The Robert Paisola Live World News Feed


Artie Spector , Todd Spector, ASNY Companies Sued AGAIN... Robert Paisola Reports

This is a great lawsuit, copy and file in court!

Our Comments:

This is EXACTLY what happens when you provide your financial information to a debt collection company, or a loan servicing company such as Concord Servicing. America, we used to be in the debt collection business, and you are very lucky that Mr. Brown is providing this to you. If you owe money to Tahiti Resorts or Consolidated Resorts or any of their scam companies, You Are An IDIOT to pay them. This is what companies like Concord Servicing can expect to happen Each and Every time that they try to run checks against your bank account that you did not authorize. I will be testifying before Congress on this matter.

Robert Paisola
Western Capital

CAUSE NO.____________



Plaintiff §



The ASNY Company LLC et al. §



Defendants §





This suit is brought by Frederick Brown, Plaintiff, pursuant to the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Theft Act, Breach of Contract, Fraud, Identity Theft and Texas Long Arm Statute jointly and severally respectfully.

A. Discovery Control Plan

Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 2 of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 190.3 because this suit involves only monetary relief aggregating more than $250,000.00, excluding court cost and prejudgment interest.

B. Parties

Plaintiff is Frederick Brown owner, 2441 Goldfinch Ln, Garland, Texas 75042.

Defendants are the following: Chicago Title Company office located at 316 West Mission Avenue, Suite 123, Escondido, CA 92025-1731 and my be served by serving its registered agent Jeanette Haines, Soleil Lv. LLC /or assignee, new owner, The ASNY Company LLC, 801 Rampart Blvd, #200, Las Vegas, Nevada 89145, by serving its registered agent, Glen T Stockton and Concord Servicing Corporation, 4725 North Scottsdale Road Suite 300, Scottsdale, AZ 85251 by serving it registered agent Concord Servicing Corporation. The Plaintiff reserves the right to add additional Parties after discovery is conducted.

C. Jurisdiction & Venue

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the Texas Long-Arm Statute (see U-Anchor Adver, Inc v Burt, 553 S.W.23d760 (1977) and (Ring Power Sys v Int’l DeComercio, 39 S.W.3d 350(Texas, Civ. App 2001) because the damages are within the jurisdictional limits of the Court. The parties are subject to personal jurisdiction of this Court.

Venue is proper in Dallas County, Texas pursuant to sections 15.001, 15.005, 15.035, and 15.082 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 134.002, Tex. Pen Code 31.03(a).

D. Background Facts

On or about September 30, 2009 ASNY LLC present a check for payment to an account belonging to Frederick Brown in Dallas, Texas without authorization. This action forced the Plaintiff to loose, personal property and real property. It is alleged that the Defendant conspired to take these funds from the Plaintiff’s accounts in Texas by use of fraudulent checks showing both the Plaintiff’s routing number and account number. This action was not authorized by Plaintiff, and would have been stop immediately if the Plaintiff’s Bank had notified the Plaintiff. When Plaintiff was appraised of the theft by the Defendants, the bank was notified and sued. The bank settled the lawsuit out of Court realizing that a theft by the Defendants had taken place. The Plaintiff requested an accounting of payments made to Consolidated Resorts (The ASNY Company LLC et al). It was discovered shortly after the purchase of the timeshare, the Co-Conspirators had made numerous double withdrawals from the Plaintiff’s bank account .starting in or about November 2005, see Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C. Also Plaintiff was told when purchasing the condominium that he would not have to pay a servicing fee, because Plaintiff was purchasing a trade-in unit by another Consolidated Resort owner. I complained about the accounting and in fact that Plaintiff was told that no maintenance fee would be charged on the timeshare unit. The Defendant took no action to correct the problem, but continued to charge the fee. The Defendant repeatedly assured plaintiff that no fee was to be charged for maintenance until the contract was paid in full. The Defendants breach their contract with the Plaintiff, by not allowing Plaintiff to use the timeshare unit 224 that Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s wife purchased in 2005. Since 2006 Plaintiff has not been allowed to use his unit (unit 224), always being sent to an inferior unit, smaller in size and with no scenic view which was one of the reasons Plaintiff purchase the Unit 224. Plaintiff’s also alleges that he had an expectation of privacy in his banking account and that Defendant did not have permission to create substitute checks with the Plaintiff routing and accounts numbers. This expectation of privacy was reasonable in that Plaintiff bank account number and routing number are personal, and for the Defendant to create checks for the sole purpose of extract money from the Plaintiff’s personal checking account is theft. This theft happened in the State of Texas providing for the Court to establish jurisdiction over the Defendants. The Defendant invaded the plaintiff’s privacy maliciously and knowing by procuring Plaintiff’s personal information to create substitute checks for payment without authorization. The Defendants are in violation of Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Title 6 § 134.003, because Defendants cause Plaintiff to loose credit opportunities, several homes and condominiums. On 08/26/2005, plaintiff and defendant executed a written contract. Plaintiff attaches a copy of the contract as Exhibit D. and incorporated it by referenced. The contract provided that plaintiff would pay only one monthly payment to the Defendant for the mortgage, but in November and December of 2005 defendant appropriated two payments for those months starting the systematic theft by the Defendant. Plaintiff did not become aware of these facts until such time as the defendants (co-conspirator) where taking unauthorized payment from the plaintiff’s personal bank account causing checks prepared for the purpose of paying the Plaintiff monthly obligations were not honored by Plaintiff’s Bank. The reason Plaintiff purchased the Timeshare Unit (224) on or about August 26, 2005, because Plaintiff was shown unit 224 at 5101 West Tropicana Avenue, Las Vegas, NV 89103 and Plaintiff and his spouse liked unit 224 so a purchase was made. Since Plaintiff chose to purchase that unit (Unit 224) in Tahiti Village Plaintiff has only been able to use his unit once. Since 2006 Plaintiff has been unable to use the unit he purchase in violation of the contract The Defendants has breached the contract with Plaintiff, by substituting an inferior unit for Plaintiff to use when visiting Las Vegas to take advantage of the Plaintiff’s timeshare unit.

E. Count 1 DTPA

Plaintiff is a consumer under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and payments for the timeshare was withdrawn from Plaintiff’s bank account in the state of Texas without permission, and the fact that Defendant breached the contract with Plaintiff by appropriating funds from Plaintiff’s bank account in the State of Texas gives the Court jurisdiction over these Defendants. Defendant used Deception to induce Plaintiff into purchasing a timeshare unit in Las Vegas, by presenting unit 224 for sale, and not allowing Plaintiff to use that unit, and substituted an inferior unit for Plaintiff to utilize when visiting Las Vegas. The jurisdiction is proper because all of the money transfers were in Texas. Defendants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act because Defendants engaged in false misleading or deceptive acts and/or practice that Plaintiff relied on to his detriment. Specifically, Defendants sold the Plaintiff a unit in Las Vegas which was unit 224 at 5101 West Tropicana Avenue Las Vegas, NV 89103. Plaintiff only got to use that unit once in four (4) years. Defendants engaged in false, misleading, and deceptive acts or practices that plaintiff relied on to his detriment. Specifically breached of contract and violation of Texas Theft Liability Act by drawing more than one mortgage payment per month and also by creating fraudulent substitute checks for the sole purpose of illegally withdrawing funds from the Plaintiff’s bank account. (Tex. Bus & Com. Code § 17.50(a) (1); Miller v Keyser, 90 S.W.712, 715(Tex.2002)

Defendants’ conduct was the producing cause of injuries to Plaintiff’s reputation and his good name, and the lost of assets totaling approximately One Hundred and Sixty Thousand dollars ($160,000.00) (Tex. Bus & Com. Code § 17.46(b) (23); Dierlam v clear Lake Hosp. 593.S.W.2d 774,775-76Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.] 1979. Plaintiff also claims damages for mental anguish, the defendants’ acted knowingly and intentionally to misrepresent the terms of the mortgage contract. (see Tex. Bus & Com. Code§ 17.50(b) (1); Gulf States Utils. Co v Low 79 S.W.3d 561, 564(Tex.2002); City Tyler v likes, 962 S.W.2d 489, 498n.1 (Tex. 1997). (See statutory letter exhibit E)

F Treble Damages

Because defendant acted knowingly intentionally, plaintiff is entitled to recover treble damages under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Business & Commerce Code section 17.50(b)(1).

G. Count 2 Fraud

Plaintiff alleges that each and every one of the representations set forth in the proceeding paragraphs concerned material facts, which are the reasons that plaintiff has had to file this suit concerning the purchased of the timeshare in Las Vegas. Plaintiff further alleges that defendants knew or should have known that the representations were false at the time they were made, and were malicious, and were made to defraud Plaintiff. The fraudulent creation of substitute checks use to withdraw funds from Plaintiff’s bank accounts in the State of Texas, was the conduct that constituted an action which allows the imposition of exemplary damages. Plaintiff will show that he has incurred significant expenses, including attorney’s fees and other fees, in the investigation and prosecution of this action. Accordingly, plaintiff requests the exemplary damaged is awarded against the Defendants in a sum within the jurisdictional limits of the Court. Defendants also made false representations of a material fact concerning the servicing of the loan. (See Tex. Bus & Com. Code §27.01(a) (1). The element of false representation of material fact is the same for both common-law fraud and statutory fraud (Fletcher v Edwards, 26 S.W.3d 66, 77(Tex. App Waco 2000). The Defendant told Plaintiff that the unit that he had purchased was Unit 224. Since year 2006, Plaintiff has not been allowed to stay in his unit or the unit sold to Plaintiff, but was placed in a smaller inferior unit. This constitutes fraud, and a breach of contract.

H. Count 3 Breach of Contract

Defendant breached the contract by taking unauthorized mortgage payments for several months at the being of the contract period, and then continued this behavior by taking funds from Plaintiff’s personal bank account without authorization by creating checks to be drawn on a Texas Bank. This illegal behavior makes it impossible for Plaintiff to continue business association with ASNY LLC et al. because of the material breach of contract and deceptive trade practices of the Defendants. Plaintiff seeks liquidated damages in the amount of at least $18,900.00, attorney’s fees and cost of this suit.

The defendant materiality breached the contract, by substituting an inferior unit for the unit that Plaintiff purchased in 2005 that is the basis of the contract. The plaintiff is allowed to recover damages for all foreseeable injuries and obtain equitable remedies, such as a minimum rescission. See Kaiser v Northwest Shopping Ctr. 587 S.W.2d 454, 457 (Tex. App. Dallas 1979 writ ref’d n.r.e).

I Count 4. Texas Theft Liability Act

Defendant committed theft of Plaintiff fund by creating substitute checks (see Exhibits A, B, C) and presenting those checks to Plaintiff’s bank for payment. Defendant placed Plaintiff bank routing number and account number on these substitute checks without authorization, in violation of the Texas Theft Liability Act. The bank that the funds were drawn has settled with Plaintiff proving that the action by the Defendants, The ASNY Company LLC et al, was an illegal act and violated the Texas Theft Liability Act. The Plaintiff suffered actual damages in an amount to cover the lost of a residence and defamation or $250,000.00. The illegal substitute checks which caused the Plaintiff to overdraw his personal account , which in turn caused the Plaintiff to have his personal checks dishonored by the his bank for legal debts. Subsequently Plaintiff’s condominium was foreclosed which cost the Plaintiff an additional damage for lost of $32,000.00.

J Count 5 Identity Theft Enforcement and Protection Act

The Defendants invaded the plaintiff privacy by using the Plaintiff personal data to perpetrate fraud, and theft of the Plaintiff personal funds from a Texas bank account. This was accomplished by creating unauthorized substitute checks and using those checks for the purpose of withdrawing funds from the Plaintiff’s Texas Bank Account. The Defendants knowingly and intentionally took this funds using information that was from the Plaintiff’s personal checking account after Plaintiff paid the mortgage payments with his personal checks. As a result of these actions Plaintiff has suffered the following injuries lost of residence, lost of banking accounts, lost of money in the bank accounts of $6,000.00 or more and other cost within the jurisdictional limits of the court.

K. Conditions Precedent

All conditions precedent has been performed or has occurred.

L. Demand for Jury

Plaintiff demands a jury trial and tenders the appropriate fee with this petition.

M. Conclusion

The defendants ASNY LLC et al committed Deceptive Trade Practice in violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practice Act, Fraud, Theft in violation of the Texas Theft Act, Breach of Contract, and ID Theft, knowingly and intentionally to deprive Plaintiff from the quite enjoyment of Plaintiff’s timeshare unit( unit 224) and personal damages.

N. Prayer

For these reasons, Plaintiff asks that Defendants be cited to appear and answer and, on final trial, the Plaintiff has judgment against Defendant for:

a. Actual damages

b. Damages to credit reputation in the past and future

c. Out-of –pocket expenses

d. Lost of benefit-of-the real property

e. Recession of the contract

f. Specific performance

g. Mental anguish damages

h. Treble damages.

i. Prejudgment and post judgment interests

j. Special damages

k. Attorney fees

l. All other relief, in law and in equity, to which plaintiff may be entitled.


Respectfully submitted,


Frederick Brown

2441 Goldfinch LN

Garland, Texas 75042

(214) 227-5367 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting              (214) 227-5367      end_of_the_skype_highlighting begin_of_the_skype_highlighting (214) 227-5367 end_of_the_skype_highlighting; Fax (214) 227-5329


1. Unauthorized Substitute Check A

2. Unauthorized Substitute Check B

3. Unauthorized Substitute Check C

4. Sales Deed D

5. Statutory Letter E

6. Unsigned Check Authorization F

No comments: