Biomed Realty Trust Inc, a Public Company that has Failed to Disclose its Legal Proceedings to SEC and the Public against SEC Regulations and Public Policy, Exercised its Money and Power to Falsify Testimonies under Oath and Mislead the Jury for Deliberation of a Shocking Verdict to Prejudice San Diego Regenerative Medicine Institute in San Diego Central Court

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.

On December 29, 2011, only 6 days after San Diego Regenerative Medicine Institute (SDRMI) informed Biomed Realty Trust Inc (BMR) -- Biomed Realty Trust Inc, Biomed Realty LP, BMR-Bunker Hill LP -- a public traded company advertising itself as leading force in leasing laboratory spaces to life science industry, that SDRMI had human embryonic stem cells and preclinical stem cell therapy products and that SDRMI was running out of funding to pay rent, BMR hired Steven Blake of Galuppo & Blake, then Galuppo & Blechschmidt, to begin a legal crusade on SDRMI, a non-profit 501c3 tax-exempt stem cell research start-up in life science industry that, BMR knew, did not have any legal counsel and would not be able to afford any legal counsel. BMR internal communications through case discovery later show that BMR was in fact informed in December 2011 by SDRMI that SDRMI would like to move out or pay BMR back when funding came. However, even after BMR admitted that it was informed of SDRMI’s intention to move out, BMR still had its legal department quickly start the legal proceeding of eviction in the beginning January 2012 without mitigating any remedies with SDRMI for their claims for loss in rent. In BMR verified unlawful detainer case filed on January 12, 2012 (case#37-2012-00042147 and court records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov), BMR attorney Steve Blake and vice President Kevin Simonsen, also an attorney, both declared under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that SDRMI was a corporation organized and existing under the law of the State of California and was in possession of the Premises (please see image files provided by BMR through case discovery below). However, on January 19, 2012, only 7 days later and only less than 2 weeks after BMR staff and security guard saw that there was liquid nitrogen tank from Praxair delivered to the Premises, BMR attorneys claimed that, without any reasonable belief for abandonment required by the law and against their own declarations under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, BMR allegedly served Notice of Belief of Abandonment, which is in fact an invalid legal document because the wrong section of civil code procedures of California was used, none of SDRMI personal property at the Premises at that time was listed, and BMR wrongfully claimed that SDRMI property to be valued at worth less than $300 (please see image files provided by BMR through case discovery below). BMR falsified its proof of services for all legal documents from its contracted legal services (please see court documents below for case#37-2012-00042147 and court records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov), inactivated SDRMI’s access key cards and changed the locks of the Premises on or before February 11, 2012 (please see image files provided by BMR through case discovery below), and had all the legal documents remain to be delivered to the Premises even after the locks were changed in February 2012 without informing SDRMI, even after BMR had taken SDRMI property into possession in February 2012 without SDRMI consent, even after BMR had contracted Occupational Services Inc (OSI) to destroy SDRMI’s stem cell and research materials in March 2012 without informing SDRMI, even after BMR legal department and staff accused SDRMI trespassing in March 2012, even after BMR refused to return all SDRMI stem cell research equipment in the end of March 2012, even in April and May 2012 after the lease was expired, even after BMR obtained their money judgment in May 2012 (please see court documents below for case#37-2012-00042147, and court records can be viewed at http://www.sdcourt.ca.gov). On February 9, 2012, BMR contracted OSI and told OSI that the eviction was complete and everything on the Premises was waste, before BMR even obtained a default from the court on February 29, 2012 (please see BMR internal communications below provided by BMR themselves through case discovery). OSI exit survey report from discovery of this case found that there was no spill, no hazardous materials, OSI has nothing to report (please see image files below provided by BMR themselves through case discovery). Even though SDRMI’s cell phone# was right on the front page of the lease, BMR staff and security guard called SDRMI in early January for the delivery of liquid nitrogen, and BMR had never missed a month to email and mail SDRMI rent statements charging outrageous late fees, from January to March 2012, BMR has never contacted SDRMI in any ways, no phone call, no email, no fax, no mail, to inform SDRMI about their wrong doings, such as BMR deliberately changed the locks singlehandedly, BMR deliberately contracted OSI singlehandedly, BMR deliberately broke SDRMI freezer locks singlehandedly, and BMR deliberately took SDRMI stem cells and research materials out of their storage cryofreezer and freezers and left at room temperature singlehandedly, which, BMR knew, would destroy those valuable biomedical research materials for good, and which, BMR knew, is a despicable act for anyone who works in the life science and biomedical research industry that BMR has been advertising as their top specialty in the nation.

In a jury trial presiding by Judge Pressman of Department 66 in San Diego Central Court, BMR attorneys have exercised BMR’s money and power on the Judge and Jury to their maximum advantages to bring an extremely unfair trial for SDRMI. The Judge denied SDRMI to have real estate expert to testify about the normal standards and procedures of services and management for a commercial real estate company; reasonable belief of abandonment and other legal requirements for serving notice of belief of abandonment; the requirements for landlord to follow the steps of legal procedures of unlawful detainer in eviction process, and the liability of the landlord would be subjected to if they do not follow the law in eviction process; landlord’s duty of care and liability for any abandoned property they claimed; the liability of landlord to personal property in self-help eviction, such as change locks and cut-off utility; the lease has no entry provision, and for commercial lease without entry provision, BMR has no rights to enter the Premise without SDRMI’s permission; the lease has a provision for mail and personal delivery for notices that BMR has failed to follow; the lease has no early termination provision; part of the lease, including section 9.1, is against public policy, unenforceable; SDRMI lab was running and contained valuable work products (with photo evidences provided by BMR themselves) on January 19, BMR had no reasonable belief of abandonment for them to serve abandonment notice on January 19; the period between January 6 when BMR saw SDRMI was working and January 19 when BMR allegedly served notice of belief of abandonment was unreasonably too short for reasonable belief of abandonment; the period between February 29 when BMR obtained a default and March 7 when BMR destroyed SDRMI stem cells was unreasonably too short to be permitted by the law; which are all critical for judging BMR’s deliberate conducts that are responsible for the damages to SDRMI. The Judge denied SDRMI to testify about SDRMI’s stem cell research; the value of SDRMI stem cells that have been destroyed by BMR; the value of SDRMI stem cell research materials that have been destroyed by BMR; the actual state of SDRMI lab on January 19 when it was running and contained valuable work products that is comparable to SDRMI videos taken a few months ago, not the photos BMR took in February 2012 after their clean up, which BMR falsified the photo date as taken on January 19 under penalty of perjury and under oath. The Judge denied SDRMI administrate critical evidences related to BMR attorneys and their wrongful conducts against the law in BMR’s unlawful detainer action, which resulted in the damages to SDRMI and are crucial evidences to this case. The Judge denied SDRMI to provide jury instructions for the laws regarding legal procedures in eviction process and liability for handling personal property deemed abandoned by landlord, including instruction on reasonable belief of abandonment for serving notice of belief of abandonment; instruction on proof of intention to abandon for serving notice of belief of abandonment; instruction on landlord’s responsibility to follow the legal step of notice of belief of abandonment and landlord is prohibited from lock-out of the tenant during the entire process; instruction on landlord’s responsibility to follow the legal steps of unlawful detainer to avoid any liability for tenant’s personal property and landlord is prohibited from lock-out of the tenant during the entire eviction process; instruction on landlord cannot enter the Premises without obtaining writ for procession; instruction on self-help eviction and its liability for damages to personal property; instruction on the validation of notice of belief of abandonment; instruction on landlord’s duty of care for personal property deemed abandoned; instruction on the liability of landlord to any personal property not listed on the notice of belief of abandonment; instruction on legal procedures to handle personal property left at the Premises; instruction on landlord’s responsibility for proof of services.

On the contrary, the Judge allowed BMR administrate BMR falsified Fedex letters that BMR could not provide Fedex tracking numbers, any receipts or signatures; falsified cumulative testimonies under oath from more than 10 BMR employees, security guard, long-time contractors that have been paid by BMR to prejudice SDRMI and mislead the jury; falsified photo date with no proof when those photos of the Premises were actually taken by BMR; falsified photo date against SDRMI’s testimony; falsified photo date by testimonies from BMR’s own witnesses that they provided duplicate sets of almost identical photos allegedly taken in January before BMR lock-out and in February after BMR lock-out, but  they went into the SDRMI lab only once to take photos; to mislead the jury and prejudice SDRMI, which was locked out unexpectedly by BMR and then accused trespassing, so could not provide any photos for the Premises and damages done by BMR. The Judge allowed BMR administrate falsified proof of services in January 2012 from a third party that has long-time contracts with BMR, not from testimony of the actual persons who signed the proof of services. The Judge allowed BMR administrate SDRMI’s founder Dr. Parsons’ previous employment history and prior lawsuits that are irrelevant to this case to create undue prejudice to SDRMI, to make a negative inference on Dr. Parsons, to confuse the issues, and to mislead the Jury, against court law.

SDRMI testified that SDRMI has never received or seen BMR notice of belief of abandonment and unlawful detainer, no phone call, no posting, no mail, no certified mail, no Fedex letter in January 2012 before locked out by BMR in the end of January. BMR witness also provided testimony there was no posting or any paper works seen inside or outside the Premises on January 27, 2012. SDRMI testified that SDRMI moved some of its lab equipment on January 29, 2012, and that BMR security guard called police and, subsequently lock-out in the end of January, made SDRMI could not move out, nor be able to respond to any of BMR legal notices. SDRMI testified that these BMR photos of the Premises, which BMR attorneys were used to show empty lab benches, office table, and lab supplies in trash bags that SDRMI has not been able to move out, could not be taken on January 19, 2012, because none of the items SDRMI moved out on January 29 are in any of these photos. BMR could not provide any eye witness for their false claim that SDRMI moved before January 29, 2012. BMR property managers provided testimonies that from January to March 2012, they have never contacted SDRMI, no phone call, mail, or email, about any of their conducts, such as entered the Premise, took photos, changed locks, contracted OSI. Even after SDRMI’s testimony, the Judge continued to allow BMR attorneys to use few selected photos for empty lab benches, office table, and lab supplies in trash bags, which were not taken by BMR property manager on January 19, but in February 2012 after they locked out SDRMI and after BMR cleaned up, to make false statements and improper comments that the Premises was abandoned on January 19. Even after SDRMI’s testimony, the Judge continued to allow BMR attorneys to omit those photos showing SDRMI lab equipment, locked cryofreezer, and running freezers at the Premises on January 19, 2012. Even after SDRMI’s testimony, the Judge continued to deny SDRMI to show the actual state of SDRMI lab on January 19 when it was running and contained valuable work products that is comparable to SDRMI videos taken a few months ago, not the photos BMR took in February 2012 after their clean up, which BMR falsified the photo date as taken on January 19 under penalty of perjury and under oath.

The Judge allowed BMR expert Evan Snyder from Sanford Burnham Medical Research Institute to make false testimony under oath that SDRMI’s stem cells were worthless, while he also contradicted himself by saying that it was a huge loss and it would cost a lot of money to make them. Evan Snyder has a long history of working relationship with SDRMI’s founder Dr. Parsons, and had used Dr. Parsons’ research data and intellectual property to obtain millions of NIH (National Institutes of Health) and CIRM (California Institute for Regenerative Medicine Institute) grants without obtaining consent from Dr. Parsons, nor giving her any credits, which should have disqualified him as expert witness. Dr. Snyder testified under oath that Sanford Burnham Medical Research Institute and Sanford Consortium for Regenerative Medicine have used SDRMI’s founder Dr. Parsons’ conditions or techniques to derive pluripotent human embryonic stem cell (human ES cell) lines and human induced pluripotent stem cell (human iPS cell) lines and their derivatives without SDRMI’s consent or agreement. Evan Snyder is also the chair of FDA Cell, Tissue, & Gene Therapy Advisory Committee and on the CIRM Presidential Scientific Advisory Board that include Larry Goldstein of University of California at San Diego, Irv Weissman of Stanford University, and other prestigious members, who have been giving CIRM advices on CIRM requests for grant applications (RFA), policy for grant reviews, and recommendations for grant reviewers, and who have all been awarded multi-millions of grants from CIRM during their services to CIRM. BMR’s 2^nd expert Michael West, who is a collaborator with Evan Snyder on papers and grants, was going to give cumulative testimony under oath that SDRMI’s stem cells worth zero, but unexpectedly bailed himself out in the last minute. Michael West is the chief executive officer of Biotime, a public traded company that is selling their human embryonic stem cell lines for $950 per vial. BMR has entered into an 8-year lease contract with Biotime’s subsidiary Asterias in January 2014 that worth ~ 1.5 million per year. Evan Snyder has been advising CIRM president and vice president and helped Michael West obtain a $14.3 million award from CIRM in May 2014 to continue clinical trial abandoned by Geron in November 2011.

The Judge allowed BMR outrageous cross-complaint of allegedly loss or damage for their own malicious conducts without SDRMI consent and after they 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; 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.

BMR attorneys have turned the trial for their liability and damages to SDRMI property into character assassination and defamation on SDRMI directors, officers, and corporation records and formality, to prejudice SDRMI, to make a negative inference, to confuse the issues, and to mislead the Jury, against court law. Although SDRMI is a stem cell research start-up incorporated in the state of California for the sole purpose to conduct preclinical and clinical stem cell research, has 501c3 tax exempt status, has been awarded NIH grant to conduct stem cell research, has been awarded patent by USPTO, has conduct stem cell research at the Premises, has published numerous stem cell research articles, has mission statement, has bylaws, has spend all of its money for business purpose, including paying BMR rents and fees, BMR attorneys maliciously and wrongfully accused SDRMI against testimonies and evidences, such as making false statements and improper comments that “SDRMI money just disappeared, used its money for personal purpose, lied about not receiving BMR notice of belief of abandonment and unlawful detainer, the photos of the Premises were taken on January 19”. BMR attorney Steve Blake actually made threats to the jury to call mistrial if he would not get the verdict he wanted, and made improper comments and false accusations to SDRMI founder Dr. Parsons and SDRMI business during his close arguments against testimonies of witnesses from both SDRMI and BMR. After 3 weeks of bully by BMR attorneys, BMR has exercised its money and power in court to falsify testimonies under oath in court to mislead the jury for deliberation of a shocking verdict to prejudice SDRMI that cleared BMR all liability for the real losses or damages that SDRMI has sustained by BMR malicious conducts and wrong doings, but instead wronged SDRMI and Dr. Parsons for allegedly non-existing over-inflated loss or damage resulted from BMR’s own malicious intention and despicable conducts that were never consented, nor remotely caused by SDRMI.

BMR provided the supporting documents below.