X  |  CLOSE
Report: #1446420

Complaint Review: First Union Lending, LLC Dennis Arroyo- Scammers - Orlando Florida

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: Tony — San Diego California United States
  • First Union Lending, LLC Dennis Arroyo- Scammers 4900 Millenia Blvd Orlando, Florida United States

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

*Author of original report: Dennis Arroyo gets sued again for Racketeering based on extortion

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Cease and Desist Spreading Lies About this Company.

*Author of original report: 18cv1212

*REBUTTAL Owner of company: Dear Mr. Ewing

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

I was illegally called by First Union Lending, LLC from Florida.  47 USC section 501 states that it is a federal crime to violate 47 USC 227(b)(1)(A) because it is "unlawful" to call a cellular phone on the DNC to sell whatever you are selling.  Dennis Arroyo (aka dennis cage) did exactly that.  

Telemarketing to cell phones on the DNC registry and threats by owner Dennis Arroyo I was actually threatened by Dennis who is one of the owners at First Union Lending LLC in Florida. I my opinion, this place is horrible. This company is on the verge of going out of business according to the owners. I was illegally telemarketed several times by First Union Lending LLC from Florida. It is a violation of 47 USC section 227 to cal my cell phone. After I complained, Dennis actually purchased a web domain with my name. www.beat......com with my first and last name. He threatened to have me arrested for complaining. All of this is verifiable separately. I have written emails from Dennis to prove this as well. I am willing to speak to the media about these abusive racketeers. I just own a phone.

I never had my right to peace and quite taken away. No matter who I am, I still have the right to be left alone. I have the right to not be threatened. I just own a phone. I put my number on the Do Not Call Registry. My number is not a business phone and it is not on the internet or on any business web page.

Your Desired Resolution:
Stop threatening me. Stop engaging in felony extortion by stating that you are going to harm me if I make a complaint about your illegal telemarketing. Send me your do not call policy. Stop hiring third world country lead sources to buy lists of numbers from. Make America great again by obeying the law.

Dennis stated to me in writing that he can contacted law enforment, his buddy LT in Florida as well as all the other telemarketers out there, and if I make this complaint, he is going to have me arrested in multiple states.  That threat alone by Dennis is extortion under California penal codes 518-523.

In 2014, the 9th Circuit in Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co. (9th Cir. 2014) 768 F.3d 871, 878, regarding TCPA vicarious liability held: 

        “[t]his interpretation is consistent with that of the statute's implementing agency, which has repeatedly acknowledged the existence of vicarious liability under the TCPA.  The Federal Communications Commission is expressly imbued with authority to "prescribe regulations to implement the requirements" of the TCPA. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2). As early as 1995, the FCC stated that "[c]alls placed by an agent of the telemarketer are treated as if the telemarketer itself placed the call." In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the TCPA of 1991, 10 FCC Rcd. 12391, 12397 (1995).  

      More recently, the FCC has clarified that vicarious liability is imposed "under federal common law principles of agency for violations of either section 227(b) or section 227(c) that are committed by third-party telemarketers." In re Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC, 28 FCC Rcd. 6574, 6574 (2013). Because Congress has not spoken directly to this issue and because the FCC's interpretation was included in a fully adjudicated declaratory ruling, the interpretation must be afforded  Chevron deference.   Metrophones Telecomm., Inc. v. Global Crossing Telecomm., Inc., 423 F.3d 1056, 1065 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. a*s'n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 980-85, 125 S. Ct. 2688, 162 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2005)) (other citations omitted), aff'd, 550 U.S. 45, 127 S. Ct. 1513, 167 L. Ed. 2d 422 (2007)” See alsoRestatement (Third) of Agency (2006) §§ 2.01, 2.03, 4.01 (explaining that agency may be established by express authorization, implicit authorization, or ratification)."Lawyer Ethics

As Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit recently explained in a TCPA case regarding calls to a non-debtor similar to this one:
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act...is well known for
its provisions limiting junk-fax transmissions.  A less-litigated
part of the Act curtails the use of automated dialers and
prerecorded messages to cell phones, whose subscribers often
are billed by the minute as soon as the call is answered--and
routing a call to voicemail counts as answering the call.  An
automated call to a landline phone can be an annoyance; an
automated call to a cell phone adds expense to annoyance.
Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2012).Craig v. County of Los Angeles (1990)

The FCC also recognized that “wireless customers are charged for incoming calls whether they pay in advance or after the minutes are used.” In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 02-278, Report and Order, 18 F.C.C. Rcd. 14014, 14115 ¶ 165 (2003). 

Standing is proper under Article III of the Constitution of the United States of America because Plaintiff’s claims state:
A valid injury in fact;
which is traceable to the conduct of Defendants;
and is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.  See, Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S.____(2016) at 6, and Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 at 560.  In order to meet the standard laid out in Spokeo and Lujan, Plaintiffs must clearly allege facts demonstrating all three prongs above.

The “Injury in Fact” Prong.
Plaintiff’s injury, in fact, must be both “concrete” and “particularized” in order to satisfy the requirements of Article III of the Constitution, as laid out in Spokeo (Id.). For an injury to be “concrete,” it must be a de facto injury, meaning that it actually exists. In the present case, Plaintiff was called on his cellular phone at least five (5) times by Defendants.  In fact, Plaintiff expressly informed Defendants to cease and desist from all future telemarketing on the very first call.  Such calls are a nuisance, an invasion of privacy, and an expense to Plaintiff in multiple ways. Soppet v. Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2012). Defendant’s invasion of Plaintiff’s right to privacy is further exacerbated by the fact that Plaintiff’s phone number, at all times relevant to this litigation, was on the National Do-Not-Call Registry ( hereinafter, “DNC Registry”). As well, Plaintiff had no prior business relationship with Defendants prior to receiving the seriously  harassing and annoying calls as well as the extortionate threats by Prosperify.  All of Plaintiff’s injuries are concrete and de facto. For an injury to be “particularized” means that the injury must “affect the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016) at 14.          In the instant case, it was Plaintiff’s phone that was called and it was Plaintiff himself who answered the calls. It was Plaintiff’s personal privacy and peace that was invaded by Defendant’s persistent phone calls using an ATDS and a pre-recoded message, despite Plaintiff having no prior business relationship with Defendants and Plaintiff’s attempt to avoid the damage by registering his number on the DNC Registry. Finally, Plaintiff alone is responsible to pay the bill on his cellular phone, his home phone and to pay the bill for his electric utility company kilowatt-hour power usage. All of these injuries are particularized and specific to Plaintiff and will be the same injuries suffered by Plaintiff.

The “Traceable to the Conduct of Defendants” Prong
The second prong required to establish standing at the pleadings phase is that Plaintiff must allege facts to show that his injury is traceable to the conduct of Defendants. In the instant case, this prong is met by the fact that the calls to Plaintiff’s cellular phone and home phone (land line) were placed either by Defendants directly, or by Defendants’ agent at the direction of Defendants.

The “Injury is Likely to be Redressed by a Favorable Judicial Opinion” Prong
The third prong to establish standing at the pleadings phase requires Plaintiff to allege facts to show that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial opinion. In the present case, Plaintiff’s Prayers for Relief include a request for damages for each call made by Defendants, as authorized by statute in 47 U.S.C. § 227. The statutory damages were set by Congress and specifically redress the financial damages suffered by Plaintiff. Furthermore, Plaintiff’s Prayers for Relief request injunctive relief to restrain Defendants from the alleged abusive practices in the future. The award of monetary damages and the order for injunctive relief redress the injuries of the past and prevent further injury in the future. Because all standing requirements of Article III of the U.S. Constitution have been met, as laid out in Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. ___ (2016), Plaintiff has standing to sue Defendants on the stated claims.

“…[C]ourts in the Ninth Circuit have held that "allegations of nuisance and invasions of privacy in TCPA actions are concrete" injuries that establish standing. See Mbazomo v. ETourandtravel, Inc., 16-CV-2229-SB, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170186, 2016 WL 7165693, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016); Cabiness v. Educ. Fin. Sols., LLC, 16-CV-1109-JST, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142005, 2016 WL 5791411, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016); Juarez v. Citibank, N.A., No. 16-CV-1984-WHO, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118483, 2016 WL 4547914, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2016); Hewlett v. Consolidated World Travel, Inc., 16-713 WBS AC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112553, 2016 WL 4466536, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2016); Cour v. Life360, Inc., 16-CV-00805-TEH, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 98945, 2016 WL 4039279, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2016); Booth v. Appstack, Inc., No. 13-1553JLR, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 68886, 2016 WL 3030256, at *7 (W.D. Wash. May 25, 2016). In Mbazamo, the court held that a violation of the TCPA represents a concrete injury because "[t]he history of sustaining claims against both unwelcome intrusion into a plaintiff's seclusion and unceasing debt-collector harassment are squarely 'harm[s] that [have] traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit.'" Mbazomo, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170186, 2016 WL 7165693, at *2 (quoting Spokeo, 136 S.Ct. at 1549-50). The court declined to follow Romero, explaining that Romero "improperly erodes the pleading standard set under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) . . . . A plaintiff [need only] plausibly tie the alleged acts of the defendant to the alleged harms suffered." Id. 


Similarly, in Cabiness, the court held that a violation of the TCPA represents a concrete injury because "[e]every unconsented call through the use of an ATDS to a consumer's cellular phone results in actual harm: the recipient wastes her time and incurs charges for the call if she answers the phone, and her cell phone's battery is depleted even if she does not answer the phone . . . . unsolicited calls also cause intangible harm by annoying the consumer." Cabiness, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 142005, 2016 WL 5791411, at *5 (internal citations omitted). And in Juarez, the court held that the plaintiff's allegation "that he received repeated unwanted calls that caused him aggravation, nuisance, and an invasion of privacy, is sufficient to allege a 'concrete' and 'particularized' injury that establishes standing under Spokeo." Juarez, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118483, 2016 WL 4547914, at *3.

Messerlian v. Rentokil N. Am., Inc. (C.D.Cal. Dec. 15, 2016, No. CV 16-6941-GW (GJSx)) 2016 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 175224, at *7-8.

  “To establish injury in fact, a plaintiff must show that he or she suffered ‘an invasion of a legally protected interest’ that is ‘concrete and particularized’ and ‘actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.’” Spokeo. at 1548 (quoting Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560). The Supreme Court noted that concreteness is quite distinct from particularization. Id. An injury is “particularized” if it affects “the plaintiff in a personal and individual way.” Id. In addition, for an injury to be “concrete”, it must be “de facto,” meaning that it is “real” and not “abstract.” Id. However, an injury need not be “tangible” in order to be “concrete,” and intangible injuries may constitute injury in fact. Id. at 1549. In order to determine whether an intangible harm constitutes injury in fact, Spokeo provided two factors to be considered: “history and the judgment of Congress.” Id. at 1549. Specifically, “(1) whether the statutory violation bears a ‘close relationship to a harm that has traditionally been regarded as providing a basis for a lawsuit in English or American courts,’ and (2) congressional judgment in establishing the statutory right, including whether the statutory right is substantive or procedural.” Matera v. Google, No. 15cv 4062-LHK, 2016 WL 5339806, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 23, 2016). Spokeo also held that “the violation of a procedural right granted by statute can be sufficient in some circumstances to constitute injury in fact.” Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1549.  In such a case, a plaintiff “need not allege any additional harm beyond the one [the legislature] has identified.” Id.

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”).

18 USC 1346

As the Court unanimously held in Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a pro se complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed for failure to state a claim if it appears "'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'" Id., at 520-521, quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).” Estelle v. Gamble (1976) 429 U.S. 97, 106 [97 S.Ct. 285, 292, 50 L.Ed.2d 251, 261].

“The plausibility standard ‘calls for enough fact to raise a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence’ of the defendant’s liability.” Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc., 715 F.3d 1257, 1265 (11th Cir. 2013) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556).  The Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”)—which has authority to implement the TCPA’s provisions, see 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2)— has stated that a plaintiff, to establish a TCPA violation, “need only show that [the Defendant] called a number assigned to a cellular telephone service using an automatic dialing system or prerecorded voice.” Breslow v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 857 F. Supp. 2d 1316, 1319 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (quoting In re Rules and Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 23 FCC Rcd. 559, 564 (F.C.C. 2008)).DoNotCall.gov
Civil Code 1708.7
PC 633.5

Importantly, “prior express consent is an affirmative defense, not an element of the claim,” meaning a plaintiff “need not plead that he did not give his prior express consent.” Manfred v. Bennett Law, PLLC, No. 12–CV–61548, 2012 WL 6102071, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 7, 2012). Rather, “[t]he only thing [a] [p]laintiff must plead to establish a violation of the TCPA is that the [d]efendants left voicemail messages at a number assigned to a cellular telephone service using an automatic dialing system or an artificial or pre-recorded voice.” Id. (denying motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim where the plaintiff alleged “that [the] [d]efendants used an Automatic Telephone Dialing System or an artificial or pre-recorded voice to place the telephone calls to [the] [p]laintiff’s cellular phone.”).

The FCC regulations also “generally establish that the party on whose behalf a solicitation is made bears ultimate responsibility for any violations.” In the Matter of Rules and Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, CG Docket No. 92-90, Memorandum and Order, 10 F.C.C. Rcd. 12391, 12397 ¶ 13 (1995). 13. The FCC confirmed this principle in 2013, when it explained that “a seller …. may be held vicariously liable under federal common law principles of agency for violations of either section 227(b) or section 227(c) that are committed by third-party telemarketers.” See In the Matter of the Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC, 28 F.C.C. Rcd. 6574, 6574 (2013).Domain White Pages
CA SOS

47 C.F.R. 64.1200(c)(2) prohibits calling any number on the national Do-Not-Call Registry.  47 C.F.R. 64.1200(a)(1)(iii) states that no person or entity may initiate any commercial purpose telephone call to any cellular telephone that is already on the national Do-Not-Call Registry.  18 USC 1964
PC 637.2
18 USC 1343

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 06/07/2018 06:51 AM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/first-union-lending-llc-dennis-arroyo-scammers/orlando-florida-32839/first-union-lending-llc-dennis-arroyo-scammers-timur-shamsutdinovdennis-cage-dennis-a-1446420. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals

REBUTTALS & REPLIES:
2Author
0Consumer
2Employee/Owner

#4 Author of original report

Dennis Arroyo gets sued again for Racketeering based on extortion

AUTHOR: Anton - (United States)

POSTED: Wednesday, June 13, 2018

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. 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.
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#3 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Cease and Desist Spreading Lies About this Company.

AUTHOR: Dennis - (United States)

POSTED: Wednesday, June 13, 2018

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.

 

Respond to this report!
What's this?

#2 Author of original report

18cv1212

AUTHOR: Anton - (United States)

POSTED: Tuesday, June 12, 2018

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. 
Respond to this report!
What's this?

#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company

Dear Mr. Ewing

AUTHOR: First Union - (United States)

POSTED: Tuesday, June 12, 2018

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

Respond to this report!
What's this?

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

X
What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

WATCH News
Segment Now