Motion for Protective Order in MITCHELL R JULIS vs. CRAIG SCHUBINER| Trellis.Law

On December 28, 2022 a Motion,Ex Parte was filed involving a dispute between Julis, Mitchell R, and Schubiner, Craig, for OTHER (CIVIL) in the District Court of Dallas County.

Preview
FILED
12/28/2022 11:08 PM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Lafonda Sims DEPUTY

CAUSE NO. DC-22-17649

MITCHELL R. JULIS and IN THE DISTRICT COURT
JOSHUA S. FRIEDMAN,
Applicants,
44th JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CRAIG SCHUBINER,
Respondent.
§ DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
AMENDED APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO
CHAPTER 7B OF THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

Mitchell R. Julis (“Mr. Julis”) and Joshua S. Friedman (“Mr. Friedman”)

(collectively, “Applicants”) through undersigned counsel, respectfully submit this Amended

Application for a Protective Order (the “Amended Application”) against Craig Schubiner

(“Mr. Schubiner” or “Respondent”) pursuant to Chapter 7B of the Texas Code of Criminal

Procedure.

I PARTIES

1 Applicant Mitchell Julis is an individual residing in Dallas County, Texas.

Mr. Julis seeks reliefon behalf
of himself, his wife Joleen Julis, and his children Elliot Julis, Esther

Julis, Rose Julis, and Maia Julis. All of these individuals are or have been part of Mr. Julis’s family

or shared household.

2. Applicant Joshua S. Friedman is an individual residing in Dallas County, Texas.

Mr. Friedman seeks relief on behalf of himself, his wife Beth Friedman, and his children Oliver

Friedman, Wesley Friedman, and Spencer Friedman. All of these individuals are or have been

part of Mr. Friedman’s family or shared household.

3 Upon information and belief, Respondent Craig Schubiner is an individual residing

in New York County, New York. Mr. Schubiner may be served at 206 Park Ave. S., Apt. SB;
AMENDED APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 7B OF THE
TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 1
New York, NY 10003. Mr. Schubiner also resides in Oakland County, Michigan and may be

served at 200 Aspen Road; Birmingham, MI 48009.

4 This Application arises out of Mr. Schubiner’s actions directly or indirectly aimed

at harassing, stalking, embarrassing, tormenting, and/or annoying Mr. Julis, Mr. Friedman, and

their family members. Several of such incidents have occurred within Dallas County.

I. GROUNDS FOR APPLICATION

5 The Texas Code of Criminal Procedure expressly permits “a person who is the

victim of an offense under” Section 42.072 of the Penal Code to “file an application for a protective

order under this subchapter without regard to the relationship between the applicant and the alleged

offender.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 7B.001(a).

6. An individual is authorized to file an application for a protective order under

Chapter 7B in “a district court” in “the county in which the applicant resides.” Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. Art. 7B.001(b); see also Dix v. Foster, 2022 WL 7208630, at *1 (Tex. App.—Texarkana

Oct. 13, 2022, no pet.) (affirming a protective order issued under Chapter 7B by the 123rd Civil

District Court),
7
Once an application is filed, a court is authorized to issue a temporary ex parte

protective order “without further notice . and without a hearing” if it concludes “from the

information contained in [the] application for a protective order that there is a clear and present

danger of . . . stalking . . . or other harm to the applicant . . . for the protection of the applicant or

any other member of the applicant’s family or household.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 7B.002(a)

(emphasis added).

8 After conducting “a hearing on the application for a protective order,” a court “shall

issue a protective order” if it “finds that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the applicant

AMENDED APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 7B OF THE
TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 2
is the victim of . . . stalking.” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 7B.003 (emphasis added). The court

must “include[ ] a statement of the required findings.” Jd.

9. A protective order granted under Chapter 7B “may be effective for the duration of

the lives of the offender and victim[s].” Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 7B.007(a).

10. As set forth in the attached Affidavits of Mitchell R. Julis (“Exhibit A”) and Joshua

S. Friedman (“Exhibit B”), which are fully incorporated herein, Mr. Schubiner has engaged in a

systematic, pervasive, and escalating stalking campaign in an attempt to abuse, annoy, harass,

embarrass, and/or torment Mr. Julis, Mr. Friedman, and their family members through means of

physical and electronic stalking. See Exhibit A; Exhibit B.

DE Moreover, as outlined in the attached Addendum of Law (“Exhibit C”), which is

fully incorporated herein, Mr. Schubiner’s actions committed through physical and electronic

means constitute the offenses of stalking and harassment under the Texas Criminal Code.

See Exhibit C; see also Tex. Penal Code § 42.072 (stalking); Tex. Penal Code § 42.07(a)(7)-(8)

(harassment).

12. In fact, Mr. Schubiner’s actions have caused Mr. Julis, Mr. Friedman, and their

family members to fear for their personal safety. See Exhibit A; Exhibit B.

13. Accordingly, Mr. Schubiner’s pattern of intentional stalking and harassment

constitutes “reasonable grounds to believe” that Mr. Julis, Mr. Friedman, and their family members

are “the victim[s] of” stalking and harassment, which is sufficient for this Court to issue both a

temporary ex parte protective order and permanent protective order against Mr. Schubiner under

Chapter 7B of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure. See Exhibit C.

AMENDED APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 7B OF THE
TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 3
Il. RE UESTED RELIEF

A. Temporary Ex Parte Protective Order

14. Mr. Schubiner’s escalating actions undertaken through physical and electronic

means have caused Mr. Julis and Mr. Friedman to reasonably fear that Mr. Schubiner poses a clear

and present danger of stalking, harassment, or other harm which will cause Mr. Julis, Mr.

Friedman, and their family members immediate and irreparable injury, loss, and damage for which

there is no adequate remedy at law. See Exhibit A; Exhibit B. Due to Mr. Schubiner’s conduct,

Mr. Julis and Mr. Friedman fear for the immediate safety and protection of both themselves and

their family members. See id.

15. As part of a temporary ex parte protective order, the Court may, among other things,

prohibit Mr. Schubiner from directly or indirectly contacting Mr. Julis, Mr. Friedman, or any

member of their families or households. See Hoover v. Guillory, 2022 WL 3903124, at *1 (Tex.

App.—Austin Aug. 31, 2022, no pet. h.) (mem. op.) (citing Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 7B.002).

16. Mr. Julis and Mr. Friedman therefore respectfully request that Court immediately

enter a temporary ex parte protective order without further notice or a hearing ordering that

Mr. Schubiner is:

Prohibited from communicating or attempting to communicate in any manner with
Applicants or Applicants’ family members;

Prohibited from communicating or attempting to communicate in any manner through
any person to Applicants or Applicants’ family members;

Prohibited from sending electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to
harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend Applicants or Applicants’
family members;

Prohibited from publishing electronic communications on an internet website in a
manner reasonably likely to cause emotional distress, abuse, or torment to Applicants
or Applicants’ family members;

° Prohibited from going within 200 yards of Applicants or Applicants’ family members;
AMENDED APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 7B OF THE
TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 4
e Prohibited from going within 200 yards of Applicants’ or Applicants’ family members’
residences, workplaces, or schools; and

Prohibited from stalking, following, or engaging in any conduct directed specifically
to Applicants or Applicants’ family members that is reasonably likely to harass, annoy,
alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass them.

17. Mr. Julis and Mr. Friedman respectfully request that this temporary protective order

be immediately effective and remain in full force and effect for the entire 20-day statutory period.

See Tex. Fam. Code § 83.002(a); see also Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 7B.008 (“To the extent

applicable, except as otherwise provided by this subchapter, Title 4, Family Code, applies to a

protective order issued under this subchapter.”).

B. Permanent Protective Order

18. The facts set forth in Exhibit A and Exhibit B demonstrate that there exists

reasonable grounds to believe that Mr. Julis, Mr. Friedman, and their family members are the

victims of stalking based on Mr. Schubiner knowingly engaging in a scheme or course of conduct

directly aimed at harassing, stalking, embarrassing, tormenting, abusing, and/or annoying Mr.

Julis, Mr. Friedman, and their family members.

19. Mr. Schubiner’s actions are sufficient to cause a reasonable person to fear bodily

injury for himself or his family, fear that an offense will be committed against his property, or feel

harassed, annoyed, alarmed, abused, tormented, embarrassed, or offended. See Tex. Penal Code

§ 42.072.
20. The stalking statute, Tex. Penal Code § 42.072, expressly permits harassing

behavior to constitute an element of stalking to justify the issuance of a criminal protective order.

Webb v. Schlagal, 530 S.W.3d 793, 798 n.1 (Tex. App.—Eastland 2017, no pet.).

21. A protective order entered under the Texas Criminal Code may, among other

things, broadly prohibit a person from “communicating directly or indirectly with a person

AMENDED APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 7B OF THE
TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 5
protected by the order; going to or near the residence, place of employment, or school of a person

protected by the order; [or] engaging in conduct that is reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm,

abuse, torment, or embarrass the person protected by the order.” Straughan v. Girsch, 2022 WL

2977049, at *3 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] July 28, 2022, no pet.) (citing Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. Art. 7B.005).

Dee Mr. Julis and Mr. Friedman therefore respectfully request that the Court enter a

protective order ordering that Mr. Schubiner is:

° Prohibited from communicating or attempting to communicate in any manner with
Applicants or Applicants’ family members;

Prohibited from communicating or attempting to communicate in any manner through
any person to Applicants or Applicants’ family members;

Prohibited from sending electronic communications in a manner reasonably likely to
harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, embarrass, or offend Applicants or Applicants’
family members;

Prohibited from publishing electronic communications on an internet website in a
manner reasonably likely to cause emotional distress, abuse, or torment to Applicants
or Applicants’ family members; Prohibited from going within 200 yards of Applicants
or Applicants’ family members;

Prohibited from going within 200 yards of Applicants or Applicants’ family members’
residences, workplaces, or schools; and

23. Mr. Julis and Mr. Friedman respectfully request that this protective order remain in

full force and effect permanently for the duration of Mr. Schubiner’s life. See Tex. Code Crim.

Proc. Art. 7B.007.

Cc. Confidentiality of Personal Information

24. Mr. Julis and Mr. Friedman respectfully request that the Court keep addresses and

telephone numbers for their residences, workplaces, and schools confidential. Mr. Julis and Mr.

AMENDED APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 7B OF THE
TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 6
Friedman ask that the Court order the Court Clerk to strike contact information for Mr. Julis, Mr.

Friedman, and their family members, including: addresses, mailing addresses, telephone numbers,

places of employment, businesses, and schools. Mr. Julis and Mr. Friedman also ask that the Court

prohibit the Court Clerk from releasing contact information for Mr. Julis, Mr. Friedman, or their

family members except to the Court or law enforcement.

2) Mr. Julis and Mr. Friedman respectfully request that the Court order that the

following person is designated as the person to receive any notice or documents filed with the

Court related to this Amended Application: Paige Holden Montgomery, Esq.; 2021 McKinney

Ave.; Dallas, TX 75201; Sidley Austin LLP.

IV. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

26. Mr. Julis and Mr. Friedman pray that this Court immediately, without notice or a

hearing, issue a temporary ex parte protective order that prohibits Mr. Schubiner from directly or

indirectly committing the acts specified in paragraph 16.

27. Mr. Julis and Mr. Friedman pray that, after conducting a hearing, the Court issue a

protective order that permanently prohibits Mr. Schubiner from directly or indirectly committing

the acts specified in paragraph 22.

28. Mr. Julis and Mr. Friedman further respectfully request that the Court enter any and

all other relief to which they may be justly entitled.

AMENDED APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 7B OF THE
TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page7
Dated: December 28, 2022 Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Paige Holden Montgomery
Paige Holden Montgomery
Texas Bar No. 24037131
pmontgomery@sidley.com
Penny P. Reid
Texas Bar No. 15402570
preid@sidley.com
Spencer M. Stephens
Texas Bar No. 24120475
spencer.stephens@sidley.com
SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
2021 McKinney Avenue, Suite 2000
Dallas, TX 75201
(214) 981-3300
(214) 981-3400 (facsimile)

AMENDED APPLICATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER
PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 7B OF THE
TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Page 8
EXHIBIT A
CAUSE NO.

MITCHELL R. JULIS, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Applicant,

v JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CRAIG SCHUBINER,
Respondent.
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT OF MITCHELL R. JULIS IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary public, on this day personally appeared Mitchell R.

Julis, known to me, who was by me duly sworn upon his oath, deposed and said:

1 My name is Mitchell R. Julis. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age and otherwise

competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein. The

information and events described in this Affidavit are true and correct.

Background

2. I am the Co-Founder and Co-CEO of Canyon Partners, LLC (together with its

affiliates, “Canyon”). I and my partner Joshua Friedman founded Canyon in 1990. Our firm is

headquartered in Dallas, and manages approximately $25 billion in investments for endowments,

foundations, pension funds, sovereign wealth funds, family offices, and other institutional

investors.

3 In addition to investing in private and public securities, Canyon acts as a lender in

connection with a large number of real estate and other transactions. Our goal in lending funds on

behalf of investors is to earn a reasonable return for our investors while avoiding the challenges

1
associated with troubled assets, stalled projects, and defaulted loans. In 2014, our firm made the

decision to loan $50 million to a company operated by an individual named Craig Schubiner to

build a “mixed-use” development in Michigan that was to consist mainly of apartment housing

targeted for students and staff of the University of Michigan.

4 Schubiner and his company never finished the project. Instead, they initiated a

dispute with the general contractor that led to a work stoppage and ultimately a default on the

loan. In the end, we had to request that a Michigan state court appoint a receiver so that the project

could be salvaged. Once under the control of the receiver instead of Schubiner, and with continued

funding from our investors, the project was completed and is now fully occupied.

5 In order to recoup our investors’ funds, our firm had to foreclose on the project and

seek to enforce a personal guaranty provided by Schubiner. This prompted Schubiner and his

company to embark on a lengthy litigation campaign in an attempt to avoid their obligations. Their

efforts included not just litigating what they claimed were defenses to Canyon’s claims, but also

bringing counterclaims and even a separate RICO action against Canyon and several individual

Canyon employees. All of Schubiner’s claims were dismissed with prejudice, and the dismissals

were affirmed by a series of appellate courts. Canyon’s right to recover on behalf of its investors

was upheld, and those decisions are now final.

6 Unfortunately, it appears that Schubiner invested a lot of his emotional energy and

personal identity in his failed litigation campaign. Now that he has lost, he has begun lashing out

outside the court system at me and my family, my partner Mr. Friedman and his family, other

Canyon executives and their families, and others within Canyon’s broader business network. His

actions have been harassing, threatening, in the nature of stalking, and genuinely scary. I describe

some of these events below.
Schubiner’s Stalking of My Son and Me on the Streets of Colorado

i On or about July 6, 2021, 1 was walking with my son in Colorado when Schubiner

approached us on the street and asked my name without introducing himself. While I was very

well versed on who Schubiner was and the status of the transaction, I had not had personal contact

with him—so to me and my son, this was a complete stranger. Schubiner’s approach was sudden

and unnatural and out of keeping with what I consider to be ordinary social norms—his approach

seemed designed to invade my personal space. In fact, my son commented later that Schubiner

had a “Unabomber Look” and was worried that Schubiner was planning something unpredictable

as he seemed fixated and unhinged.

8. After this encounter, Schubiner e-mailed a colleague of mine and falsely claimed

that I had asked her to schedule a meeting between Schubiner and me. She phoned me immediately

to caution me about Schubiner, but by that point it was too late to avoid this particular encounter.

After this interaction I was a bit shaken, but because I did not hear from Schubiner again for many

months, I thought it was a one-time incident.

Schubiner’s Website and His Doxxing of My Wife and Me

9 In April 2022, Schubiner incorporated a company called Canyon Partners News,

Inc. (“CPN”), which, despite its confusingly similar name, has no affiliation with Canyon.

Schubiner then created a website called CanyonPartnersNews.com, which consists of several

webpages amounting to a bizarre, conspiratorial diatribe against me, Mr. Friedman, other Canyon

employees, and Canyon at large. Schubiner’s website accuses Canyon and its personnel of fraud

and theft, asserts that my business successes have been at the expense of innocent victims, and

even implies that my company is responsible for at least two individuals’ deaths. It also posts

pictures and videos of numerous Canyon executives.
10. Disturbingly, the website attempts to incite violence or other physical

confrontations with my wife Joleen and me at our private homes, while giving discontented and

fringe elements of the public all the information they would need to target us. The website has a

heading, “Are Defaulted Loans and Another Julis Mansion Correlated?” Then, underneath that

heading, the website posts photos of certain properties that are owned directly or indirectly by my

wife and me, together with, in some instances, the addresses. For example:!

Mitch Julis's Beverl Hills
Man nat
Bever 3»
90210
Then, lest there be any doubt about what Schubiner was trying to accomplish by publicly airing

our personal and private information, the website expressly urges discontented members of the

public to go to our homes and physically confront my wife and me. At the end of the series of

pictures of homes, the website states:

' Address information has been redacted from the following image.
4
Tee 1-1 me) ele a val
cls iceaal=) Layo i=] Cl late @ cats)
ov Teme)
ie) iit owre lars eo fer=ta)
iia)
xe) aa evarevile iceaa}
am arela(=a Vas 0

And the website also posts close-up pictures of my wife and me such that anyone inclined to

violence against us would be easily able to identify us:

oO eae as
Lr Comal eed
Cr BC aT ed

ll. This “doxxing” places my family and me in peril, and causes us to fear for our

safety. More generally, it is apparent that Schubiner has spent countless hours digging up personal

information about me that is not readily available to the public, and then weaponizing it. The

foregoing is just one example. | am deeply concerned as to how he is obtaining such information

and how he may use such information to continue harassing or stalking my family.

Schubiner’s Harassing E- and Texting Campaig:

12. Schubiner also has used such information to launch and maintain an e-mail and

texting campaign through which he sends targeted e-mails and texts in an apparent effort to harm

my personal and professional reputation and business relationships. He has sent links to the above-

mentioned website (together with related attacks on the integrity and business practices of me,
5
Canyon, and Canyon’s other personnel) to the e-mail addresses and/or personal phone numbers of

my family members, of other Canyon employees, and of my personal and professional

contacts. Many of these addresses and phone numbers are not generally publicly available, again

raising serious concerns about how Schubiner is gathering this information.

13. Schubiner’s e-mail campaign commenced on April 11, 2022, and continued

unabated through June 20, 2022 (at which point the e-mails paused, only to resume in November

2022). In the midst of this e-mail campaign, on April 26, 2022, my daughter received a vile anti-

Semitic text from an apparent burner phone. The text asked, “Does Mitch Julis steal from Jews to

pretend to be philanthropic to Jews?” When she asked in response, “Who is this?,” the sender

responded, “The American Technion Society” (which is an organization supporting Technion —

Israel Institute of Technology). The following is a screenshot of this bizarre text exchange:

eee RCen elo
soy
ee M eM se al aes see e)
Br

ee isos oe I
for loa eee Ll mca
Be Coe Mb et mer
TE ala Ro)
SR Re
Dee Oem Vick lO.

Reeser UM eu cele i0

When my daughter sent a copy of the text exchange to me, ] immediately advised her: “[T]his is

the guy who stalked me in Aspen—ignore and block.”
6
14, Many of the e-mails and texts seemed disturbingly focused on my female

colleagues at Canyon, and a female associate at a law firm that had represented Canyon in the

litigation with Schubiner. Some e-mails attacked the personal integrity of Canyon’s two Co-Heads

of Real Estate Development, both of whom are female, and I understand that those e-mails were

sent to their respective husbands at multiple e-mail addresses (and that similar texts were sent to

one of these executive’s sister and father-in-law). Other e-mails accused Canyon’s counsel in its

litigation with Schubiner of lies, collusion, and other unethical behavior; many of these attacks

were leveled not at the partners on the case (whom I understand were male), but at a female

attorney whom I understand was an associate at the relevant time. Several of the e-mails contained

close-up pictures of this female attorney.

15. Still another e-mail on June 13, 2022 asserted that a female Canyon employee was

having an undisclosed romantic relationship with a male executive. This e-mail was entitled,

“BREAKING NEWS! Is Canyon’s Deputy General Counsel, [name], having an undisclosed

romantic relationship with Canyon’s Chief Compliance Officer, [name]?” The e-mail included a

picture of the female attorney and a separate picture of the male executive, and between those two

photos, a stock photo of a businesswoman reaching out her hand to touch a businessman’s knee.

The e-mail placed the names of the two Canyon employees over that stock photo, thereby creating

the false impression that they were the individuals in the picture:?

? The pictures of the two Canyon employees that appeared on either side of the following image, and their names,
have been redacted from the image.

7
Chief Compliance Officer at Canyon Partners, LLC

Managing Director and Deputy Genera C/ ies
Partners LLC
——

16. The following is a list of the e-mails I am aware of that were sent from April 4

2022 through June 20, 2022, each of which was sent to large numbers of recipients:*

Date E-Mail Subject Line
4/11/2022 Watch [name of one of Canyon’s Co-Heads of Real Estate]!
4/13/2022 Canyon Partners News
4/13/2022 Canyon Partners - Playbook and Tactics
4/14/2022 Watch [name of one of Canyon’s Co-Heads of Real Estate] - Canyon Partners
4/14/2022 Watch [name of one of Canyon’s Co-Heads of Real Estate] - Do You Think She
Testified Truthfully Under Oath?
4/19/2022 Are Defaulted Loans Correlated to Another Estate for Beth and Josh Friedman?
Learn More About What Happens at Canyon Partners!
4/25/2022 BREAKING NEWS! Canyon Partners Alleges Its Reports Revealing Rampant
Foreclosures Are Copyrighted!
4/25/2022 What Due Diligence Did Harvard Management Do Before Putting Joshua
Friedman on its Board?
4/29/2022 Watch [name of one of Canyon’s Co-Heads of Real Estate] - Did She Lie Under
Oath to Steal a $75 Million Property?
5/16/2022 Canyon Partners Tries to Jail Borrower for Disclosing Their Rampant
Foreclosures!

* Copies of all e-mails sent, to the extent known to me, are attached as Exhibits 1-26. In some instances, recipient
names and e-mail addresses have been redacted for confidentiality reasons.

8
5/18/2022 Canyon Partners Is Attempting to Jail Their Borrower For Disclosing Canyon’s
Rampant Foreclosures
5/25/2022 BREAKING NEWS: Canyon Partners Is Highly Litigious With Nearly 200
Federal Court Lawsuits!
5/27/2022 COMING SOON! Canyon Partners News Announces A New Web Page
Devoted to: LIES!
6/1/2022 Read the Story About How [Canyon’s Counsel] Pulled Off the Foreclosure of
The George [Schubiner’s failed real estate development] in Ann Arbor!
6/7/2022 [Canyon’s Counsel] Gets Court Order Fixed to Foreclose on the George for
Canyon Partners!
6/7/2022 [Canyon’s Counsel] Pulls Off the Foreclosure of The George in Ann Arbor!
6/13/2022 BREAKING NEWS! Canyon Partners Demands That Texas Attorney General
Keeps Canyon’s Reports Concealed!
6/13/2022 BREAKING NEWS! Is Canyon’s Deputy General Counsel, [Name], having an
undisclosed romantic relationship with Canyon’s Chief Compliance Officer,
[Name]?
6/20/2022 Did [Canyon’s Counsel] Commit a Crime to Manipulate Bankruptcy Court
Proceedings

Schubiner’s Open Defiance of Law Enforcement

17. As a result of Schubiner’s harassment campaign, Canyon had its counsel in

Michigan contact the police in Troy, Michigan. Although I was not personally involved in those

communications, ] understand that in late June 2022, Detective Ryan Whiteside of the Troy Police

Department’s Cybercrimes Unit called Schubiner and told him to cease his harassing conduct lest

he face criminal charges.

18. Thereafter, the e-mails stopped for several months, and it seemed that Schubiner

intended to comply with his warning from law enforcement. In November 2022, however, the

e-mails resumed as described below, and around the same time, the following statement of

defiance appeared on the website:

Recently, in late June 2022, [the law firm Canyon used in Michigan in its litigation
with Schubiner] had a Troy, Michigan police detective, Ryan Whiteside, call to
intimidate us and tell us not to include attorneys known to [the firm] or relatives of
9
[its] attorneys on our distribution list. If someone wants to unsubscribe, then they
can notify us, and we will remove them from our list. That’s how it works, not by
[the law firm] enlisting their friendly detective to intimidate us. If [the firm] didn’t
want their actions reported, then they should have thought about that before
committing those acts. Our mailing list and website views continue to increase by
the thousands, and we will not succumb to [the law firm’s] pressure tactics. The
truth will continue to be told.

19, Schubiner therefore has stated, expressly and openly, that he does not intend to

comply with the warning he received from law enforcement.

Schubiner’s Hedge Fund Scum Book and the Resumption of His E-Mail Campaign

20. In November 2022, Schubiner self-published a book through Amazon entitled

Hedge Fund Scum: True Stories About Canyon Partners. The book purports to be written by

someone named Amelia Anderson, but no author information for anyone by that name is provided,

and the book acknowledges on page 140 that “Hedge Fund Scum [and] canyonpartnersnews.com

... are written, owned and operated by Canyon Partners News Inc.” (which, as noted above, was

incorporated by Schubiner).

21. The book is similar to the website, and in large part appears to be a direct

transformation of the website into paper form. For example, the book contains the same picture

of my wife and me, the same picture of our home, and the same publication of our address, as set

forth above. And the book, like the website, spreads the same falsehoods and fabricated

conspiracies about me, my partner Mr. Friedman, and Canyon, for the apparent purpose of

embarrassing, intimidating, harassing, and tormenting me and other Canyon personnel. To make

matters worse, the book features a picture of me on the cover (selected from a video to, I believe,

portray me in a particularly unflattering light), right next to the outlandish and disparaging title

Hedge Fund Scum:

10
alLe y
aa

Ld lias Sad

22. Once the book became available on Amazon, Schubiner began sending more

e-mails advertising the book. These e-mails went out on November 7, 11, and 15, 2022. The

e-mails went to hundreds, if not thousands, of recipients, including numerous employees of

Canyon, together with family members of Canyon employees, and hundreds of employees of the

law firm Canyon used in its litigation against Schubiner and his company.

23. On December 5, 2022, yet another barrage of e-mails went out, this time advertising

a second edition of the book with more than 100 pages of new material. Then, on December 9,

2022, after Amazon removed the book from its platform, another e-mail blast went out to a large

number of recipients, this time inviting people to reply to the e-mail to order copies of the book.

This e-mail also told the recipients to “Watch for Advertisements in National Publications Soon!”

This e-mail went to, among many others, my wife Joleen and me. A similar e-mail blast followed

on December 13, 2022, including to my wife.

Schubiner’s Stalking of Me on Social Medi:

24. Meanwhile, Schubiner has been stalking me on social media. Around the time

Schubiner incorporated CPN, established the CanyonPartnersNews.com website, and commenced
11
the e-mail and texting campaign, accounts were created on LinkedIn for CPN and for an individual

purportedly named “Sally Mann.” The CPN LinkedIn account posted links to the

CanyonPartnersNews.com website. The “Sally Mann” account commented on posts by Canyon

Partners itself, saying things like, “Check out https://canyonpartnersnews.com to read about how

many people Joshua Friedman has stolen from with no remorse. The guy should be in jail.” I

understand that LinkedIn ultimately disabled the CPN account and the “Sally Mann” account.

25. Subsequently, a new LinkedIn account was created for CPN, and an account was

created for an individual purportedly named “Sheila Martin” (same initials as “Sally Mann”)

claiming to be a “Criminal Investigator at [a] Private Company.” The “Sheila Martin” account

then stalked me, posting pictures of Hedge Fund Scum in response to comments I made on the

LinkedIn platform. As just one of several examples, when I posted a friendly endorsement of my

fitness instructor, the “Sheila Martin” account posted a link to, and picture of, Hedge Fund Scum—

complete with the picture of me on the cover:

“a
Mitch Julis (He/Him)
Co-Founder, Co-Chairman, Co-CEO at Canyon
Daniela is a terrific teacher and instructor --
she works superlatively over zoom in the ways
the guides you through a significant variety of
pilates exercises and routine. | am grateful to be
her student.

2: O1 Reply

Sheila Martin - 3rc+ 1d
Criminal investigator at Private company

12
26. As a result of the stalking of me on LinkedIn, as exemplified by the foregoing

example, I have had to remove my account from LinkedIn and can no longer provide such

endorsements of others or otherwise contribute to the LinkedIn online community. Meanwhile,

although I understand that the “Sheila Martin” account has been disabled, the second CPN account

is still on the platform.

Conclusion

27. Schubiner is engaging in a campaign of physical and virtual stalking and

intimidation that is pervasive and relentless and is exacting a serious emotional toll on me and my

family. Schubiner’s actions seem clearly intended to harass and torment me, my family, and

Canyon’s personnel, and it has had that effect. I have become increasingly concerned as a result

of his harassment of my family and me, his online attempts to incite violence against my wife and

me at our homes, and his attempts to destroy my personal and professional reputation. His actions

also threaten to disrupt Canyon’s business relationships, and they have already led me to curtail

normal, positive business and community activities. For example, I now refrain from the use of

LinkedIn, limit my public appearances, and have started reconsidering participation in

philanthropic undertakings that could expose me to physical confrontations.

28. All of this has been compounded by the fact that, as I understand it, Schubiner

recently escalated his stalking and harassment of my partner Mr. Friedman to in-person stalking

and harassment at a professional conference in Dallas. 1 was not personally involved in those

events (which I understand are described in a separate declaration from Mr. Friedman), but the

fact that Schubiner is now stalking him in person (just as he stalked me on the streets of Colorado)

causes me to have additional, grave concerns about where all this is going and what Schubiner will

do next.

13
29. My wife and I fear for our safety and for that of our children (and for the safety of

my colleagues and their families, given that, as noted above, much of Schubiner’s conduct also

has been directed at them). My wife and J are concerned, among other things, that Schubiner’s

recent escalation will continue, and will result in Schubiner or a third party showing up at our

residence or offices to stalk, harass, or physically harm us or others. For example, we now feel it

is necessary to significantly increase security at all public and private Dallas events, including

recent company holiday parties and high profile meetings. I have personally distributed photos of

Schubiner to staff and security, and have even sent photos of Schubiner to my children and advised

them to be aware of their surroundings out of fear that he may target them further.

30. Given that Schubiner already has ignored a warning from law enforcement—and

indeed, escalated his harassment—I believe that a court order will be necessary to put a stop to his

conduct, and to secure the safety and peace of mind of me, my family, and my colleagues.

V UU
Mitchell R. Julis
2 lw
Dated: December / 7, 2022

14
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO ME on the |4 day of December 2022, to certify, which
witness my hand and official seal.

My commission expires: 12/07/29a5

LAN TRAN
Notary ID #133479886
ty Commission Expires
December 7, 2025

Lan “Tran SZ ZS
Notary Public
EXHIBIT B
CAUSE NO.

JOSHUA S. FRIEDMAN, IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Applicant,

Vv. JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CRAIG SCHUBINER,
Respondent.
DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

AFFIDAVIT OF JOSHUA S. FRIEDMAN IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR
PROTECTIVE ORDER

STATE OF TEXAS §
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned notary public, on this day personally appeared Joshua S.

Friedman, known to me, who was by me duly sworn upon his oath, deposed and said:

1 My name is Joshua S. Friedman. I am over twenty-one (21) years of age and

otherwise competent to make this Affidavit. I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein.

The information and events described in this Affidavit are true and correct.