Jason Hartman , Platinum Partners, Creating Wealth Network, SwankLife, Hartman Media Investment Scam of many faces and levels Internet

Mr Hartman - here is another lawsuit fresh off the press to you for FAILURE TO PAY ATTORNEY FEES, as you know this makes the 6th active case in the U.S. you have and we will discuss below. We really can’t believe that an attorney would file a RICO lawsuit in this case. However, once you read this outline, it will give you a rough idea what the poor people at PIP and others have to deal with in regards to not only Mr. Hartman, but the type of legal counsel he relies upon. As the party above tries to outline, Mr. Hartman has many issues with the Federal, State and Local courts. This group is here to track Mr Hartman and his battles across our great nation. Mr Hartman currently has 6 active cases that we have been able to find at this time. They are as follows; Lenore Albert Sheridan v. JASON HARTMAN et,al. Federal Bankruptcy Court - Central District of California SA 8:18-bk-10548 es - Attached JASON HARTMAN vs Don Fullman et, al Georgia Federal Northern Court 1:18 CV - 03130- SCJ ** Justiss v. JASON HARTMAN Orange County Superior Ct #30-2017-00945426 CU-OR-CJC Attached ** Emerald Alliance Corporation v PLATINUM PROPERTY NETWORK, JASON HARTMAN San Diego Superior Court 37-2015-000415 CL-UD-CTZ - Attached. ** PLEASE NOTE MR HARTMAN YOU HAVE BOTH THESE "JURY TRIALS” ON OCTOBER 15, 2018. YOU ARE A BUSY GUY and GOOD LUCK WITH THAT. YOU MAY WANT TO TELL YOUR ATTORNEYS ABOUT THE CONFLICTS. WOW YOU’RE A BUSY GUY!! Please see attached and you’re welcome for the help. E. JASON HARTMAN v Results Property Management Missouri 16th Circuit Court #1516-CVO1981 F. JASON HARTMAN v John Doe Missouri 16th Circuit Court # 1716- CVO9265 II. Substitutes an Attorney who was recently Suspended from the California Bar with another who was placed on probation by the California bar - See attached. Maybe this is why you get a RICO case filed? Everything and one could be viewed as questionable in these filings. Totally frivolous. III. Helpful hint to Mr Hartman - hiring is very important and hiring the wrong people/ legal counsel can cause you grief - see attached . Platinum Properties Investor Network and JASON HARTMAN v Nationwide where the court made you pay $27, 285.00 for failing to comply with court orders ( you claim in this case that your attorney did not let you know what was going on) - attached PLATINUM PROPERTIES INVESTOR NETWORK v AMCO INSURANCE - where you failed to show up and were told to pay $3000 and $100 per day fine until this is paid - starting on or about 12-18-2016. ( Thats $36,500.00 per year except leap years - then $36,600.00) Was this your attorney letting you down? Wanted to let you know in case you were not made aware of this case (being a multi-millionaire at this point comes in handy I’m sure) - also attached for your follow up. If we’re missing any unknown "active cases” please advise as we are looking to keep everyone posted on the FACTS, not FICTION created by Mr Hartman. This has been going on for too long and time to start calling a spade a spade. IN THE INTEREST OF CONSUMER PROTECTION!!

 His own actions speak for themselves. 

• Nearly $1mm in settlements and judgements against him
• Multiple foreclosures and evictions against both he and his companies
• Over 100 lawsuits in the last 10 years, in just two states!
• He even has a fake news site, where he tries to post negative "stories" against people he is in legal squabbles with.  

 Jake Swank.  There is nothing we can do to stop this insanity.  He has proven time and time again, he will go to great lengths to try and create truth out of his own lies.  The Veritas News Network is a great example of this.  

Unfortunately, fake posts silence the voices of those with legitimate gripes, which is what this site (and others) are designed for.  If there is ever a LEGITIMATE, concern, claim, or complaint by a past, current, or future client, PLEASE bring it to our attention and we will address it immediately.  

You can review more of all the bizzarre legal activity Jason Hartman has been involved with HERE.  I would like to thank whomever compiled all of this detailed data and public record and organizing it in one place.  Although I am certain it will cause us all additional wastes of time in defending against this nonsense, it is important the truth be told!

My guess is, the lawsuits are really starting to catch up, which is why he started what appears to be a crowdfunding website for legal issues - his OWN legal issues!  https://www.freecourt.com/about/ 

It seems that the person who filed this report really needs to be made aware of a RICO case that was filed recently. It may be of interest to them.

The details are below:

DEFENDANTS

CHARLES SELLS, an individual; DON FULLMAN, an individual; PIP EAST, LLC d/b/a the PIP GROUP f/k/a PIP WEST, LLC, a business entity form unknown; LENA SELLS, an individual and DOES 1-50, inclusive,

Defendants.

1. This is a breach of Settlement Agreement in Georgia state Case no. 2014CV255485 (related 2017CV294502) and an “Investor Stacking” Ponzi scheme case wherein real estate investors, Plaintiff,   Plaintiff and those similarly situated

PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY

139. The Defendants have engaged in a “pattern of racketeering activity,” as defined by U.S.C. §1961(5), by committing or aiding and abetting in the commission of at least two acts of racketeering activity, i.e., indictable violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343 as described above, discovered within the past four years after being concealed by misrepresentations over the status of the tax lien investments from Defendants which prevented the Plaintiff’s discovery of the claim within the limitations period and due diligence in pursuing discovery of the claim..

140. In fact, each of the Defendants have committed or aided and abetted in the commission of multiple acts of racketeering activity. Each act of racketeering activity was related, had a similar purpose, involved the same or similar participants and method of commission, had similar results and impacted similar victims, including Plaintiffs.

141. The multiple acts of racketeering activity that Defendants committed and/or conspired to commit, or aided and abetted in the commission of, were related to each other, and amount to and pose a threat of continued racketeering activity, and therefore constitute a “pattern of racketeering activity” as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1961(5).

RICO VIOLATIONS

142. Section 1962(c) of RICO provides that it “shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity...”

143. Through the patterns of racketeering activities outlined above, the Defendants have also conducted and participated in the affairs of the PIP Enterprise.

144. Section 1962(d) of RICO makes it unlawful “for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b) or (c), of this section.

145. Defendants’ conspiracy to secure property and/or money from Plaintiffs and other investors for their own use through the fraudulent scheme described above violates 18 U.S.C. §1962(d).

146. Each of the Defendants agreed to participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the PIP Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity comprised of numerous acts of mail fraud and wire fraud, and each Defendant so participated in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c).

147. Defendants used a scheme to defraud by means of false pretenses as particularly described in the fraud and 17200 causes of action above.

148. Defendant’s actions entitle Plaintiff to actual damages, treble damages, attorney’s fees and costs.

COUNT 1

VIOLATION OF RICO 18 U.S.C. §1962(c)

149. Plaintiffs, incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 148 as though set forth in full herein.

150. As set forth above, Defendants have violated 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) by conducting or participating directly or indirectly in the conduct of the affairs of the PIP Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering.

151. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs have been injured in their business or property by the predicate acts which make up the Defendants’ patterns of racketeering activity. Plaintiff had purchased approximately 207 tax lien investments from Defendants.

152. The foreclosure authorization agreements, checks, quarterly reports, letters, invoices and website informational/promotional materials were emailed, mailed through the US Mail, placed on PIP’s website or faxed to the investor. The matter contained untrue statements about the type, quality or status of the investments and their value.

153. Defendant’s actions entitle Plaintiffs to actual damages, treble damages, attorney’s fees and costs under 18 U.S.C. 1964.

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF RICO 18 U.S.C. §1962(D) CONSPIRING TO VIOLATE 17 U.S.C. §1962 (C)

154. Plaintiffs, incorporates in this cause of action all of the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 153 as though set forth in full herein.

155. Plaintiff brings this claim on her own behalf and on behalf of each member of the Class described above.

156. As set forth above, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d), Defendants have, as set forth above, conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) by conducting, or participating directly or indirectly in the conduct of, the affairs of the PIP Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering.

157. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs and Class members have been injured in their business or property by the predicate acts which make up the Defendants’ patterns of racketeering activity.

158. The agreements, authorizations to foreclose, checks, promotional matter, quarterly reports, tax liens and letter were emailed, mailed through the US Mail or faxed to the Plaintiff tax lien investor. These materials contained untrue statements about PIP Group’s management as agent, the quality of the tax lien investment and their value.

159. Defendant’s actions entitle Plaintiffs to actual damages, treble damages, attorney’s fees and costs under 18 U.S.C. 1964.

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES

160. Don Fullman, Lena Sells, Charles Sells, and Does 1 through 50 conduct is so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people.

161. Don Fullman, Lena Sells and Charles Sells had been intentionally stacking investors on the same properties during the redemption periods and then allowing the nonperforming tax liens to expire as way of doing business while they pulled incoming revenue out of the business accounts and used it to support their lavish lifestyle.

162. Don Fullman, Lena Sells and Charles Sells, and Does 1 through 50 intentionally misrepresented or concealed a material fact as specifically alleged throughout this complaint.

163. An employee is a "managing agent" if he or she exercises substantial independent authority and judgment in his or her corporate decision making such that his or her decisions ultimately determine corporate policy. Lena Sells and Charles Sells, and Does 1 through 50 were managing agents of PIP East, LLC.

164. The malice, oppression, or fraud was conduct of one or more officers, directors, or managing agents of PIP East, LLC, who acted on behalf of PIP East, LLC, Charles Sells and Lena Sells were aware of the laws in Illinois and that a flag of sale in error meant that the property was not one in which the county could collect tax on if challenged, yet Defendants purchased and sold tax liens on these properties instead of doing the research promised in the contract as part of their management fee.

165. Alternatively, the conduct constituting malice, oppression, or fraud was authorized by one or more officers, directors, or managing agents of PIP East, LLC.

166. Alternatively, one or more officers, directors, or managing agents of PIP East, LLC knew of the conduct constituting malice, oppression, or fraud and adopted or approved that conduct after it occurred. They adopted each and every act, including sending the updates and emails to Plaintiff that were not true of the company’s financial position.

167. The aforementioned conduct of PIP East, LLC was malicious and/or an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to PIP East, LLC with the intention on the part of the PIP East, LLC, Charles Sells, and Lena Sells of thereby depriving Plaintiff of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiff to a cruel and unjust hardship

in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.