All the information disclosed below is privileged and provided
by BMR, SDRMI, and other sources through case discovery. This blog makes no representations as to accuracy,
completeness, correctness, reliability, suitability, or validity of this
information. The content on this blog is the opinion only, not
intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, or
individual, or anyone or anything.
BioMed Realty Trust Inc (BMR)
-- Biomed Realty Trust Inc, Biomed Realty LP, BMR-Bunker Hill LP -- is the largest public-traded commercial real
estate specializing leasing laboratory spaces for life science industry. BMR has failed to disclose its legal proceedings to the
United States Security and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Public in
consecutive quarterly reports against SEC regulations and Public Policy (please
see http://www.sec.gov/ ). BMR’s board
members include trustees and president of Salk Institute; trustee of Stanford
University; CEO of Amylin
Pharmaceuticals; boards of directors of Illumina, Geron Corporation, Alliance
Pharmaceutical Corp, Corcept Therapeutics, and Castle Biosciences; the advisory
councils of the University of California San Diego and the University of Miami;
President of Roth Capital (please
see http://www.biomed.com ). BMR’s biotechnology company
investment portfolio includes some of the trailblazers in human embryonic stem
cell lines, such as Geron and Asterias Biotherapeutics, a subsidiary of
Biotime, which dosed on stem cell assets of Geron in October 2013 under a ~ $40
million deal for acquiring four cell lines, including OPC1, that were shelved
by Geron. Asterias entered into an 8-year lease contract with BMR in January
2014 that worth ~$1.5 million/year, and subsequently, received a $14.3 million
award from California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (CIRM) in May 2014 to continue clinical trial of OPC1
for spinal cord injury abandoned by Geron in November 2011. Those public
developments indicate that BMR, a real estate company, has millions of money
tangle with California
stem cell agency and possibly other powerful systems. Therefore, although a large
and powerful public company in commercial real estate, BMR indeed has real financial
conflict of interest with private stem cell startup in life sciences industry and
has been using the legal systems for their improper purposes by waging a legal war on San Diego
Regenerative Medicine Institute (SDRMI), a non-profit 501c3 tax-exempt human
embryonic stem cell research start-up in life science industry that, BMR know, cannot
be burden with the costs of legal defenses and any legal counsels. BMR has been using fraudulent lease, faulty verdict,
malicious prosecution, extortionate demand, legal threat, SLAPP lawsuit to
harass, intimidate, censor, damage, and patent troll private human embryonic stem
cell startup and Voice of Regenerative Medicine, a human embryonic stem cell
blog, against California Civil Code Procedure and Public Policy for their
malicious intention and despicable conduct to take control of SDRMI’s human
embryonic stem cell assets and patent, liquidate SDRMI assets, drive SDRMI to
bankruptcy, and destroy private stem cell startup in the life science industry
that BMR has real financial conflict of interest with (please see image files
of BMR extortionate demand letters for SDRMI stem cell patent provided by BMR
themselves below).
BMR, a
public-traded company, has
been a party of multiple legal proceedings including case#37-2014-00034661, case#37-2013-00038680, and case#37-2012-00042147 (court
records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov),
which disclosed through case discoveries BMR’s shocking malicious intention and
despicable conducts in illegal confiscation and destruction of valuable human
embryonic stem cell lines and stem cell research materials of SDRMI – a
privately-hold stem cell startup in life science industry, and illegal confiscation
and sell of stem cell research equipment of SDRMI with its partner
organizations through fraudulent lease against public policy, invalid legal
documents, false statements in legal documents under the penalty of perjury
under the laws of the State of California, default and judgment that contain
multiple legal deficiencies, and failure to follow proper legal procedures (please
see image files provided by BMR themselves below). However, BMR has reported to SEC repeatedly during last consecutive
quarters that BMR is not currently a party to any legal proceedings nor is any
legal proceeding threatened against BMR that BMR believe would have a material
adverse effect on its financial position, results of operations or liquidity
against SEC regulations (please see http://www.sec.gov/).
To cover up that BMR has violated public policy and government regulations to
deliberately withhold information about its legal proceedings and multiple
legal deficiencies to SEC and the Public, BMR is making false accusations and
alleging defamation lawsuit (Case#37-2014-00034661, court
records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov), threatening restraining order and injunctions to bully Voice
of Regenerative Medicine – a human embryonic stem cell research blog – and extort private sector unrelated individuals and
startups for speaking truth about BMR’s legal proceedings that contain multiple
legal deficiencies; violates the legal rights, ownership, and
privacy of US private organizations and citizens, including US veteran and POW,
entitled by law; and resulted in deliberate
destruction to human embryonic stem cells of SDRMI and devastating damages to
private life science startup (case#37-2013-00038680,
case#37-2012-00042147, and case#37-2014-00034661, court
records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov,
please see image files and BMR attorney’s frequent ex parte contacts and extortionate
demand letters provided by BMR themselves below). What BMR, a public company
that has failed to disclose its legal
proceedings to SEC against public policy and government regulations, has to
hide?
In May
2014, CIRM gave Asterias $14.3
million award, afterwards, BMR attorney Steve Blake filed multiple motions in
court for court sanction, writ of execution, court-appointed receiver with
malicious intention and primarily for improper purposes, such as harassment or
intentionally cause needless increase in the cost of litigation that, BMR knew,
a small stem cell startup in the life sciences industry could not afford, to
force SDRMI handover its stem cell patent, hostile takeover, force SDRMI
liquidate its asset into bankruptcy, compel SDRMI production of information and
documents that contain information that is commercially sensitive, trade
secret, proprietary, confidential and/or subject to a right of privacy entitled
by law (please see BMR attorney’s frequent ex parte contacts with SDRMI and
extortionate demand letters provided by BMR themselves below).
In the civil trial in San Diego
Central Court for BMR alleged destruction of entire human embryonic stem cell
stock and stem cell research facility of SDRMI (case#37-2013-00038680 and related case#37-2012-00042147 and
case#37-2014-00034661, and court records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov), the Judge
allowed BMR outrageous cross-complaint and enter of faulty judgment of allegedly
loss or damage that is caused by BMR own malicious conducts, that were never
consented, nor remotely caused by SDRMI, and that was after BMR deliberately locked
SDRMI out and accused SDRMI trespassing, including overcharged rents, fees,
utilities, late fees, attorney fees, contract fees with OSI to destroy SDRMI
stem cells and research materials, which BMR has greedily inflated each costs
of their own malicious conducts to >200%, and bully alter ego doctrine to go
after SDRMI’s founder Dr. Parsons, despite the facts that BMR’s allegation for
loss or damage is not actual cost, unreasonable, without any receipts or proof,
without SDRMI consent or any verification; BMR signed the lease with SDRMI
using a non-existing entity – BMR 3030 Bunker Hill Street LLC (please see image
files below); the applicable statute of limitation of the lease has expired;
the lease was fraudulent, unenforceable, against public policy; SDRMI has
suffered actual damages from BMR due to the fraudulence of the lease; BMR did
not state sufficient facts to constitute a cause of the cross-complaint under
any legal theory; the damages claimed by BMR, if any, was caused by BMR’s own
conducts, not directly or proximately caused by SDRMI; the damages claimed by
BMR is barred by the doctrine of laches; BMR has prejudiced SDRMI by its
unlawful detainer action and other wrongful conducts; BMR has repeatedly and
deliberately broke the contract, including multiple unauthorized entries,
overcharged SDRMI utility by averaging the building utility against the lease,
changed locks and inactivated access keys, failed to serve SDRMI notice
properly, broke SDRMI freezer locks, damaged and destroyed SDRMI property, sold
SDRMI property to their partner San Diego State University (SDSU) or donate to
their partner Sustainable Surplus Exchange for sell (please see image files
provided by BMR themselves through case discovery); BMR continued to send SDRMI
rent statements for late payment according to the lease provision about the
late payment, therefore, failed to make out a Prima Facie case that SDRMI broke the contract. The
Judge allowed BMR entered the faulty judgment and verdict that are missing some
crucial deliberations for BMR’s malicious intention and despicable conducts in
destruction of entire human embryonic stem cell stock and stem cell research
facility of SDRMI, and that is different from the original verdict handed to
the Judge, which was not just two sentences for the verdict of BMR’s malicious
intention and despicable conducts in destruction of entire human embryonic stem
cell stock and stem cell research facility of SDRMI (please see image files
provided by BMR themselves below). And even in the omitted or faulty verdict,
the jury could not deny SDRMI’s ownership for its stem cell assets that were
illegally confiscated, destroyed, and sold by BMR; and according to California
civil code procedures, even if property is deemed abandoned, landlord BMR still
has the duty to return it to its owner SDRMI, which BMR are subject to
negligence and conversion for BMR’s conducts (please see image files provided
by BMR themselves below). How come those crucial parts of jury deliberations in
the verdict for BMR’s malicious intention and despicable conducts in
destruction of entire human embryonic stem cell stock and stem cell research
facility of SDRMI are missing or deliberately omitted? Why would BMR attorney
Steve Blake demand for jury trials if he was not assured by BMR that BMR’s
power and money would have a undisclosed way to tamper the jury trials and
protect him from any wrong doings of malicious prosecutions (please see case#37-2013-00038680 and related case#37-2012-00042147 and
case#37-2014-00034661, and court records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov).
According
to the unlawful detainer law, BMR has to obtain SDRMI’s agreement for sell or
donate SDRMI’s stem cell research equipment. BMR had no rights to sign the
donor agreement with Sustainable Surplus Exchange and sell SDRMI stem cell
research equipment to San Diego State University (SDSU) since BMR did not have
ownership for all the items listed, nor obtained any agreement from SDRMI. This
information through case discovery uncovers a black market operation where BMR
illegally confiscates valuable research equipment and materials of life science
organization or company through fraudulent lease, false statements and wrongful
accusations, then either destroys or sells in their partner organizations for
profit. BMR fraudulent lease contained exit survey and provisions for the purpose
of cleaning the premise only, it is despicable, unconscionable, illegal,
contrary to public policy for BMR to abuse it as their rights or safe-harbor
for their wrongdoings in confiscation, destruction, sell, and extortionate
demand of SDRMI human embryonic stem cell assets and patent that BMR has
neither ownership nor any rights. BMR’s black market operation has escalated
into extortion for SDRMI’s patent rights using the money judgment and faulty
verdict that BMR illegally obtained from the court using malicious persecutions
to burden small life sciences with the costs of multiple legal defenses SDRMI
could not afford (please see BMR attorney Steve Blake’s extortionate demand
letters provided by BMR themselves below). Why would a commercial real estate
company be interested in taking control of SDRMI’s stem cell asset and stem
cell patent if there is no financial conflict of interest?
BMR provided the supporting documents below.
