federal complaint for intervention into lawsuit to collect money

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DIVISION OF NEW YORK

JEFFREY STEWART NEWTON, ))

Plaintiff, )) Case No. 1:13-cv-00303-LAP

vs. ) Hon. Loretta A. Preska)

THOMAS PATRICK FREYDL, )FREYDL & ASSOCIATES, LTD, a )California Corporation, KAREN )VIRGINIA FREYDL, THOMAS PATRICK )FREYDL II, FOCUS ON CARS, a )California Corporation, SOUTH BAY )STUDIOS (A DIVISION OF FOCUS ON )CARS), CALIFORNIA TEQUILA, L.L.C. )and UNNAMED DOES NOS 1-10, )EXCLUSIVE, ) VERIFIED COMPLAINT

)Defendants. )

__________________________________ )

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Jeffrey Stewart Newton, an individual, and hereby files his

Verified Complaint with this Honorable Court, as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. This is an Action for Declaratory Judgment, as well as for Damages and/or

Equitable Relief for Fraudulent Inducement, Breach of Contract, Failure to Comply With Income

Assignment Order, Tortious Interference With Contract, Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Fraudulent

Transfer, Civil Conspiracy, Consequential Damages and Punitive Damages.

1

2. This Action further seeks to recover any and all costs of this Action including, but

not limited to, actual reasonable attorney fees (if any), costs and filing fees.

IDENTIFICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF

3. Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton, an individual, is a resident of the States of

Michigan and New York.1

IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANTS

4. Defendant Thomas Patrick Freydl, an individual, is a resident of the State of

California. He is a disbarred California attorney and indefinitely suspended Michigan attorney.

Both disciplinary actions were imposed against him for multiple acts of professional misconduct,

including multiple acts of the misappropriation of substantial client funds, inter alia. He is an

inveterate thief and tax cheat. He shall be referred to in these proceedings as “Freydl.” His

California Bar Record, showing disbarment, is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 1. His

Michigan Bar Record is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 2. His California Conviction

Record for Practicing Law Without A License is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 3.

Several of his tax liens are attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 4. He continues to practice law

and is currently a Plaintiff in this Court, demanding attorney professional fees of $150,000.00

notwithstanding his total lack of historical admission to the New York Bar and described

1 Neither Richard A Newton nor the Estate of Joyce A. Newton, Deceased are Plaintiffs herein.

2

disbarment and suspension. See Freydl v Meringolo, 1:09-cv-07196-BSJ-KNF (the “Meringolo

Action”).

5. Defendant Freydl & Associates, LTD is a defunct California corporation owned

exclusively by Freydl, Entity No. C2858146. It was incorporated on March 6, 2006. It has been

continuously suspended since October 1, 2007. Its corporate address is 20434 South Santa Fe

Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90810. The significance of this address is described, infra. Its official

California Secretary of State Corporate Status is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 5. It shall

be referred to in these proceedings as “LTD.” 2

6. Defendant Karen Virginia Freydl is a resident of the state of Florida. She is

Freydl's former wife.

7. Defendant Thomas Patrick Freydl II is a resident of the state of Connecticut. He

is Freydl's son. He shall be referred to in these proceedings as “Freydl Junior.”

8. Defendant Focus on Cars, Inc. is an active California corporation, Entity No.

C1261346. It shall be referred to in these proceedings as “FOCS BS.”

9. Defendant South Bay Studios is a division of Focus on Cars. It shall be referred

to in these proceedings as “FOCS BS.”

10. Defendant California Tequila, L.L.C. is an active California Limited Liability

Company, Entity No. 200212610081.

2 LTD is a “sham” or “dummy” corporation with no apparent corporate purpose other than to defraud Freydl’s creditors.

3

11. Defendants Unknown DOES NOS 1-10 are as yet unknown co-conspirators,

agents, assignees, affiliates or subsidiaries of Freydl, or successor or new corporations,

partnerships, limited liability companies or assumed names involving or to Freydl or Freydl &

Associates, LTD.

JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS

12. This Court has jurisdiction to consider Newton’s claim for declaratory judgment

under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §2201.

13. This Court has jurisdiction to consider Newton’s state law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1332(a)(1), as the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, and there

exists complete diversity between the parties. This Court also has jurisdiction to consider

Newton’s state law claims under its pendant jurisdiction.

14. Freydl has voluntarily submitted to this Court’s jurisdiction by virtue of his

initiation of the Meringolo Action.

15. LTD is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction by virtue of its status as a Third Party

Defendant in the Meringolo Action.

16. Karen Virginia Freydl is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction as a civil co-

conspirator of both Freydl and LTD, and each of them.

17. Freydl Junior is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction as a civil co-conspirator of

both Freydl and LTD, and each of them.

4

18. FOCS BS is subject to this Court’s jurisdiction as a civil co-conspirator of both

Freydl and LTD, and each of them, and the fact that FOC BS does business in this judicial

district.

VENUE ALLEGATIONS

19. Venue is proper in this case, under 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3) and (b)(3), because

Freydl is subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction by virtue of the Meringolo Action, because

he admitted in his Declaration therein that many of the transactions or occurrences that form the

subject matter of this Action and caused damage to Plaintiff, occurred in this judicial district,

because he conducts and transacts business or affairs in this district, and because he can be found

here.

20. Venue is also proper in this case, under 28 U.S.C. §1391(c)(2) because LTD is

subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction by virtue of its appearance as a Third Party

Defendant in the Meringolo Action, because it is a co-conspirator of Freydl, and because it is a

judicial district in which Freydl is subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction.

21. Venue is also proper in this case, under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(3), because Karen

Virginia Freydl and/or Junior Freydl are subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction, because

they are co-conspirators of Freydl, and because it is a judicial district in which Freydl is subject

to the Court’s personal jurisdiction.

22. Venue is also proper in this case, under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(1), (b)(3) and (c)(2),

because FOCS BS is deemed to reside in this judicial District because it is subject to this Court’s

5

personal jurisdiction, because this is a judicial District in which Freydl is subject to this Court’s

personal jurisdiction, because it conducts and transacts business or affairs in this judicial District,

because it is a co-conspirator of Freydl, and because it can be found here.

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

23. In the early to mid 1990’s, Newton “worked”3 as an independently contracted

research attorney for Freydl at Freydl’s former Michigan law office, then located at 1400 North

Woodward, Suite 205, City of Bloomfield Hills, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, where

Freydl practiced law under the tradenames “Frasco, Freydl & Caponigro” and “Freydl &

Associates.” At the time, Freydl enjoyed a splendid law practice, replete with celebrity

entertainment and sports clientele and all the trappings of success.

24. In 1994 and 1995, Freydl represented Anna Nicole Smith in a litigation matter in

which she ultimately accumulated a $250,000.00 legal bill that she never paid. This motivated

Freydl to begin misappropriating funds from clients and business associates. In pursuit of and in

furtherance of his then nascent criminal enterprise, Freydl approached Newton with various

phony “entertainment law” investments and pressured him to enter into them. Unfortunately,

Newton both trusted Freydl and was fearful of getting fired, so he reluctantly agreed to “invest”

with Freydl. Ultimately, the various entertainment law related “investments” were eventually

3 This Action relates to Freydl’s theft of Newton’s life savings and its attendant consequential damages, which exponentially eclipse Newton's earnings at Freydl & Associates and Frasco, Freydl & Caponigro, Freydl’s Michigan lawfirms.

6

revealed as wholly illusory. When the dust finally settled, Freydl stole approximately eighty five

thousand dollars ($85,000.00) from Newton.

25. Accordingly, on April 25, 1997, Newton sued Freydl in the Court of General

Jurisdiction in the State of Michigan, County of Oakland, City of Pontiac. Freydl aggressively

contested the lawsuit, and even filed a spurious bankruptcy to administratively close the case for

eight (8) months.4 Finally, on August 11, 1999, Newton and Freydl entered into the 1999

Revised Final Consent Judgment in the amount of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000.00) plus

costs, interest and attorney fees.5

26. The amount of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment was based upon a

“penalty doubling” of an initial June 18, 1999 Consent Judgment in the amount of thirty five

thousand dollars ($35,000.00) that the parties entered into on June 11, 1999 and which Freydl

failed to honor.

27. As an inducement to Newton to enter into the 1999 Revised Final Consent

Judgment, Freydl filed an Affidavit with the Michigan Court that denied that he benefited, either

directly or indirectly, from interstate wire transfers in the amount of $27,000.00 from Newton to

the Bank of America account of an entity known as “3 Ring Productions” which was, upon

information and belief, at all times relevant, a Freydl affiliate. Accordingly, Freydl’s described

4 During this time, Newton fell into foreclosure on his home and entered into a miniscule settlement with Freydl only to attempt to save his home. Since Freydl welched on the deal, Newton ultimately lost his home to foreclosure and approximately $320,000.00 in equity with it.

5 Recently, Freydl denied in Court testimony in Michigan that he entered into the Consent Judgment.

7

representations concerning “3 Ring Productions” and the $27,000.00 wire transfers were

collateral to the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.

28. Upon information and belief, Freydl’s described representations concerning “3

Ring Productions” and the $27,000.00 wire transfers were false (i.e., Freydl did, in fact, benefit

from such transfers).

29. The thirty five thousand dollar ($35,000.00) June 18, 1994 Consent Judgment was

based exclusively upon two $17,500.00 non-sufficient or “account closed” checks that Freydl

wrote to Newton (and his brother, Richard A. Newton, who is not a party to these proceedings)6

on March 28, 1994 – nearly nineteen years ago.7 A copy of these checks are attached hereto and

labeled as Exhibit 6.

30. Freydl has never paid Newton anything on the 1999 Revised Final Consent

Judgment.

6 Jeffrey Stewart Newton is not Richard A. Newton’s agent, attorney, or any relation other than blood relative. He expressly disclaims any other relationship with Richard A. Newton whatsoever. Richard A. Newton is not a party to these proceedings and does not hereby submit to the jurisdiction of this Court. Richard A. Newton assigned his claim to Jeffrey Stewart Newton on April 7, 2009 and has no interest in this matter whatsoever. See Assignment, attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 7. The handwritten notations on the New York Index Number submission was copied at the direction of the Court Clerk from the Michigan Attestation and Exemplification of Records at the Clerk’s request. See New York Domestication Package, attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 8.

7 The 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment is also not based upon any claim of the Estate of Joyce A. Newton, Deceased, who, likewise, is not a party to these proceedings. Jeffrey Stewart Newton does not represent the Estate of Joyce A. Newton in these proceedings, and he has no authority to submit the Estate to the jurisdiction of this Court. The handwritten notations on the New York Index Number submission was copied at the direction of the Court Clerk from the Michigan Attestation and Exemplification of Records at the Clerk’s request. See Exhibit 8 hereto (New York Domestication Package).

8

COUNT ONE – DECLARATORY JUDGMENT

(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl,

Thomas Patrick Freydl II, Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios, California Tequila)

31. Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in ¶¶ One through Thirty above

as though same had been fully set forth herein.

32. There exists a real, actual and justiciable controversy between the parties

regarding entitlement to (a) the substantial funds transferred by Freydl to Karen Virginia Freydl

and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II notwithstanding the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment;

(discussed infra); (b) the substantial funds earned by Freydl from FOCS BS since June 22, 2011

that have not been paid over to Newton, as required by the June 22, 2011 “Minute Order;”

(discussed infra) and (c) the substantial funds transferred by Freydl to Freydl & Associates, LTD

since March 6, 2006, notwithstanding the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment and/or the June

22, 2011 “Minute Order.”

33. Newton therefore requests that the Court order and adjudge that Newton is

entitled to take immediate ownership of all funds transferred by Freydl to any of the within

Defendants since August 11, 1999 pursuant to, and up to and including, the full amount of the

1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment, with actual damages in an amount to be determined by

the jury and with both accrued and per diem interest to be determined by the Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:

9

A. For a Declaratory Judgment that Newton is entitled to the full amount of all

transfers from Freydl to any of the named Defendants8 from August 11, 1999 forward, up to and

including the full enforceable amount of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment, together

with damages in an amount to be determined by the jury,9 interest and costs, including per diem

interest, as determined by the Court;

B. For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

C. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D. For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorneys fees; and

E. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.

COUNT TWO – FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT

(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl)

34. Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in ¶¶ One through Thirty Three

above as though same had been fully set forth herein.

35. The 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment was based upon the June 18, 1999

Consent Judgment, which gave Freydl until July 21, 1999 to pay Newton $35,000.00, or else the

amount of said June 18, 1999 Consent Judgment would automatically double.

8 Or to other as yet unidentified Defendants, the identity of which may become known to Newton during the course of these proceedings.

9 Transfers exceeding the amount of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment are damages to be determined by the jury.

10

36. The $35,000.00 amount set forth in the June 18, 1999 Consent Judgment was

based upon two post dated $17,500.00 “Account Closed” checks that Freydl tendered to Newton

as an inducement to him to tender $35,000.00 to Freydl (Exhibit 6 hereto).

37. Freydl fraudulently induced Newton to enter into the 1999 Revised Final Consent

Judgment in at least the following respects: (a) that he intended to honor the 1999 Revised Final

Consent Judgment when, in fact, he did not, and (b) that he did not benefit, either directly or

indirectly, by two $13,500.00 April 7, 1994 wire transfers (totaling $27,000.00) from Newton to

3 Ring Productions when, in fact, he did.

38. Upon information and belief, Freydl benefited, either directly or indirectly, from

the April 7, 1994 wire transfers from Newton to 3 Ring Productions.

39. Freydl’s misrepresentation that he did not benefit from the described $27,000.00

wire transfers to 3 Ring Productions constituted a promise to take future action which was

collateral to the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment, not contained within it, and served as an

inducement for Newton to enter into it.

40. Freydl’s misrepresentation that he did not benefit from the described $27,000.00

wire transfers to 3 Ring Productions was not specifically contradicted by any of the detailed

representations or warranties contained in the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.

41. Freydl’s cumulative actions from August 11, 1999 to the present constitute

overwhelming evidence that he never intended to honor any Consent Judgment with Newton.

11

42. Freydl’s promise to honor the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment constituted a

promise to take future action which was collateral to said Judgment, not contained within it, and

served as an inducement for Newton to enter into it.10

43. Freydl’s promise to honor the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment was not

specifically contradicted by any of the detailed representations or warranties contained in the

1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.

44. Freydl made his promise to honor the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment with

a preconceived and undisclosed intention of not performing it.

45. Freydl’s above-described misrepresentations of material fact were collateral to the

1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment and served as an inducement for Newton to enter into it.

46. Freydl’s above-described misrepresentations of material fact were not specifically

contradicted by any of the detailed representations or warranties contained in the 1999 Revised

Final Consent Judgment.

47. Freydl’s above-described misrepresentations constitute materially false

representations.

48. Freydl made the above-described misrepresentations of material fact with actual

knowledge of their falsity and with the intention that Newton would rely upon them.

10 The initial, June 18, 1999 Consent Judgment featured a performance inducement/penalty clause: the amount of said Judgment was $35,000.00 (the minimum amount needed by Newton to save his home from foreclosure). Said June 18, 1999 Consent Judgment gave Freydl three (3) weeks to pay the $35,000.00. When Freydl failed to pay the $35,000.00, the amount automatically doubled to $70,000.00, hence, the amount of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment, which did not feature a performance inducement/penalty clause.

12

49. Freydl intended to defraud Newton thereby.

50. Freydl’s above-described misrepresentations of material fact constitute Fraud on

the Court.

51. Newton reasonably relied upon Freydl’s above-described material

misrepresentations in deciding to enter into the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.

52. Newton suffered damages as a result of his reliance upon Freydl’s above-

described misrepresentations of material fact.


A. For rescission of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment, and

B. In the alternative, for damages for an Action in Deceit in an amount to be

determined by the jury;

C. For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D. For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

E. For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorneys fees; and

F. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.

COUNT THREE – BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl)

13

53. Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in ¶¶ One through Fifty Two


54. The 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment constitutes a valid, enforceable

contract between Newton and Freydl.

55. Newton fully performed his obligations under the 1999 Revised Final Consent

Judgment.

56. Freydl breached the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment by failing to perform

any of his obligations under it.

57. Newton sustained substantial damages, including substantial consequential

damages, as a direct result of Freydl’s breach of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.


A. For damages against Thomas Patrick Freydl in an amount to be determined by the

jury;





in the premises.

COUNT FOUR

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH INCOME ASSIGNMENT ORDER

14

(Against Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios, California Tequila,

Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD)

58. Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in ¶¶ One through Fifty Seven


59. In June, 2011, the Orange County, California Superior Court Ordered FOCS BS to

pay Newton Freydl’s monthly FOC BS income, and for Freydl to pay the same to Newton. A

copy of the June 23, 2011 “Minute Order,” Case No. 30-2011-00469301-CU-EN-CJC, Hon.

Steven L. Perk, is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 8.

60. Notwithstanding the Minute Order, FOC BS has continued to pay Freydl each and

every one of his monthly FOC BS income checks, and Freydl has not paid the same over to

Newton, all in violation of the Minute Order and in Contempt of the Orange County, California

Superior Court and Judge Perk.

61. Notwithstanding the Minute Order, FOC BS has permitted, and continues to

permit, each and every one of Freydl's monthly income checks to be diverted into the bank

account of an unrelated, suspended corporation that is not an owner, employee, contractor,

associate or affiliate of FOC BS, all in violation of the Minute Order and in Contempt of the

Orange County, California Superior Court, thereby fraudulently rendering the deposited funds

unavailable to Newton for collection. Copies of exemplar FOC BS checks to Freydl (front and

back), showing deposit into Bank of America Corporate Account, Freydl & Associates, LTD,

Routing No. 122-000-661, Account No. 23638-71631, are attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit

15

9. This extremely dangerous manipulation is tantamount to the diversion of Court-ordered child

support to a payor employee's straw man account, and a message that it is verboten must be sent

by this Honorable Court to would-be wage assignment avoiders.


A. For damages against Focus on Cars/South Bay Studios and/or Thomas Patrick

Freydl in an amount to be determined by the jury, but in an amount not less than the full value of

the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment, together with accrued statutory interest thereon;



D. For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorney fees; and


in the premises.

COUNT FIVE

TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

(Against Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios)

62. Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in ¶¶ One through Sixty One


63. At all times relevant, a contractual business relationship (the 1999 Revised Final

Consent Judgment, including its domestication in New York and California) existed between

Newton and Freydl.

16

64. At all times relevant, FOC BS was actually aware of the 1999 Revised Final

Consent Judgment (contractual business relationship) between Newton and Freydl.

65. Prior to January, 2003, Ron Kusumi (a longstanding key FOC BS employee) and

other employees and/or agents of FOCS BS represented to Newton, via the interstate telephone

transmission lines, (1) that Freydl maintained a longstanding law office at FOCS BS, (2) that he

was an owner, employee, contractor, associate or affiliate of same, and (3) that mail sent to him

there would be properly transmitted to him without obstruction, interception, interference or

retardation.

66. In January, 2003, FOCS BS, through its employees and/or agents, including, but

not limited to, Ron Kusumi, (1) voluntarily and intentionally devised or willfully participated in

a scheme to defraud Newton out of money; (2) with the intent to defraud Newton; (3) using

interstate wire communications, by intentionally deceiving and misrepresenting to Newton, that

FOC BS had unilaterally terminated any and all dealings, business relationships, and associations

of any nature whatsoever between Freydl and FOCS BS, and barred him permanently from the

Premises11 when, in fact, none of these things were true.

67. FOC BS' described actions constitute the crime of Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1343.

68. In January, 2003, FOCS BS, through its employees and/or agents, including, but

not limited to, Ron Kusumi, willfully obstructed, intercepted, interfered or retarded the passage

11 Such deception eliminated the singular available physical address for Freydl, who had otherwise rendered himself absolutely unfindable.

17

of mail addressed to Freydl from Newton, including, but not limited to, a 2003 Subpoena duces

tecum.

69. FOC BS' fraud intentionally deceived Newton that Freydl no longer maintained

an office at FOCS BS by returning official mail that was addressed to Freydl at his FOCS BS

office address to Newton (the 2003 Subpoena), falsely representing that Freydl was “not at this

address” by handwriting same on such mailing's envelope when, in fact, this was not true. A

copy of the returned envelope is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 10.

70. Again in August, 2009, FOCS BS, through its employees and/or agents, including,

but not limited to, Ron Kusumi, willfully obstructed, intercepted, interfered or retarded the

passage of mail that was addressed to Freydl at his FOC BS office address from Newton,

including, but not limited to, a 2009 Judgment Renewal Summons and Complaint, Oakland

County, Michigan Circuit Court Case No. 2009-103041-CZ (Renewing Judgment in Case No.

1997-543058-CZ). The August 16, 2009 Proof of Service, Summons and Complaint for

Renewal of Judgment, 2009 (Richard Ferrette, showing service by mail at 20434 South Santa Fe

Avenue, Long Beach, CA), is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 11. The May 17, 1997

Cover Letter, Thomas Patrick Freydl to Jeffrey Stewart Newton (showing Freydl's use of the

very same, 20434 South Santa Fe Avenue, Long Beach, CA address at Focus on Cars/South Bay

Studios for his law office), is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 12.

71. FOC BS's described actions constituted the crimes of Mail Tampering and/or Mail

Fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1701(h) and/or §1341.

18

72. Newton did not discover FOCS BS’s fraud or criminal activity until Freydl mailed

Newton legal pleadings from his longstanding office at FOCS BS in August, 2011, proving, with

complete certainty, that Freydl maintained such an office at FOCS BS continuously at all times

relevant hereto and, therefore, that mail sent to him there should have been properly delivered to

him absent obstruction, interception, interference or retardation by FOC BS.

73. At all times relevant, Freydl has enjoyed monthly income (averaging

approximately $3,000.00 per month) from FOC BS.

74. At all times relevant, notwithstanding its actual knowledge of the contractual

business relationship between Newton and Freydl (the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment),

as well as Newton's extensive collection efforts thereof, FOC BS knowingly, intentionally and

continuously permitted its monthly income checks to Freydl to be fraudulently and wrongfully

deposited into a defunct corporate account that is not a party to the contractual business

relationship (the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment) between Newton and Freydl, thereby

fraudulently rendering the deposited funds unavailable to Newton for collection. See attached

example checks from FOC BS to Freydl (front and back), showing deposit into Bank of America

Corporate Account, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Routing No. 122-000-661, Account No. 23638-

71631 (Exhibit 9 hereto). This extremely dangerous manipulation is tantamount to the diversion

of Court-ordered child support to a payor employee's straw man account, and a message that it is

verboten must be sent by this Honorable Court to would-be wage assignment avoiders.

19

75. FOCS BS acted with intent to defraud and/or harm and/or employed dishonest,

improper, unfair or wrongful means and/or acted solely out of malice for the purpose of

defrauding and/or harming Newton in deceiving and misleading him.

76. FOCS BS’s actions were neither legally nor socially justified.

77. FOCS BS knew that its actions were untrue and/or criminal when it made them.

78. FOCS BS’s actions were not intended to advance its own economic interests.

79. FOC BS' described conduct intentionally, improperly, wrongfully and tortiously

interfered with Freydl's performance of his contractual business relationship with Newton (the

1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment) by preventing Freydl's performance of it, causing Freydl

to breach it, or by causing Freydl's performance of it to be more expensive or burdensome,

causing injury and damages to Newton, including, but not limited to, pecuniary injury (failure to

pay Freydl's income over to Newton, commencing in 1999) and interference with the judicial

process [obstruction, interception, interference or retardation of official mailings and the

consequences thereof (interference with collection and judgment renewal)].


A. For damages against Focus on Cars/South Bay Studios in an amount to be

determined by the jury, but in an amount not less than the full value of the 1999 Final Revised

Consent Judgment, together with accrued statutory interest thereon;



20



in the premises.

COUNT SIX

FRAUD

(Against Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios)

80. Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in ¶¶ One through Seventy

Nine above as though same had been fully set forth herein.

81. FOC BS made the following intentionally deceptive and misleading statements to

Newton, inter alia:

a. that mail sent to Freydl at FOC BS would be properly transmitted to him

without obstruction, interception, interference or retardation;

b. that FOC BS had unilaterally terminated any and all dealings, business

relationships, and associations of any nature whatsoever between itself and Freydl, and barred

him permanently from the Premises; and

c. that Freydl was “not at this address” (as written on returned envelope

containing Subpoena, Exhibit 10 hereto);

82. FOC BS omitted making the following statements, inter alia, to Newton, to whom

it owed a duty of disclosure thereto:

21

a. that FOC BS had obstructed, intercepted, interfered with or retarded

Newton's mailings to Freydl in 2003 (Subpoena) and 2009 (Summons and Complaint for

Renewal of Judgment);

b. that FOC BS had not unilaterally terminated any dealings, business

relationships, or associations of any nature whatsoever between itself and Freydl, or barred him

permanently or otherwise from the Premises, and that Freydl continued to maintain an office at

FOC BS; and

c. that Freydl's monthly FOC BS income checks were being diverted into the

bank account of an unrelated, suspended corporation that was not an owner, employee,

contractor, associate or affiliate of same.

83. FOC BS's described statements or omissions were false, deceptive or misleading.

84. FOC BS intended to deceive Newton by its described statements or omissions.

85. Newton reasonably relied upon FOC BS's described statements or omissions to

his detriment.

86. Newton has been injured and has sustained damages as a result of his reliance

upon FOC BS's described statements or omissions.


A. For damages against Focus on Cars/South Bay Studios in an amount to be

determined by the jury, but in an amount not less than the full value of the 1999 Final Revised

Consent Judgment, together with accrued statutory interest thereon;

22





in the premises.

COUNT SEVEN – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

(Against Karen Virginia Freydl and Thomas Patrick Freydl II)

87. Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in ¶¶ One through Eighty Six


88. At all times relevant hereto, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl

II were actually aware of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.12

89. At all times relevant hereto, Freydl transferred money to Karen Virginia Freydl

and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II notwithstanding the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.

90. At all times relevant hereto, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl

II received money from Freydl in violation of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment,

notwithstanding their actual awareness of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.

91. Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II wrongfully benefited from

Freydl’s transfers to them at Newton’s Expense.

12 Such individuals previously illegitimately attempted to parlay their wrongful receipt of funds from Freydl into professional misconduct on the part of Newton in retaliation for his potentially corrective efforts of their illegal behavior. Their hopes were quickly annihilated by the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission.

23

92. Equity and good conscience require full restitution to Newton from Karen

Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II.


A. For damages against Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II in an

amount to be determined by the jury, but in an amount not less than the full value of the 1999

Final Revised Consent Judgment, together with accrued statutory interest thereon;





in the premises.

COUNT EIGHT – FRAUDULENT TRANSFER

(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates,

LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl, Thomas Patrick Freydl II)

93. Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in ¶¶ One through Ninety Two


94. At all times relevant, all legal or quasi-legal professional services at issue herein

for which payment was received therefor and is sought to be recovered herein were performed by

Freydl.

24

95. At all times relevant hereto, Freydl & Associates, LTD was suspended for

nonpayment of California Franchise Taxes pursuant to California Revenue & Tax Code

§19719(a)13 and was therefore legally incapable of engaging in any business transactions,

including, but not limited to, the provision of legal services.

96. At all times relevant hereto, Freydl was a Defendant in an action for money

damages versus Newton or a judgment in such action was docket against him, Case No. 1997-

543058-CZ, Oakland County Circuit Court, Michigan.

97. At all times relevant hereto, Freydl transferred funds to Freydl & Associates,

LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II notwithstanding the 1999 Revised

Final Consent Judgment and their actual knowledge of its existence, including, but not limited to,

the funds delineated in the attached exemplar checks from John Meringolo, Meringolo &

Associates, Gruppo Santony, Second Renaissance, Damon Live Action, Nicholas G. Popravsky,

Timothy E. Clontz, Square Planet Media and California Tequila, inter alia, all attached hereto

and labeled as Exhibit 13. Moreover, the Meringolo checks represented legal services performed

by Freydl for Meringolo in New York City, during a time that Freydl admitted that he lived there,

13 It is a crime to do so. §19719(a) provides:

(a) Any person who attempts or purports to exercise the powers, rights, and privileges of a corporation that has been suspended pursuant to Section 23301 or who transacts or attempts to transact intrastate business in this state on behalf of a foreign corporation, the rights and privileges of which have been forfeited pursuant to the section, is punishable by a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both fine and imprisonment. Id.

25

as verified in his Declaration, attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 14. Similarly, the Clontz

check represents New York legal work by Freydl. Irrefutable proof that Freydl transferred

money to Karen Virginia Freydl in violation of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment is

attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 15. Newton did not discover these wrongful transfers

until after his discovery of the Meringolo Action and Freydl's whereabouts in late January, 2011.

98. Pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”) §273(a), all of the

transfers from Freydl to anybody or anything, including, but not limited to, Freydl & Associates,

LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl or Thomas Patrick Freydl II subsequent to April 25, 1997 (the date

of the filing of the Complaint in Newton vs. Freydl, Oakland County Circuit Court Case No.

1997-543058-CZ), were fraudulent as to Freydl without regard to Freydl's actual intent, because

Freydl failed to satisfy the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.

99. At all times relevant hereto, pursuant to CPLR §276, each and every transfer or

conveyance of money made by Freydl to Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl

and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II was made with actual intent to defraud Newton, and are

therefore fraudulent as to him.

100. Freydl’s transfers to Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or

Thomas Patrick Freydl II were made while Freydl was insolvent, or, alternatively, the transfers

caused his insolvency, thereby rendering said transfers fraudulent pursuant to CPLR §273.

26

101. At the time of the transfers, Freydl was engaged in, or was about to engage in

business transactions for which his remaining property constituted unreasonably small capital,

thereby rendering said transfers fraudulent pursuant to CPLR §274.

102. At the time of the transfers, Freydl believed that he would incur debt beyond his

ability to pay, thereby rendering all said transfers fraudulent pursuant to CPLR §275.

103. Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II

did not convey property to Freydl in exchange for their receipt of funds, thereby rendering said

transfers fraudulent pursuant to CPLR §272.

104. Freydl’s transfers to LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II

did not discharge an antecedent debt in exchange, thereby rendering said transfers fraudulent

pursuant to CPLR §272.


were not for equivalent value, thereby rendering said transfers fraudulent pursuant to CPLR

§272.


were not made in good faith.

107. Freydl intended to hinder, delay, or defraud Newton in making the transfers.

108. The overwhelming proof of Freydl’s fraud includes, but is not limited to, the

indicia (badges) of fraud of close relationships between himself and LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl

27

and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II, transfers outside the usual course of business and inadequate

consideration for the transfers.


A. For damages against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen

Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II in an amount to be determined by the jury, but in

an amount not less than the full value of the 1999 Final Revised Consent Judgment, together

with accrued statutory interest thereon;





in the premises.

COUNT NINE – FRAUDULENT TRANSFER

(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates,

LTD, Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios, California Tequila)

109. Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in ¶¶ One through One Hundred

Eight above as though same had been fully set forth herein.

110. Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios and California Tequila are all owned,

controlled, operated or managed by Richard “Ricardo” Gamarra (“Gamarra”).

28

111. Gamarra is a longstanding, close personal friend of Freydl, who maintains his law

office at Gamarra's movie studio, “Focus on Cars – South Bay Studios,” and has done so for

many years.

112. At all times relevant hereto, Focus on Cars - South Bay Studios, California

Tequila, and/or Richard “Ricardo” Gamarra possessed actual knowledge of the 1999 Revised

Final Consent Judgment.

113. At all times relevant hereto, Focus on Cars - South Bay Studios, California

Tequila, and/or Richard “Ricardo” Gamarra transferred or conveyed money to Freydl and/or

Freydl & Associates, LTD notwithstanding that each of them possessed actual knowledge of the

1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.

114. At all times relevant hereto, Freydl (“Agent Freydl”) held himself out to be the

authorized agent of Focus on Cars - South Bay Studios, California Tequila, and/or Richard

“Ricardo” Gamarra.

115. Focus on Cars - South Bay Studios, California Tequila, and/or Richard “Ricardo”

Gamarra have all authorized Agent Freydl to act on their behalf with respect to all matters

complained of herein, and have held him out as their, and each of theirs, exclusive agent to the

world. Furthermore, Focus on Cars - South Bay Studios, California Tequila, and/or Richard

“Ricardo” Gamarra, and each of them, has affirmed, ratified and approved each and every

transfer or conveyance of money from themselves or Freydl to Freydl or to Freydl & Associates,

LTD, imposing upon them by operation of the law of agency and the rules of equity (both of

29

which are incorporated into §280), full and unconditional liability to Newton, up to the full

amount of the 1999 Revised Consent Judgment in its entirety, together with accrued statutory

interest thereon.

116. While acting directly as the authorized agent of FOC BS or California Tequila,

Agent Freydl deposited checks made out to him by FOC BS or California Tequila, into the bank

account of an unrelated, suspended corporation that is not an owner, employee, contractor,

associate or affiliate of FOC BS or California Tequila, Bank of America Corporate Account,

Freydl & Associates, LTD, Routing No. 122-000-661, Account No. 23638-71631 (See Exhibit 9

hereto), thereby fraudulently rendering the deposited funds unavailable to Newton for collection.

117. At all times relevant hereto, pursuant to CPLR §276, each and every transfer or

conveyance of money made by FOC BS or California Tequila and/or Freydl to Freydl or to

Freydl & Associates, LTD was made with actual intent to defraud Newton, and are therefore

fraudulent as to him.

118. At all times relevant hereto, pursuant to CPLR §278, and §280 and otherwise,

Newton seeks to set aside or annul all conveyances or transfers of money from FOC BS or

California Tequila and/or Freydl to Freydl or to Freydl & Associates, LTD to the extent necessary

to satisfy the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment in its entirety, together with accrued

statutory interest thereon, and to recover these monies directly from FOC BS or California

Tequila.


30

A. For damages against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Focus on

Cars, South Bay Studios, and California Tequila in an amount to be determined by the jury, but

in an amount not less than the full value of the 1999 Final Revised Consent Judgment, together

with accrued statutory interest thereon;





in the premises.

COUNT TEN – CIVIL CONSPIRACY




Eighteen above as though same had been fully set forth herein.

120. FOCS BS and California Tequila’s actions (where applicable) constituted the

independent torts of Misrepresentation, Fraud, Tortious Interference With Contract, Failure to

Comply With Income Assignment Order, Fraudulent Transfer, as well as the crimes of mail

tampering and mail and wire fraud.

121. Karen Virginia Freydl and Thomas Patrick Freydl II’s actions constituted the

independent torts of Fraudulent Transfer and Unjust Enrichment.

31

122. FOCS BS conspired with Freydl to deceive and defraud Newton into believing

that they had unilaterally terminated any and all dealings, business relationships, and associations

of any nature whatsoever between Freydl and FOCS BS, and barred him permanently from the

Premises when, in fact, none of these things were true, thereby interfering with Freydl's

performance of his contractual business relationship with Newton (the 1999 Revised Final

Consent Judgment) by preventing Freydl's performance of it, causing Freydl to breach it, or by

causing Freydl's performance of it to be more expensive or burdensome.

123. FOCS BS and/or California Tequila conspired with Freydl to enable Freydl to

deposit checks made out to him by FOC BS or California Tequila into the bank account of an

unrelated, suspended corporation that is not an owner, employee, contractor, associate or affiliate

of FOC BS or California Tequila, Bank of America Corporate Account, Freydl & Associates,

LTD, Routing No. 122-000-661, Account No. 23638-71631 (See Exhibit 9 hereto), thereby

fraudulently rendering the deposited funds unavailable to Newton for collection.

124. FOCS BS and/or California Tequila conspired with Freydl to avoid compliance

with the Minute Order (Exhibit 8 hereto).

125. FOCS BS conspired with Freydl to deceive and defraud Newton by committing

the crimes of mail tampering, mail fraud and wire fraud.

126. Karen Virginia Freydl and Thomas Patrick Freydl II conspired with Freydl to

unjustly enrich themselves at Newton's expense.

32

127. Newton has in fact harmed by such conspiracy inasmuch as he has not yet been

able to enforce the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.



Cars, South Bay Studios, California Tequila, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick

Freydl II in an amount to be determined by the jury, but in an amount not less than the full value

of the 1999 Final Revised Consent Judgment, together with accrued statutory interest thereon;





in the premises.

COUNT ELEVEN – CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES




Twenty Seven above as though same had been fully set forth herein.

129. Newton suffered extensive consequential damages as a result of Defendants’

conduct including, but not limited to, the loss of most of the equity in his “mortgage free and

clear” longtime condominium home. Solely because of the actions of the Defendants, Newton

33

was forced to take out extremely expensive foreclosure financing on said condominium which

again, due, solely to the actions of the Defendants, he was unable to pay. Ultimately, he was

forced to sell the condominium for almost nothing regarding his consequential Defendant-caused

mortgage debt on it to avoid eviction. All of these losses were caused solely by the Defendants’

massive fraud against Newton, as more fully set forth supra, thereby entitling Newton to

significant consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial.



Cars, South Bay Studios, California Tequila, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick

Freydl II in an amount to be determined by the jury, but in an amount not less than the full value

of the 1999 Final Revised Consent Judgment, together with accrued statutory interest thereon;





in the premises.

COUNT TWELVE - PUNITIVE DAMAGES


Thomas Patrick Freydl II, Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios)

34


Twenty Nine above as though same had been fully set forth herein.

131. The following acts of the Defendants, inter alia, mandate an extraordinary award

of punitive damages, to deter such despicable conduct by others in the future:

A. Freydl's fraudulent inducement of Newton to enter into the 1999 Revised Final

Consent Judgment and eventual repudiation of his very entry into said Judgment;

B. The conspiracy of FOC BS, California Tequila and/or Freydl & Associates, LTD

with Freydl as their agent to actively conceal, shelter and insulate Freydl's physical whereabouts

and address, so that Newton could not find him, despite considerable time and expense, and

enforce the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment;

C. The conspiracy of FOC BS, California Tequila and/or Freydl & Associates, LTD

with Freydl as their agent to actively divert and wrongfully convey or transfer substantial funds

into an unrelated, defunct, “sham” corporate bank account (LTD), thereby rendering same

unavailable for collection by Newton;

D. The failure of FOC BS, California Tequila and/or Freydl & Associates, LTD with

Freydl as their agent, to comply with the Minute Order, in contempt of the Orange County,

California Superior Court;

E. FOC BS's obstruction, interception, interference or retardation of important,

official U.S. Mail to Freydl, including, but not limited to, subpoenas, Summonses, Complaints

and Writs, thereby actively interfering with the judicial process in obstruction of justice;

F. Karen V. Freydl and Thomas Patrick Freydl, II's filing of spurious bar grievances

against Newton in retaliation for his legitimate collection actions;

35

G. The fraudulent conveyance or transfer of substantial sums of money and unjust

enrichment thereby;

H. Karen Virginia Freydl's illegitimate divorce from Freydl for the sole purpose of

judgment collection avoidance, initiated a mere six (6) months after her perjurious assertion of

spousal immunity to avoid divulging Freydl's physical address and asset location;

I. Freydl's perjury as to his physical whereabouts during testimony in the Oakland

County, Michigan Circuit Court;

J. Freydl's acceptance of nearly $100,000.00 from attorney John Meringolo and

fraudulent conveyance of same to Freydl & Associates, LTD to avoid collection by Newton; and

K. Superior officer(s) at FOCS BS and/or California Tequila that were employed in a

managerial capacity participated in, authorized, consented to, or ratified Freydl’s misconduct,

such that their participation in his wrongdoing renders FOCS BS and/or California Tequila

blameworthy and arouses the institutional conscience of FOCS BS and/or California Tequila for

corrective action.

132. Defendants’ described conduct is so morally bankrupt, so bereft of integrity, so

repugnant to honesty and fair dealing,14 so despicable in conception, inception and

implementation, so devoid of all sense of human integrity, so disgusting to men and woman of

any moral character whatsoever, so repulsive to those of honor, so characteristic of moral

turpitude and so hideously evil in every respect, as to demand extraordinary punitive damages, so

14 As Freydl’s previous theft of client funds and attempted cover-up was described by Tri-County Hearing Panel #66, and noted in the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board Opinion, Grievance Administrator v Freydl, 96-193-GA (This document is available on the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board's website as well as via a simple “Google” search using the singular search term “Freydl”).

36

as to discourage similarly situated persons from behaving in such a putrid and fetid manner

apposite all bounds of human decency.

133. All Defendants’ described conduct evinces such a high degree of moral turpitude

and demonstrates such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations

and is of a character of outrage associated with crime.


A. For punitive damages against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD,

Karen Virginia Freydl, Thomas Patrick Freydl II, Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios and/or

California Tequila in an amount to be determined by the jury;

B. For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorneys fees; and

C. For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________Jeffrey Stewart Newton

Plaintiff In Pro Per208 Willis AvenueRoyal Oak, MI 480671223 Church RoadSaugerties, NY 12477

DATED: January 9, 2013 (248) 694-1400

37

VERIFICATION

COUNTY OF OAKLAND)))ss

STATE OF MICHIGAN)

I, Jeffrey Stewart Newton, first being duly sworn, do hereby declare, under penalty of

perjury, that the foregoing is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief.

Further Deponent Sayeth Not.




DATED: January 9, 2013 (248) 694-1400

On January 9, 2013, Jeffrey Stewart Newton appeared before me and signed the within

document.

______________________________Notary Public, Oakland County

My Commission expires: ___________________

38

JURY DEMAND

I, Jeffrey Stewart Newton, Plaintiff in pro per, do hereby demand a trial by jury of all

matters so triable herein.




DATED: January 9, 2013 (248) 694-1400

39

federal complaint for intervention into lawsuit to collect money

Documents