Notice is a form document, primarily written in English, that was authored and signed by Defendant Juarez and printed on his law office stationery. A copy of a sample Notice is attached hereto as State’s Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein for all purposes. Even though Defendant Juarez did not know whether or not clients qualified for legal resident status or a work permit, Defendant Juarez authorized Defendant Ybarra to issue the Notices of
Representation to clients on his behalf.
18. Defendant Ybarra misrepresented to clients that the Notice would protect them from being deported if they were to be apprehended by U.S. Immigration agents. Defendant Ybarra also misrepresented to clients that this Notice would allow them to work legally in the United States while the clients’ applications for immigration were pending with the INS.
8 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
As a consequence, Defendants’ clients believed that they could work and travel legally in the United States when in fact they were subject to immediate deportation if apprehended by U.S. Immigration agents.
19. At the times Defendant Ybarra made the misrepresentations concerning her services and the Notice, as alleged in paragraphs 15 and 18 above, she was acting as an agent on behalf of and under the authority of Defendant Juarez and was acting within the scope of her authority.
20. On or about December 1998, Defendant Juarez terminated the Service Agreement with Defendant Ybarra.
Thereafter, Defendant Ybarra continued to engage in the business practices alleged above in paragraphs 13, 15, 16 and
18, except as follows. The Notice of Representation, which Defendant Ybarra issued and gave to clients who purchased her services, was not printed on Defendant Juarez stationery and was revised in minor respects. A sample of the revised
Notice, used by Defendant Ybarra after December 1998, is attached hereto as State’s Exhibit 3 and incorporated herein for all purposes.
21. At the time Defendant Ybarra offered her services for sale to persons who were ineligible for legal resident or work status in the United States, Defendant Ybarra knew her services would be ineffectual to achieve legal resident and work status for them, but failed to disclose this information concerning her services. Such failure to disclose was intended to induce these persons into purchasing her immigration services, a transaction into which these persons would not have entered had the information been disclosed.
DTPA VIOLATIONS
22. Defendants, as alleged above, have in the course of trade and commerce engaged in false, misleading and deceptive acts and practices declared unlawful in §§ 17.46(a) and (b) of the DTPA as follows:
A. By representing that they can get legal resident status and a work permit for consumers who are ineligible
for legal resident status or a work permit in the United States, Defendants are representing that their services
have characteristics, uses or benefits which they do not have, in violation of §17.46(b)(5) of the DTPA; and
B. By failing to disclose that their services would be ineffectual to achieve legal resident and work status for
consumers who are ineligible for such status, when such failure to disclose was intended to induce these
consumers into purchasing her immigration services, a transaction into which these consumers would not
have entered had the information been disclosed, Defendants are in violation of §17.46(b)(23) of the DTPA.
9 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
INJURY TO CONSUMERS
23. Defendants have, by means of these unlawful acts and practices, obtained money or other property from identifiable persons to whom such money or property should be restored or who, in the alternative, are entitled to an award of damages.
24. Because Defendants have engaged in the unlawful acts and practices described above, Defendants have violated the law as alleged in this petition. Unless restrained by this Honorable Court, Defendants will continue to violate the laws of the STATE OF TEXAS and cause damage to the general public.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited according to law to appear and answer herein; that after due notice and hearing a TEMPORARY INJUNCTION be issued; and upon final hearing a PERMANENT
INJUNCTION be issued, restraining and enjoining Defendant Ybarra, her officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and any other person in active concert or partic ipation with Defendant Ybarra from engaging in the following acts or practices:
A. Offering to render or rendering immigration services unless Defendant is recognized and certified by the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service to provide immigration services;
B. Engaging in the practice of immigration law unless Defendant is licensed to practice law by the Supreme
Court of the State of Texas or is accredited to practice immigration law by the United States Board of
Immigration Appeals;
C. Representing, direc tly or by implication, herself as an “immigration specialist,” “immigration counselor” or
“immigration consultant,” unless recognized and certified by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service
to provide immigration services;
D. Holding herself out to the public by any title or designation incorporating the word “immigration,” or an
abbreviation thereof, unless Defendant is recognized and certified by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service to provide immigration services;
E. Affixing the title or designation “Immigration Specialist,” “Immigration Counselor.” or “Immigration
Consultant” to any business card, pamphlet, stationery, letterhead, public document, or other means of
10 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
identification in conjunction with an address, place of business or telephone number of Defendant that is in
the State of Texas, unless Defendant is recognized and certified by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service to provide immigration services;
F. Advertising or promoting immigration services in any telephone directory, newspaper, magazine, pamphlet,
flier or any other medium for advertising in conjunction with an address, place of business or telephone
number of Defendant that is in the State of Texas, unless Defendant is recognized and certified by the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service to provide immigration services;
G. Showing, directly or by implication, any affiliation, connection, or association of any address or telephone
number in the United States with any immigration service in Mexico;
H. Representing, directly or by implication, that Defendant can get legal resident status and a work permit for
persons who purchase her services;
I. Representing, directly or by implication, that the Notice of Representation will protect a person from
deportation or that it allows a persons to work legally in the United States;
J. Accepting any money or other valuable consideration for providing immigration services or documents to
persons seeking to immigrate or work in the United States, unless Defendant is recognized and certified by
the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to provide immigration services;
K. Representing, directly or by implication, that this Court, the Immigration and Naturalization Service or the
Office of the Attorney General has approved any good or service sold or offered for sale by Defendant, or
approved of any of Defendant’s business practices.
In addition, Plaintiff STATE OF TEXAS respectfully prays that this Court will:
A. Adjudge against each Defendant civil penalties in favor of Plaintiff STATE OF TEXAS in the amount of
$2,000 per violation of the DTPA, not to exceed a total of $10,000;
B. Order Defendants to restore all money or other property taken from identifiable persons by means of
unlawful acts or practices, or in the alternative award judgment for damages to compensate for such losses;
C. Adjudge against each Defendant reasonable attorney’s fees and court costs pursuant to TEX. GOV’T. CODE
ANN. § 402.006 (Vernon 1990);
11 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
D. Adjudge against each Defendant prejudgment and postjudgment interest at the highest lawful rate; and
E. Adjudge that all fines, penalties or forfeitures payable to and for the benefit of the State are not dischargeable
under bankruptcy pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §523(a)(7).
Further, Plaintiff STATE OF TEXAS respectfully prays this Court for all other relief to which Plaintiff STATE
OF TEXAS may be justly entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN CORNYN Attorney General of Texas
HOWARD G. BALDWIN, JR. First Assistant Attorney General
JEFFREY S. BOYD Deputy Attorney General for Litigation
PAUL D. CARMONA Chief, Consumer Protection Division
______RIC MADRIGAL Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 12802200 Office of the Attorney General Consumer Protection Division 3201 N. McColl, Suite B McAllen, TX 78501 (956) 682-4547; Fax (956) 682-1957 Attorney for Plaintiff
12 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF HIDALGO §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this day personally appeared affiant Rozanne N. Lopez, who proved to me through current Texas Driver License to be the person whose name is subscribed to this Verification and who acknowledged to me that she executed the same, and after she was duly sworn, upon her oath, she deposed and said that the affiant is an investigator for the Office of Attorney General, and is authorized to make this affidavit, that the affiant has carefully read the allegations in the foregoing PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED PETITION, and has reason to believe that each and all said allegations are true and correct; and affiant signs this Verification, pursuant to Rule 682 of the
TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.
______ROZANNE N. LOPEZ INVESTIGATOR
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me on the _____ day of ______, 2001.
______NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS
13 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
NO. C-647-00-C
THE STATE OF TEXAS, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff, § § v. § § HILDA YBARRA HERNANDEZ § HIDALGO COUNTY, TEXAS d/b/a YBARRA’S IMMIGRATION § SERVICES AND § RODOLFO JAVIER JUAREZ, § d/b/a THE LAW OFFICE OF § RUDY JUAREZ, § Defendants § 139th JUDICIAL DISTRICT
FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
On April 1, 2002, the Court called this action for trial. Plaintiff, STATE OF TEXAS, acting by and through
Attorney General of Texas JOHN CORNYN, appeared and announced ready for trial. Defendant HILDA YBARRA
HERNANDEZ d/b/a YBARRA’S IMMIGRATION SERVICES appeared in person and through her attorney and announced ready for trial. Defendant RODOLFO JAVIER JUAREZ, d/b/a THE LAW OFFICE OF RUDY JUAREZ appeared pro se and announced ready for trial. The Court determined it had jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to this proceeding. The Court then impaneled and swore the jury, which heard the evidence and arguments of counsel. The Court submitted questions, definitions, and instructions to the jury. In response, the jury made findings that the Court received, filed, and entered of record. The questions submitted to the jury and the jury’s answers are attached as State’s Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference. Plaintiff, STATE OF TEXAS, moved for judgment on the verdict.
The Court considered the motion and renders judgment for Plaintiff STATE OF TEXAS, as set forth below.
14 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
PROHIBITORY INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that Defendant HILDA
YBARRA HERNANDEZ (“Defendant Ybarra”) and her agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert with Defendant Ybarra, who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise, are hereby permanently enjoined from engaging in or attempting to engage in the following described acts:
A. Offering to render or rendering immigration services unless Defendant Ybarra is recognized and certified
by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to provide immigration services;
B. Engaging in the practice of immigration law unless Defendant Ybarra is licensed to practice law by the
Supreme Court of the State of Texas or is accredited to practice immigration law by the United States
Board of Immigration Appeals;
C. Representing, directly or by implication, herself as an “immigration specialist,” “immigration counselor”
or “immigration consultant,” unless recognized and certified by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization
Service to provide immigration services;
D. Holding herself out to the public by any title or designation incorporating the word “immigration,” or an
abbreviation thereof, unless Defendant Ybarra is recognized and certified by the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service to provide immigration services;
E. Affixing the title or designation “Immigration Specialist,” “Immigration Counselor” or “Immigration
Consultant” to any business card, pamphlet, stationery, letterhead, public document, or other means of
identification in conjunction with an address, place of business or telephone number of Defendant Ybarra
that is in the State of Texas, unless Defendant Ybarra is recognized and certified by the U.S.
Immigration and Naturalization Service to provide immigration services;
F. Advertising or promoting immigration servic es in any telephone directory, newspaper, magazine,
pamphlet, flier or any other medium for advertising in conjunction with an address, place of business or
telephone number of Defendant Ybarra that is in the State of Texas, unless Defendant Ybarra is
recognized and certified by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to provide immigration
services;
15 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
G. Showing, directly or by implication, any affiliation, connection, or association of any address or telephone
number in the United States with any immigration service in Mexico;
H. Representing, directly or by implication, that Defendant Ybarra can get legal resident status and a work
permit for persons who purchase her services;
I. Representing, directly or by implication, that the Notice of Representation will protect a person from
deportation or that it allows a persons to work legally in the United States;
J. Accepting any money or other valuable consideration for providing immigration services or documents
to persons seeking to immigrate or work in the United States, unless Defendant Ybarra is recognized
and certified by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service to provide immigration services; and
K. Representing, directly or by implication, that this Court, the Immigration and Naturalization Service or
the Office of the Attorney General has approved any good or service sold or offered for sale by
Defendant Ybarra, or approved of any of Defendant Ybarra’s business practices.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that Defendant RODOLFO
JAVIER JUAREZ (“Defendant Juarez”) and his agents, servants, employees, and all persons acting in concert with
Defendant Juarez, who receive actual notice of this injunction by personal service or otherwise, are hereby permanently enjoined from engaging in or attempting to engage in the following described acts:
A. Engaging in the practice of immigration law unless Defendant Juarez is licensed to practice law by, and
is an attorney in good standing with, the Supreme Court of the State of Texas;
B. Appointing an agent for the provision of any immigration or immigration-related service, including but not
limited to client solicitation, client interviews, client consultations, marketing and advertising, billing and
fee collection, management, administration, financial record keeping and reporting; and
C. Representing, directly or by implication, that this Court, the Immigration and Naturalization Service or
the Office of the Attorney General has approved any good or service sold or offered for sale by
Defendant Juarez, or approved of any of Defendant Juarez’ business practices.
16 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
MONETARY JUDGMENT
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that Plaintiff STATE OF TEXAS have and recover from Defendant HILDA YBARRA HERNANDEZ the sum of $225,700.00 comprised of the following amounts:
A. The amount of $178,200.00 as civil restitution to the STATE OF TEXAS to restore money acquired by
means of false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices of Defendant;
B. The amount of $10,000.00 as civil penalties to the STATE OF TEXAS;
C. The amount of $37,500.00 as reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees to the STATE OF TEXAS in
the prosecution of this action; and post judgment interest on the sum of $225,700.00 at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this judgment until paid.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that Plaintiff STATE OF TEXAS have and recover from Defendant RODOLFO JAVIER JUAREZ the sum of $36,800.00 comprised of the following amounts:
A. The amount of $16,800.00 as civil restitution to the STATE OF TEXAS to restore money acquired by
means of false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices of Defendant;
B. The amount of $10,000.00 as civil penalties to the STATE OF TEXAS;
C. The amount of $10,000.00 as reasonable and necessary attorney’s fees to the STATE OF TEXAS in
the prosecution of this action; and post judgment interest on the sum of $36,800.00 at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of this judgment until paid.
The Court, after duly considering the evidence and the law, is of the opinion and so finds that the $9,576.74 in
United States currency seized by the Hidalgo County Sheriff’s Office and the United States Immigration and
Naturalization Service, as a result of a search warrant executed on or about April 6, 2000, at the residence of Defendant
Ybarra located at Mile 19 ½ North and FM 493, was money acquired from consumers by Defendant Ybarra by means of false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of her business. With respect to such U.S. currency,
17 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12 held by Rene Guerra, Criminal District Attorney in and for Hidalgo County, Texas, as contraband subject to forfeiture in Cause No. C-778-00-A, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that the $9,576.74 in United
States currency, together with all accumulated interest, be and is hereby forfeited to Plaintiff STATE OF TEXAS, through the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General of Texas, for the benefit of consumers, to be used to make restitution to those consumers who are victims of Defendants’ unlawful business practices.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that with respect to amounts of civil restitution that the STATE OF TEXAS may collect from Defendant Ybarra or Defendant Juarez, the review, determination and allocations of amounts of money to be restored to identifiable persons shall be within the sole discretion of the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General of Texas.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that Defendants are jointly and severally liable for all costs of court expended or incurred in this cause.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court shall issue a writ of injunction that conforms with this judgment and all legal requirements, and that Plaintiff shall have all writs of execution and other process necessary to enforce this judgment.
All relief not expressly granted herein is denied.
SIGNED on , 2002.
JUDGE PRESIDING
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
RIC MADRIGAL Assistant Attorney General State Bar No. 12802200 Office of the Attorney General of Texas Consumer Protection Division 3201 N. McColl, Suite B McAllen, TX 78501 (956) 682-4547; Fax (956) 682-1957 Attorney for Plaintiff
18 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
NO. 2003-15573
STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, § § V. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § YULIYA FROLOV, § ALEKSANDR NOVIKOV § VLADLEN BREGER d/b/a § INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOBILE § DRIVERS, § Defendants § 61st JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL VERIFIED PETITION AND EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
COMES NOW the State of Texas, Plaintiff, by and through Attorney General GREG ABBOTT (referred to herein as “Attorney General”), on behalf of the interest of the general public of the State of Texas, and complains of
Yuliya Frolov2, Aleksandr Novikov3 and Vladlen Breger, doing business as International Automobile Drivers, Defendants.
The Plaintiff would respectfully show the Court the following:
DISCOVERY
1. Discovery shall be conducted under LEVEL 2 of Rule 190.3, of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.
JURISDICTION
2. This action is brought by Attorney General Greg Abbott in the name of the STATE OF TEXAS and in the public interest under the authority granted by §§17.47 of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, TEX. BUS.
& COM. CODE ANN. §17.41 et seq. (hereinafter “DTPA”), on the grounds that Defendants have engaged in false, deceptive, and misleading acts and practices in the course of trade and commerce as defined in, and declared unlawful by the DTPA. See TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. §§17.46(a) and 17.46(b). This action is also brought pursuant to
TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 24.01 et seq. (Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act).
2 Yuliya Frolov is also known as Yoliya Frolov and Julia Frolov.
3 Alexandr Novikov is also known as Alexander Novikav.
19 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
DEFENDANTS
3. Aleksandr Novikov is an individual residing in Kings County, New York, who can be served with process by serving him at 921 Brighton 1st Road, Apt. 5B,Brooklyn, New York 11235 or alternatively at 249 Brighton Beach Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York, 11235.
4. Vladlen Breger is an individual residing in Kings County, New York, who can be served with process by serving him at 921 Brighton 1st Road, Apt. 5B, Brooklyn, New York 11235 or alternatively at 249 Brighton Beach Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York, 11235.
5. Yuliya Frolov is an individual residing in Harris County, Texas, who can be served with process at 305 Sage Road, #906, Houston, Texas 77056.
VENUE
6. Venue for this action lies in Harris County pursuant to §17.47(b) of the DTPA because Defendants resided, did business, and had their principal place of business in Harris County, Texas. Venue also lies in Harris County, Texas pursuant to TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM . CODE ANN. §15.002 (a)(1)-(3) because Harris County is the place where all or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this claim occurred, and because all of the individual
Defendants’ residences and their principal place of business were situated in Harris County at the time this cause of action accrued.
PUBLIC INTEREST
7. Because the Attorney General has reason to believe that Defendants have engaged in, and will continue to engage in the unlawful practices set forth below, the Attorney General has reason to believe defendants have caused and will cause immediate, irreparable injury, loss and damage to the State of Texas, and will also cause adverse effects to legitimate business enterprises which lawfully conduct trade and commerce in this State. Therefore, the Attorney
General believes and is of the opinion that these proceedings are in the public interest.
TRADE AND COMMERCE
8. Defendants have, at all times described below, engaged in conduct constituting trade” and “commerce,” as those terms are defined in §17.45(6) of the DTPA.
20 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
ACTS OF AGENTS
9. Whenever in this petition it is alleged that Aleksandr Novikov, Vladlen Breger and Yuliya Frolov did any act or thing, it is meant that Aleksandr Novikov, Vladlen Breger and Yuliya Frolov performed or participated in such act or thing or that such act was performed by the officers, agents or employees of Aleksandr Novikov, Vladlen Breger and Yuliya
Frolov and in each instance, the officers, agents or employees of Aleksandr Novikov, Vladlen Breger and Yuliya Frolov were then authorized to and did in fact act on behalf of Aleksandr Novikov, Vladlen Breger and Yuliya Frolov or otherwise acted under the guidance and direction of Aleksandr Novikov, Vladlen Breger and Yuliya Frolov.
NOTICE
10. Pursuant to §17.47(a) of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act, contact has not been made with the Defendants to inform them of the unlawful conduct alleged herein, because Plaintiff is of the opinion that there is good cause to believe that such an emergency exists that immediate and irreparable injury, loss or damage would occur as a result of such delay in obtaining a temporary restraining order, and that Defendants would evade service of process, destroy relevant records and secrete assets if prior notice of this suit were given.
SPECIFIC FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
11. Defendants, Aleksandr Novikov and Vladlen Breger filed an Assumed Name Certificate on February 17, 2000, to do business as International Automobile Drivers. (Exhibits “1 [para.5] & 8”). The business address listed on the assumed name certificate is 5312A Bellaire Boulevard, Bellaire, Texas 77402. (Exhibits “1 [para.5 & 10], 8 & 31 [p. 37, lines 11-24 ”). Defendant Yuliya Frolov is a business associate of Novikov and Breger and is also the girlfriend of
Breger. (Exhibits “1 [para.9, 12, & 13], 24 [para.5], 41 & 42”).
12. Defendants offer consumers identification cards labeled as “International Driver’s Licenses” for a fee ranging from $150 to $200 each. (Exhibits “1 [para. 10], 31 [p. 18, lines 11-16] & 32 [p.70, lines 5-9]”).
13. Defendants represent to consumers that this form of identification can be legally valid as a driver’s license in any state, including the State of Texas, and in any nation around the world, and is therefore more valuable than a Texas driver’s license. (Exhibit “31 [p. 87, lines 20-23; p.92, lines 2-7]”).
14. Defendants represent to consumers that police officers will accept the International Driver’s Licenses sold by them in place of a valid Texas driver’s license.
21 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
15. Defendants represent to consumers that the driver’s licenses sold by them are sufficient for consumers to obtain automobile insurance in Texas. (Exhibit “31 [p. 90, lines 2-5; p.91, lines 19-22] & 32 [p.31, line 16]”).
16. Defendants advertised in local newspapers and periodicals that these driver’s licenses are valid in any U.S. State for a period of ten years. (Exhibits “2 & 32 [p.62, lines 6-8]”).
17. Defendants falsely represented to consumers that their product was validated as a driver’s license by the United
States government through an agreement sponsored by the United Nations. (Exhibits “31 [p.93, lines 11-23] & 32 [p.
63, lines 21-25; p. 64, lines 1-8]”).
18. Defendants specifically targeted immigrant victims by advertising primarily in Spanish-language newspapers throughout the Houston area. (Exhibits “1 [para.3 & 4], & 2-7”).
19. The Mexican Consulate received several complaints from Mexican nationals who purchased these fraudulent licenses after being misled by Defendants.
20. Defendants affirmatively misrepresented to consumers the regulations set forth by the United Nations
Conference on Road Traffic by implying that said regulations allowed the Defendants to issue International Driver’s
Licenses and that the United States and other nations agreed to accept such licenses issued by Defendants. (Exhibit “1
[para. 14], & 43").
21. The International Convention on Road Traffic of 1949 only authorized two organizations, the American
Automobile Association and the American Automobile Touring Alliance to sell International Driving Permits (IDP’s) to United States Citizens. (Exhibit “1 [para. 14], & 43”). These permits allow U.S. citizens with a valid U.S. drivers license to drive in foreign countries that participated in the treaty. (Exhibit “43”).
22. Defendants are not authorized by either the State of Texas, the United States government, or the United Nations to issue International Driver’s licenses. (Exhibit “43”). The driver’s licenses issued by Defendants are completely bogus. (Exhibits “43”).
23. Defendants also operate a location in Dallas at 509 North Winnetka, Suite 206. (Exhibits “1 [para. 4 & 10],
3 & 10”). Defendants paid the rent at this Dallas location, and have paid for advertising at this location, with checks drawn on their Houston business checking account. (Exhibits “1 [para. 4 & 10], 3, 31 [p. 50, lines 16-25; p. 51 lines 1-15],
22 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
& 32 [p.98, lines 6-25; p. 99, lines 1-9]”). Defendants were also paid large sums of money by consumers from Louisiana for these bogus licenses. (Exhibit “31 [p. 130, lines 2-25; p. 131, lines 1-25 & p. 132, lines 1-15]”).
24. Defendants pocketed hundreds of thousands of dollars from immigrants and other victims via the sale of these bogus driver’s licenses. (Exhibits “1 [para. 7], 11-19, & 32 [p. 114, lines 2-20]”). Defendants have purchased expensive condominiums, automobiles, home furnishings, and other personal effects from the proceeds of these ill-gotten gains.
(Exhibits “1 [para. 8], 20 [p. 1-33], 21, 22, 24 [para. 3-4], 25, 26,27, 28, 31 [p. 139, lines 8-13 & 22-23; p. 141, lines 7-21; p. 142, lines 4-10; p. 148, lines 17-25; p. 149, lines 1-20], & 32 [p.17, lines 5-25] ”).
25. On October 2, 2002, Plaintiff served a Civil Investigative Demand and Request to take a
Sworn Statement of Defendants Aleksandr Novikov and Vladlen Breger, pursuant to DTPA §§17.60 & 17.61. On
December 10, 2002, Plaintiff took the sworn statements of Defendants Novikov and Breger. (Exhibits “1 [para. 10], 31
& 32”). On December 10, 2002, attorneys for Plaintiff told Defendants Novikov and Breger, in explicit terms, of the
State of Texas’ monetary and injunctive claims against them for engaging in false, misleading and deceptive acts and practices. (Exhibit “31 [p. 144, line 4-17]”).
26. In December 2001 and April 2002 respectively, Defendant Novikov purchased (2) condominiums in fee simple at 3505 Sage Road [units 407 & 906], Houston, Texas 77056. Exhibit “1 [para. 9], 21 & 22, 23, 24 [para. 2], 27, 33 ”).
These condominiums were purchased with the proceeds from Defendants’ illegal driver’s license scheme. Defendant
Novikov resided in Unit 407 and Defendant Breger resided in Unit 906, despite both units being placed in the name of
Defendant Novikov. (Exhibits 1 [para. 9], 24 [para. 5], 28, & 32 [p. 15, lines 4-6; p. 17, lines5-24]”). In February 2003, after Plaintiff made Defendants aware of its claims against them, Defendant Novikov transferred and sold both condominiums. (Exhibits “1 [para. 12], 24 [para. 6], 33 , 34, 35, 36, 38,44 & 46”). In particular, Defendant Novikov transferred Unit # 906 to Defendant Yuliya Frolov, the girlfriend of Defendant Vladlen Breger–who is also the business associate/partner of both Novikov and Breger. (Exhibits “1 [para. 12], 35, 36 & 38”). This conveyance was effectuated by Defendant Novikov executing a warranty deed with vendor’s lien granting title in fee simple to Defendant Frolov.
(Exhibit “1 [para. 12] & 35”).
27. Defendant Novikov transferred the property described in the immediately preceding paragraph with the intent to delay, hinder, and defraud Plaintiff, in that Defendant Novikov transferred the property with the intent of preventing
23 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
Plaintiff from obtaining collection of Plaintiff’s claim described herein. In this connection, the transfer of the property to Defendant Frolov constitutes a transfer to an “insider.” Furthermore, Defendant Breger, Novikov and Frolov have retained possession and control of Unit 906 subsequent to the transfer. (Exhibit “1 [para. 6-7], 24 [para. 7] & 29”).
Defendant Breger still has all of his furnishings and many of his personal effects still in Unit 906. Defendant Frolov still retains a key and is using a bedroom in Unit 906 as an occasional residence, despite the fact that she has “leased” the unit to someone that she does not know. (Exhibit “1 [para.7 & 12], 24[para. 7] & 29”). Before the transfer of Unit 906,
Defendants were threatened with imminent suit by Plaintiff. Units 906 and 407 constitute substantially all of the
Defendants’ assets. Simultaneously with the transfer of Unit 906, both Defendants Breger and Novikov absconded and moved to New York city. (Exhibits “1 [para. 12-13], 24 [para. 8] & 35, 37 & 45”). Defendants have a history of skimming money from their illegal business and removing and concealing their assets. (Exhibits “1 [para. 10-11], 31 [pp.
146 line 15 through p. 147, line 25], 32 [pp. 89, line 12 through p. 90, line 15]”). The value of the consideration received by Defendant Novikov for the sale of the condos mentioned herein was reasonably equivalent to the value of the assets transferred. Moreover, Defendant Novikov was insolvent shortly after the fraudulent transfer was made.
28. Defendant Frolov purchased the property described above from Defendant Novikov with notice of Defendant Novikov’s intent to delay, hinder and defraud Plaintiff. In this connection, Defendant Frolov is the girlfriend of Defendant Breger and the business associate of both Defendant Breger and Novikov, and had knowledge that Defendant Novikov was in serious financial difficulty at the time of the transfer of Unit 906 referenced herein.
Defendant Frolov, despite leasing Unit 906 out to a stranger, still retains possession and control over Unit 906 and the contents therein–which still belong to Defendant Breger. (Exhibit “1 [para. 12] & 24 [para. 7] & 29 ”).
VIOLATIONS OF THE DTPA
29. Defendants have, in the course and conduct of trade and commerce, directly and indirectly engaged in false, misleading and deceptive acts and practices declared to be unlawful by DTPA, §17.46(a) and DTPA §17.46(b), to wit:
A. Causing confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services, in violation of DTPA §17.46(b)(2);
B. Causing confusion or misunderstanding as to affiliation, connection, or association with, or certification by, another, in violation of DTPA §17.46(b)(3);
24 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
C. Representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, uses, or benefits which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he does not have, in violation of DTPA §17.46(b)(5);
D. Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another, in violation of DTPA
§ 17.46(b)(7);
E. Representing that an agreement confers or involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which are prohibited by law, in violation of DTPA §17.46(b)(12); and
F. Failing to disclose information concerning goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction which the consumer would not have entered had the information been disclosed, in violation of DTPA §17.46(b)(24).
UNIFORM FRAUDULENT TRANSFER ACT VIOLATIONS
30. The transfer of the property located at 3505 Sage Road [Unit # 906], Houston, Texas 77056 by Defendant
Novikov to Defendant Frolov is fraudulent as to Plaintiff because the debtor Defendant Novikov made the transfer with actual intent to hinder, delay, and defraud the Plaintiff creditor of Novikov. This transfer violates TEX. BUS. & COM.
CODE ANN. § 24.005. Plaintiff seeks an avoidance of the transfer to the extent necessary to satisfy Plaintiff’s claims against Defendants. Plaintiff also seeks immediate injunctive relief to prohibit Defendants from further transferring of or disposing of any of their real or personal property, including the 3505 Sage Road property, to any subsequent transferee, pursuant to TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 24.008(a)(1)-(3).
DISGORGEMENT
31. All of Defendants’ assets are subject to the equitable remedy of disgorgement, which is the forced relinquishment of all benefits that would be unjust for defendants to retain, including all ill-gotten gains and benefits or profits that result from defendants putting fraudulently converted property to a profitable use. Defendants should be ordered to disgorge all monies fraudulently taken from individuals, together with all of the proceeds, profits, income, interest and accessions thereto. Such disgorgement should be for the benefit of victimized consumers and the State of Texas.
25 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
EQUITABLE RECISSION
32. All agreements between consumers and Defendants should be subject to the equitable remedy of recission.
CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
33. A constructive trust should be placed upon all of Defendants’ assets in favor of all consumers victimized by
Defendants and in favor of the State of Texas until this Court determines the appropriate amount of restitution and disgorgement.
REPATRIATION OF ASSETS
34. After due notice and a hearing, the court should order that all of Defendants’ assets situated outside the jurisdiction of this Court be deposited or repatriated into an appropriate financial institution within the jurisdiction of this
Court.
CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD
35. Defendants, in concert with each other and their agents and employees, agreed to willfully and fraudulently obtain funds from consumers by engaging in the course of conduct complained of herein, which course of conduct Defendants knew had the tendency and capacity to deceive.
EQUITABLE LIEN
36. An equitable lien should be placed in favor of the State of Texas and on behalf of all injured consumers on all real and personal property of Defendants which was purchased or acquired, in whole or in part, from proceeds of Defendants’ illegal International Driver’s License scheme.
REQUEST FOR FINDINGS OF ACTUAL FRAUD AND FALSE REPRESENTATION
37. The Court should make findings at the conclusion of this case that all of the Defendants engaged in actual fraud and false representation in that Defendants have made repeated and materially false representations to the public concerning the sale of International Driver’s Licenses, which were known to be false when made or were made without knowledge of the truth of the matters asserted. Such false representations were made with the intention that they be acted upon by the parties to whom the misrepresentations were made. Reliance upon these false representations has resulted in injury to hundreds of consumers in the State of Texas and surrounding States.
26 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
NECESSITY OF IMMEDIATE RELIEF TO PRESERVE DEFENDANTS’ ASSETS 38. Plaintiff requests immediate relief by way of a temporary restraining order and temporary injunction to preserve and protect Defendants’ assets from dissipation so that the victims of Defendants’ actions can receive the restitution to which they are entitled. Defendants received large sums of money through their business operations and use fraudulently obtained funds for personal gain. Defendant’s assets are subject to dissipation for the following reasons:
A. Defendants operate a completely illegal business, selling bogus International Driver’s
Licenses to hundreds and possibly thousands of victims. (Exhibits “1 [ para. 5, 10, 11 & 14], 31 [p. 155, line 22 through p. 156, line 7] & 43”). All of the monies taken in by this scam is contraband.
B. Defendants claim that they do not have any records which would indicate identifying information on the many victims that they took money from. (Exhibits “1 [ para. 10 -11], 31 [p.63, line 14-20], & 32 [p.
51, lines 1-25; p. 52, lines 1-4]”). Defendants have concealed records from Plaintiff which were never furnished to
Plaintiff pursuant to its pre-suit Civil Investigative Demand. (Exhibits “31 [p. 118, lines 22-25; p. 119, lines 1-14; p.121, lines 22-25] & 32 [p. 59, lines 4-22; p. 91, lines 10-19”). Defendants continue to conceal business records from Plaintiff, such as bank records, consumer lists, cash receipts, and other documents relating to their illegal scheme. (Exhibits “1
[para. 10 -11] & 32 [p. 55, lines 7-25; p. 56, lines 1-22]”).
C. Defendants took in large sums of cash from their many victims, much of which was never deposited into their business bank accounts. (Exhibits “1 [para.7 -8], 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 31 [p. 146, lines 21-25; p. 147, lines 1-25], & 32 [p. 90, lines 6-15]”). Instead, much of this cash was either deposited into their own personal bank account or simply spent by Defendants with no accounting whatsoever. (Exhibits “1[para.7 -8], 14, 15, 16
& 31 [p. 160, lines 10-21]”).
D. Defendants Novikov and Breger are Russian immigrants. (Exhibits “1 [para. 10-11], 31 [p. 7, line 17 through p.8, line 13; p. 134, line 9 through p. 135, line 9] & 32 [p. 6, lines 18-25]”). Neither of these Defendants are U.S.
Citizens. (Exhibits “1 [para. 10-11], 31 [p. 7, line 17 through p.8, line 13; p.134, line 9 through p.135, line 9] & 32 [p. 6, lines 18-25]”). Shortly after discovering Plaintiff’s claims against them, they began to fraudulently sell their assets and real estate holdings in an attempt to hinder and defraud Plaintiff and the consumer victims of Defendants. (Exhibits “1
[para. 12], 33, 34, 35, 36 & 46”).
27 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
E. Defendants purchased expensive condominiums, autos and personal effects with the money they stole from victims. (Exhibits “1 [para. 10-11], 21, 22, 23, 24 [para. 2 & 3], 25, 26, 27, 28, 31 [p. 148, lines
21-25; p. 149, lines 1-20] & 32 [p. 17, lines 5-25]”). They traveled all over the world, bought expensive clothes, ate in expensive restaurants, and threw lavish “all night” parties. (Exhibit “1 [para. 10-11], 20 [pp. 1-33], 30, 32 [ p. 91, lines
24-25, p. 92, lines 1-23, p. 93, lines 6-8]”). They spent large sums of money refurbishing and remodeling their condominiums. (Exhibits “1 [para. 9], 24 [para. 3] & 25”). All of these luxury items were purchased from monies stolen from innocent victims. (Exhibits “1 [para. 7-11], 17, 18, 19, 31[p. 148, line 7 through p. 149, line 20] & 32 [p. 17, lines
5-24; p. 92, lines 1-21; p. 93, lines 6-14]”).
F. Defendants Novikov and Breger have absconded and fled the jurisdiction. They are now believed to be in New York City, where they have ties, and it is believed that they may further flee to Europe in an effort to avoid responsibility for their illegal operations. Exhibits “1 [para. 12], 24 [para. 8], 35, 37 & 45”).
For these and other reasons, the assets of Defendants are subject to dissipation and secretion and therefore should be frozen pending final trial so restitution can be made and full and final relief can be awarded at the conclusion of this case.
REQUEST TO CONDUCT DISCOVERY PRIOR TO TEMPORARY INJUNCTION HEARING
39. Plaintiff requests leave of this Court to conduct telephonic, oral, written and other depositions of witnesses prior to any scheduled Temporary Injunction Hearing and prior to Defendant’s answer date. There are a number of victims and other witnesses who may need to be deposed prior to any scheduled injunction hearing, including victims who do not reside in Houston, Texas. Any depositions, telephonic or otherwise, would be conducted with reasonable, shortened notice to Defendants and their attorneys, if known.
TRIAL BY JURY
40. Plaintiff herein requests a jury trial and tenders the jury fee to the Harris County District Clerk’s office pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 216 and TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. §51.604.
28 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
APPLICATION FOR EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER, TEMPORARY INJUNCTION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
41. Because Defendants have engaged in the unlawful acts and practices described above, Defendants have violated and will continue to violate the law as alleged in this Petition. Unless immediately restrained by this Honorable court,
Defendant will continue to violate the laws of the STATE OF TEXAS and cause immediate, irreparable injury, loss and damage to the State of Texas and to the general public.
42. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited according to law to appear and answer herein; that before notice and hearing a TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER be iss ued; that after due notice and hearing a
TEMPORARY INJUNCTION be issued; and upon final hearing a PERMANENT INJUNCTION be issued, restraining and enjoining Defendants, Defendants’ successors, assigns, officers, agents, servants, employees, relatives, and attorneys and any other person in active concert or participation with Defendants from engaging in the following acts or practices:
A. Transferring, concealing, destroying, or removing from the jurisdiction of this Court any books, records, documents, invoices or other written materials relating to the business of Defendants currently or hereafter in
Defendants’ possession, custody or control except in response to further orders or subpoenas in this cause;
B. Transferring, spending, hypothecating, concealing, encumbering, withdrawing, removing or allowing the transfer, removal, or withdrawal from any financial institution or from the jurisdiction of this Court any money, stocks, bonds, assets, notes, equipment, funds, accounts receivable, policies of insurance, trust agreements, or other property, real, personal or mixed, wherever situated, belonging to or owned by, in the possession or custody of, standing in the name of, or claimed by Defendants without further order of this court;
C. Opening or causing to be opened any safe deposit boxes or storage facilities titled in the name of Defendants or any of their aliases, or subject to access or control by Defendants, without providing
Plaintiff and the Court prior notice by motion seeking such access;
D. Representing, expressly or by implication, that Defendants are legally authorized to issue any type of driver’s license or permit;
E. Representing, expressly or by implication, that any governmental body or agency, including the United
Nations, sanctions Defendants’ goods or services when it does not;
29 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
F. Selling, offering, or advertising the sale of any type of driver’s permit or license, including, but not limited to, International Driver’s Licenses;
G. Representing, expressly or by implication, to any person that possessing an identification card or international driver’s license gives or allows one the legal right to drive or operate a motor propelled vehicle in the United
States or its territories;
H. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that possessing an identification card sold by the
Defendants will aid or assist them in any way;
I. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that the governments of other states or other nations have agreed to accept an International Driver’s License or permit as a valid license or permit to drive;
J. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that defendants’ product can legally serve as a substitute for a Texas driver’s license when approached by law enforcement officials;
K. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that possessing defendants’ product will effectively erase the person’s past driving record;
L. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that defendants’ product is sufficient as a driver’s license for the purpose of obtaining automobile insurance;
M. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that automobile insurance companies accept
Defendants’ product as a valid driver’s license;
N. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that possessing an International Driver’s license can or will protect someone from arrest, traffic tickets or other law enforcement measures that may be taken against them;
O. Producing, publishing, or distributing print advertisements, brochures, radio or television commercials, websites or other promotional materials that make any reference to any type of International Driver’s License, or driving license or permit;
P. Removing, moving, concealing, transferring, conveying, selling, damaging or encumbering any of the personal property situated at 3505 Sage Road [Unit # 906], Houston, Texas 77056 or any other real or personal property, wheresoever situated, until further order of the Court.
43. In addition, plaintiff STATE OF TEXAS respectfully prays that this Court will:
30 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
A. Adjudge against Defendants civil penalties in favor of plaintiff, State of Texas in an amount up to
$2,000.00 per violation, not to exceed $10,000.00 allowed by law under the DTPA, pursuant to DTPA § 17.47(c)(1);
B. Adjudge against Defendants civil penalties in favor of Plaintiff STATE OF TEXAS in an amount up to
$10,000 per violation, not to exceed $100,000.00 allowed by law under the DTPA, specifically, DTPA §17.47(c)(2), due to Defendants committing acts and practices which were calculated to acquire or deprive money or other property from consumers who were 65 years of age or older when the act or practice occurred;
C. Order Defendants to restore all money or other property taken from identifiable persons by means of unlawful acts or practices, or, in the alternative, award judgment for damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of this court to compensate for such losses;
D. Order equitable rescission of any contracts between defendants and consumers whereby consumers receive all of the money back that they paid to Defendants;
E. Place an equitable lien upon all of Defendants’ assets in favor of the State of
Texas and the consumer victims on whose behalf this action is brought;
F. Order the disgorgement of all sums taken from consumers by means of deceptive trade practices, together with all proceeds, interest, income, profits and accessions thereto;
G. Order all of Defendants’ assets situated outside the State of Texas to be repatriated and brought back within the jurisdictional boundaries of the State of Texas;
H. Grant leave to the Plaintiff to conduct telephonic, oral and other depositions prior to the Defendants’ answer date and any Temporary Injunction hearing;
I. A declaration that the transfer of the Sage property from Defendant Novikov to
Defendant Frolov is void with respect to Plaintiff, State of Texas;
J. A decree setting aside and cancelling the transfer and the general warranty deed executed by Defendant Novikov in favor of Defendant Frolov evidencing the transfer as fraudulent;
K. Order Defendants to pay plaintiff, State of Texas attorney fees and costs of court pursuant to TEX.
GOV’T CODE §402.006(c); and
31 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
L. Grant all other relief to which the plaintiff, State of Texas may show itself entitled.
Respectfully submitted,
GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of Texas
BARRY R. McBEE First Assistant Attorney General
JEFFREY BOYD Deputy Attorney General for Litigation
PAUL CARMONA Chief, Consumer Protection Division
______SARAH J. HINOJOSA Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division State Bar No. 09702120 808 Travis, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 223-5886, ext. 108 Facsimile: (713) 223-5821 SPIN NO. 99999928
______JOHN OWENS Assistant Attorney General Consumer Protection Division State Bar No. 15379200 808 Travis, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 223-5886, ext. 118 Facsimile: (713) 223-5821 ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
32 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
VERIFICATION
STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF HARRIS §
Before me, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared John Owens, who, after being duly sworn, stated under oath that he is the attorney for the plaintiff in this action; that he has read the above petition; and that every factual statement contained in the petition is true and correct.
______JOHN OWENS
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, on this ______day of March, 2003 to certify which witness my hand and official seal.
______NOTARY PUBLIC State of Texas
33 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
NO. 2003-15573
STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, § § V. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § YULIYA FROLOV, § ALEKSANDR NOVIKOV § VLADLEN BREGER d/b/a § INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOBILE § DRIVERS, § Defendants § § § 61st JUDICIAL DISTRICT
EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
Plaintiff, State of Texas, has filed its Original Verified Petition in this cause seeking a temporary and permanent
injunction against Defendants Yuliya Frolov, Aleksandr Novikov, and Vladlen Breger, and in the same petition has
presented its request for an ex parte temporary restraining order. The Court FINDS that Defendants may be violating
§§ 17.46(a) and (b) of the Deceptive Trade Practices-Consumer Protection Act, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. §
17.41 et seq., as well as the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 24.01 et seq. It
appears from facts set forth in the Plaintiff’s Original Verified Petition and the exhibits and sworn affidavits and
statements attached thereto, that unless Defendants are immediately restrained from the acts prohibited below,
Defendants will commit such acts before notice can be given and a hearing can be held on the State of Texas’ request
for a temporary injunction, and Defendants may continue to engage in false, misleading and deceptive acts and practices
in the operation of their International Driver’s License business, and may well dissipate and secrete their assets before
a judgment for restitution can be rendered. Such injury would be irreparable because continued violations of the DTPA
may well cause many more consumers to lose their money by deception. Given the likelihood of dissipation of
Defendants’ assets prior to rendition of a final judgment, the possibility of restitution for consumers will be remote unless
an order freezing assets is granted.
1. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Yuliya Frolov, Aleksandr Novikov, and Vladlen
Breger, their officers, agents, servants, employees, spouses, relatives, attorneys, and any other persons in active concert
34 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
or participation with them, including but not limited to Bank of America, N.A.4, Washington Mutual5, Compass
Bank6, Citibank7, Bank One, Midfirst Bank, Deutsche Bank, and Dime Savings Bank of Williamsburgh8,
holding money in the name and/or for the benefit of the above named Defendants, who receive actual notice of this order
by personal service or otherwise, whether acting directly or through any trust, corporation, subsidiary, division, or other
devise, shall be restrained from engaging in the following acts or practices:
A. Transferring, spending, hypothecating, concealing, encumbering, withdrawing, removing or allowing the
transfer, removal, or withdrawal from any financial institution or from the jurisdiction of this Court any money, stocks,
bonds, assets, notes, equipment, funds, accounts receivable, policies of insurance, motor propelled vehicles, water craft,
trust agreements, or other property, real, personal or mixed, wherever situated, belonging to or owned by, in the
possession or custody of, standing in the name of, or claimed by Defendants without further order of this court; and
B. Opening or causing to be opened any safe deposit boxes titled in the name of Defendants or any of
Defendants’ business names, or subject to access or control by Defendants, without providing Plaintiff and the Court
prior notice by motion seeking such access.
2. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Yuliya Frolov, Aleksandr Novikov, and Vladlen Breger,
their officers, agents, servants, employees, spouses, relatives, attorneys, and any other persons in active concert or
participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise, whether acting directly
or through any trust, corporation, subsidiary, division, or other devise, shall be restrained from engaging in the following
acts or practices:
4 Known Bank of America accounts subject to this order include, but are not limited to the following: Account # 005771997492 standing in the name of Aleksandr Novikov; and Account # 005777525596 standing in the name of International Automobile Drivers; and 00572386727 standing in the name of Vladlen Breger.
5 Known Washington Mutual accounts subject to this order include, but are not limited to, the following: Account # 936300390 standing in the name of Vladlen Breger.
6 Known Compass Bank accounts subject to this order include, but are not limited to the following: Account # 77408606 standing in the name of Yoliya Frolov (a.k.a. Julia Frolov).
7 Known Citibank accounts subject to this order include, but are not limited to: Account # 98824779 standing in the name of Aleksandr Novikov.
8 Defendant, Vladlen Breger is known to have an account here, but the account number(s) are unknown.
35 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
A. Transferring, concealing, destroying, or removing from the jurisdiction of this Court any books, records,
documents, invoices or other written or computer generated materials relating to the business of Defendants currently
or hereafter in Defendants’ possession, custody or control except in response to further orders or subpoenas in this
cause;
B. Representing, expressly or by implication, that Defendants are legally authorized to issue
any type of driver’s license or permit;
C. Representing, expressly or by implication, that any governmental body or agency, including the United
Nations, sanctions Defendants’ goods or services when it does not;
D. Selling, offering, or advertising the sale of any type of driver’s permit or license, including, but not limited
to, International Driver’s Licenses;
E. Representing, expressly or by implication, to any person that possessing an identification card or international
driver’s license gives or allows one the legal right to drive or operate a motor propelled vehicle in the United States or
its territories;
F. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that possessing an identification card sold by the
Defendants will aid or assist them in any way;
G. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that the governments of other states or other nations
have agreed to accept an International Driver’s License or permit as a valid license or permit to drive;
H. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that a license or permit sold by Defendants can legally
serve as a substitute for a driver’s license when approached by law enforcement officials;
I. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that possessing a license or permit sold by Defendants
will effectively erase that person’s past driving record;
J. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that a license or permit sold by Defendants is sufficient
as a driver’s license for the purpose of obtaining automobile insurance;
K. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that automobile insurance companies accept a permit
or license sold by Defendants as a valid driver’s license;
36 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
L. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that possessing an International Driver’s license or
permit can or will protect someone from arrest, traffic tickets or other law enforcement measures that may be taken
against them;
M. Producing, publishing, or distributing print advertisements, brochures, radio or television commercials,
websites or other promotional materials that make any reference to any type of International Driver’s License, or
driver’s license or permit; and
N. Removing, moving, concealing, transferring, conveying, selling, damaging or encumbering any of the personal
property situated at 3505 Sage Road [Unit # 906], Houston, Texas 77056 or any other real or personal property,
wheresoever situated, until further order of the Court.
3. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants advise any financial or brokerage institution, escrow agent,
title company, storage facility, commodity trading company, business entity or person maintaining or having custody or
c ontrol of any account or other asset of Defendants Yuliya Frolov, Aleksandr Novikov, and Vladlen Breger, to
within three (3) business days of the date of service of a copy of this Order on Defendants, provide to counsel for the
Plaintiff and the Defendants a statement or letter setting forth:
A. The identification of each account or asset titled in the name, individually or jointly, of Defendants, or held
on behalf of, or for the benefit of, Defendants;
B. The balance of each such account, or a description and estimated value of such assets, as of the close of
business on the day on which this Order is served, and, if the account or other asset has been closed or removed, the
date closed or removed, the total funds removed in order to close the account, and the name of the person or entity to
whom such account or other assets was remitted; and
C. The identification of any safe deposit box or storage facility that is either titled in the name individually or
jointly, of Defendants or is otherwise subject to access or control by Defendants.
4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall be granted leave to take telephonic, video, written, and other
depositions9 of witnesses and parties prior to any scheduled temporary injunction hearing upon reasonable shortened
notice to Defendant.
9 Including depositions with a subpoena duces tecum.
37 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
5. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants in this cause be and hereby are commanded forthwith to
comply with this Order from the date of entry until and to the fourteenth (14) day after entry or until further order of
this Court, whichever is less.
6. The Clerk of the above-entitled Court shall forthwith issue an ex parte temporary restraining order in conformity
with the law and the terms of this Order. This Order shall be effective without the execution and filing of a bond as
Plaintiff, State of Texas is exempt from such bond under TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 17.47(b).
7. The temporary injunction hearing in this cause is scheduled for the ______day of
______, 2003, at __ o’clock, __.m.
Signed on this the ____ day of ______, 2003, at __ o’clock, __, m.
______JUDGE PRESIDING
38 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
NO. 2003-15573
STATE OF TEXAS § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, § § V. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § YULIYA FROLOV, § ALEKSANDR NOVIKOV § VLADLEN BREGER d/b/a § INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOBILE § DRIVERS, § Defendants § § § 61st JUDICIAL DISTRICT
AGREED FINAL JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
On this day came on to be considered the above-entitled and numbered cause in which the State of Texas is
Plaintiff and Aleksandr Novikov and Vladlen Breger are Defendants. The parties, appearing by and through their
attorneys of record, wish to make the following stipulations and agree to the entry of this Final Judgment and Permanent
Injunction.
It is stipulated that the parties have compromised and settled all claims stated by Plaintiff in this cause. It is further
stipulated that Plaintiff and Defendants agree to and do not contest the entry of this judgment.
The Court then proceeded to read the pleadings and stipulations of the parties, and it appears to the Court that the
parties agree to the entry of this judgment and that they have approved entry of this judgment.
The Court finds and the Defendants stipulate that Defendants have obtained money and/or property, by false
pretenses, false representations, and/or actual fraud. Defendants made false representations and committed actual fraud
by committing knowing and fraudulent falsehoods, as described above, which described facts were relied upon to the
detriment of the injured consumers. Defendants knowingly made false representations with intent to deceive consumers
who relied on these false representations, and who therefore sustained loss and damages. Defendants made knowing
and intentional misrepresentations by concealing and remaining silent about the fact that the International Drivers
Licenses they were selling were not valid in the United States.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants Aleksandr Novikov and
Vladlen Breger, their officers, agents, servants, employees, attorneys and any other person in active concert or
39 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
participation with them who receive actual notice of this order by personal service or otherwise, shall be restrained from
engaging in the following acts or practices:
A. Charging consumers or clients for goods and services which are not in fact provided
or performed;
B. Representing, expressly or by implication, that Defendants are legally authorized to
issue any type of driver’s license or permit;
C. Representing, expressly or by implication, that any governmental body or agency, including the United
Nations, sanctions Defendants’ goods or services when it does not;
D. Selling, marketing, offering, or advertising the sale of any type of driver’s permit or license, including, but
not limited to, International Driver’s Licenses;
E. Representing, expressly or by implication, to any person that possessing an identification card or
international driver’s license gives or allows one the legal right to drive or operate a motor propelled vehicle in the United
States or its territories;
F. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that possessing an identification card sold by the
Defendants will aid or assist them in any way;
G. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that the governments of other states or other nations
(including the United States) have agreed to accept International Driver’s Licenses or permits as a valid license or
permit to operate a motor propelled vehicle;
H. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that a license or permit sold by Defendants can legally
serve as a substitute for a driver’s license when approached by law enforcement officials;
I. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that an international license or permit sold by
Defendants or anyone else is sufficient as a driver’s license for the purpose of obtaining automobile insurance;
J. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that automobile insurance companies accept an
International permit or license sold by Defendants or anyone else as a valid driver’s license;
40 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
K. Representing to anyone, expressly or by implication, that possessing an International Driver’s license or
permit sold by Defendants or any non-authorized agency can or will protect someone from arrest, traffic tickets or other
law enforcement measures that may be taken against them;
L. Producing, publishing, or distributing print advertisements, brochures, radio or television commercials,
websites or other promotional materials that make any reference to any type of International Driver’s License, or
driver’s license or permit;
M. Representing that Defendants are legally authorized to issue any type of driver’s license or permit;
N. Being employed by, working as an independent contractor for, or being a consultant
or agent for any business where the product being sold is one which purports to convey the right to drive or operate a
motor vehicle upon individuals who do not have a valid driver’s license in a particular jurisdiction, state, country or
province;
O. Owning, managing, or operating any business where the product being sold is one which purports to
convey the right to drive or operate a motor vehicle upon individuals who do not have a valid drivers license in a
particular jurisdiction, state, country or province; and
P. Engaging in the sale, marketing, or advertising of any type of document which purports to be a drivers
license or driving permit.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that, as used in this Judgment, the
following terms are defined as follows:
1. “Goods” means tangible chattels or real property purchased or leased for use.
2. “Services” means work, labor, or service purchased or leased for use, including services furnished in
connection with the sale or repair of goods.
3. “Person” or “anyone” means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other group, however
organized.
4. “Consumer” means an individual, partnership, corporation, this state, or a subdivision or agency of this
state who seeks or acquires by purchase or lease, any goods or services.
5. “Trade” and “Commerce” mean the advertising, offering for sale, sale, lease, or
41 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
distribution of any good or service, of any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal, or mixed, and any other article,
commodity, or thing of value, wherever situated, and shall include any trade or commerce directly or indirectly affecting
the people of this state.
6. “Driver’s license,” “International Driver’s license”, or “driving/driver’s permit”
means any good or service being sold which purports in any way to convey the right or privilege to drive or operate a
motor vehicle in any jurisdiction upon individuals who do not have a valid driver’s license in that particular jurisdiction.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State of Texas have judgment and recover from Defendants Aleksandr
Novikov and Vladlen Breger, jointly and severally, the sum of Three Hundred Fifty Thousand and No/100 Dollars
($350,000.00) for payment of restitution to consumers who purchased International Driver’s licenses or permits from
Defendants and which constitutes consumer deposits for goods or services for personal or household use and which do
not constitute an antecedent debt with respect to this litigation. The State of Texas shall disburse restitution to
consumers as it deems advisable and necessary. In the event any portion of this restitution judgment is not able to be
distributed to consumers within a reasonable time period, such amounts shall revert to Plaintiff, State of Texas, as
additional attorney fees.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State of Texas have judgment and recover from Defendants
Aleksandr Novikov and Vladlen Breger, jointly and severally, the sum of Twenty Five Thousand and No /100 Dollars
($25,000) for civil fines and penalties to or for the benefit of the State of Texas, a governmental unit, which is not
compensation for any actual or pecuniary loss.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State of Texas have judgment and recover from Defendants Aleksandr
Novikov and Vladlen Breger, jointly and severally, the sum of One Hundred Twenty Five Thousand and No/100 Dollars
($125,000) for reimbursement of the State’s attorney fees and investigative costs incurred in this case, which are for
the benefit of the State of Texas, a governmental unit, which is not compensation for any actual or pecuniary loss.
The clerk of the court is hereby directed to issue a Writ of Permanent Injunction to each of the Defendants and
to issue such writs of execution or other process necessary to enforce this Agreed Final Judgment and Permanent
Injunction.
42 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other costs of court expended or incurred in this cause be borne by the
party incurring the same.
All relief not expressly granted herein is denied.
Signed this ______day of ______, 2003.
JUDGE PRESIDING
AGREED:
SARAH J. HINOJOSA Assistant Attorney General 808 Travis, Suite 300 Houston, Texas 77002 TBN: 09702120 (713) 223-5886, ext. 108 (713) 223-5821 - FAX Attorney for the State of Texas, Plaintiff
CHARLES R. YOUNG Young & Associates 1177 West Loop South, Suite 650
Houston, Texas 77027 TBN: 22174500 (713) 627-8991 (713) 961-4753 - FAX Attorney for Aleksandr Novikov and Vladlen Breger
______Alexandr Novikov, Defendant
43 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
______Vladlen Breger, Defendant
______MICHAEL CURRY Young & Associates 1177 West Loop South, Suite 650
Houston, Texas 77027 TBN: 05272700 (713) 627-8991 (713) 961-4753 - FAX Attorney for Yuliya Frolov
______Yuliya Frolov, Defendant
44 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
TRANSLATION
Immigrant Fraud Uncovered Approximately 1,000 people fell victim to con artist by Victor M. Juarez Estrada, El Heraldo News (North Texas)
More than 1,000 people, all of them undocumented immigrants, were defrauded of thousands of dollars by Elena Garza, an hispanic woman posing as a Dallas employee of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services. Garza had previously been arrested twice for robbery and deported once. Despite these criminal charges, Garza was a permanent resident. She was apparently preparing to flee on October 18th, telling her hopeful clients she was leaving because the immigration laws were going to change on that day, and was urging them to “bring as many new cases as possible” to her before this date.
Elena Garza was also the director of Agencia Hispana Elizondo y Asociados, which had been in operation for over a year in the nearby cities of Seven Points and Kemp, south of Dallas. She preferred to meet with her clients in a cafeteria she claimed to own inside the Cedar Creek Bingo hall, in Kemp. At this site she also offered other fraudulent services including “international licenses” and to get people out of jail in exchange for large sums of money, “which never actually happened.”
These were the claims made in an exclusive interview with El Heraldo News by some of the victims who asked to remain anonymous in order not to hurt the investigation or to be exposed to some form of revenge by the defendant’s family.
The fraud victims claim Elena Garza, with the aid of her sister, Rosalinda Bautista, mostly charged $5,000 to fill out immigration applications for undocumented immigrants, assuring them their case was practically won because she was a Dallas employee of the Bureau of Immigration. However, from the beginning she would warn them “not to waste her time if they did not trust her services.”
In order to win her clients’ trust, she repeatedly reminded them, “I’m not charging you a cent for this service. I’m only charging you for the legal fees required by the immigration office.”
Months after operating in this manner, immigration authorities apprehended Elena Garza, under charges of defrauding hundreds of people out of thousands of dollars. However, Rosalinda Bautista escaped, and there is now an intense search operation underway to prevent her from leaving the country. An official source at the immigration office confirmed the arrest, but was unable to provide further details due to the ongoing status of the investigation.
After the initial investigation, the complainants said they were able to confirm Elena Garza “never sent any of the documents she had supposedly filed with the Immigration Service for any of her clients.”The office where she presumably sent our applications, as well as the PO Box of the federal agency simply don’t exist,” said the defrauded complainants.
“Worse still,” they added, “she made us believe Immigration would approve our cases. Our children, our spouses, even ourselves, we would all soon be legal residents. She deceived us for months in a manner that is cruel and inhumane. That is why we ask that she be punished to the full extent of the law,” said one of the victims.
The victims also accuse Elena Garza of charging over $5,000 in cash for the fake applications, telling them the money was for the immigration office and not for her. However, “now we know she never paid a single cent to that office and it all ended up in her personal bank account.”
The investigation so far has turned up three bank accounts belonging to Garza, one containing $44,000, while it is not yet known how much is in the other two. It has also been confirmed that just last Friday Garza deposited a large amount of money into one of these accounts.
45 Consumer Protection from the Unauthorized Practice of Immigration Law Chapter 12
Other fraudulent activities carried out by Garza and her sister, Rosalinda Bautista, were the sale of illegal “international drivers licenses,” and charging large sums of money in exchange for getting someone released from jail. She never actually freed anyone, instead “she just made up all sorts of excuses.”
The complainants said immigration authorities expect to collect more information before presenting a list of charges against the two alleged criminals, which may lead to many years in prison for the two before they are deported.
According to sources contacted by this newspaper the case against Elena Garza is more complicated since she has been arrested for robbery on two previous occasions. She has also been deported to her country of origin, the name of the country has not been released.
Due to these crimes, Garza will permanently lose her legal residency after completing many years in jail. After this, legal experts indicate, she will likely be deported permanently.
With respect to the undocumented immigrants affected by these two individuals, immigration attorneys interested in the case indicate they will ask an immigration judge for work permits for each of them, while the case continues against the defendants.
They also point out immigration authorities have promised not to carry out any detentions or massive roundups against these individuals, regardless of the final result of the prosecution.
Attorneys said they would ask that all the money paid by these immigrants be returned to them.
For this reason, representatives of the fraud victims ask anyone who was scammed by Elena Garza and Rosalinda Bautista to file a complaint by contacting them by telephone at (469) 337-4345. All calls will remain anonymous.
46