SAVESIRIUS.ORG
P.O. Box 7078
Laguna Niguel, CA 92607
(714) 927-5898


January 22, 2009 Re-submitted as per my recent conversation with your office

November 28, 2008

Bonnie M. Dumanis
County of San Diego District Attorney
c/o Hall of Justice
330 W. Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101

Re: “Litigation Kennels”

Dear Ms. Dumanis:

This letter is respectfully submitted to request a formal investigation into the Robbins Umeda and Fink Law Firm located in San Diego, CA.

The information presented in this correspondence will serve to support my belief that Robins Umeda and Fink (aka: RUF Law Group) is violating Federal and State laws including but not limited to Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

In 2007, the RUF Law Group (along with co-counsel) brought forth two simultaneous suits that were word for word identical. The intent of the suits was to stop the merger between Sirius and XM as the merger was unlawful at its core. The suits alleged that management was breaching their fiduciary duties, self-dealing and if the merger were not stopped, they would continue to do so, thereby inflicting irreparable harm upon their shareholders. These two suits were consolidated and presented as a Class Action Suit purporting to represent the interest of all Sirius shareholders.

I, as a large shareholder, became aware of these suits in public filings and reached out to Jeffrey P. Fink to inquire as to what their motives were. I was told they sought full and complete disclosure so that shareholders may have a fully informed vote and, that if this did not happen, they would seek to enjoin (i.e.: block) this merger.


Bonnie M. Dumanis
November 28, 2008
Page 2


Prior to reaching out to Mr. Fink, I had conducted thousands of hours of research into the companies’ compliance/non-compliance with their licensing mandate. In the process, I obtained information that proved these companies have colluded and conspired to restrain free trade in violation of anti-trust laws (i.e.: the Sherman Act). The companies refused to divulge information to the regulatory agencies, their stock holders and satellite radio consumers. The conspiracy was to prevent and preclude consumers from having access to or knowledge of interoperable radios. This was of great importance because had consumers been given the access to interoperable radios there would have been no need for the merger between these two companies. However, apparently, management of these two companies had a different agenda in mind which was not to compete with each other, but instead obtain control of all of the satellite radio spectrum at any and all cost. The lack of competition also allowed the companies to basically price fix and continue to charge artificially inflated subscription rates. Management’s agenda caused harm to consumers by forcing consumers to keep whichever satellite radio service came with the car that they purchased or spend hundreds of dollars to purchase and install new hardware that would allow them to receive the service of their choice. These actions have cost consumers millions of dollars across the country. This anticompetitive behavior also suppressed the adoption rate of satellite radio into the market place.

This merger was awaiting approval by the Department of Justice Anti Trust Division as well as the FCC. The FCC docket number for the Sirius XM merger is 07-57 which sought public comment on the merger. This official docket has many formal filings which I submitted, including but not limited to a Petition for Declaratory Ruling asking the FCC Commission to explain the companies’ compliance/lack of compliance with the Interoperable Mandate.

I provided Mr. Fink and his firm information that proves management of these companies were and are being less than candid and forthright with their shareholders, the regulatory agencies and their consumers. This information included details of the companies’ licensing mandate which included the mandatory implementation of an interoperable device that would permit subscribers of Sirius or XM access to either companies’ services without the need or purchase of additional hardware. Mr. Fink expressed great interest in this information as his secretary compiled a file with all of my FCC docket 07-57 filings.


Bonnie M. Dumanis
November 28, 2008
Page 3

At the invite of co-counsel, Thomas Amon’s office, I was to attend the upcoming Preliminary Hearing. As I was making travel plans from the West Coast to the East Coast and waiting for Mr. Fink to respond to numerous messages I had left him, I received a phone call from Thomas Amon’s office that the travel plans were not needed as it appeared as though there was not going to be a Preliminary Hearing after all. I asked if there would be a postponement of the shareholder vote and if shareholders would be receiving a new or supplemental proxy with all information needed including that of the Interoperability Mandate to enable shareholders to cast a fully informed vote. As they were unwilling to provide details, I called William Regan at Simpson Bartlett and Thatcher and asked him the same question several times and finally got an answer that was “No”. I informed Mr. Regan this was unacceptable and that I would attempt to intervene in this case or I would file an action of my own. It was at this point in time I realized that Ruf Law had no interest in representing and protecting the class and that this was a sell out of the shareholders this was supposed to protect.

The parties reached a Memorandum of Understanding at the eleventh hour, the terms of which were not immediately disclosed, and in fact, there was a Motion filed with the court to permanently seal the record which would have prohibited members of the “Class” to know the terms or conditions in which this case was settled. One must wonder how it is a case that is supposed to be about full and complete disclosure providing shareholders with the necessary information to have a fully informed vote was settled and an attempt was made to permanently seal the terms of that settlement. This is outrageous.

With this information, understanding we the “Class” were just sold down the river, I filed an Order to Show Cause for Leave to Intervene and informed the judge that time was of the essence as the shareholder vote was a mere eight or ten days away. The judge granted my hearing date, but unfortunately, it was days after the shareholder vote had already taken place. At the hearing, the judge wrongfully denied my Intervention and did not give a reason as to why. In the court room, I was subjected to ad hominem attacks and gratuitous comments by Sirius’ and plaintiff’s counsel. Several weeks later, I received a copy of the Preliminary Settlement Stipulation which was nothing more than total and complete indemnification of all Sirius board members, executives and/or relations. We, as members of the “Class”, received absolutely nothing other than a supplemental 8K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission which was worthless, clap trap, and of absolutely no value to shareholders. This was filed a mere eight days before the shareholder vote. At this point, 90% of votes had already been cast as shareholders had had their proxies for many weeks prior.


Bonnie M. Dumanis
November 28, 2008
Page 4


I filed a Memorandum in Opposition of the Proposed Settlement, included Exhibits A-E which included documents showing that the RUF Law Group had been sanctioned and admonished several times since the first of the year (2008) and in a North Carolina case (Andrew Egelhof, Derivatively on Behalf of Red Hat, Inc. v Matthew J. Szulik et al – File No. 04 CVS 11746) Judge Tennille banned the entire firm from appearing before any State Court in North Carolina for a period of five years.

This suit was nothing but a sham and/or set up that was intended to provide indemnification for Sirius and their executives for anything and everything remotely related to the Sirius/Xm merger and unjustly enrich the RUF Law Group as well as professional plaintiff Greg Brockwell.

Prior to my attending the Preliminary Settlement Hearing, Mr. Fink and I had a contentious telephone conversation wherein he complained about my Memorandum of Opposition to the Proposed Settlement and the fact that I was damaging his law firm. I informed Mr. Fink that my attempts to impugn or disparage his law firm pale in comparison to the job he and his firm were doing on their own. Mr. Fink then posed the question “What if we dismiss the case without prejudice?” This was interesting but my concern was that this would not happen as Sirius would not allow it to happen. My concerns were correct.

The Friday before travelling to the Preliminary Settlement Hearing in New York, I was contacted by my counsel, Douglas Cole, who informed me that he had received a telephone call from Mr. Fink advising him of a proposed settlement. I asked him what was being suggested. He stated “Five Hundred Thousand Dollars”. I asked how this was legal as I am a member of the “Class” and not allowed to receive a penny more than any other class member. He stated that was up to Mr. Fink to figure out the details. I informed him it was not enough and that my actual losses were seven hundred thousand dollars. I then asked what exactly was being proposed: 1) I make my family whole and Mr. Fink dismisses the case without prejudice as he suggested in a prior telephone call, or 2) I potentially make my family whole and allow this sham suit to go forward to indemnify Sirius executives and sell out every other shareholder (i.e.: the “Class”) that was trusting enough to put faith in management of this company. The answer was the latter. I informed Mr. Cole I was not interested.


Bonnie M. Dumanis
November 28, 2008
Page 5


When arriving at the Preliminary Settlement Hearing, I was shocked to see defense counsel take over the argument on behalf of the plaintiff. In fact, they were even foolish enough to submit a letter on behalf of the plaintiff. This was an absolutely huge conflict of interest. Ultimately, what defeated this case was the fact that Sirius refused to send notice via US Mail to their shareholders that they were about to lose all of their rights. They wanted to run a one-day ad in the back of the Wall Street Journal. I suspect this had something to do with me already alleging racketeering charges to an executive of Sirius Satellite Radio.

Mr. Brockwell, lead plaintiff in this case, is a professional plaintiff who has been in 13 plus class action cases for this firm (and others) and has direct ties to the convicted felon, William Lerach. Mr. Brockwell made it all the way to the Preliminary Settlement Hearing without Sirius’ high priced counsel ever asking whether or not he owned a single share of Sirius stock. It is quite troubling that such a high profile firm such as Simpson Bartlett and Thatcher was unable to defeat this case and obtain all of the damning information I, as a lay person, was able to obtain. Of course, we know the reason…this case was a sham and a set up from the start.

When Mr. Fink realized this case was finished, he then tried to cover his tracks by willfully withdrawing the complaint and limit he and The RUF Law Group’s exposure and liability by converting the case purporting to represent all shareholders’ (i.e. the “Class”) interest to an individual action on behalf of Greg Brockwell and Terry Johnson, asserting even more egregious violations and then dismissing the case with prejudice the very next day. After I accused Mr. Fink and Mr. Brockwell of fraud, they retained a large law firm (Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold ) which specializes in professional misconduct and high risk/high exposure cases.

Mr. Fink and his firm use professional plaintiffs which are obtained from what is known as “Litigation Kennels”.

As stated in the September 19, 2008 “Opinion And Order” of the Honorable Denise Cote Case No: 08CIV9774 (DLC), it appears that an attorney by the name of Alfred G.Yates is the ‘kennels groomer” as he monitors the professional plaintiffs’ stock portfolios to ensure the members of the ‘kennels” do not accidently sell a stock that is involved in litigation. He also keeps the kennels well fed and watered, sort of speak. Recently when questioned by the Honorable Denise Cote, Mr. Yates conveniently


Bonnie M. Dumanis
November 28, 2008
Page 6


claimed “attorney/client privilege” so he couldn’t discuss any information. This makes for a convenient criminal relationship. These plaintiffs have little to no involvement in said cases, do whatever Mr. Fink and his firm instruct them to do in violation of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) of 1995, and are illegally paid for their services which enables this firm to unjustly enrich themselves at the cost of the shareholders (i.e. the “Class”) they falsely purport to represent.

There is a large list of professional plaintiffs that have provided their services to Mr. Fink and his firm (as well as other firms) and have been richly rewarded. One of the more troubling facts is that the majority of the professional plaintiffs are, in deed, attorneys themselves. Some of the names included in Mr. Fink’s “kennel” are Gregory Brockwell, Doris and Steven Staehr, Brian and Joel Abrams and last but not least, Mr. Robert L Garber.

Mr. Garber has been quite active as of late as he was just disqualified as a lead plaintiff in Case No: 08CIV9774 (DLC) filed in the Southern District of New York (Robert L Garber derivatively on behalf of JP Morgan Case and Co.). The Honorable Denise Cote ordered Mr. Garber deposed by JP Morgan Chase counsel where it was discovered Mr. Garber has been in over 30 class action and/or derivative suits. During the deposition, Mr. Garber was unable to recall which companies he sued, let alone any specific details of said cases.

The Honorable Denise Cote found Mr. Garber unfit as a plaintiff, alluded to potential criminal activity in violation of the PSLRA Act and then called into question the integrity and professional conduct of the RUF Law group. She then went on to say that Mr. Fink conveniently left out that he and his firm were sanctioned and banned from appearing before any State Court in the State of North Carolina for a period of five years. The Honorable Denise Cote was unaware of additional sanctions levied against Mr. Fink and The RUF Law Group in Camden NJ by the Honorable Robert B. Kugler (case number 07-349 Lucas v Commerce Bancorp) until I made her aware of it in my letter dated October 29, 2008 (copy attached).


Bonnie M. Dumanis
November 28, 2008
Page 7


Despite Mr. Fink being severely chastised and admonished by the Honorable Denise Cote in her written Order and escaping the Honorable Denise Cote’s wrath without sanctions, a mere two weeks later, Mr. Fink, as well as professional plaintiff Garber, fearlessly brought forth yet another suit in the same court house. This shows total and complete disdain and disregard for the Honorable Denise Cote’s Order and jurisprudence as a whole. It also proves that the system is still rife with abuse and that this firm and professional plaintiff Garber have absolutely no fear of criminal prosecution for their on going criminal enterprise.

This type of behavior must be stopped as it is bastardizing our judicial system, stripping shareholders’ rights away amounting to billions of dollars in order for this firm and these professional plaintiffs to unjustly enrich themselves at the shareholder’s (i.e. the “Class”) expense.

One of the most troubling aspects of this type of behavior is that many of these class action security suits are actually initiated by the companies being sued in order for the executives to indemnify and shield themselves from the shareholders that they have damaged. It is time for a grand jury to be convened to investigate this firm as well as others to stop and prevent this type of abuse in the future.

Given the state of our economy and the level of corporate greed that has put us here, management must be held accountable. The fact that they are able to initiate litigation at arm’s length against themselves to indemnify themselves for all future and past illicit deeds while the shareholders in which they have a fiduciary duty to serve are suffering the consequences of their self-dealing and unjust enrichment amounting to billions of dollars is absolutely unacceptable and should not and will not be allowed. “Litigation Kennels” and “professional plaintiffs” are a dirty little secret that the law firms and the executives that are protected by these sham class action securities suits do not want shareholders (i.e. the “Class”) to know.

Despite the fact that the US Attorney’s Office, Central District of California, was able to convict the two senior partners from the Country’s most prolific and profitable securities class action firm, William Lerach and Melvin Weiss, it is apparent that this has not dissuaded other law firms using “litigation kennels” and professional/serial plaintiffs from continuing with the same type sham/criminal class action litigation suits. Although the US Attorney’s Office has not concluded their investigation into the Millberg Weiss case, one must assume there will be additional indictments forthcoming. The RUF Law Group has used plaintiffs with direct ties to the convicted felon William Lerach.


Bonnie M. Dumanis
November 28, 2008
Page 8


In light of the aforementioned and the enclosed documentation, it is time for an immediate Federal investigation into this ongoing criminal enterprise by all appropriate agencies and time for Congress to expand on the PSLRA Act to close all of the loop holes that it left. There are real and legitimate plaintiffs that can bring forth a proper case on behalf of other shareholders (i.e. the “Class”) which is being prohibited by this type of sham litigation.

The law firms involved in “Litigation Kennels” do nothing but line their pockets on the backs of the shareholders that have already been damaged and protect the executives and management that were either not qualified, corrupt or both.

The absolute contempt by Mr. Fink, The RUF Law Group and members of their “litigation kennel” is fueled by greed, disguised with chicanery, unjustly enriches those that are not deserving, shields management’s malfeasance, and is corrupting our judicial process, leaving shareholders without recourse.

In conclusion, I thank you in advance for your prompt attention to this urgent matter and request a response as soon as possible as time is of the essence. I may be reached at 714-927-5898 or [email protected].

Sincerely,


Michael Hartleib
On behalf of SaveSirius.org


MH/th

Enclosures:
Letter to Honorable Denise Cote dated 926/08
US District Court, Southern District of New York “Order” re: 05 Civ. 9327 (GEL)
“Order On Motion For Attorney Fees” re: 04 CVS 11746
“Opinion And Order” re: JP Morgan Chase & Co. File No. 08 Civ.974(DLC)
Letter to Jeffrey P. Fink dated 4/14/08
Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law… re: Case 08 cv 3664 (RWS)
Notice of Unopposed Motion… re: Case 08 cv 3664 (RWS)