First Union Lending, LLC Dennis Arroyo- Scammers Timur SHAMSUTDINOV Dennis Cage, Dennis Arroyo 4900 MILLENIA BLVD SUITE F ORLANDO, FL 32839 Telemarketing - extortionate threats Orlando Florida

Dennis Arroyo has a lengthy criminal record in Orlando, Florida.  

1. Defendant Arroyo engaged in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity through his entity Pristine Nature, LLC[1] a Florida limited liability company as the enterprise (or, in the alternative, First Union Lending, LLC).  The conduct is the violation of predicate acts in violation of 18 USC §1961.  Specifically, Defendant violated the wire fraud statute, 18 USC §1343, multiple times.  That is, Defendant committed and engaged in the use of the US wires to run a common plan or scheme to commit crimes, including violating the right to honest services, by making express extortionate threats to Plaintiff that violate California Penal Code sections 518 – 523, a felony.  These state law felonies are a predicate act under 18 USC §1961(1)(A).  The enterprise that each defendant used, ran and employed to commit interstate racketeering, extortion and harassment is the LLC or corporation respectively named as a defendant.  The enterprises that Defendant used is either: First Union Lending, LLC, a Florida limited liability company and Pristine Nature, LLC from Florida.  Each of these said entities were the respective racketeering enterprises that were used in this matter.  The pattern of racketeering activity consists of the repeated telephone calls made by Defendant over months and months, along with the email threats to extort Plaintiff by accusing Plaintiff of a crime or threatening to accuse Plaintiff of a crime if Plaintiff did not give up his right to file a lawsuit and seek damages for illegal telemarketing by Defendant.  The racketeering activity is those predicate acts described in detail herein which violated 18 USC §1961(1)(A) and (B).  The right to privacy is a property right.

[1] Pristine Nature, LLC is the agent for service of process for First Union Lending, LLC.

1. Defendant has engaged in and committed the act of conspiracy to violate RICO under 18 USC §1964(c), by violating 18 USC §1962(d), by violating 18 USC §1962(c) through a conspiracy to run a racketeering enterprise and committed two or more predicate acts of wire fraud in violation of 18 USC §1343, which is an enumerated act of racketeering activity under 18 USC §1961.  This is a specific allegation with evidence and not an anecdotal generalization.  See attached exhibit emails from Arroyo.  It is anticipated that counsel for Defendants will cry foul and claim that this is too general and generic.  To be clear, Defendant has, within the time stated, made over a dozen felonious and extortionate threats as part of a scheme to defraud Plaintiff of money or property.  Counsel is required under Rule 11 to review the emails attached to this complaint as true and correct exhibits.  Plaintiff has expressly articulated when and what number was called as well as what email address was sent from and sent to on exact days and times.  Defendant’s metadata will show from his own databases that he called and emailed Plaintiff.  Defendant knows what day and time as well as from what number and to what number. 
2. Defendant, along with the employees and contracted agents of Defendant, owed a duty of care, a duty of honesty, and a duty of loyalty as well as a fiduciary duty (found in every client-customer relationship wherein confidential and private information is exchanged), to Plaintiff when Defendant called Plaintiff.  Those above stated duties, and each of them, were breached by Defendant Arroyo when he illegally, and criminally, called and emailed Plaintiff by violating 47 USC §501[1] and §227(b)(1)(A) and (c)(5).  Additionally, Defendant breached said duties when he, and his agents and employees, illegally, and with criminal mens rea, secretly recorded the calls they made to Plaintiff in violation of Cal. Pen. Code §632, §637.2 and §632.7 as well as violation of Civil Code §1708.7.  
3. Defendant violated Plaintiff's intangible right to honest services as defined in 18 USC §1346 which defines the term scheme or artifact to defraud regarding wire fraud (18 USC §1343).  See United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2003)  Defendant repeatedly called and emailed Plaintiff, which constitutes the use of the wires to engage in his scheme and thus wire fraud under 18 USC §1343, to illegally extort and blackmail Plaintiff.  Defendant Arroyo, as proven by the attached emails he sent, accused Plaintiff of a crime, threatened to accuse Plaintiff of a crime and threatened to impute a crime to Plaintiff unless (the “or else threat”) Plaintiff dismissed Defendant and his LLC from a pending lawsuit.  Defendant’s employees and agents were dishonest with Plaintiff and were committing multiple criminal acts as a result of the calls and during the calls.  Defendant breached Plaintiff’s right to privacy and Plaintiff’s intangible right to honest services when Defendant and his agents called Plaintiff.  Plaintiff’s privacy rights are protected under Cal. Pen. Code §632.  Plaintiff had the vested right to have Defendant’s employees and agents communicate honestly and truthfully, which they did not do.  Plaintiff provided Defendant with extensive private information during each call.  Defendant had a duty to be honest with Plaintiff and had a duty not to engage in criminal conduct at any time during said calls.  The act of committing the crime of calling (47 USC §501), along with the act of selling a usurious loan (18 USC §892), as well as the act of illegal recording (PC §632) was a breach of Plaintiff’s intangible right to honest services and right to privacy.  The breach and violation of the intangible right to honest services and right to privacy constitutes wire fraud under 18 USC §1343.
4. It is a well-established rule of construction that "'where Congress uses terms that have accumulated settled meaning under . . . the common law, a court must infer, unless the statute otherwise dictates, that Congress means to incorporate the established meaning of these terms.'" Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Darden, 503 U.S. 318, 322, 117 L. Ed. 2d 581, 112 S. Ct. 1344 (1992)(quoting Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730, 739, 104 L. Ed. 2d 811, 109 S. Ct. 2166 (1989)); see Standard Oil Co. of N.J. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 59, 55 L. Ed. 619, 31 S. Ct. 502 (1911) ("Where words are employed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning at common law or in the law of this country, they are presumed to have been used in that sense").
5. Blitz, below, holds that it is possible to commit the predicate act of wire fraud by engaging in an illegal telemarketing scheme to sell felonious loans:  “The record of this case contains ample evidence from which a rational jury could find Hall guilty of wire fraud, which is established through the existence of a scheme to defraud and the use of interstate wires in furtherance of that scheme. See United States v. Hubbard, 96 F.3d 1223, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Lothian, 976 F.2d 1257, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). The government presented overwhelming evidence that the Nortay telemarketers engaged in a scheme to defraud victims of other fraudulent telemarketing schemes, in many of which Nortay telemarketers had themselves been involved.”  United States v. Blitz, 151 F.3d 1002, 1006 (9th Cir. 1998).  See also United States v. Brown, 147 F.3d 477 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding that telemarketing in violation of TCPA constitutes wire fraud when the scheme is to defraud consumers).
6. Defendants committed the crime of extortion by threatening Plaintiff with criminal action by threatening to contact the FBI, Florida law enforcement (LT as a friend of Defendant) and San Diego County District Attorney and the San Diego Police in violation of Cal. Pen. Code §519 and §523.  There was no other reason, other than to engage in extortion, to contact law enforcement.  Plaintiff has not committed any crime with respect to Dennis Arroyo or his LLC.  Defendant’s conduct is criminal and Defendant has the gall and audacity to accuse Plaintiff of wrong-doing when it is Defendant who is the criminal telemarketer using dozens of cubicles filled with telemarketers using robo-dialers.  But for Defendant’s failure to scrub his telemarketing lists, he would never have called Plaintiff. 
7.  Plaintiff hereby expressly pleads, alleges, complains and accuses that Defendant is and was knowingly and intentionally engaged in a conspiracy to commit racketeering through the conduct of an enterprise, the entity stated herein as the enterprise, in violation of 18 USC §1961, §1962 and §1964.  Specifically, between February 1, 2018 and continuing to present, Defendant made written and verbal extortionate threats to accuse Plaintiff of a crime if he did not give up his property rights. 
8. Defendant Arroyo gave orders, directions, advice, counsel and information to the other racketeers on exactly how, when and where to conduct illegal telemarketing calls to Plaintiff specifically.
9.  Defendant Arroyo actually has several boiler-room type telemarketing operations in the Philippines. 
10.  Defendant Arroyo extorted Plaintiff by threatening to call the police and file false criminal charges against Plaintiff.  This specific example of extortion is just one of the many overt predicate acts that Defendant has committed while running his racketeering enterprise.
11.  Defendant Arroyo harmed, injured and caused tortious interference with Plaintiff’s business by repeatedly calling or causing others hired by him to call Plaintiff over and over again to telemarket his scam usurious loans.  Plaintiff’s business was seriously interrupted by the plethora of calls instituted and made by Defendant Arroyo.  Plaintiff could not meet with his own separate clients during the times the Defendant Arroyo called Plaintiff’s phone.  Additionally, Plaintiff could not trust his cell phone caller ID and missed several important client calls during the period in question (February 1, 2018 to June 8, 2018) causing unwarranted financial stress and reducing the overall earning potential that Plaintiff could have reaped. Furthermore, Plaintiff could not engage in gainful business activity while Plaintiff had to wait for his phone to recharge as a result of the battery depletion cause by Defendants.  Moreover, Plaintiff suffered and incurred the loss of the use of his phone during each call and during the recharging thereof.  In addition, Plaintiff was harmed and injured by the fact that Defendant Arroyo, directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to have to pay for the electric utilities to recharge his phone and to have to pay his AT&T cellular phone company for the additional minutes used up by Defendant’s illegal scam telemarketing calls made to sell illegal loans into California. 
12.   Plaintiff was forced to pay San Diego Gas & Electric Company more money for Plaintiff’s electric utility bill than he would have had to pay but for Defendant Arroyo violating Plaintiff’s privacy and other rights from the illegal calls made by Defendant Arroyo, to Plaintiff.  Plaintiff’s bitcoin mining application was shut off when each Defendant Arroyo called Plaintiff’s smart phone.  Thus Plaintiff lost actual earnings and revenues as a direct result of each Defendant’s illegal calls.
13.  Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2), the Plaintiff is required only to set forth a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief,” and “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). A Complaint may survive a Motion to Dismiss if, taking all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, it contains enough facts to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.  “In sum, for a complaint to survive a Motion to Dismiss, the non-conclusory factual content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the Plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotations omitted). In reviewing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must accept as true all facts alleged in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the Plaintiff. al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 956 (9th Cir. 2009). The Court must evaluate lack of statutory standing under the Rule 12(b)(6) standard. Maya v. Centex Corp., 658 F.3d 1060, 1067 (9th Cir. 2011). However, because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, his complaint “must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” and must be “liberally construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (reaffirming standard reviewing pro se complaints post-Twombly). The Ninth Circuit has concluded that the court's treatment of pro se filings after Twombly and Iqbal remain the same and pro se pleadings must continue to be liberally construed. Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010); see also McGowan v. Hulick, 612 F.3d 636, 640-42 (7th Cir. 2010); Bustos v. Martini Club Inc., 599 F.3d 458, 461-62 (5th Cir. 2010); Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that even following Twombly and Iqbal, “we remain obligated to construe a pro se complaint liberally”). 

[1] Any person who willfully and knowingly does or causes or suffers to be done any act, matter, or thing, in this chapter prohibited or declared to be unlawful, or who willfully and knowingly omits or fails to do any act, matter, or thing in this chapter required to be done, or willfully and knowingly causes or suffers such omission or failure, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for such offense, for which no penalty (other than a forfeiture) is provided in this chapter, by a fine of not more than $10,000 or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or both.

1. The actions and representations of Defendant Arroyo constitute a conspiracy on the part of Defendant Arroyo and his LLC and employees for the purpose of such actions and representations made to the Plaintiff of this cause of action.  The Defendant Arroyo illegally and unlawfully engaged in the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.  Said conduct occurred over an extended period of time so as to form a pattern.  The enterprise consisted of Defendant Arroyo, his two LLC’s, his co-conspirator Timur Shamsutdinov and each fictitiously named Defendant.  The enterprise was controlled, operated, directed and managed by Defendant Arroyo and other persons that are yet to be determined and remain unknown as of the time of filing this Complaint.  The racketeering activity consisted of the making of threats, extortion, wire fraud, mail fraud, and violations of California criminal laws, including illegal recording of Plaintiff’s calls.  Plaintiff is entitled to engage in discovery to obtain admissible evidence to prove to the jury that Defendant Arroyo has knowingly and intentionally committed the torts alleged herein.  Each of the above stated acts by Defendant Arroyo and co-conspirators, constitute racketeering activity indictable pursuant to 18 USC §1962, et seq.  Defendant Arroyo has also violated California’s racketeering statute (PC §186 et seq), which is hereby incorporated by this reference as if fully set forth herein.  This state law racketeering claim is a pendent claim that may be heard by the Federal District Court alongside the federal question causes of action and the Civil Stalking cause of action as well as the civil extortion cause of action brought under common law.
2. Wire fraud under 18 USC §1343 occurred when Defendant Arroyo, having devised or intending to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining moneys or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmitted or caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice.  In this case, Defendant Arroyo called and emailed Plaintiff personally and caused Plaintiff to be emailed, called and recorded in violation of California’s criminal law.  Defendant’s call constituted a scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff and to obtain moneys and property from Plaintiff as Defendant Arroyo attempted to get Plaintiff to send him money and dismiss a pending lawsuit.  The calls, emails and text messages were transmitted by means of wires in interstate commerce through the telephone and internet lines of the United States.  Defendant’s calls, texts and emails also constituted threats and extortion using the wires of the United States.  Defendant Arroyo made two or more calls, texts and emails to Plaintiff to engage in wire fraud, extortion and threats.  For purposes of the particularity requirement, Defendant Dennis Arroyo, also known as Dennis Cage and Dennis Arroyo Jr., emailed on June 6 and 7, 2018. 
3. Defendant Arroyo is employing the use of the wires of the United States to engage in his illegal and criminal telemarketing activities.

1. Defendant Arroyo has engaged in the predicate acts of wire fraud, extortion, stalking and money laundering which supports the claim of violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(d) and (c), conspiracy to conduct racketeering affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity.  Additionally, Defendant Arroyo has made express and intentional threats under PC §519 directly at Plaintiff that were within the course and scope of the racketeering enterprise’s operations.  The enterprise is the combination of the entities stated herein.  Specifically, the Defendant’s LLC is the enterprise.  The period of the conspiracy has lasted from at least February 1, 2018 forward to present day.  However, it is believed that Arroyo has been engaging in this type of racketeer for several years prior to this period.  There are two or more acts that form the basis of racketeering engaged in by Defendant Arroyo by using the wires of the United States to illegally record Plaintiff's telephonic conversations and laundering over $10,000 of the proceeds of the wire fraud through financial institutions.  Defendant Arroyo engaged in the fraudulent use of the wires to threaten and extort Plaintiff into handing over money or property to Defendant Arroyo.  The predicate acts formed a pattern of racketeering activity by having the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or were otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics so that they were not isolated events.  The predicate acts amounted to, or threatened the likelihood of, continued criminal activity posing a threat of continuity projecting into the future and through the commission of the two or more connected predicate acts, Defendant Arroyo conducted or participated in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise.  The enterprise was engaged in, or its activities affected, interstate commerce.  The use of the wires and the laundering of money through financial institutions affects interstate commerce.
2. Plaintiff has been injured in his business and property as a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s willful violations of California law as described above, which is the pattern of racketeering activity.  Plaintiff business has suffered a significant economic downturn as a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s racketeering activities as described herein.  Plaintiff has lost money and revenues that could have been earned but for Defendant’s racketeering activity.  Defendant Arroyo did not act by mistake or accident, but rather acted voluntarily and knowingly all while conspiring to defraud Plaintiff of his privacy, money, business and property as well as cause Plaintiff fear of his safety.  Each and every fraudulent telephone conversation that forms the basis of this cause of action constituted an illegal use of the wires in violation of 18 U.S.C §1343.
3. Plaintiff demands threefold damages as well as statutorily imposed attorneys’ fees as a result of Defendants’ racketeering activities described above.  Plaintiff has had to consult with a licensed attorney at law to prosecute this action and those attorney fees are requested to be paid or reimbursed.
4. Defendants’ actions did not result in nor were caused by the purchase of or sale of securities.
5. Defendants’ use of the wires (18 U.S.C. 1343) within the United States went across state lines and thus constitutes the interstate commerce of the racketeering enterprise of Defendant.
6. Defendant Arroyo committed two or more acts of racketeering activity within the ten years prior to filing this cause of action.
7. Moreover, Defendant’s extortionate threats, under California’s felony penal code, constitute the pattern of racketeering activities.
8. Defendant Arroyo engaged, directly or indirectly, in the pattern of racketeering affairs and activities described above.  Defendant’s overt and express threats to Plaintiff over the telephone also constitute predicate acts for purposes of racketeering activity.
9. Defendant Arroyo laundered profits, revenues, expenses and income from his racketeering activities as defined by 18 U.S.C. 1961(1), through United States financial institutions in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§1956 and 1957.  Defendant Arroyo has earned, illegally, over $10,000 in this racketeering enterprise operation and Defendant Arroyo has laundered those said funds through financial institutions in the United States.
10.  Defendant Arroyo’s specified unlawful activity for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1956(c)(7), is 18 U.S.C. §1343 as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1961(1).

1. Defendant Dennis Arroyo is liable for the tort of stalking because he engaged in, conducted, and did the following: 
   1. Defendant Arroyo engaged in a pattern of conduct the intent of which was to alarm and harass Plaintiff by sending seriously threatening and violent emails and text messages from info@firstunionlending.com and 863-999-8051 to xxx and ********9640.  Plaintiff attaches hereto and incorporates by this reference the exhibits which are independent corroborating evidence that consist of text messages, emails and voice recording.
   2. As a direct and proximate cause, but for Defendant’s intentional and willful conduct, the Plaintiff reasonably feared for his safety and the safety of his immediate family members.  Additionally, as a direct result of Defendant Arroyo’s acts, Plaintiff has actually suffered substantial emotional distress, and the pattern of conduct of Defendant Arroyo would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress.
   3. Defendant Arroyo, as part of the pattern of conduct (texts, emails and calls), made a credible threat at Plaintiff with the intent to place Plaintiff in reasonable fear for his safety as well as the safety of Plaintiff’s immediate family members as well as Defendant’s reckless disregard for the safety of Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s immediate family members.  In addition, Plaintiff has, on at least five occasions, clearly and definitively demanded that Defendant Arroyo cease and abate his pattern of conduct and Defendant Arroyo persisted in his pattern of conduct devoid of justification, consent or other authority.
   4. Defendant’s pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, evidencing continuity of purpose.  Defendant’s pattern of conduct was not constitutionally protected activity.
   5. Defendant Arroyo made a credible threat verbally and in writing via text and email and communicated said threat by means of an electronic communication device.
   6. Defendant Arroyo harassed Plaintiff by means of a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at Plaintiff which seriously alarmed, annoyed, tormented and terrorized Plaintiff and was done for no legitimate purpose whatsoever.  The course of conduct of Defendant Arroyo would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress and has actually caused substantial emotional distress to Plaintiff.
   7. Defendant Arroyo has caused Plaintiff both substantial emotional distress and severe emotional distress.  Defendant’s totality of the circumstances reasonably caused Plaintiff substantial fear, anxiety and emotional torment.
   8. Defendant Arroyo is liable for damages, including, but not limited to, general damages, special damages, and punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294.
   9. Defendant Arroyo was not engaging in legitimate free speech, protect or assembly when he civilly stalked Plaintiff.
   10. Defendant’s acts were the result of and he is guilty of oppression, fraud and malice.
   11. Defendant’s acts were despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiff to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.
   12. Defendant’s acts constitute conduct which was intended by Defendant Arroyo to cause injury to Plaintiff and was despicable conduct which was carried on by Defendant Arroyo with a willful and conscious disregard of the right and safety of Plaintiff and his immediate family.
       1. 1. Flatley vs. Mauro, 39 Cal. 4th 299, 139 Po.3d 2, 46 Cal.Rptr 3d 606 (2006) which was decided by the California Supreme Court held that a person extorted may bring a civil lawsuit for injuries caused by the tortfeasor.  Dennis Arroyo is that torfeasor.  Flatley was a litigation context case just like this one.
          2.   Arroyo’s acts are not constitutionally protected activity. Nobody has the right to tell another, in writing, that they are going to prison or county jail for a felony crime if they don’t give up their right to privacy, peace and quiet.
          3. Arroyo’s acts were not taken to further a right to free speech or petition in connection with a public issue.  The above stated quotes from Arroyo’s emails to Plaintiff establish a prima facie showing of facts, which when proven at trial, will support a judgment in Plaintiff’s favor.
          4. Arroyo’s extortionate threats are not protected under the litigation privilege.
          5. Extortion is the obtaining of property from another, with his consent induced by a wrongful use of force or fear under Penal Code §518.  Fear, for purposes of extortion may be induced by a threat, either to accuse Plaintiff of any crime, or to expose, or impute to the threatened individual any disgrace, deformity or crime under Penal Code §51.
          6. Extortion criminalizes the making of threats that, in and of themselves, may not be illegal.  In many blackmail cases, the threat is to do something in itself perfectly legal, but that threat nevertheless becomes illegal when coupled with a demand for money or property.  The law does not contemplate the use of criminal process as a means of collecting a debt or obtaining property of another.
          7. Arroyo’s threats to do the acts that constitute extortion under PC §519, are extortionate whether or not the victim committed the crime or indiscretion upon which the threat is based or whether or not the person making the threat could have reported the victim to the authorities.
          8. Extortion is not a form of constitutionally protected speech and Arroyo’s speech constitutes criminal extortion as a matter of law.
          9.   California Penal Code §523 states “every person who, with intent to extort or other consideration from another, sends or delivers to any person any letter or other writing, whether subscribed or not, expressing or implying, or adapted to imply, any threat such as is specified in Section 519 is punishable in the same manner as if such property or other consideration were actually obtained by means of such threat.”
          10. Arroyo adapted his written emails to imply a threat to impute and accuse Plaintiff of a crime in order to get Plaintiff to voluntarily give up his right to sue Arroyo for illegal telemarketing.  That is extortion just like in Flatley and Plaintiff is suing Arroyo exactly for that wrongdoing.
          11. In addition to the above, Arroyo’s willful and intentional acts and actions described above constitute and satisfy the prima facie elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress.  Plaintiff hereby puts Arroyo on notice of the reservation of right to amend this Complaint, after discovery, to add this cause of action, with leave of court.

Mr. Ewing

All unfounded, groundless lies and made up.  If there is any proof, please provide it.

In the meantime.........

Anton Ewing was indicted by a Grand Jury in February 2009 and arrested by the FBI on April 9, 2009 as part of a $100 million mortgage fraud case:

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/…/Feds-Gang-Member-Ran-100M-Mort…

In addition to his FBI arrest, he was arrested again later in April 2009 on charges of stalking and writing threatening letters with the intention to extort. His bail was set at $750,000. On November 6, 2009, he was arrested a third time, again on charges of stalking and writing threatening letters with the intention to extort. This time his bail was set at $2,000,000.

These arrests can be verified by requesting information from:netwebmaster@sdsheriff.org

Booking number: 9728892 (April arrest)

Booking number: 9786348 (November arrest)

Last Name: EWING First Name: ANTON for both

Anton Ewing was incarcerated for several years. He was released from jail in 2011.

Arroyo purchased a list of unscrubbed leads from a company in the Philippines.  The Philippine company initially called Plaintiff with an ATDS robo-dialer and recorded the call without warning.  That is lawsuit number 18cv1063 now pending in federal district court where Ewing is suing Defendant First Union for those calls.  Then Arroyo had his employee Tanya make another telemarketing call to Plaintiff.  Then Arroyo had another employee, Hans Becke, call Plaintiff again for telemarketing.  Thereafter Arroyo and Plaintiff had a very pleasant conversation on the phone about his telemarketing activities.  The entire call was recorded by Plaintiff and at the very beginning of the call it states that all calls are recorded.  Then Arroyo purchases www.beatantonewing.com and send a nasty, extortionate email.  About a month later, Arroyo proceeds to send voluminous emails and text messages threatening to accuse Plaintiff of a crime if Plaintiff does not give up his private property rights and dismiss lawsuit 18cv1063.

1. On April 30, 2018, at 2:09PM, Hans Becke from First Union Lending, LLC sent an email confirming a prior telemarketing call to Plaintiff.  The email address used was echosign@echosign.com and it was sent to anton@antonewing.com.  See Exhibit A.
2. Defendant Dennis Arroyo has a prior criminal conviction for a crime of moral turpitude in Florida.  Upon information and belief, Arroyo has also been accused of domestic violence and multiple other crimes[2].
3. On April 30, 2018, at 4:25PM, Dennis Arroyo from First Union Lending, LLC, sent an email with a threatening link to a ripoffreport.com web page purporting to expose Plaintiff to disgrace and public oblique in order to get Plaintiff to give up his property right of suing First Union for TCPA and c**a violations.  See Exhibit B.
4. On May 1, 2018 at 11:54AM, Dennis Arroyo from First Union Lending, LLC sent an email from info@firstunionlending.com to anton@antonewing.com making the following statements:
   1. “You are not a very good part of the community as it is”
   2. “My next move” “check Florida statute 784.048”[3] and “Florida statute 836.05”[4]
   3. “We are in the process of drafting a police report for stalking (attorneys are interviewing a couple of our worried, scared employee as we speak), harassment and extortion.”
   4. “those charges two of which are felonies”
   5. “would gladly be investigated by our people in Florida”
   6. “I don’t think that arrest warrant will give you the option to appear before a judge via telephone.”
   7. “I think that kind of thing is usually handled with extradition.”
   8. “Then we actually spend time making sure these cases and your name come up in every part of the internet with the full details attached (pretty easy for us to build a website and use you name as a keyword on ads)”.
   9. “Your career as an extortionist comes to an end.”
   10. “stay at one of our finest resorts (county jail) until someone can determine whether or not you are guilty of committing the same crimes…”
   11. “However, you have now run into me, a sociopath.”
   12. “Ultimately, you could lose your freedom.”
   13. “Why don’t you forget you ever heard of us?  I will tell my attorneys to rip up the police report and not file charges.”
   14. “I did write this long a*s email on purpose.” See Exhibit C.
5. On June 1, 2018, at 7:51AM, Dennis Arroyo sent an email from info@firstunionlanding.com to anton@antonewing.com stating “it’s me, Dennis.  Can’t believe you forgot me already.  Haha.  863-825-5626 ext 402.”  See Exhibit D.
6. On June 1, 2018 at 1:53PM, Dennis Arroyo sent an email from info@firstunionlanding.com to anton@antonewing.com stating “Buddy of mine, LT at Sherriffs Dept has my police report” and “didn’t want to ruin someone’s life.”  See Exhibit E.
7. On June 1, 2018 at 3:39PM, Dennis Arroyo sent an email from info@firstunionlanding.com to anton@antonewing.com stating “I’m impressed beyond words with your knowledge and the size of your balls” and “I f**ked up.”  See Exhibit G.
8. On June 4, 2018 at 3:05PM, Dennis Arroyo sent an email from info@firstunionlanding.com to anton@antonewing.com stating “the thought is for everyone to file in their own state the criminal complaint for those mentioned felonies” and “I bought www.beatantonewing.com” and “we will forget all of this if you would just give us a way out.”  See Exhibit J.
9. On June 6, 2018 at 11:12AM, Dennis Arroyo sent an email from info@firstunionlanding.com to anton@antonewing.com stating “everyone except one (your current open suit) is waiting for me to provide them the master plan here.”  See Exhibit K.
10. On June 6, 2018 at 1:34PM, Dennis Arroyo sent an email from info@firstunionlanding.com to anton@antonewing.com stating “ Your choice to call my bluff, you will regret it, that I can promise you” and “You will look back on this moment an wish you had just walked away” and “expect us ALL, we are ALL coming for you. You can count on that threat! Dennis”  See Exhibit L.
11. On June 7, 2018 at 7:25AM, Dennis Arroyo sent an email from info@firstunionlanding.com to anton@antonewing.com stating “You’ll be too d**n busy with the restraining orders, criminal charges, counter suits and class action suits to ever get around to deposition me” and “All of which are itching to put you out of your misery for good.”  See Exhibit N.
12. On June 7, 2018 at 8:04APM, Dennis Arroyo sent an email from info@firstunionlanding.com to anton@antonewing.com stating “just want throw this out there.  You do have you freedom or at least a source of income to lose after getting barred from filing further lawsuit to lose.  Just want to make sure you do understand the gravity of the situation.”  See Exhibit O.
13. On June 7, 2018 at 9:53AM, Dennis Arroyo sent an email from info@firstunionlanding.com to anton@antonewing.com stating “on the FBI internet crimes division site filing the first of all of the complaints now.  Youre done!”  See Exhibit P.
14. On June 7, 2018 at 9:57AM, Dennis Arroyo sent an email from info@firstunionlanding.com to anton@antonewing.com stating “No, it just became a criminal matter.”  See Exhibit Q.
15. On June 7, 2018 at 5:12PM, Dennis Arroyo sent an email from info@firstunionlanding.com to anton@antonewing.com stating “Hey, I know you will probably use this as harassment, easy to justify with you past.  And I know you see I’m dangerous.  This is dumb man. But. U shouldn’t go to prison over petty s**t.  It’s dumb.  I’d be willing to have a real, no comparing dicks conversation” and “I don’t want you in prison” and “This is really Dennis.  I’m not a bad person but will do what it take to defend myself.  I’m sorry I filed that stuff but for some reason you tested me, Now u know I’m not f**king around.”  See Exhibit R.
16. First Union Lending, LLC, a Florida limited liability company is run, operated, managed and controlled by Timur Shamsutdinov and Defendant Arroyo.  Tanya from First Union Lending called multiple times from 352-405-5019 on April 30, 2018.  Hans Becke, who is Tanya’s boss and the
    “Director of Underwriting,” called from 352-405-5020.  Dennis Arroyo who is a member, manager, owner, and officer of First Union Lending admitted that First Union Lending called and that they record calls.  First Union Lending confirmed that they hired a company outside the United States to make telemarketing calls to persons within the United States and record answers to various financial questions that First Union Lending required them to ask.  First Union Lending has thus directed and controlled the outside telemarketing lead broker in such a manner as to deem them the agent of First Union Lending.  This is in addition to the illegal calls that First Union Lending initiated after the off-shore entity used an ATDS to illegally call Plaintiff. 

I'm happy to see that you are rattled enough now to spend all day and night coming up with stuff to post on every online venue possible. 

Anton Ewing is a Vexatious Litigator, two time felon, ex-convict who has spent time in prison for harrasment, during telemarketing.  Imagine that!  You can search Anton Ewing right here on Rip Off report and see the long laundry list of of complaints against him. He has been charged on numerous occasions with domestic violence, so yeah. A real stand up type of guy.

His MO is simple, he creates fake businesses and puts his phone number online.  Phone numbers registered to businsess are not off limits. He gives the lead generator who contacted him permission to have a lender contact him. When the lender contacts him, he begins his extortion campaign.

A little easy reading...  diegoreader.com/news/2015/aug/21/ticker-ex-cpa-anton-ewing-visits-court/

Anton contacts companies and extorts them by threatening lawsuits against them with all of his fancy legal knowledge ( as you can tell by all the cases he has mentioned in this complaint against us).

Unfortunately for Anton, this time he chose to extort the wrong company.  Especially since we haven't broken a single law and while we do understand that Anton assumes he is accuser, judge and exectutioner, he cannot legally say we broke any laws (but he is, right here in post, which is lible and will play in nicely to our class action suit against Mr. Ewing) in fact we are currently working our case against him.

We have in fact reported Mr. Ewing to the local authorities in Florida and California for various crimes, including extortion.  We also did in fact buy a domain named beatantonewing.com because after we beat his attempted extortion, sue him for damages, see him put back in prison for extortion, we will then let everyone out there know exactly how to deal with him. In fact, we will get domain authority and any time anyone ever runs into this con artist (in my opinion) and searches his name online, they will find our website with all the info needed to put this dog down.

Mr. Ewing is a gross waste of your tax payer dollars because he uses the court to extort people, but can claim poorness and so the thousands of dollars it costs to have a court case are bourne by the State of California.  Californians always complain about the high taxes.. well, here is how to begin to stop that. Stop Felons like Anton Ewing.

We have also filed reports with the California Att General, Florida Att General, FBI, and others.  Anton has become accustomed to beating people into submission with his tough talk and gets most businesses to settle out of court with him. He has gotten used to this, he has become brazen and crossed the line because no one has stopped him. First Union WILL stop him. If anyone has any issues with Mr. Ewing, don't hesitate to give us a call and see how we can help you.

Thanks

These statements are all opinions of First Union (this snake will try to use anything to get us to pay his rent, but we won't be doing that. In fact, we will help send him on an all inclusive vacation back to the penitentiary he belongs in) Disclaimer