Sunday, April 1, 2018

SOMAR Productions

To make it short : don't work with SOMAR Film & Productions, based in L.A., Miami, and more
Don't trust Somar Film & Productions. After a very last minute booking, I have filmed for them, giving them a great deal with a nice "first time customer discount", and even went the extra mile to deliver the footage to them through a lengthy online process (big files = long uploads) that ate up more of my time. Four months and a lot of emails, plus an official registered letter, after, I still haven't been paid for my work. They made excuses, promises, sent me a cheque with the wrong amount that they asked me not to cash, yet still nothing. Then I learned that they've been taken to the court of small claims, and lost, for similar problems, and that other freelancers are in the same conflictual situation with them, all over the US and Canada. They also don't have any local offices like they pretend, only fake addresses. They hire local people, then don't pay them. We also suspect that the list of clients they show off on their website is just as fake as all the five star reviews that show up in various places. A little cross examination shows that these reviews are posted by fake accounts that all review the same businesses positively.

Wednesday, January 3, 2018

J.A. Frost

Hey guys, just a heads up about J.A. Frost. He hired me to design a poster for a film of his, which I did and we went back and forth on corrections for a few days. When it was practically completed (and watermarked) he stopped contacting me. 30 days of calls, texts, emails and messages later he still hasn’t paid for the work or responded to me. Don’t want anyone else to waste their time.

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Sanjiv Kumar Patel / Starlight Global Films

This Producer is a Crook - Sanjiv Kumar Patel. He didn't pay most of his crew on the feature "Tie the Knot". We sued for it but he never showed and we can't get it from.

Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Francis Pinnock

I would like to submit Francis Pinnock and the production of Sangre Negra to your list. Frank works his crews 15-17 hours and then at the end of the day the money is no where to be found. When he does give people checks, they bounce. He has no appreciation for the hard work that people put in for his horrible projects. Please let me know if you need any more information.

Cheryl Quintana / Creo 8 / Indivison 2000 / Mi Casa Network

I would like to report this production company which utilizes ALL of the following names

Cheryl Quintana (also goes by Petra Celia)
Sean Malatesta
Mi Casa Network (LA Center Studios, 450 S. Bixel St., Suite M160)
Indivison 2000 Production Company
Creo 8 Production Company

This company not only never paid me and a crew of 35 people. Cheryl Quintana actually harassed me personally for months after I demanded payment. On production she locked herself in her car and fled the scene to avoid paying us. She tried to run another member of the crew off the road for angering her. These people are not only untrustworthy but also mentally unstable and dangerous. Please share so other people do not experience what we had.

[Submitter's name redacted by editor]

Tuesday, May 20, 2014

End of Fall Productions

Client hired me to do post production sound. Gave me unreasonable deadlines with poor production material. Ex: quoted 2 weeks for an episode that needed some major audio cleaning; was given 3 days to complete. Not even enough time to work out the kinks.
Intitially when discussing work with client I stated point blank I would work on the first episode on a flat rate and after that I would charge accordingly for the amount of time it would take me to work on each project. Client never payed his bill and I never got paid.
Many collegues of mine, including the one that introduced me to them warned me of their shady tactics. I was warned and didnt listen. Lesson learned. Now I want to make sure no one else gets screwed.
Thanks for your time.

Wednesday, October 31, 2012


As submitted by Complaintant:



Criminal Grand Theft by Fraud Charges under California Penal Code, Section 484-502.9


JORDAN LEIBERT a/k/a Lee Ann Jordan Leibert, Lee Ann J. Leibert, Lee Ann Leibert

            COMES NOW, UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY, ___________________________an individual, hereinafter referred to as the Victim, to swear and affirm allegations of state and federal criminal fraud against the above named individual.

The following statements are true and correct as to the best recollections of the Victim.


RE:  “The Ultimate Game”
On Sunday May 6, 2012 the Victim was paid $250.00 (two hundred fifty dollars) in cash by the Accused at the residence of Paula Kay at 21015 Tomlee Avenue, Torrance CA 90503; the address at which the Accused was renting a room.

The Accused told the Victim the $250.00 (two hundred fifty dollars) cash represented half the total income the Accused would be paid for the work for this job, and that the work the Victim was being asked to do would consist of assisting the Accused with the script breakdown and scheduling portions of a motion picture called “The Ultimate Game.” Simultaneously, the Accused stated she would be keeping the other half of the payment for working on the budgeting and cash-flow portions of the job.

The Accused told the Victim that both be sharing half the work, and half of the total profits, and effectively splitting the responsibilities and income. 

The Accused told The Victim that the total value of the entire job was $1,000.00 (one thousand dollars) and that half of the income was to be paid up front, to both of us, and that the balance of the money owed would be paid upon completion and delivery of the work to the Client, writer/producer, Kevin Bakko. The Accused stated she had previously met in person with this individual and collected $500.00 (five hundred dollars) in cash; the first portion of these income presently split between the Accused and the Victim. 

The Victim returned to his Oregon residence on Tuesday May 8, 2012 and began working on the script breakdown and scheduling the following day.  Upon the Victim starting the job, the Victim had many technical and logistical questions that the Accused could not answer and could only be answered by the Client, as the Client was the writer of the screenplay and it was his creative and logistical preferences which needed to be respected. 

The Accused firmly demanded “out of respect for the client” that the Victim not contact the Client whatsoever as a professional courtesy. The Accused stated the Client was “long winded” and “did not want me to have to put up with Kevin’s long phone calls.”

The Accused firmly requested from the Victim that any communication – including but not limited to script breakdown and/or scheduling questions the Victim had for the Client concerning “The Ultimate Game” – be emailed and addressed only to the Accused, and that the Accused would forward said questions, and relay any subsequent answers from the Client back to the Victim. 

Henceforth, the Client had no prior knowledge that such questions were originating directly from the Victim, as these questions were made to seem as if they were coming directly from the Accused, because the Accused was effectively trying to, deliberately and deceptively, conceal the Victim’s involvement in this work. 

When such questions were answered, the Accused forwarded the Victim the Client’s responses by email, who directly acknowledged the Accused and not the Victim. 

These emails contained both the documentation of the forward of the Client’s answers to the Accused, and the electronic timestamp in which this email correspondence was originally initiated between the Client and the Accused.  These forwarded emails further document the electronic timestamp when it was sent directly to the Victim by the Accused, all without the Client’s prior knowledge. 

Upon completion and delivery of the work, the Victim was then immediately told by the Accused that the Client arbitrarily elected to re-write and/or edit his screenplay removing select scenes at the last minute, and that we needed to immediately make scheduling and budgeting changes. The Accused told the Victim that these changes would be “very minor” and we would not be paid to perform this additional work; that “we should do it as a courtesy, because Kevin was very honest and up front about paying us.” 

While the Accused stated to the Victim that such scheduling changes would be “very minor,” the reality was that these scheduling changes were anything but minor on account of new scene numbers provided, and a request from the Client for a complete re-structuring and re-scheduling of the schedule, from the work which was previously completed. These changes required a tremendous amount of work for which the Victim acquiesced that would he would not be paid for completing, but did complete nonetheless. 

Throughout the process of this work, The Accused additionally requested consultation, and a thorough review from the Victim on the Accused’s own work concerning the budgeting.   There is electronic documentation which demonstrates the Victim’s notes concerning the Accused’s budgeting work, sent to the Accused via email.  

Since completion of this work, Victim has waited 8 (eight) weeks for remittance of payment, as of signing of this Affidavit, with no action being taken on the part of the Accused to pay the Victim.   

The Victim contacted the Accused multiple times to pursue such payment via the Accused’s email, phone via text message, and by telephone call and/or voice mail message.   As a result of these efforts, the Accused always promised prompt remittance concerning the balance of the payment and that it “was in the mail,” however, no payment has ever been received, nor was any sort of tracking number demonstrated by the Accused to the Victim to document that it was ever sent, and/or lost via shipping and payment re-issued. 

Because the Accused had demonstrated a pattern concerning excuses and lack of payment towards the Victim, and because the Victim had the Client’s contact information from the Accused’s previous emails with the Client, the Victim elected to call the Client to discuss the matter on Monday July 30, 2012. 

During this phone call, the Victim introduced himself and proceeded to tell the Client as to how he came to this project, and how the Accused did not compensate the Victim for his work concerning the script breakdown and scheduling on his “The Ultimate Game” screenplay.  

During this call the Victim told the Client that he could document and prove that all of the Client’s notes to the Accused, concerning any script breakdown preferences and/or revisions were all passed through the Accused, and then to the Victim, and that it was really the Victim, not the Accused, who was actually physically performing the work he had previously paid the Accused to perform.    

During this phone call, the Client told the Victim that he had no prior knowledge that there was any other party involved performing the work which he was compensating the Accused to complete. 

At this time, on this specific phone call, when specifics of what the total value of the job was revealed, the Client told the Victim he had already compensated the Accused $4,410.00 (four thousand four hundred ten dollars) for the script breakdown, scheduling and budgeting work, as well as a legal review.

This effectively meant that the Accused had lied to the Victim as to what the total value of the job was, and the subsequent dollar amount which was to be split between the Victim and the Accused.     

Based upon a total value of the job at $4,410.00 (four thousand four hundred ten dollars) which the Client acknowledged compensating the Accused for the work performed – less $1,000.00 (one thousand dollars) for the legal review – half of the value of this job, when split two ways, which the Accused should have fully compensated the Victim, was $2,205.00 (two thousand two hundred five dollars) of which to date only $250.00 (two hundred fifty dollars) had been paid to the Victim, leaving a balance due of $1,705.00 (one thousand seven hundred five dollars).

$1,705.00 (one thousand seven hundred five dollars) therefore would represent the full amount the Victim should have been paid, in order to truly earn half of what the Client paid to the Accused, of which the Victim was told originally that the final balance due would only be $250.00 (two hundred fifty dollars) upon its completion, which incidentally, was not paid either.

The Accused, has therefore, maliciously and intentionally lied to the Victim about the total value of the script breakdown, scheduling and budgeting work, which was promised to be split between the Victim and the Accused, and to date, the Accused has not remitted any payment beyond the original $250.00 (two hundred fifty dollars) cash paid at the beginning of this job.

It is the Victim’s statement that the Accused has committed Theft of Service via Fraud in the amount of $1,455.00 (one thousand four hundred fifty five dollars); a felony under the California Penal Code.

RE:  “Circles In The Field”
On Sunday April 8, 2012 at an Easter Sunday gathering with “friends,” at the residence of Paula Kay at 21015 Tomlee Avenue, Torrance CA 90503, where the Accused was renting a room, the Victim was introduced by the Accused to Daniel Buonsanto.   The Accused told the Victim that Daniel Buonsanto was attached as the writer/director to another feature film the Accused was involved in as a Line Producer, called “Circles In The Field.”

The Accused later told the Victim that her intentions were for the Victim to back her up as her Unit Production Manager on this project and to possibly be ready to take over her position as the Line Producer, as the Accused told the Victim that she had terminal cancer and was uncertain as to whether she would be alive and/or able to perform any work by the time principal photography commenced on “Circles In The Field.”

For 10 (ten) weeks following, the Victim participated in, and at the direct request of the Accused, for the Victim to make himself available, and to perform research work concerning budgeting, scheduling, casting, location scouting/travel, stage, visual effects, and logistical issues relevant to “Circles In The Field,” and required the Victim’s participation in multiple individual, and/or conference phone calls concerning “Circles In The Field” which often involved Producer Joe Rosario or Writer/Director Daniel Buonsanto. 

The Accused told the Victim many times throughout those ten weeks that she wanted the Victim to work on “Circles In The Field” with her, as well as communicating that identical notion to Joe Rosario and Daniel Buonsanto both in individual communication and on conference calls. 

The Accused, knowing that the Victim was having financial difficulties, told the Victim she would make sure the he was able to get $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars) as a retainer in compensation for the work already performed by the Victim during this ten week timeframe on “Circles In The Field” for his present availability and research, and that a formal contract which would provide a guarantee of employment on this project with Producer Joe Rosario would be issued.  This never happened although the Accused told the Victim that $1,000.00 (one thousand dollars) per week was “very little” and a “reasonable request” for the time the Victim had spent this far. 

Throughout these ten weeks the Accused made many statements to the Victim directly, or within various conference calls with Writer/Director Daniel Buonsanto and/or Producer Joe Rosario, which have either not proven to be true at all; or likely were never true to begin with; Namely the Accused:

(1)   Had access to, and had already secured actors Matthew McConaughey and Sandra Bullock for “Circles In The Field.”

(2)    Told the Victim, Joe Rosario and Daniel Buonsanto that casting director Victoria  Burrows was already working casting “Circles In The Field” and was a hired employee on the project. 

(3)   That there was $60,000,000 (sixty million dollars) in an escrow account, specifically to complete “Circles In The Field.”

(4)   That the Accused had access and a professional working relationship with Jerry Bruckheimer who was happy to work as an executive producer for “Circles In The Field” and that Mr. Bruckheimer and his production company was both interested and already attached. 

(5)  That actor Matthew McConaughey, or “Matty,” as the Accused affectionately referred to him, has the Accused baby-sit his children whenever he’s in Los Angeles, California. 

(6)  That actor Matthew McConaughey called the Accused, having a long detailed conversation while he was allegedly intoxicated and claiming to be on his honeymoon, and out of the country.

(7) That there was already studio distribution attached, and in place, for “Circles In The Field.”

(8)  That the Accused was a former Olympic athlete.

(9)  That the Accused reads the Torah. 

(10)  That the Accused was awarded a specific type of a very renowned Humanitarian award as a Catholic, which is generally only awarded to Humanitarian Jews. 

(11)  That the landlord (Paula Kay) at her former 21015 Tomlee Avenue, Torrance CA 90503 address had pushed the Accused down a flight of stairs, punched her multiple times, and was verbally abusive towards her on multiple occasions. 

These 11 (eleven) examples are amongst the most prolific of only some of the illogical and preposterous claims the Accused made to the Victim.  The Accused also made many phone calls of a personal nature to the Victim, often 3-5 times per day, all seeming and appearing very maternal, caring and compassionate in their tonality, in effort to gain the Victim’s trust and sympathy; discussing things such as the Victim’s financial troubles, previous projects, gaining access into the Directors Guild Of America, the Victim’s fiancĂ©, how happy the Accused felt that the Victim was her friend and how the Accused was going through weekly treatments for her cancer oftentimes claiming she was vomiting blood in excess of 20 (twenty) times per day and relaying the details of hospitalization and blood transfusions.  The Accused called the Victim literally in tears crying on some occasions demonstrating considerable emotional and psychological instability, while requesting “friendly advice.” 

It is the Victim’s statement that the Accused should compensate the Victim $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars) as promised, for the ten weeks which the Victim both worked, and made himself available for the development phase of “Circles In The Field.” 


The Victim here was clearly lied to, manipulated and exploited by the Accused whereas the Accused befriended him only to take advantage of his professional talents and not pay him for his work.  The Accused approached the Victim on both on a professional and personal level, under the guise of acting as his friend, solely to manipulate and solidify her own position with others she was trying to manipulate and exploit for her own gain, and take advantage of.

Most importantly, the Victim performed work which he was told he would be compensated for by the Accused, and was not. 

The Accused is a con artist, a scammer, and a fraud.  The Accused has lied about both her professional experience and professional associations and her business contacts and allegiances, merely to take advantage of others and promise pipe dreams to those willing to believe her lies, as opposed to fostering the business of credible, professional motion picture production. 

The evidence and testimony herein, all goes to support that the Accused promoted a multiplicity of inconsistencies and lies to the Victim, Kevin Bakko, Joe Rosario and Daniel Buonsanto in effort to swindle these Victims for her own financial and emotional gain while using the primary Victim herein, Michael Aaron Silberman, as her pawn in her plot against all named for her own emotional sanctity and financial gain. 

The Accused fraudulently did not pay the Victim, as Agreed, a total of $11,455.00 (eleven thousand nine hundred fifty five dollars.)

“The Ultimate Game”                         $1,455.00                    Script Breakdown/Scheduling

“Circles In The Field”                         $10,000.00                  Development Work
                                                                                                Consultation Work
                                                                                                Location And Travel Research


The Victim seeks to have the Accused charged with two counts of criminal theft by fraud under the State of California Penal Code, Section 484-502.9 and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Respectfully submitted this ___ day of August, 2012