| Howard Wolf ervnezrcose Van Nuys 91401 2550 E. Desert Inn Road ‘Las Vegas NV 89121 TarroMt no: 213.360.6355 FAXING. (poor: es Lcom SToMEV RON Pr? coomeime pee Y SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY yor ‘ertemmens: Nostiwest Distt - East Building ee ounoreoess: 6230 Sylmar Avenue , Room 107 MAR 1 1 2022 ‘Sheri A. Carter, Execute Cosh ct Cou] PUANTIFFIBETONER: Echo Lake Management LLC JDEFEWDANTRESFONDENT: Meg DeLoatch By: Mizhae! J. Estorga, Denuty DECLARATION TIVEC @ o¢202 amicus letter | decir under ponalty of perry under tho laws of tho Stato of Cafomie that the forgoing is true and correct Date: March 11, 2022 i foward Wait Uf Howard Wolf ere eam rare 1D seorey tor C rain C) rettoner C1] pefendant F eepondent 1] ober (Speedy): == DECLARATION eras RES fete For your protection and privacy, please Save Thie Form [Print Tale Fol] [Clone This Form]FROM THE DESK OF HOWARD WOLF 2550 Desert Inn Road, Las Vegas NV 89121 213.369.6355 — [email protected] AN AMICUS LETTER FROM THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF PERSONAL MANAGERS In the Matter of Echo Lake Management LLC v. Meg Deloatch Van Nuys Superior Court Case No. 21VECP00262 Department 30, Van Nuys Courthouse East To the Honorable Valerie Salkin, As a personal manager for 50+ years and subjected to a Talent Agencies Act (TAA) matter not with an ex-client, but with the widow ofa client wishing to get out of all future financial obligations to me, and having interest in the Act being fixed, | am asking the Court to accept the below amicus letter. Thank you, Howard Wolf (party of interest in Yoo v. Robi (2005) 126 Cal. App. 4th 1089) Dear Judge Salkin, | am a resident of Nevada, choosing to leave California after being victimized by what | felt was the unfair enforcement of the Talent Agencies Act. | remain interested in TAA matters, hoping to learn | was properly sanctioned, or alternatively, if it is proven that the Labor Commissioner has been wrongly penalizing people, that | can be of some help in ending the current policy. Relatedly, | was in the audience for the February 25, 2022 Southwestern Law School's Forum: The Talent Agencies Act: Today and Tomorrow. The Existing State Of The Law And Some Potential Game-Chanaing Ideas. While personal managers were invited, the event was for attorneys with two CLE credits given to all licensed participants (https://www.swlaw.edu/TAA), The event host, Southwestern's John J. Schumacher Chair Professor of Law Kevin J. Greene, prefaced the discussion by noting the school had vetted the validity of what we were about to hear.We first heard from Stephen Rothschild, an attorney who has been doing TAA cases for several decades. He shared with the attendees how the Act has been traditionally enforced, including the times cases with similar fact sets have been decided differently and accordingly, how difficult it was to know exactly when the law was being violated. The keynote speaker was Rick Siegel, who gave the 120+ folks in the zoom audience a head-turning PowerPoint presentation on how, ‘without a penalty provision codified by the legislature, no adjudicator has the authority to penalize;” the same research and conclusions detailed in his December amicus letter. Itcenters, as he has written, on how the CA Supreme Court made it clear the TAA has no penalty provision, and how, “Violations of law are ‘made up of two parts, forbidden conduct and a prescribed penalty, The former without the latter is no violation.” U.S. v. Evans (1948) 333 U.S. 483, 486. Siegel concluded his address by asking Rothschild if, after hearing of the clear judicial error in Buchwald v. Superior Court and that the four holdings Buchwald cited all had contrary conclusions to how Buchwald was decided, would Rothschild defend personal managers any differently moving forward; would he raise the ‘no penalty provision, no penalty’ argument. At first blush Rothschild said no. But he continued, saying he might raise it, but not make it the focus of his defense, then, without any further questioning, his answer morphed to, paraphrasing, “I would always raise these issues. if only to preserve them.” During the question-and-answer portion of the event, Siegel was asked why lawyers have not raised this issue previously. His answer was blunt: conflict of interest. And it seems in the instant matter, it may be the case again. As a literal postscript to the Appeliant’s Opening Brief, in a footnote, it says, “Echo Lake defers to the court as to whether the issues raised [in the two amicus letters] are appropriate for determination in this appeal.”In other words, rather than proactively forwarding how, as held in Dyna-Med v. Fair Empl. and Housing Comm., (1987) 43 Cal. 3d 1385 at 1388, it is a court's “obligation to strike down” remedies the Labor Commission created “which the Legislature has withheld,” Echo Lake will only do so if the court decrees it. Only should the Court find it appropriate will Echo Lake note how the New Jersey ‘Supreme Court found in N.v. v. Fair Lawn Service Center (1956), 120 A. 2d 233, 236, ‘Where a statute fails to provide a penalty it has been uniformly held that it is beyond the power of the court to presoribe a penalty.” Why Echo Lake’s attorney has chosen not to raise these and other points which makes the argument inarguable that the management firm was improperly penalized by the administrative agency is of no interest. What is of interest is that this Court, as stated by the CA Supreme Court, follows its obligations and strikes down the generations-long misenforcement of wrongly punishing personal managers without legislative authority, or, that the Court explains to personal managers why the Talent Agencies Act can be the only statutory scheme in America without the need to have a penalty provision to mete out penalties. Respectfully submitted, li/Howard Wolf! Howard WolfPROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES am over the age of 18 and not party to this action. am a resident of or employed in the county whore the mailing occurred (On March 12, 2022, | served the partios attorneys and Jossica Hemandez of the California State Labor Commission in the action ontitled ECHO LAKE ENTERTAINMENT v. MEG DELOATCH vis email to and U.S, MAIL. bel BYU. MAIL | deposited such an envelope in the mail st Calabasas, California, with postage thereon fully prepaid, doliverod to DAVID JONELIS, LAVELY & SINGER 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, STE 2400, LAA 90067 MAX SPRECHER, LAW OFFICES OF MAX J. SPRECHER 5850 CANOGA AV... 4" FL WOODLAND HILLS CA 91364 JESSENYA Y HERNANDEZ, DEPT, OF IND. RELATIONS, DLSE '6150 VAN NUYS BLVD, STE 206, VAN NUYS CA 91401, [1 BY FAK | caused such documents to be faxed to the above mentioned address(es), [1] BYMESSENGER | caused such envelope to be messengered to the above mentioned ecdress(es). [1 BY PERSONAL | caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the offices of the SERVICE address(es). Dd. STATE | declare under the penalty of peijury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. [1 FEDERAL | declare that | am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court whose direction the service was made. Executed on Maren 12, 2022 in Woodland Hills, California Jennie Nigrosh