Important: This page was con­vert­ed from the actual Court PDF using OCR. So there may be errors. To read the actual Court PDF, use the fol­low­ing link:

https://abuseofprocess.net/21CV004608-memo.pdf

DECLARATION OF ROBERT KIRALY: 21CV004608

I, ROBERT KIRALY declare as follows:

The statements made be­low are within my personal knowledge or are stated upon in­for­ma­tion and belief, which statements I be­lieve to be true. If called upon to testify, I could and would competently do so.

Contents:

1. Overview and key points

2. Deceptive prac­tices at Fremont-Toyota and the “Jihadi” issue

3. Responses to al­le­ga­tions. This part is on a dif­fer­ent page:

https://abuseofprocess.net/responses-to-christine-long-allegations.html

Part 1. Overview and key points:

This docu­ment is Robert Kiraly's declaration re­la­ted to case 21CV004608.

Background:

I'm a graduate of the University of Cal­i­for­nia at Berkeley with High Honors in Mathematics and Honors in Computer Science.

I'm also a soft­ware architect and data specialist with 44 years of pro­fes­sion­al experience. My decades of experience include anti- terrorism for UK-NCIS after 9/11, military database appliances, data conversion, and other tasks for the U.S. Defense Technical Information Center and the CIA, CCPA and HIPAA privacy issues, and the detection of fraud of dif­fer­ent types for two corporate chains, including a respected national chain that has about 1,500 stores.

Over the past decade, I've spent a sig­ni­fi­cant amount of time on fraud detection while employed in those capacities.

My in­volve­ment with Brian Martin:

Brian Martin is a licensed private investigator in the S.F. Bay Area. In Decem­ber 2020, Mr. Martin purchased a Toyota Tacoma from Fremont- Toyota. In con­nec­tion with the vehicle purchase, Fremont Toyota provided Mr. Martin with a forged docu­ment that the deal­er­ship claimed evidenced Mr. Martin's agree­ment to pay $9,995 more than had actu­al­ly been agreed to. My un­der­stand­ing is that this work­ed out to about $6,000 in terms of the actual net cost to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Martin first noticed the loan fraud in Spring 2021 when he looked into discrepancies in the paper­work. He was aware of my back­ground and be­lieved that I'd be able to com­ment objectively and accurately. So, not long after he noticed the issue, he asked me to determine whether or not there was evi­dence that con­firm­ed the existence of fraud.

I agreed to do so as a personal favor and in the public in­ter­est. Mr. Martin did not hire me.

My review of the loan fraud:

Mr. Martin provided materials of dif­fer­ent types for review. This in­clud­ed text messages and emails that sup­port­ed his story. I reviewed meta-data in the email headers and it was con­sis­tent with Mr. Martin's al­le­ga­tions that his signature was forged onto an addendum of the sales contract en­ti­tled “market adjust[ment]” that increased the vehicle price by $9,995.00.

It turned out that the forged docu­ment didn't even purport to be an agree­ment. It was just an electronic copy of a signature pasted onto a copy of a price stick­er. There was nothing about an agree­ment other than the hand-scrawled words “Market Adjust”. The figures didn't add up. In short, this was an unusually clumsy example of loan fraud on the part of Fremont Toyota.

Hence, after my review of Mr. Martin's al­le­ga­tions, including his supporting evi­dence, I be­lieved loan fraud had been com­mit­ted by Fremont Toyota, and I designed a way to seek further evi­dence of a systemic practice of loan fraud by creating two web­sites. The num­ber of web­sites was increased to three in Jan­uary 2022 for reasons ex­plain­ed below.

The websites:

I elected to put the story online for the purpose of protecting automobile consumers from being defrauded by Fremont-Toyota. Ultimately, three web­sites were placed by me online: fremonttoyota dot org, markhashimi dot org, and christinelong dot attorney.

I created a num­ber of alternate domain names as well. The alternate domain names sim­ply linked to the orig­in­al three sites.

The “fremonttoyota” and “markhashimi” web­sites set forth my opinions “that Fremont-Toyota side has com­mit­ted auto loan fraud against mul­ti­ple unwary Toyota buyers”. The web­sites offer advice to auto buy­ers, including to “Be sus­pi­cious of every deal­er­ship regardless of history unless you trust a particular salesperson” and to “nail down the num­bers.”

The web­sites further recommend that the public: “Never buy from a deal­er­ship that has a history of fraud or abuse of dif­fer­ent types. This includes Fremont-Toyota of Fremont, Cal­i­for­nia. The rhyme to re­mem­ber is: Stay away or be prey.”

The “christinelong” site discusses, add­i­tion­al­ly, the retal­i­a­tion that Fremont-Toyota cus­tom­ers may face if they talk pub­lic­ly online about loan fraud.

None of the web­sites are used for pur­poses of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of products, merchandise, goods or services.

Other victims came forward:

Two peo­ple came for­ward to com­ment regarding loan fraud occurring at Fremont-Toyota. Their statements suggested that the loan fraud issue wasn't lim­it­ed to Martin's experience and that the general public was at risk of systemic loan fraud by Fremont Toyota.

One per­son, a Fremont-Toyota cus­tom­er named Sandra Melendez who had recently purchased a Toyota Sienna LE, in­di­ca­ted that Fremont-Toyota had falsely claimed that she too had agreed to a $9,995 markup over the agreed-upon vehicle price.

Brian Martin forwarded some of Ms. Melendez's evi­dence of concern to me. My un­der­stand­ing was that these were the files Ms. Melendez was providing to attorneys in the course of seeking redress.

In Ms. Melendez's case, there was once again no agree­ment to a price change; just the words “Mark up” and the $9,995 fig­ure crudely scrawled by hand onto a generic price stick­er. The $9,995 fig­ure was the exact same num­ber that had appear­ed in the forged docu­ment in Mr. Martin's case. My assess­ment was that the deal­er­ship might be using a stand­ard approach to commit fraud on a reg­u­lar basis. This was con­sis­tent with what I learned from the next per­son.

Sam Pawar, an ex-em­ploy­ee of Fremont Toyota, contacted Brian Martin due to seeing the fremonttoyota.org web­site. Mr. Martin directed Mr. Pawar to me in the context of a loan-fraud assess­ment. Mr. Pawar told me that fraud against the general public was a common practice at the deal­er­ship. He then con­firm­ed tome that the fol­low­ing statement which appear­ed subsequently on the web­sites was “100% true”:

“Most USA peo­ple are bad at math. The Fremont-Toyota peo­ple took advantage of this. If a dollar fig­ure was at $9,999, Mark Hashimi and his peo­ple just add­ed $10,000 to make it $19,999. Fremont-Toyota figured that it was on the cus­tom­er to detect a mis­take and that it would be no big deal to take care of it in the cases where some­body did. I saw them committing fraud and stealing from peo­ple. I talked to General Manager Kamal [Mark Hashimi]. He told me to get out of his office. Mark Hashimi was part of the fraud oper­a­tion, so I lost my job. But I did the right thing. I just wanted to protect Toyota buy­ers from the fraud and explain how to buy a car from Fremont-Toyota with­out being robbed.”

The emails:

Mr. Martin and I separ­ate­ly sent emails re­la­ted to the loan fraud to employees and agents of Fremont-Toyota.

In 2021, I published online primarily letters between Mr. Martin and “Mark” Hashimi. The pur­poses of publication in­clud­ed transparency re­la­ted to inquiry into the loan fraud and to let the car-buying public judge for it­self whether or not Fremont Toyota's denials of fraud were credible.

In Jan­uary 2022, I wrote a de­tail­ed letter intended to be read by Mr. Hashimi and Fremont Toyota attorney, Chris­tine Long. The let­ter offer­ed for consideration points re­la­ted to a case that had been filed agains Martin. I wasn't aware at the time of any case against me.

I sent that let­ter to mul­ti­ple parties with the request that it be forwarded. In some cases, I add­ed that consensual com­mun­i­ca­tion re­la­ted to the points made in the let­ter would be wel­come.

Part 2. Deceptive prac­tices at Fremont-Toyota and the “Jihadi” issue:

Petitioner repeats numerous times in her complaints the point that Re­spon­dent has used the word “Jihad”. The goal is to sug­gest that the word was used inappropriately and impermissibly in the context in which it was found. The term “Jihadi” was referenced in my web­sites not at ran­dom, but as the dictionary word for the type of race and religious har­ass­ment that Fremont-Toyota employees subjected a minority-race em­ploy­ee named Sam Pawar to for months. This said, the word was never used except briefly well be­fore the WVRO against Mr. Martin was filed. More about that fact further down.

Fremont-Toyota employees directed remarks towards Mr. Pawar of the fol­low­ing type: “Mother f*cker you can't call us brother be­cause you aren't Muslim”. The group in­di­ca­ted as well that Mr. Pawar's race and other races were inferior and “smelly”. As Mr. Pawar was of Asia-India race, they also refer­red to him as “Mr. Curry”.

The hate-based per­spec­tive of the Fremont-Toyota core group extended to minority-race cus­tom­ers of the deal­er­ship. The word “smelly” was used in this context. Inside Fremont-Toyota, though, Mr. Pawar became a special tar­get due to his failure to go along with deceptive prac­tices that were used on a reg­u­lar basis.

Mr. Pawar sold a Dodge van to an Indian couple. The couple asked him about lower in­ter­est rates. Mr. Pawar took them to see a Fremont- Toyota Finance Manager named Ayub Mohammad Jawal. Mr. Jawal was furious. He shouted, “Why you tell them about the lower in­ter­est rates?! How can we make money if we tell them about those rates?!”

At this point, Mr. Jawal became phy­si­cal­ly violent and threw an object. He shouted further, “All of you Indians are like that!! Stupid salesperson! Why you tell­ing them about lower in­ter­est rate!! F*ck you! Get out of my office, you stupid man!”

Not much later, Mr. Pawar sold a Toyota RAV4. A Fremont-Toyota Finance Manager named Naqib U. Halimi credit­ed half of the sale to another sales­per­son.

Mr. Pawar asked Mr. Halimi why this had hap­pen­ed. Mr. Halimi responded, “You asking lower in­ter­est rate from Ayub Mohammad Jalal and that's your pun­ish­ment. I'm taking your half-deal and giving to other per­son.”

“You can't do that,” Mr. Pawar said. “I'll com­plain to the manager”. Mr. Halimi of Fremont-Toyota laughed. He said, “Go and com­plain to your Hindu god also and no one will help you”. This proved to be true. Racial and religious har­ass­ment of Mr. Pawar escalated rapidly.

Mr. Pawar asked, “Why is this happening?” The re­sponse was, “It's be­cause you complained about Naqib Halimi”. Mr. Halimi had, again, confiscated Mr. Pawar's earnings to “punish” him for even bringing buy­ers to Mr. Jalal to dis­cuss possible lower in­ter­est rates.

Re­spon­dent used the word “Jihadi” as the dictionary word for the con­duct summarized above. The definition used is as fol­lows. The definition has been cited by Petitioner in one com­plaint as being, in and of it­self, incitement to violence:

“The Quran uses the word “jihad” in two general contexts: the internal struggle, “al-jihad fi sabil Allah”, and the external one. The inner struggle is praiseworthy. The external one, not so much. The latter ranges from, on the mildest side, those who proselytize to, on the most dangerous side, Muslim terrorists.”

The word is be­lieved to have been removed from the web­sites within 48 hours of its initial use. It is be­lieved not to have been used subsequently until Brian Martin was served with a SLAPP action intended to prevent the public from learning about deceptive prac­tices against the general public. At that point, ex­plana­tion of why the word had been used originally was placed online. Re­spon­dent used the word subsequently in correspondence as well.

Part 3. Responses to allegations:

This part is on a dif­fer­ent page:

https://abuseofprocess.net/responses-to-christine-long-allegations.html