Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
STATE OF MINNESOTA DISTRICT COURT COUNTY OF HENNEPIN FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
Case Type: Civil (Consumer Protection)
State of Minnesota by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson,
Plaintiff,
vs. American Group US, Inc.; The Legacy Firm Corp.; and Ornella A. Hammerschmidt,
Defendants.
Court File No. ________
COMPLAINT
The State of Minnesota by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson, for its Complaint against
Defendants American Group US Inc., The Legacy Firm Corp., and Ornella A. Hammerschmidt,
alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Defendants American Group US, Inc. and the Legacy Firm Corporation and one
of their principal agents, Ornella A. Hammerschmidt, cheat Spanish-speaking immigrants out of
thousands of dollars in fees charged for legal work on immigration matters that Defendants are
not lawfully permitted to perform because they are not attorneys or law firms. Among other
things, Defendants charged impoverished immigrants thousands of dollars in fees for
immigration legal services they were not legally authorized to provide, took money from clients
for services that were not provided or that were delayed for lengthy period of times, and prepared
immigration paperwork with errors or falsified signatures or information of the clients.
Defendants’ practices caused financial harm to clients and in some cases unnecessarily delayed
Filed in Fourth Judicial District Court5/13/2014 8:30:05 AM
Hennepin County Civil, MN
27-CV-14-7627
2
clients’ immigration matters or potentially subjected clients to immigration violations. The State
of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, brings this enforcement action to enforce Minnesota state
law, to stop Defendants’ unlawful practices, and to obtain restitution for injured consumers.
PARTIES
2. Lori Swanson, the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, is authorized
under Minnesota Statutes chapter 8, including sections 8.01, 8.31, and 8.32 (2013), and under
Minnesota Statutes sections 325D.45, 325E.031, 325F.70, and 481.02 (2013), and has common
law authority, including parens patriae authority, to bring this action on behalf of the State of
Minnesota and its citizens to enforce Minnesota law.
3. Defendant Ornella Angelina Hammerschmidt (hereinafter “Defendant
Hammerschmidt”) resides at 6428 Oxford Ave. S, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379. Defendant
Hammerschmidt’s maiden name is Nuccio. Defendant Hammerschmidt is not licensed to
practice law in Minnesota or in any of the other 49 United States. Defendant Hammerschmidt is
a principal agent of American Group, and The Legacy Firm. At all times material hereto,
Defendant Hammerschmidt has acted as an agent of Defendant businesses.
4. Defendant American Group US, Inc. (“American Group”) is not registered as a
Minnesota corporation or as a foreign corporation doing business in Minnesota. American
Group was incorporated by an individual named Antonino Nuccio. American Group has been
registered as a Florida for-profit corporation but its status is listed as “inactive” on the Florida
Secretary of State’s website. Its principal place of business and mailing address is listed as
13750 W. Colonial Dr. Pnb 350 213, Winter Garden, Florida 34787, although American Group
has operated at the business address of 205 South Lewis Street, Suite 106, Shakopee, Minnesota
55379 (hereinafter “Lewis Street”). American Group has also used a UPS store address located
27-CV-14-7627
3
at 1160 Vierling Drive #329, Shakopee, Minnesota 55379 (hereinafter “Vierling Drive”). The
email address [email protected] has been used to conduct business at American Group.
Defendant Hammerschmidt is married to a person named Mark Hammerschmidt.
5. “The Legacy Firm Corp. DBA Liberty Tax Service” filed a Certificate of
Assumed Name with the Minnesota Secretary of State on January 12, 2013. The Certificate of
Assumed Name provided the principal place of business address as 7820 Portland Avenue South,
Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 (“Portland Avenue”). The name on the signature of the
Certificate of Assumed Name is Antonino Nuccio. Defendant The Legacy Firm Corp. d/b/a The
Legacy Firm Corp DBA Liberty Tax Service (“Defendant Liberty Tax Service”) has operated at
the business address of 7820 Portland Avenue South, Bloomington, Minnesota 55420 (“Portland
Avenue”).
6. Defendants American Group US, Inc. and The Legacy Firm Corp. are collectively
hereinafter sometimes referred to as “Defendant businesses.”
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes sections 8.01, 8.31, 319B.01 to 319B.10, 325D.43 to 325D.48, 325E.031, 325F.68 to
325F.70, and 481.02.
8. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they reside and do
business in Minnesota and have committed acts causing injury to persons in Minnesota.
9. Venue in Hennepin County is proper under Minnesota Statutes section 542.09
because the cause of action arose, in part, in Hennepin County.
27-CV-14-7627
4
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
10. Immigration rules and proceedings are complex and technical. Incorrect or false
information on a form, or missing a hearing or deadline, can be the difference between an
individual’s eligibility to stay in the United States and deportation. Failing to include pertinent
information—such as criminal histories—on immigration applications can threaten public safety
by allowing dangerous individuals who are not eligible to remain in this country to stay in the
United States.
11. Under Minnesota and federal law, only licensed attorneys are allowed to provide
legal advice on immigration matters.1 Selecting, preparing, or submitting forms seeking
immigration benefits constitutes legal advice. Minnesota statutes preclude non-attorneys from
selecting, preparing, or submitting forms seeking immigration benefits, Minn. Stat. § 325E.031,
subd. 3. (2013) or from engaging in the practice of law. Minn. Stat. § 481.02, subd. 1, 2 (2013).
With limited exceptions not applicable here, federal laws and regulations also prevent non-
attorneys from providing legal advice about immigration matters, including selecting, preparing,
or submitting forms seeking immigration benefits. See 8 C.F.R. § 1.1 (2013); 8 C.F.R. §§ 292.1,
1292.1 (2013). Numerous courts have held that providing legal advice—which includes
selecting, preparing or submitting forms to the Bureau of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration
Services (“USCIS”) or immigration courts—constitutes the unauthorized practice of law. See,
e.g., Ind. ex rel. Ind. State Bar Ass’n v. Diaz, 838 N.E.2d 433, 437-38 (Ind. 2005); Attorney
Grievance Comm’n v. Brisbon, 31 A.3d 110, 118 (Md. 2011); Unauthorized Practice Comm.,
1 Narrow exceptions to this rule exist, including for persons accredited by the Board of Immigration Appeals (“BIA”), but none of the exceptions apply here. Defendants are not accredited by the BIA.
27-CV-14-7627
5
State Bar of Tex. v. Cortez, 692 S.W.2d 47, 50 (Tex. 1985); see also FTC v. Loma Int’l Bus.
Group Inc., No. 1:11-cv-01483, at *2, 7 (D. Md. June 5, 2013).
I. THE DEFENDANTS EXPLOIT IMMIGRANTS WHO ARE UNLIKELY TO COMPLAIN OF
BEING SCAMMED.
12. Until 2009, Defendants operated their immigration services business in Florida.
In 2009, Defendant Hammerschmidt pled guilty to making a false statement in an Immigration
Petition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1546(b)(3) and (2). Defendant Hammerschmidt was
sentenced in accordance with that plea in the United States District Court for the Middle District
of Florida.
13. In approximately 2010, Defendants began operating American Group at the Lewis
Street address in Shakopee, targeting Spanish-speaking immigrants in Minnesota. American
Group offered legal and immigration services to Minnesota residents, many of whom do not
speak English as their first language.
14. In February 2012, the IRS executed a search warrant at American Group’s office
pursuant to allegations that American Group submitted false and fraudulent income tax returns
on behalf of Minnesota residents, according to public news reports. Thereafter, Defendants
moved their business office to the Portland Avenue address and began using different business
names, including The Legacy Firm, Corp.
A. Defendant Hammerschmidt—Who Is Not An Attorney—Falsely Represents That She Can Provide Legal Services That Only A Lawyer Is Authorized To Provide.
15. Defendant Hammerschmidt is not licensed to practice law anywhere in the United
States, including Minnesota. Defendant Hammerschmidt does not disclose that she is not a
licensed attorney and is not competent or authorized to provide legal services. Defendants do not
disclose that none of their businesses are law firms that can provide legal services.
27-CV-14-7627
6
16. To the contrary, Defendants falsely told many clients that Defendant
Hammerschmidt was an attorney and otherwise held hers out as an attorney. For example,
Minnesota consumers with initials N.C., R.H., L.M., J.P., J.A., and M.E. all report that
Defendant Hammerschmidt told them that she was an attorney.
17. Defendants misled many clients about Defendant Hammerschmidt’s capabilities,
in part by providing a business card stating that Defendant Hammerschmidt was an
“International Attorney.” This business card is attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. The
reverse side of Defendant Hammerschmidt’s business card listed her purported legal services,
including “U.S. Citizenship Services, Green Card Services, Family Petitions, National Visa
Center, US Entry Waivers, Deportation Hearings, Bond Hearings, Translations and Interpreter,
Notary Public Services, [and] Criminal Defense.” For example, consumers A.C., N.C., R.H.,
B.R., and M.E. all report receiving the business card of Defendant Hammerschmidt that claims
she is an “International Attorney.” Defendant Hammerschmidt also advertised herself as an
“Attorney” in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area through a LinkedIn profile available online. This
LinkedIn profile is attached as Exhibit B to this Complaint.
18. Other documents used by Defendants sometimes held out Defendant
Hammerschmidt as an attorney. For example, J.P. was presented a retainer agreement with
letterhead of American Group US, Inc. The bottom of the agreement listed “O. Angelina
Hammerschmidt” as one of the individuals listed as “Attorneys at Law for American Group Us.”
This retainer agreement is attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint. Another document received
by J.P. purports to list “Items needed to show continuous physical residence in the United State
[sic] for at least ten years” and lists “O. ANGELINA HAMMERSCHMIDT” as one of the
individuals following the word “ATTORNEY.” This document is attached as Exhibit D to this
27-CV-14-7627
7
Complaint. A document provided to M.S. lists Defendant Hammerschmidt as an “Immigration
law specialist.”
19. Despite Defendant Hammerschmidt not being a licensed attorney, Defendants,
through Defendant Hammerschmidt, provided legal advice to clients, including advice as to
which immigration benefits the client should pursue. For example, A.C. states that Defendants
told her that she would qualify for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”) and
charged $5,000 for DACA petitions for A.C. and her husband. N.C. states that Defendants told
her that she would qualify for a U visa, which would allow her to remain in the United States.
20. Defendants required some of their clients to sign retainer agreements for their
legal services. Language in the retainer agreements suggested that the contract was between the
consumer and the business American Group US, Inc. or The Legacy Firm, Inc., even though
these businesses were not law firms, did not employ attorneys, and were not registered or
otherwise organized as professional corporations authorized to practice law in Minnesota.
21. As a non-lawyer, Defendant Hammerschmidt cannot appear on behalf of clients in
court. See Minn. Stat. §§ 325E.031 subd. 3, 481.02, subd. 1; 8 C.F.R. § 1.1. Defendants
nevertheless led some clients to believe that they would represent them in court or before
government agencies and then often deceived them about why she did not appear. When some
clients questioned the reason Defendant Hammerschmidt failed to appear at a hearing,
Defendants stated that she was too busy. For example, Defendant Hammerschmidt told M.G.
that she could not attend a hearing in support of her petition for a restraining order because she
had other court hearings and commitments. Similarly, although B.T. had paid Defendants for
legal services that included attending B.T.’s citizenship ceremony, when B.T. and her husband
27-CV-14-7627
8
called to notify Defendants of the date and time of the ceremony, Defendant Hammerschmidt
told them that she would probably not attend because she was busy.
22. Receipts for legal services were often provided to clients on both American Group
and Legacy Firm letterhead. These documents reflect that Defendants often charged individuals
money for “immigration fees” and “immigration office fees” that were not performed by an
attorney licensed to practice law in Minnesota. Many of the fees charged by Defendants were for
services that included completing and submitting immigration applications, communicating with
courts, and providing immigration-related legal advice that were not provided by an attorney
licensed to practice law in Minnesota. For example, I.A., N.C. and A.C. all report being charged
for meetings that Defendants described as legal consultations.
23. Because the provision of certain types of immigration services constitutes the
practice of law and because the provision of immigration services may be subject to abuse and
fraud, Minnesota law requires that persons who perform non-legal immigration assistance
services who are not attorneys to post a notice to that effect. Defendants did not comply with
Minnesota’s requirements for posting notice that they are not attorneys. For example, P.R. and
R.C. report going to Liberty Tax but never seeing a posted sign that stated Defendant
Hammerschmidt is not an attorney. An ex-employee of Defendants reports that she never saw
such a notice at Defendant businesses in the nearly three years she worked there.
24. Contrary to Minnesota law, Defendants did not use contracts that explained the
services that would be performed, that identified all fees that would be charged, and that
disclosed that documents submitted in support of immigration applications may not be retained
for any purpose. For example, the retainer agreement with which J.P. was presented describes
only representation in his immigration court proceedings, but J.P. reports that he had paid
27-CV-14-7627
9
Defendants for additional immigration services, including applying for a work permit. A.C.
reports receiving an invoice that lists amounts for services described only as “Immigration Fees.”
R.H. reports that before his third immigration court hearing, Defendant Hammerschmidt told him
that this was the hearing where the judge would decide whether he could be a permanent resident
and that R.H. needed to pay Defendants all of the money he owed before that hearing. When he
got to the hearing, R.H. was told by the judge that his attorney had been notified that the hearing
had been cancelled.
25. Defendants did not always promptly return documents upon request. P.R. and
R.C. report that they asked Defendants to return an original birth certificate and original marriage
certificates but Defendants said that they did not have them. Defendant Hammerschmidt told
P.R. that Defendants had already given the documents back, but P.R. reports that this was not
true. M.S. reports that Defendants told one client who requested her file that she must wait 30
days before Defendants would return the file.
26. Defendants gave legal advice concerning immigration matters and assisted with
the selection, preparation, and filing of immigration forms. For example, A.C. reports seeing
Defendant Hammerschmidt prepare her Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (“DACA”)
petition. M.E. reports that in January of 2014, Defendants said that Defendant Hammerschmidt
would submit a petition for M.E. to become a citizen. M.G. reports that her file from Defendants
contained prepared immigration applications for her, including a I-918, I-192, I-765, and G-28.
B. Defendants Deceptively Associated With A Licensed Attorney And Exploited That Relationship To Further Their Scheme.
27. To facilitate their scheme, Defendants deceptively associated with a Minnesota
attorney, Jennifer Casanova, and misrepresented that relationship in an attempt to legitimize
Defendants’ unlawful business.
27-CV-14-7627
10
28. Ms. Casanova has a criminal defense practice called Casanova Criminal Defense.
Ms. Casanova agreed that Defendants could serve as a referral source in about 2010 for clients
who needed criminal and in-court immigration legal services. Ms. Casanova states that she had
no ownership or control of the Defendant businesses and did not pay anyone at the Defendant
businesses for performing work (except for a nominal payment on one occasion for interpreting a
conversation with a client at a county jail).
29. Defendants sometimes tried to make it falsely appear to clients and courts that
clients were receiving services from Jennifer Casanova, while these clients were instead being
provided legal services by the Defendants. For example, retainer agreements used by the
Defendants included the following language:
Retainer Agreement
The agreement hereby confirms the engagement of American Group US, INC and/or Jennifer L. Casanova for [name of client] in the case of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services vs. [alien identification number]. Legal services will be performed upon the payment of a non-refundable flat fee . . . .
Jennifer L. Casanova Esq. and The Legacy Firm, Inc.
Retainer Agreement
The agreement hereby confirms the engagement of The Legacy Firm, Inc. and Jennifer L. Casanova legal counsel for in the case of United Stated [sic] Department of Justice v. [name of client.] Legal services will be performed upon the payment of a non-refundable flat fee . . . .
Attached as Exhibit E to this Complaint is a retainer agreement used by Defendants.
30. Ms. Casanova states that she has discovered numerous retainer agreements that
purport to be retainer agreements between her and individuals that she has never met and with
27-CV-14-7627
11
whom did not enter into such agreements or authorize anyone to enter into such agreements on
her behalf.
31. Defendants deceived many of their clients about their relationship with Ms.
Casanova. In some instance, clients state that they did not know Ms. Casanova would be
representing them until she appeared at their court hearing. B.R. reports that he expected
Defendant Hammerschmidt to attend his immigration hearing and was surprised when Ms.
Casanova attended. P.R. and R.C. were waiting for Defendant Hammerschmidt at the
courthouse for R.C.’s immigration hearing when P.R. received a call from Defendant
Hammerschmidt stating that Ms. Casanova was waiting for them on another floor. When P.R.
told R.C. about the conversation, R.C.’s response was, “Who is Jennifer?”
32. Despite Defendants’ representations to government officials, courts, and clients
that Ms. Casanova was involved, some clients’ legal and immigration services were not
performed by Ms. Casanova. In August 2013, Ms. Casanova went to Defendants’ office. There,
she states that she discovered files regarding immigration matters in which her name appeared as
an attorney for individuals whom she had never met, never agreed to represent, and for whom
never performed or directed legal work. Ms. Casanova states that she found signatures of her
name in those files that were not signed by her.
33. M.S., an ex-employee of Defendants, reported hearing Defendant
Hammerschmidt identify herself as Ms. Casanova over the phone to United States Citizenship
Immigration Services (“USCIS”), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) or
immigration court officials on numerous occasions. M.S. reports that she also saw Defendant
Hammerschmidt sign documents using Ms. Casanova’s name that were submitted to USCIS and
immigration court. Y.A. reports seeing Defendant Hammerschmidt sign Ms. Casanova’s name
27-CV-14-7627
12
to a retainer agreement. A.C. reports seeing Defendant Hammerschmidt list Ms. Casanova as the
person who prepared her DACA petition.
34. Ms. Casanova reports being aware of over 40 individuals where her name was
associated with legal representation but whom she had never met, never agreed to represent, and
for whom she never performed or directed legal work. Ms. Casanova has been contacted by the
immigration court and other attorneys and believes that her name was associated with
representation of many more individuals who she has not yet identified.
35. In fall 2013, Ms. Casanova sent letters to several of Defendants’ victims that she
had become aware of that she was not their attorney and that she was no longer associated with
Defendant Hammerschmidt or her businesses. Ms. Casanova states that she informed those
clients that Defendant Hammerschmidt was using Ms. Casanova’s signature and attorney
information to submit documents to government agencies and courts without Ms. Casanova’s
knowledge or authorization. Even after Ms. Casanova told clients that she was no longer
associated with Defendants, Defendants continued to provide some legal services to Minnesota
residents. For example, N.M.’s petition for a divorce was not filed in Minnesota state court until
March of 2014. Similarly, M.E. reports that Defendants said that they would submit a petition
for M.E. to become a citizen in January of 2014.
C. Defendants Engaged In Other Deceptive And Fraudulent Activity. 36. Some clients paid money to Defendants for legal services that were not provided.
For example, I.A. paid a down payment to Defendants to represent him in an immigration matter.
But on the day of his hearing, no one showed up to represent him and he had to appear before the
immigration judge alone. I.A. reports that he was nervous and scared and was uneasy about
being in the courtroom, so he did not tell the judge that Defendant Hammerschmidt had agreed to
27-CV-14-7627
13
represent him in the hearing. Similarly, C.A. paid for Defendants to file an application for a
work permit for his daughter but she did not receive the permit or even a receipt notice that the
application had been filed.
37. Defendants also charged fees for some services that should not have been
provided. For example, M.G. paid Defendant The Legacy Firm to prepare and file a U visa
application form but later, on advice of another attorney, M.G. withdrew that immigration form
due to inaccuracies in the document.
38. Defendants also sometimes charged excessive amounts for “court filing fees” that
did not reflect the true cost of such fees or were otherwise questionable. For example, N.C.
reports that Defendants charged her more than $2,000 to obtain a certified copy of a police
report. C.A. was told the filing fee for a work permit would be $475 but when he went to
American Group US Inc. to pay the fee, he was instructed by Defendants to leave a blank check,
which was completed and cashed for $600.
39. In some cases, after a client began paying Defendants, Defendants did not provide
a full accounting for their charges or asked for more money for unclear reasons. J.P. reports that
after hiring American Group for representation, Defendant Hammerschmidt called him on the
phone to ask for more money, which he paid when requested because he needed his work permit.
R.H. states that he paid more than $12,000 for legal services from American Group over three
years but did not always understand why Defendants wanted more money or what he was
supposedly paying for.
40. Defendants often charged thousands of dollars for legal services. One couple paid
Defendants more than $10,000 for legal services in their immigration matters. Over a period of
three years, Defendants charged one family approximately $15,000 for immigration-related legal
27-CV-14-7627
14
services. The family—a mother, father, and two-year-old daughter—had been living in a mobile
home, but could no longer afford to live there after paying their legal bills. The family was
forced to move several times while they looked for affordable housing. At one point, the family
was offered a room by someone. Because they did not own a bed, they slept on the floor. The
mother remembers her daughter begging for food because she was hungry.
41. Defendants suggested to some clients who had difficulty paying for immigration
and legal services that they should hire Defendants to prepare their taxes. In many cases, clients’
tax refunds would be mailed to and deposited directly into the accounts owned by Defendants
and used to fund the legal services.
42. Some of Defendants’ victims were afraid to ask for their money back because
they feared that the Defendants would call the police or immigration officials. At one point,
Defendant Hammerschmidt threatened a client who was late with his payment by saying “[d]on’t
stop making your payments or I will get you.”
43. Defendants did not always provide full refunds immediately upon request.
44. Some of the services performed by Defendants contained errors. For example,
N.C. reports that a translation of a birth certificate prepared by The Legacy Firm contained
errors, including misspelling N.C.’s name, giving the wrong time of birth, and listing the wrong
gender.
II. DEFENDANTS HARM CONSUMERS THROUGH THEIR UNLAWFUL PROVISION OF LEGAL
SERVICES AND BY THEIR DECEPTIVE AND FRAUDULENT PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION
SERVICES. 45. Submitting forms with forged signatures or false information can cause a person
who is otherwise eligible to remain in the United States to become ineligible and to be deported.
Defendants prepared some documents that victims claim contain signatures of their name that
27-CV-14-7627
15
they did not sign. For example, N.M. states that a document was filed in Minnesota district court
with a signature with her name dated March 11, 2014 that was notarized by Mark
Hammerschmidt, who is an agent of Defendant businesses. But N.M. states that she did not sign
a document on that date and has not seen Mr. Hammerschmidt since December of 2012.
Similarly, J.E. states that three immigration forms each contained a signature of his name that he
did not sign. In fact, J.E. has a hyphenated last name and reports that he generally does not use
the last part of his hyphenated name in his signature. But both portions of his hyphenated last
name appear in all three of those forms.
46. Some of the legal services performed by Defendants were performed inaccurately
or incorrectly by Defendants. For example, M.S. reports that she informed Defendant
Hammerschmidt that facts in documents Defendants prepared for M.S.’s asylum application
were untrue, but Defendant Hammerschmidt advised her to submit the forms regardless. B.R.
reports that a Letter of Pardon was filed with USCIS on his behalf but that he did not prepare the
letter, which contains inaccuracies including incorrectly describing him as a “father” when he
has no children. Y.A. was not informed about an upcoming hearing date by Defendants and
missed the court hearing. J.P. reports being asked to pay the application fee for his work permit
twice. Even though J.P. had proof that he had paid the first fee, he states that Defendants paid
for the second fee and then demanded all of the cash in J.P.’s wallet, which he provided. J.P.
later discovered that the work permit he applied for had been issued with a wrong name.
47. Some of the “legal services” performed by Defendants were done so only after
delay. For example, M.E. reports that in October 2011, her family paid for Defendants to help
her father apply for U.S. citizenship. Approximately a year and a half later, M.E. called
Defendant Hammerschmidt and said the family was frustrated because they had not heard
27-CV-14-7627
16
anything about her father’s citizenship application. Shortly after M.E.’s complaint, her father
received his first letter regarding her father’s citizenship application. M.E. has now learned that
it takes at least ten years after her father’s citizenship was granted before her petition may be
granted; thus, the approximate two year delay affected not only her father’s immigration status,
but M.E.’s immigration status as well. Similarly, N.M. reports signing the petition for her
divorce in December 2012, but states that the petition was not filed in Minnesota state court until
March of 2014, after N.M. contacted Defendant businesses numerous times asking about the
status of her divorce. A.C. reports frequently calling Defendant Hammerschmidt about the status
of her case because she had not received any paperwork from immigration officials only to be
told to continue to wait.
48. Defendants have provided incorrect legal advice to some clients. For example,
M.S. reports that Defendants had provided advice that a criminal plea would not have adverse
immigration consequences when, in fact, the plea prevents M.S. from pursuing two options for
legal status that would otherwise be available to her. J.A. reports that Defendants told him he
would be eligible for an I-601 waiver but that later another attorney told him that this was not
true.
49. Other examples of the harm caused by the Defendants includes but is not limited
to the following:
J.P. estimates that he paid approximately $5,800 to American Group for immigration services. J.P. stated that Defendant Hammerschmidt would call him on the phone and tell him that he needed to pay more money or Defendants would not continue to work on his case. Because J.P. needed his work permit, he continued making payments to Defendants. After he hired a new attorney, J.P. discovered that the work permit he was waiting for had been issued, but in the wrong name. J.P. also learned that he could still be deported.
After stating to M.E.G. that Defendant Hammerschmidt was an attorney, Defendants submitted several immigration applications on behalf of M.E.G. and charged her
27-CV-14-7627
17
approximately $7,000. Later, M.E.G.’s phone calls were not being returned and she could not find out about her immigration application’s status. Eventually, M.E.G. got a copy of her file and discovered that numerous forms that had been submitted on her behalf and that someone else had signed her name without her permission. M.E.G. discovered from her new attorney that forms that had been submitted on her behalf were not completed correctly. M.E.G.’s new attorney told her that her U visa application needed to be withdrawn because of the mistakes by the Defendants and because it was not signed by her.
Y.I.A.A. contacted Defendant American Group US, Inc. for help applying for asylum. Although Y.I.A.A.’s father paid $600 for a work permit on behalf of Y.I.A.A., Y.I.A.A. never received a receipt for a work permit filing and never received a work permit. Y.I.A.A. questions whether The Legacy Firm even filed a work permit on her behalf. When Y.I.A.A. obtained a new attorney, Y.I.A.A. discovered that Y.I.A.A. had missed a hearing on December 16, 2013 of which Defendants had never apprised her. Because Y.I.A.A. had not attended that hearing, she was ordered to be removed from the United States.
L.M. reports that because of the legal bills for immigration services, her family had difficulty finding a safe place to live. L.M. reports that in one of the places they were forced to move while paying money to Defendants for legal services, her daughter became the victim of a terrible crime. L.M. reports that the stress of the situation with the Defendants has affected her health.
B.R. reports that when his wife was pregnant, she called Defendants to ask for their money back because payment for her services had caused them financial strain. B.R. reports that Defendant Hammerschmidt yelled at his wife.
P.R. and R.C. report that R.C.’s immigration case could not be closed because the judge had not been presented with a letter of approval for an immigration application that a person in the courtroom said had been approved but that Defendants never provided to R.C. or the court. P.R. and R.C. still have not received the letter.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF IMMIGRATION SERVICES STATUTE (ALL DEFENDANTS)
50. The State re-alleges all prior paragraphs of this Complaint.
51. Minnesota Statutes section 325E.031 prohibits non-lawyers from providing legal
services except in very limited circumstances, such as non-lawyers working under the direction
of attorneys. The services that a non-lawyer cannot perform include preparation and submission
of forms to the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Board of Immigration Appeals.
27-CV-14-7627
18
Specifically, subdivision 3 of section 325E.031 provides that “Any person who provides or
offers to provide immigration services” may not “give any legal advice concerning an
immigration matter of perform an act constituting the practice of immigration law as defined in
Code of Federal Regulations, title 8, section 1.1 (i) . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 325E.031, subd. 3. That
provision of the Code of Federal Regulation defines “practice” as follows: “the act or acts of any
person appearing in any case, either in person or through the preparation or filing of any brief or
other document, paper, application, or petition on behalf of another person or client before or
with the Service, or any officer of the Service, or the Board.” 8 C.F.R. § 1.1 (2013). Chapter
325E.031 also prohibits persons providing immigration assistance services from other activities,
including representing, holding out or advertising “other titles or credentials in any language . . .
that could cause a customer to believe that the person possesses special professional skills or is
authorized to provide advice on an immigration matter.”
52. The statute also states that such persons cannot “represent, hold out or advertise,
in connection with the provision of assistance in immigration matters, other titles or credentials
in any language, including, but not limited to, “notary public” or “immigration consultant,” that
could cause a customer to believe that the person possesses special professional skills or is
authorized to provide advice on an immigration matter. Minn. Stat. § 325E.031, subd. 3.
53. Minnesota Statutes section 325E.031, subdivision 2 (2013) requires that any non-
lawyer who offers immigration assistance services provide particularized notice in their place of
business and solicitations. The notice must explain, among other things, that the person is not an
attorney licensed to practice law and may not give legal advice or accept fees for legal advice.
Defendants did not provide the notice required by section 325E.031.
27-CV-14-7627
19
54. Minnesota Statutes section 325E.031, subdivision 4 (2013) requires that non-
lawyers who perform immigration assistance services use a contract with specific provisions.
The contract must include certain information, including “an explanation of the services to be
performed,” “identification of all compensation and costs to be charged to the customer for the
services to be performed,” and a statement that certain documents may not be retained by the
person for any purpose.
55. Minnesota Statutes section 325E.031, subdivision 6 (2013) provides, in part, “The
penalties and remedies of section 8.31 apply to violations of this section, including a private
cause of action.”
56. Defendants’ conduct described above constitutes multiple, separate violations of
Minnesota Statutes section 325E.031 (2013).
57. Defendants unlawfully gave legal advice concerning immigration matters and
performed acts constituting the practice of immigration law as defined in Code of Federal
Regulations, title 8, section 1.1 (i), (j), (k), or (m). Minn. Stat. § 325E.031, subd. 3.
58. Defendants represented, held out, and advertised, in connection with the provision
of assistance in immigration matters, titles and credentials that could cause a customer to believe
that the person possesses special professional skills or is authorized to provide advice on an
immigration matter.
59. Defendants have made misrepresentations and false statements, directly and
indirectly, to influence, persuade, or induce patronage; have retained compensation for service
not performed; and have on some occasions refused to return documents supplied by, prepared
on behalf of, or paid for by the customer upon the request of the customer.
27-CV-14-7627
20
60. Defendants failed to provide notice at the places of business as required under
section 325.031.
61. Defendants failed to provide contracts for immigration assistance services that
complied with section 325E.031. Specifically, Defendants failed to provide contracts for
immigration assistance services to Minnesota residents that included an explanation of the
services to be performed, identification of all compensation and costs to be charged to the
customer for the services to be performed, and a statement that documents submitted in support
of an application for nonimmigrant, immigrant, or naturalization status may not be retained by
the person for any purpose, including payment of compensation or costs. Clients’ retainer
agreements used by Defendants also do not include the statement that documents may not be
retained by the person for any purpose.
COUNT II UNAUTHORIZED PRACTICE OF LAW
(ALL DEFENDANTS)
62. The State re-alleges all prior paragraphs of this Complaint.
63. Minnesota Statutes section 481.02 makes it unlawful for persons to engage in the
unauthorized practice of law and prohibits certain behavior. Minn. Stat. § 481.02, subd. 1
(2013). The statute also precludes businesses other than those organized as a professional firm
under chapter 319B from providing legal services. Minn. Stat. § 481.02, subd. 2 (2013). The
Attorney General has authority to enforce Chapter 481.02. Minn. Stat. § 481.02, subd. 8 (2013).
64. Defendant Hammerschmidt’s conduct described above constitutes multiple,
separate violations of Minnesota Statutes section 481.02, subdivision 1 (2013). Defendant
Hammerschmidt, among other things, held herself out as competent and qualified to give legal
advice and counsel to Minnesota residents and for a fee performed legal services for and gave
27-CV-14-7627
21
legal advice and counsel to Minnesota residents, including the preparation of immigration
applications and other legal instruments and have caused harm to Minnesotans.
65. The Defendant businesses’ conduct also violates Minnesota Statutes section
481.02. Under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 319B, a company that provides professional services
in Minnesota must register to do so in its organizational document. Minn. Stat. § 319B.01 to .03.
Under the law, professional services include legal services. Minn. Stat. § 319B.01. Neither of
the Defendant businesses has been registered to provide professional legal services under
Minnesota Chapter 319B.
66. The Defendant businesses are not organized as an attorney’s professional firm
under Minnesota Statutes chapter 319B and, among other things, have given legal advice or
counsel or performed or furnished legal services in Minnesota; have solicited the public in
Minnesota to permit them to prepare, or cause to be prepared, immigration applications and
forms for Minnesota residents as well as other legal instruments; have held themselves out as
desiring and willing to prepare such documents for Minnesota residents; have acted as being in a
position to supply the services of a lawyer for Minnesota residents; and have engaged in and held
themselves out as being engaged in the business of supplying the services of a lawyer for
Minnesota residents. Through these activities, Defendant businesses have received all or part of
the fees paid by Minnesota residents and have caused harm to Minnesotans. The Defendant
businesses’ conduct described above constitutes multiple, separate violations of Minnesota
Statutes section 481.02, subdivision 2 (2013).
27-CV-14-7627
22
COUNT III UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
(ALL DEFENDANTS)
67. The State re-alleges all prior paragraphs of this Complaint.
68. Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44, subdivision 1 (2013) provides, in part:
A person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of business, vocation, or occupation, the person:
(2) causes likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods or services; (5) represents that goods or services have … characteristics … [or] benefits … that they do not have or that a person has a … status [or] affiliation … that the person does not have; (7) represents that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade … if they are of another; (13) engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.
69. Defendants’ conduct described above constitutes multiple, separate violations of
Minnesota Statutes section 325D.44, subdivision 1. For example, by representing and implying
that Defendant Hammerschmidt is an attorney and that the Defendant businesses are law firms
that can provide legal advice, Defendants caused a likelihood of confusion or of
misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of services; represented
that services have characteristics and benefits that they do not have, or that a person has a status
or affiliation that the person does not have; represented that services are of a particular standard,
quality, or grade when they are of another; and engaged in other conduct which similarly creates
a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding. Defendants have further engaged in deceptive
and fraudulent practices in violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act by, among
other things:
27-CV-14-7627
23
Contractually agreeing to deliver legal services and charging fees for those services but then failing to deliver the promised services or delivering them only after delay;
Submitting signatures that are not authentic to government officials;
Submitting incorrect information to government officials;
Overcharging victims for immigration application fees;
By failing to disclose and omitting material facts, Defendants have further engaged in deceptive
and fraudulent practices in violation of the Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
COUNT IV PREVENTION OF CONSUMER FRAUD ACT
(ALL DEFENDANTS)
70. The State re-alleges all prior paragraphs of this Complaint.
71. Minnesota Statutes section 325F.69, subdivision 1 (2013) provides:
The act, use, or employment by any person of any fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby, is enjoinable as provided in section 325F.70.
72. The term “merchandise” within the meaning of Minnesota Statutes section
325F.69 includes services. See Minn. Stat. § 325F.68, subd. 2.
73. Defendants’ conduct described above constitutes multiple, separate violations of
Minnesota Statutes section 325F.69, subdivision 1. Defendants have engaged in deceptive and
fraudulent practices, and have made false and misleading statements, with the intent that others
rely thereon in connection with the sale of immigration, legal and tax services. Those practices
include making false and misleading statements about services that Defendants were neither
qualified nor competent to provide and that were provided in violation of Minnesota law. By
representing and implying that Defendant Hammerschmidt is an attorney and that the Defendant
27-CV-14-7627
24
businesses are law firms, Defendants have violated section 325F.69. Defendants have further
engaged in fraudulent practices in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act by, among other things:
Contractually agreeing to deliver legal services and charging fees for those services but then failing to deliver the promised services or delivering them only after much delay;
Submitting signatures that are not authentic to government officials;
Submitting incorrect information to government officials;
Overcharging victims for immigration application fees;
Further, by failing to disclose and omitting material facts, Defendants have further engaged in
deceptive and fraudulent practices in violation of the Consumer Fraud Act.
RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the State of Minnesota, by its Attorney General, Lori Swanson,
respectfully asks this Court to award judgment against Defendants as follows:
1. Declaring that Defendants’ acts described in this Complaint constitute multiple,
separate violations of Minnesota Statutes sections 325D.43 to 325D.48, 325E.031, 325F.68 to
325F.69, and 481.02;
2. Enjoining Defendants and their employees, officers, directors, agents, successors,
assignees, affiliates, merged or acquired predecessors, parent or controlling entities, subsidiaries,
and all other persons acting in concert or participation with them from violating Minnesota
Statutes sections 325D.43 to 325D.48, 325E.031, 325F.68 to 325F.69, and 481.02;
3. Awarding judgment against Defendants for civil penalties pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes section 8.31, subdivision 3, for each separate violation of Minnesota Statutes sections
325D.43 to 325D.48, 325E.031, 325F.68 to 325F.69, and 481.02;
27-CV-14-7627
25
4. Awarding judgment against Defendants for restitution under the parens patriae
doctrine, the general equitable powers of this Court, Minnesota Statutes section 8.31, and any
other authority, for all persons injured by Defendants’ acts described in this Complaint;
5. Awarding the State its costs, including costs of investigation and attorneys’ fees,
as authorized by Minnesota Statutes section 8.31, subdivision 3a; and
6. Granting such further relief as the Court deems appropriate and just.
Dated: May 13, 2014 Respectfully submitted,
LORI SWANSON Attorney General State of Minnesota NATHAN BRENNAMAN Deputy Attorney General /s/ Jennifer Yatskis Dukart JENNIFER YATSKIS DUKART Assistant Attorney General Atty. Reg. No. 0388616 445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1200 St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-2130 (651) 757-1352 (Voice) (651) 296-1410 (TTY) ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF STATE OF MINNESOTA
MINN. STAT. § 549.211 ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The party or parties on whose behalf the attached document is served acknowledge through their undersigned counsel that sanctions may be imposed pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 549.211 (2013). Dated: May 13, 2014
/s/ Jennifer Yatskis Dukart Jennifer Yatskis Dukart
27-CV-14-7627
COMPLAINT EXHIBIT A
27-CV-14-7627
COMPLAINT EXHIBIT B
27-CV-14-7627
COMPLAINT EXHIBIT C
27-CV-14-7627
COMPLAINT EXHIBIT D
27-CV-14-7627
COMPLAINT EXHIBIT D
27-CV-14-7627
COMPLAINT EXHIBIT E
27-CV-14-7627
