For background, first read http://janbtucker.com/blog/2016/11/04/guillermo-suarez-liar-paranoid-and-incompetent/
Guillermo Suarez has and makes an excellent “beard”
California Bar suspended Attorney Guillermo Suarez recently made a series of accusations to activistas en el movimiento about me in an “Open Letter” which my friends interpreted as an attempt to get me killed. While that is worrisome, the accusations which he levelled against me could also have had the effect of getting my jailhouse clients shanked through guilt by association. If I am a government snitch or agent as Suarez has alleged (trying to couch the accusation as though it’s only an “opinion” as though that matters) that puts my clients at jeopardy in prison because there are a lot fewer rational people in that environment and rational decisions are rarely made or even possible. I had no choice but to sue Suarez and his cohorts for defamation so that at least my clients could counter any insinuations against them by pointing out that I slapped him with a slander suit because that is what a rational person does when somebody makes an accusation which calls into question your qualifications for your trade, industry or profession.
Here are some more reasons why Suarez has a complete lack of credibility:
Suarez, Guillermo, SBN 181893; State Bar discipline Case No. 12-O-17453
In the stipulation Suarez entered into in the above captioned case, the first fact stipulated to is stated as follows:
Between September 2011 and October 2012, Respondent was employed as an attorney at lnland Empire Immigration Service, Inc. (“Inland Empire”), a California corporation owned and operated by non-attorneys, and in existence prior to Respondent’s employment.
The Real Facts
Inland Empire Immigration Services, Inc. (IEIS) is not a California corporation; the Secretary of State has no record of it per the online search function (unless it changed its name in which case you need the new name to find it on the website’s search function).
IEIS has no fictitious business name filed with the Sacramento County Clerk-Recorder (assuming arguendo that it was not maintaining an office in San Bernardino County, which it is, and that it was incorporated in another state or alien jurisdiction).
IEIS has no fictitious business name filed with the San Bernardino County Recorder.
IEIS has no San Bernardino City Business License.
If IEIS was not incorporated, not registered with the Secretary of State, County of San Bernardino or City of San Bernardino as any kind of legitimate business entity it had no legal right to charge fees for its services. By holding itself out as a corporation, the members of this association in fact would be in violation of Section 532 of the California Penal Code.
If IEIS was never a corporation Guillermo Suarez could not possibly have believed that he was either an employee or an independent contractor for a California corporation called IEIS, unless somebody presented forged corporate documents to a bank or other financial institution to enable IEIS to set up a checking account by which he was paid.
Because no legitimate financial institution would allow a checking account to be set up for IEIS sans appropriate paperwork:
Employees and independent contractors would have to be paid in cash or by an instrument or account from some other entity, in which case money laundering was occurring in violation of 18 USC 1956 because the fees charged were unlawful to begin with.
Customers/clients of IEIS would have had to pay in cash, by financial instruments made payable to some other entity or individual other than IEIS, or else use bank cards to make payments to some other entity. Again, since these transactions involved inherently illegal charges for services, each transaction was a violation of 18 USC 1956.
Therefore, Guillermo Suarez would be in violation of B&P Section 6068(a). He also would have violated 6068(i) by failing to reveal these facts to the State Bar and allowing the State Bar to believe untrue facts in order to conceal the criminal behavior of his confederates.
By accepting any payments whatsoever under these circumstances, whether as an “employee” or as an “independent contractor,” (i.e., whatever he was pretending to be), he would have been charging an illegal fee in violation of RPC 4-200. Whether or not the fees were unconscionable or not, 4-200(a) also bans the acceptance of illegal fees.
In Stipulation to “facts” in this matter, stipulation 2 read:
Inland Empire utilized non-attorney employees to prepare and file immigration forms on behalf its customers. In preparing the immigration forms, the non-attorney employees would make strategic legal decisions such as assessing a customer’s eligibility for relief under the various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act, making recommendations as to which particular form of relief to seek where the customer is eligible for multiple forms of relief, and ultimately deciding which immigration forms to file on behalf of the customer. Additionally, in the course of consulting with the customers, the non-attorney employees would provide legal advice such as predicting the customer’s likelihood of success in obtaining relief. By permitting its non-attorney employees to make strategic legal decisions on behalf of its customers and furnish legal advice to its customers, Inland Empire was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law.
Guillermo Suarez was publicly listed on the internet as the “owner” of IEIS.
Monica Urzua, an IRS Registered Tax Preparer, was publicly listed as “Chief Executive Officer” on the internet.
Monica Urzua’s address and telephone number as a tax preparer were the address and telephone used for IEIS in public internet listings.
It is a common practice for tax preparers, especially in immigrant communities, to create additional revenue streams from their existing clientele. They may associate themselves with insurance brokers, real estate agents, and in some instances, attorneys. By providing an attorney with a cubicle in their existing storefront office, it makes it simple to turn over a tax preparation client to the attorney to help them solve a legal problem they have.
There are of course, legitimate and illegitimate ways to do this.
There is a spectrum in how to create a “bust out” scheme. In the most sophisticated bust out scheme, a crime organization gets control (through a buy-out or by other means) of an existing corporate entity that has a significant time period of existence and a good credit record. This is best done when the owners are of the same affinity group (such as an immigrant community with close knit or family ties) when they are ready to retire and go back to the home country, where they will be beyond the reach of American law.
In this part of the bust out spectrum, the goal is to obtain lots of product or merchandise on credit, sell out cheap and/or arrange for insurance settlements (with contrived thefts or arson), and then not pay the creditors. It is then best to be forced into involuntary bankruptcy. Then the perpetrators just walk away from the business, blaming the involuntary bankruptcy for their business’s demise.
At the other end of the spectrum are bust out schemes known as “fly by night” operations. These schemes are better suited to fee for service operations. As defined by the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary, “Fly by Night” refers to:
1: one that seeks to evade responsibilities and especially creditors by flight
2: one without established reputation or standing; especially a shaky business enterprise
If IEIS never registered with any government authorities it might fall into the latter category which is why it seems to have failed to register with the State, County, or City. Likely, it’s address and telephone number as held out publicly on the internet is going to come back with the landlord and telephone company to Monica Urzua’s tax preparation service. If anybody came looking for IEIS for back taxes, corporate registration fees, or to serve legal process on them, there would be no record of their existence with any government agency.
Unfortunately for Urzua and Suarez, somehow and probably inadvertently, listings wound up on the internet with their names linked to IEIS respectively as CEO and as owner. Stupidly, it never occurred to them that the joint use of the telephone number was traceable either.
In such enterprises, it is advisable to utilize either a “beard” or a “patsy.” A “patsy” (Merriam Webster: “a foolish person who is easily tricked or cheated”) situation is illustrated by the case of Helmut Brunjes aka Charles Oberman. Brunjes, an undocumented German National, who was listed as President, Secretary and Treasurer of “Gold Card Services,” by two women who were associates of various Hungarian Mafia crime families. Helmut set up the bank account, made all the bank deposits and all the cash withdrawals. Preying on unsophisticated immigrants reached by ads through Spanish language print media, they stole hundreds of thousands of dollars and left Brunjes holding the proverbial bag. After Helmut was convicted on 13 felony counts, one of the women, Agnes Barak, paid off Helmut to jump bail and go back to Germany (she was later indicted on other charges while her confederate split to Belgium).
Helmut was the perfect “patsy.”
Guillermo Suarez, as an attorney, would make an excellent “beard.”
A “beard,” because it’s in front of a face, is akin to a person acting as a mask for the real ownership or operation of a financial enterprise. In some cases the beard can be used in perfectly legitimate ways to structure assets. In this case, Suarez role as a beard was necessary because the one thing that the enterprise could not risk was not having an attorney associated with it, because eventually somebody would have to appear before the federal immigration courts.
An attorney also makes an excellent beard because of:
1. The complications presented to law enforcement authorities when money is laundered through an attorney’s trust account;
The ability of the attorney and their own confederates to rely, properly or improperly, on attorney-client.
If Suarez acted as IEIS’ beard, by enabling the company to hold itself out on the internet as being (a) a corporation and (b) owned by Suarez that Suarez in violation of RPC(“Rules of Professional Conduct”) 1-400(D)(1), (2), and (3).
If he acted as the IEIS beard when it was not a legal enterprise to begin with, Suarez violated RPC 1-320, sharing his fees directly or indirectly with non-lawyers, enabled violations of the RPC and State Bar Act in violation of RPC 1-120, and violated RPC 1-300 by assisting the unlawful practice of law.