OBLBoard Lawsuit

Index No.
50 2008 CA 015152 XXXX MB AE
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15 JUDICIALTH
CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR

PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA
NYE LAVALLE
Plaintiff,
-against-
ONE BUCKHEAD LOOP CONDOMINIUM

ASSOCIATION, INC., EDWARD D JARRETT, JOSEPH
GRENUK, MARK ALLEN, MONICA WILLIAMS,
LANA CAMERON, TOM RAYSIDE, JIM DEUPREE,
JOHN REINKING, MARLYS BROTHERS JOHN DOES
1 through 6; JANE ROES 1 through 6; and UNKNOWN
DOE COROPORATONS 1 through 6, the last eighteen
being fictitious names, the real names of said defendants
being presently unknown to plaintiff, said fictitious names
being intended to designate persons and/or entities who are
acting or who have acted in concert with the defendants,
Defendants,
COMPLAINT
NYE LAVALLE
Plaintiff
10675 Pebble Cove Lane
Boca Raton, Florida 33498
(561) 210-7171
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR PALM BEACH, COUNTY, FLORIDA
---------------------------------------------------------------X
NYE LAVALLE Index No. 50 2008

Plaintiff, CA 015152 XXXX MB AE
-against-
ONE BUCKHEAD LOOP CONDOMINIUM PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

ASSOCIATION, INC., EDWARD D JARRETT,
JOSEPH GRENUK, MARK ALLEN, MONICA VERIFIED COMPLAINT
WILLIAMS, LANA CAMERON, TOM RAYSIDE, JIM
DEUPREE, JOHN REINKING, MARLYS &
BROTHERS, JOHN DOES 1 through 6; JANE ROES 1
through 6; and UNKNOWN DOE COROPORATONS 1 DEMAND FOR
through 6, the last eighteen being fictitious names, the
real names of said defendants being presently unknown JURY TRIAL
to plaintiff, said fictitious names being intended to
designate persons and/or entities who are acting or who
have acted in concert with the defendants
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------------------X
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF: FLA

772.00 RACKETEERING ACTS; FLA 559.72 CONSUMER COLLECTION
PRACTICES; FLA 817.061 MISLEADING SOLICITATION OF PAYMENTS; FLA
DECEPTIVE & UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT; COMMON LAW FRAUD;
ATION, SLANDER & LIBEL; CONVERSION & UNJUST ENRICHMENT;
INVASION OF PRIVACY; TRESPASS, BREAKING & ENTERING; ABUSIVE &
VEXATIOUS LITIGATION & ABUSE OF PROCESS; TORTIOUS
INTERFERENCE; BREACH OF CONTRACT; NEGLIGENT
MISPRESENTATION; MISFEASANCE, NONFEASANCE & MALFEASANCE;
INTENTIONAL & NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
ASSAULT & BATTERY; CIVIL CONSPIRACY & VIOLATION OF FEDERAL
FAIR HOUSING ACT
NOW COMES, Nye Lavalle (hereinafter the “Plaintiff” or “Lavalle”) in this his first
verified Complaint for Violations Of: FLA 772.00 Racketeering Acts; FLA 559.72
Consumer Collection Practices; FLA 817.061 Misleading Solicitation Of Payments; FLA
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE 1

Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices Act; Common Law Fraud; Defamation, Slander &
Libel; Conversion & Unjust Enrichment; Invasion Of Privacy; Trespass, Breaking &
Entering; Abusive & Vexatious Litigation & Abuse Of Process; Tortious Interference;
Breach Of Contract; Negligent Misrepresentation; Misfeasance, Nonfeasance &
Malfeasance; Intentional & Negligent Infliction Of Emotional Distress; Assault &
Battery; Civil Conspiracy Fair Housing Act Violations and alleges and shows the Court
the following:
INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS
Jurisdiction and Venue
1. This is an action for damages in excess of $15,000.00 which is otherwise within the
jurisdictional limits of the court.
2. At all times material hereto, Nye Lavalle, hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or

“Lavalle”, was an individual residing in Palm Beach County, Florida.
3. Events complained of herein took place in Palm Beach County, Florida.
4. Jurisdiction of this action is founded upon the existence of Florida state law
questions arising under FLA. § 559.72 and 559.77; 772.00; 817.061 and 817.29;
836.05; 815; 501.203 and 501.204.
5. Jurisdiction is also founded under FLA § 48.193 that subjects each of the named
Defendants to the jurisdiction of this honorable Court due to the actions of each
Defendant, their representatives, and agents who:
a. Committed numerous tortious acts within this state and in the county of
Palm Beach;
b. Operated, directed and engaged in Florida, with other Florida corporations
the fraudulent Utility Billing enterprise described below and herein;

c. Directed the unlawful collection of debts with such collection and billing
activities emanating from the state of Florida.
d. Directed the unlawful collection of debts to the Plaintiff in the county of
Palm Beach, state of Florida;
e. Caused injury to the Plaintiff and his property within the state of Florida
for actions taken both inside and outside the state;
f. Defendants, their agents and representatives were engaged in solicitation
and service activities within the state of Florida;
g. Defendants, their agents, and representatives were engaged in ongoing and
substantial business activities in the state, which were not isolated
engagements.
6. Venue is founded upon Florida 559.77 which provides that “A debtor may bring a
civil action against a person violating the provisions of s. 559.72 in a court of
competent jurisdiction of the county in which the alleged violator resides or has his
or her principal place of business or in the county wherein the alleged violation
occurred.
7. The violations of Florida 559.72 alleged in this complaint occurred in the city of
Boca Raton, county of Palm Beach, Florida by out-of-state tortfeasors and
corporations that transact business in the county.
8. Defendants created, approved, made and directed harassing and collection phone
calls to the Plaintiff in Palm Beach, County Florida in which many of the acts
complained of below, were committed.
9. Defendants made and directed extortionate e-mails, letters, demand letters, and
notices of foreclosure to the Plaintiff in Palm Beach, County Florida in which many
of the acts complained of below, were committed.
10. Defendants made and directed bills and invoices for obligations that were not the
legal obligation of the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff in Palm Beach, County Florida.
11. Defendants made and directed fraudulent bills and invoices to the Plaintiff’s trustees
in Palm Beach, County Florida.

12. The Florida Supreme Court has ruled that such communications invoke Florida’s
long arm statute in that making phone calls and writing letters sufficed to reach
minimal contact and that Florida Courts had jurisdiction through "non-resident
defendant's telephonic, electronic or written communications into Florida.
However, the cause of action [legal claim] must arise from the communications."
13. Each of the Defendants are individuals that created, directed, approved, committed
and/or conspired to commit the tortious conduct described below intending that it
have an impact within the State of Florida, county of Palm Beach.
Parties
14. At all pertinent times Nye Lavalle, the “Plaintiff” has maintained a residence at
10675 Pebble Cove Lane, Boca Raton, FL 33498.
15. Defendant One Buckhead Loop Condominium Association, Inc. (“OBL” and/or
“Association”) is a Georgia non-profit corporation that can be served via it’s
registered agent or any of its officers that reside and/or transacts business at 3334
Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30326.
16. Defendant Joe Grenuk resides at 2488 Ellijay Drive, Atlanta, GA 30319 and is the
current President of the Association. He is sued in his individual and representative
capacity.
17. Defendant Edward D. Jarrett resides at 1232 Torrey Place, Dacula, GA 30019 and is
the current property manager and agent of the Association. He is sued in his
individual and representative capacity.
18. Defendant Mark Allen resides at 3334 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30326 and is
past President and current treasurer of the One Buckhead Loop Condominium
Association. Defendant has been employed in the financial, banking and mortgage
industry. He is sued in his individual and representative capacity.
19. Defendant Tom Rayside resides at 3334 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30326 and is
past President of the One Buckhead Loop Condominium Association and a current
board member. He is sued in his individual and representative capacity.

20. Defendant Monica Williams resides at 3334 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30326 and
is past board member of One Buckhead Loop Condominium Association. She is
sued in her individual and representative capacity. Defendant is active in the
financial, banking and mortgage industry.
21. Defendant Jim Deupree resides at 3334 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30326 and is a
current board member of One Buckhead Loop Condominium Association. He is
sued in her individual and representative capacity. Defendant is active in the
financial, banking and mortgage industry and on the board of a proposed banking
institution with partnerships with banks being investigated by the Plaintiff and
Federal regulators.
22. Defendant Lana Cameron resides at 3334 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30326 and
is past President of One Buckhead Loop Condominium Association. Defendant’s
company has been extremely active and the target of investigations by Plaintiff for
it’s involvement in the financial, banking and mortgage industry. She is sued in her
individual and representative capacity.
23. Defendant John Reinking resides at 3334 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30326 and is
past board member of One Buckhead Loop Condominium Association. He is sued
in his individual and representative capacity.
24. Defendant Marlys Brothers resides at 3334 Peachtree Road, Atlanta, GA 30326 and
is past board member of One Buckhead Loop Condominium Association. She is
sued in her individual and representative capacity.
25. Defendant One Buckhead Loop Condominium Association is a GA corporation

having its principal place of business at 3491 Buckhead Loop, Atlanta, GA 30326
and has at all relevant times conducted and directed business and service activities
in Palm Beach County, Florida.
26. Defendants JANE DOES 1 to 6, RICHARD ROES 1 to 6 and BUSINESS

ENTITIES 1 through 6 are fictitious names, the real names of said defendants being
presently unknown to plaintiffs, said fictitious names being intended to designate
persons or business entities who are acting in concert with the defendants.

SUMMARY OF CASE
27. Plaintiff is a nationally recognized consumer and investor advocate who in the mid
to late 90s was one of the first to expose massive corruption and accounting fraud in
the mortgage servicing, subprime and secondary mortgage markets that affects
citizens of this nation, the state of Florida, and the county of Palm Beach.
28. Plaintiff is a whistleblower who has uncovered accounting frauds and practices
against Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Bear Stearns that resulted in independent
counsel, internal, and government investigations of their accounting, mortgage
servicing, and securitization practices.
29. Plaintiff coined the terms “predatory mortgage servicing,” “predatory servicing,”
and “predatory securitization” in reports written in 1999 and his identification and
exposure of abusive mortgage and legal tactics have recently been identified by
dozens of state and Federal judges, as well as regulatory agencies and that have
been the subject of sanctions, fines, mass dismissals and regulatory actions.
30. The reports can be judicially noticed and downloaded by the court at the following
web addresses:
a. http://www.msfraud.org/Articles/predbear.pdf
b. http://www.moneyfiles.org/AAMAR.pdf
c. http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=2aa85b7a-7710-
42a2-b9d2-4d78cf4bfaa0
d. http://www.jdsupra.com/post/documentViewer.aspx?fid=197d1b59-e33e-
47e0-92b0-d61992e9ed22
31. Plaintiff’s identification and exposure of these abuses and frauds, directly and
indirectly through his colleagues, have also received the recent attention of the
national press and media most notably the attention of Pulitzer winning New York

Times business journalist, Gretchen Morgenson who has written extensively and
exclusively about such abuses over the past few months.
32. Plaintiff’s vocation and actions, and those in support of his advocacy colleagues,
have led to death threats against him, his family, and colleagues; assaults; computer
hacks and thefts; break-ins of residences; and vexatious and abusive litigation
against Plaintiff, his family, and the Pew family trusts.
33. Most recently, due to the actions of the Defendants, Plaintiff has been the subject of
extreme harassment and retaliatory acts by members of his own Condominium
Association (“COA”) after his discovery of frauds and abuses committed by the
Defendants and others that parallel his findings in the mortgage servicing industry.
34. Thus, Plaintiff has now directed and focused increased attention toward the subject
of “predatory HOA & COA servicing.”
35. Predatory COA servicing is a term Plaintiff created to describe the increasing abuse
of Condominium and Homeowner Associations and their boards.
36. Out-of-control boards, in conjunction with outside counsel and firms such as the
Defendants assist COAs and Homeowner Associations (“HOA”) in creating
fraudulent billing schemes to increase payment, cash flow, income, and revenue
without proper assessment or votes by homeowners and members.
37. COA and HOA abuse is a growing problem in Florida, Georgia, surrounding states,
and across the nation and is of extreme importance to public policy.
38. HOA and COA abuse is directed by many of the same “foreclosure mill” law firms,
lawyers, and former lawyers who utilize the identical “fraudulent, abusive, and
predatory servicing tactics” that Plaintiff first identified and exposed in the subprime
mortgage industry in the mid to late nineties.
39. Such actions are now being severely sanctioned in state and Federal courts around
the nation and state of Florida where Courts have created sanctions in the hundreds
of thousands against servicers and their lawyers for the abuses first identified by the
Plaintiff.

40. However, instead of using the powers of a mortgage document to tack on unlawful
fees and prosecute foreclosure actions, these unscrupulous and glorified foreclosure
mill firms and their “bill collector” partners, now use Condominium Instruments to
create a cottage industry in COA and HOA collections and foreclosures.
41. In many instances, these foreclosure mill firms with the help of firms like the
Defendants, help instigate abuse and have foreclosed on property for as little as
($1.00) in alleged arrears.
42. Often, as in the instant case, they are only paid upon the successful collection of
their legal fees from homeowners and are paid minimal retainers by their clients.
43. This method is called the “Pay When We Collect Retainer” by COA/HOA
foreclosure mill law firms.
44. Due to such arrangements, many people living in a COA, like the Plaintiff, find
themselves victims of a denial of fundamental due process rights. Current laws are
seriously flawed in their failure to protect homeowners and residents and provide
proper checks and balances to prevent COA/HOA abuses.
45. There are many areas of fraudulent behavior in COA/HOA abuse, but the conduct of
the Defendants in planning and implementing various fraudulent, deceptive, and
abusive collection and billing practices whereby kickbacks, over-billing, fraudulent
meter readings, fraudulent representations and other devices are used to defraud
homeowners and residents is the focus of this lawsuit.
46. The systems and services offered by the Defendants to COAs and HOAs, in and out
of Florida, not only condones, but encourages, allows, and enables overzealous,
controlling, aggressive and unethical people, such as the Plaintiff’s COA board to:
a. Commit what amounts to legal blackmail and extortion;
b. Impose their personal wills and agendas over their neighbors;
c. Harass certain targeted owners they want out of their building;
d. Discriminate against classes of owners they want out of their building;

e. Carry out vendettas through the COA power against opponents and
naysayers;
f. Deny due process rights to owners and residents;
g. Commit any number of serious and fundamental abuses by use of the legal
powers granted to COAs by each state’s Condo laws.
47. There are many common tactics of COAs that are red flags for COA abuse that
include the following:
a. Assessment Abuses:
i. Assessments increased more than state law, by-laws, rules, and

declaration allow;
ii. Assessment collections far exceeding a reasonable need;
iii. A single assessment increase using several years of “accumulated”

percentage increases (For example, rules often limit an annual
increase to X% over the prior year;
b. Management company and foreclosure mill attorney abuses:
i. An unreasonable number of liens or lawsuits against owners;

and/or
ii. Extorting, and squeezing more money from homeowners by threats

of lawsuits and attorneys fees by unjust means; and/or
iii. Delegation of power to an attorney or management company to sue

owners; and/or
iv. Indemnification of the attorneys and management company so that

owners pay for the bad acts of the management company, property
manager, or attorney; and/or
v. Payment of “bounties” to attorneys or the management company

for each violation letter or dispute; and/or

vi. Creating incentives for attorneys, management companies, and
property managers to create disputes rather than to treat owners as
neighbors; and/or
c. Improperly generating “late payments” and churning late fee payments;
i. Waiting weeks and months before cashing a check; and/or
ii. Declining and not accepting payments; and/or
iii. Intentionally sending bills to a wrong address and/or person.
d. Using aggressive foreclosure actions when the majority of homeowners

disapprove of such action:
i. Foreclosing against those down-on-their-luck;
ii. Foreclosing on those with legitimate payment disputes;
iii. Foreclosing for trivial reasons such as unpaid fines;
e. Aggressive foreclosure actions the Plaintiff has been made aware of

include foreclosing over:
i. a $1.00 debt
ii. an oil stain on a driveway
iii. to recover attorneys fees only (no assessment debt)
iv. a two or three foot disagreement about placement of a lamppost
v. a window unit air conditioner;
f. Creating rules to retain preserve power and office:
i. Creating new deed restrictions, by-laws, or similar rules without a

vote by the owners; and/or
ii. Executing agreements that bind the owners forever or for many
years; and/or
g. Utilizing unfair tactics to eliminate opposition

i. Going so far as to create means to unlawfully remove opposition
from their condominiums.
h. Refusing disclosure of documents and records as provided by law;
i. Denying the right to vote or ballot stuffing
i. Sending violation letters and fines to their opponents immediately

before an election, thus disqualifying opponents; and/or
ii. Creating arrears on accounts via false means.
j. Vendettas and Harassments
i. Harassing phone calls to opponents
ii. Abusive legal action directed towards opponents
iii. Fines directed towards opponents after voicing complaints
iv. False police reports against opponents
v. Wrongful disconnection of utilities
vi. Smear and defamation campaigns
48. In the instant case, the Plaintiff, his family, and Trusts have been subjected to many
of the COA/HOA abuses described above and the specific abusive acts as described
generally below and detailed in this Complaint including, but not limited to:
a. Repeated harassing and intimidating phone calls at all hours of day and
night;
b. Threats against property;
c. Unlawful and extortionate demands of money for debts that are not the
legal responsibility of Plaintiff, his family, or trust;
d. Admitted and condoned break-ins of Plaintiff’s property;
e. Unlawful disconnection of phone and utility service of Plaintiff;
f. Smear & Defamation campaigns against Plaintiff;
g. Physical assaults and threats against Plaintiff;

h. Invasion of privacy via computer and personal surveillance; and
i. Fraudulent and perjurious claims of criminal stalking against Plaintiff for

sending letters of disputes, complaints, and protests as is his right and duty
under agreements Defendants were obligated to enforce under the law.
49. All of the above harassment was initiated after the Plaintiff had discovered the
extensive fraud, abuse, and deceptive acts promulgated by the Defendants and
exposed such acts to the Plaintiff’s COA board, property managers, and other
homeowners.
50. Due to the acts described herein and above, Plaintiff has suffered damages of a
known and yet to be determined nature including, but not limited to:
a. Restrictions on personal liberty;
b. Damage to personal and business reputation;
c. Scorn and ridicule by neighbors and friends;
d. Inability to seek medical attention and care;
e. Inability to live and reside in his own residence;
f. Damages to personal property;
g. Loss of personal and business income;
h. Added travel, living, business, and personal expenses;
i. Loss of business opportunities;
BACKGROUND FACTS
51. Plaintiff is a resident of Boca Raton in Palm Beach, County Florida who is a
beneficiary of the Gladys Duffy Pew GST Exempt Trust (“Trust”).
52. The Trust owns a mortgage-free condominium unit (“Condo”) whose address is
3334 Peachtree Road, Suite 207, Atlanta, GA 30326.

53. The Condo is located in a condominium building (“Condominium”) known as the
Meridian Buckhead f/k/a One Buckhead Loop.
54. The Condominium is managed by a condominium association named One Buckhead

Loop Condominium Association, Inc. (“OBL”) or (“Association”).
55. OBL has conducted business in the state of Florida and retained Florida Companies
to bill, contact, and collect money from the Plaintiff.
56. The Defendants are the Association and all current or past board members and/or
officers of OBL who directed and carried out torts, wrongful, an unlawful acts
against the Plaintiff.
57. The Condo was valued at between $650,000 and $750,000 in 2007 and represents a
substantial portion of the corpus of the Pew Trust that inures to the ultimate benefit
of the Plaintiff.
58. Upon the death of Plaintiff’s father, Anthony Pew, Plaintiff is entitled to inherit the
Condo and all assets of the Trust.
59. Plaintiff has resided in the Condominium for ten years and his Trust purchased the
Condo in July of 2002 for the exclusive use of Plaintiff, his family (“the Pews”), and
their business and philanthropic interests.
60. Prior to the purchase of the Condo, Plaintiff and the trustees received a set of
Condominium Instruments and such set of documents that included a Declaration of
Condominium (“Declaration”) attached as Exhibit 1 that was sent to Plaintiff in
Florida and constituted an offering of sale.
61. Under the GA Condo Act that governs the Condo Instruments, exhibits, attachments,
and contracts contained and attached to the Declaration and Bylaws become a part
and extension of the Declaration and Bylaws.
62. One such exhibit and attachment was an agreement with a utility “Billing
Company.” (Exhibit 2)
63. In the agreement with the Billing Company dated May 30th, 1997:

a. Section 1. paragraph two states “Billing Company shall prepare
appropriate bills for each apartment based on the measured electric and
water consumption, and sewer charges…
b. Section 3. under “Billing Responsibilities” clearly states in second

paragraph that “Billing Company shall have no liability for metering
equipment installation and checkout, or equipment malfunctions.
c. Paragraph 4. has several bullet points that state “*Read meters monthly…”
and “*Prepare monthly management reports showing consumption…”.
64. The agreement clearly shows, in addition to minutes and other evidence gathered
by Plaintiff, that utility meters were a component of the bargain for purchase of the
Condo and there was to be “measured and metered” utility service provided.
65. From July 2, 2002 until approximately June 1, 2003, the Plaintiff did not reside in
the Condo while it underwent complete renovation.
66. For virtually the entire period in that timeframe, the Condo was without ANY
(emphasis added) water or electric service and contractors used neighbor’s
electricity outlets to complete work.
67. Based on a recent audit (Exhibit 3), without any actual records of Defendants and
OBL, OBL’s own expert claims that approximately $2300.00 was billed to the
Plaintiff by Defendant OBL for electricity and water usage he never received.
68. In addition, during this very time period, Defendants mailed fraudulent invoices to
Plaintiff that detailed actual electric meter usage in kilowatt hours when in fact the
figures used for usage and meter readings were entirely fabricated and placed into a
computer system in the state of Florida to generate the fraudulent billing that were
then transmitted by the U.S. wire and mails. (Exhibit 4)
69. The relationship between Plaintiff and the Trust is similar in legal nature to that of a
corporation and shareholder.
a. The Trust is the legal entity that owns the Condo and Plaintiff benefits
from it’s use and the Trust’s ownership of the Condo as the beneficiary,

b. However, Plaintiff has no legal obligation to OBL and the Association for
expenses such as COA fees, special assessments, and utility bills.
70. The Trust, which was not established by Plaintiff and was originally established in
1976, is liable for lawfully and properly assessed Condominium expenses such as
COA fees, special assessments, and utility bills.
71. From the time of purchase of the Condo by the Trust, bills and invoices from OBL
and its agents for Condominium expenses have been sent to the Trust and its
trustees, trust managers and agents in Boca Raton, Florida in Palm Beach County.
72. Authorization for payments for Condominium expenses came from trustees and
their agents in Boca Raton, Florida.
73. Trustees for Plaintiff have paid the normal monthly expenses from the Trust.
74. Plaintiff and his father, Anthony Pew, are entitled to distributions from the Trust for
normal living as well as other expenses as defined by the Trust agreement.
75. In the Fall/Winter of 2004, upon the inquiry of his then trustee, Merrill Lynch Trust
Company (“MLTC”) in Boca Raton, Florida, Plaintiff became aware that OBL and
its agents were demanding utility invoices be paid that were not the legal obligation
of the Trust nor Plaintiff.
76. This concern came when in one month, a demand for over $2500 for a utility bill
was sent to Plaintiff’s trustee in Boca Raton, FLA in the last quarter of 2004.
77. A similar demand was also made upon the Plaintiff.
78. The Trust and Trustees, after consultation with the Plaintiff, promptly and legally,
disputed these bills that were never the Plaintiff’s or his Trust’s legal or personal
obligation.
79. After such dispute, on 5/26/05 lawyers for OBL not only sent Plaintiff a demand for
payment he nor his trust ever owed, but also unlawfully captioned the letter stating
that a lawsuit had been filed against the Plaintiff by OBL. (Exhibit 5)
80. These acts were violations of the Federal Debt Collection Practices Act.

81. Plaintiff contacted the Condominium’s counsel and promptly disputed the amounts
claimed were owed in writing and in a phone call.
82. During his phone call, the Condominium counsel’s paralegal claimed that the
amounts demanded were not for utility bills, but for unpaid COA fees and
assessments.
83. A check of the Trust’s and Plaintiff’s records and an audit prepared by Defendant’s
own expert, revealed that the Trust was paying such fees and assessments one to two
months in advance and on the date of 5/26/05 had a credit of $661.80 with nothing
due the Defendants.
84. Plaintiff was so concerned with these issues that he attended a meeting with the
OBL board on 6/15/05 where Defendants Reinking and Rayside were in attendance
and raised his concerns over the utility billing and accounting issues with the
Defendants.
85. The board minutes for this meeting state “Nye Lavalle in Attendance; "Mr. Lavalle
stated that he has concerns regarding the validity of utility bills he is receiving and
methods used to collect on these bills; the board asked Mr. Lavalle to provide
documentation so that his concerns can be looked into."
86. Plaintiff, a consumer and investor advocate who has expertise in unraveling
accounting frauds and schemes in the subprime and secondary mortgage markets,
then launched his own investigation, into the accounting, billing, collection, and
utility practices of OBL that were being created, directed, and approved by the
Defendants.
87. The investigation by the Plaintiff, authorized by the Trust due to Plaintiff’s unique
forensic accounting and investigative skills and abilities, determined that the Trust
was defrauded, overcharged, and damaged by thousands at the time, by OBL and its
agents who are sued in a separate action in this court.
88. In his investigation, Plaintiff initially discovered that Defendants were:
a. Directing that billing and collection actions be made in the personal name
of the Plaintiff, instead of the Trust.

b. Were billing for fees and expenses not owed by the Trust nor the Plaintiff;
c. Fraudulently billing residents and owners for utility services never

delivered to them;
d. Calculating and using formulas for allocation of utility services and bills
that were personally benefiting many of Defendants to the detriment of the
Plaintiff as well as other owners and residents of the Condominium;
e. Billing fees and expenses in advance of their actual due date;
f. Concealing that the Association’s accounting books and records were lost,
destroyed, unavailable and in a shambles;
g. Not cashing checks that were sent to the Association for payment;
h. Attempting to collect bills they were not legally entitled to collect and
were not even owed to the Association;
i. Participating in kickback schemes;
j. Using funds, intended to be applied to the accounts of homeowners and

their reserve accounts, to everyday expenses rather than their intended use;
k. Billing from 2002 to Plaintiff and his Trust “metered utility bills” for
water and electric services for hundreds of dollars each month for electric
service never provided to him or the Condo when, in fact, there was never
any actual electric metering of Plaintiff’s Condo.
89. Furthermore, neither the Association or it’s billing agents or lawyers to this date can
provide the Plaintiff, his trust or other owners with:
a. Proper and honest responses to their questions about utility bills and
billing;
b. Accounting records and books showing their payments, credits, debits and
transaction since the inception of the Association to May of 2004; and
c. The actual utility bills, meter readings, and how the bills were calculated.
d. Meter readings since the date of purchase in July of 2002.

90. Despite over a dozen written and verbal disputes, complaints, and requests, the
Association has not been able to provide documents and evidence to support the
amounts they claimed were owed and due on the account they claimed Plaintiff
owed for utility services.
91. Plaintiff notified his trustee to cease making payments for any utilities until the
utility bills, readings, and invoices could be reconciled and proven to be owed and
properly billed.
92. Plaintiff also discovered that there were bills for hundreds of dollars for utilities for
his residence, despite the fact that:
a. Plaintiff was in his residence in Florida from early December to late May
each year and was only in his residence for a weekend or two each year
during this time frame; and
b. Plaintiff shut off circuit breakers, water, and set thermostats to their lowest
setting.
93. Additionally, in the Fall and Winter of 2005, the property manager of the
Condominium agreed to repair Plaintiff’s Condo’s ceiling and walls that were
damaged by water leaks due to storms and the Association’s gross negligence in
repairing the outside leaks that caused the damage. He also agreed to repair
Plaintiff’s automobile for paint that was splattered during renovation causing
damage.
94. Also in the Fall and Winter of 2005 Plaintiff sought the Defendant’s backing in
supporting class action litigation, on behalf of all homeowners, against prior legal
counsel (now current counsel), billing companies, management companies and the
developers who had originally created the utility billing fraud and accounting
schemes since many homeowners were wrongfully and illegally charged for
services never provided to them.
95. Plaintiff also presented the Defendants with a legal plan and method to secure
charged off fees in the tens of thousands of dollars from banks, mortgage companies
and Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”) who allegedly owned

units, especially Unit 1907, in the Condominium after foreclosures and
bankruptcies.
96. Plaintiff secured lawyers and colleagues of his to handle such suits and legal
remedies on a contingency basis.
97. In December of 2005, Defendant Grenuk sought Plaintiff’s support, proxy, and vote
for election to the board of OBL.
98. Mr. Grenuk had failed in five prior attempts due to many questions about his moral
character, judgment, and abusive nature.
99. Wanting a change, Plaintiff then supported and voted for Defendant Grenuk in his
attempt to be elected to the Association’s board.
100. Plaintiff’s support of Grenuk was due to his knowledge of the accounting problems
and issues at the Association as well as Grenuk’s alleged qualifications having acted
as a CFO for a unit of BellSouth, and he believed that the Association needed a new
look at the books and a clean slate.
101. Soon after his election, Grenuk was appointed by other Association members and
Defendant’s Cameron, and Rayside as the Treasurer for OBL.
102. At their first meeting, Defendants made an agreement that "the board must treat all
homeowners and issues equally and fairly" and “private exec sessions to discuss
sensitive legal matters and meetings with homeowners.”
103. Immediately upon his election, Grenuk with the backing and support of Defendants
examined the books of account of the Association and determined that there were
many problems with the accounts and books including, but not limited to:
a. Unpaid bills and invoices;
b. Reserves were inadequate;
c. Checks went un-cashed for years;
d. Between 20 to 25% of all homeowners were allegedly in arrears;
e. Late fees were piling up on utility bills;

f. Utility companies were demanding substantial deposits for late payment of
bills;
g. Years worth of accounting records and books were missing, lost, and/or
destroyed; and
h. A host of other accounting problems.
104. In the first board meeting on or about January 11, 2006, Grenuk informed
Defendants Rayside, Cameron, and Reinking of the dire state of the Association’s
finances and books and that various “aggressive” actions were needed to get the
Association books and finances in order.
105. Instead of going to the members, including the Plaintiff as the Trust’s “entity
member,” with their findings and a request for the rightful approval of a new special
assessment or other funding, the Defendants created and directed new and more
aggressive collection and foreclosure actions be taken that Grenuk was proposing
along with the imposition of unusual and unreasonable fines as an income
generating stream.
106. These actions were taken despite the full knowledge by Grenuk and Defendants
Rayside, Cameron, and Reinking that the Association’s books and records were in
complete disarray and could not be counted on to reflect proper payments and
credits for each member’s account.
107. In addition, at that meeting, Defendants Grenuk, Rayside, Cameron, and Reinking
took actions to remove all handicap parking spots from the building of which
Plaintiff’s mother has a need and requirement for during her occupation of
Plaintiff’s Condo as a disabled woman.
108. Likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further
investigation or discovery, Defendants decided to sell all handicap parking spots in
the building to raise more money and to increase needed revenue.
109. Currently, a 232 unit high-rise with over 500 owners, residents, and visitors each
day that had over a dozen prior handicap parking spots for owners, residents, and
visitors, has zero since the Defendants have removed all such parking.

investigation or discovery the Defendants, an all-white board, also set in motion
plans of action and methods to discriminate against and rid the building of certain
classes of people based on race, ethnicity, age, and disability.
111. These claims are discussed further below in the counts for violations of the Federal
Fair Housing Act.
112. As part of these efforts, on 1/26/06, the Defendants sent to the homeowners,
including Plaintiff, a letter attached as Exhibit 6 that stated in part that the board’s
“position is to pursue collections as aggressively as possible.”
113. At this time, despite the ongoing dispute over utility billing that had not been
resolved and thousands of dollars of credits due to the Plaintiff’s and Trust’s
account, the Trust’s account as of 2/1/06 was in a credit due status even though
payments made by the Trust were misapplied by the Association.
114. Plaintiff had not received feedback or further contact by the then property managers
of his disputes, claims, and damages to his Condo.
115. Another underlying motive behind the aggressive collection actions were that the
Defendants wanted to discriminate against certain classes of people based on race,
ethnicity, age, and disability and force them to move from the building.
116. Recent measures taken by the Defendants, conclusively prove this allegation.
investigation or discovery is that over 25% of the Association was claimed to be
delinquent and a high percentage of this number was made up of the targeted and
discriminated groups described above.
118. Defendants had and have been brash in promoting to friends, colleagues, real estate
agents, and certain neighbors that they were “cleaning up the building” and “getting
rid of the rift raft” and “gang-bangers” from the Condominium.
119. Defendant Grenuk stated to Plaintiff that he did not want the Condominium to
become like the “Ghetto and Gangbang Grand” across the street, an obvious

reference to the neighboring condominium building across the street that had a
heavy concentration of African-American owners and residents.
120. The 2/8/06 Board Minutes of the Defendants state that “Arlene has collected
$16,000 to $18,000 of OLD Viterra Utility Bill” which contained the $2500 bill in
dispute by Plaintiff for bills dating back to 1998, before the Association was even
incorporated.
investigation or discovery, much of this bill was for fraudulent charges; utility
services never delivered; utility bills of the developer, not of any individual billed;
and for bills prior to the Association’s establishment.
investigation or discovery, Arlene at the behest of Defendants protested the
collection of fees she knew the Association was not entitled to as well as had
knowledge of the kickbacks, frauds, unlawful markups, and accounting missteps
and misdeeds utilized in the fraudulent “utility billing enterprise” as detailed in
Exhibit 7.
investigation or discovery, the Defendants dismissed Arlene and paid her $5000.00
in a settlement agreement if she agreed to remain silent about the frauds and abuses
she had firsthand knowledge of.
124. Arlene had discussed these abuses and frauds with Plaintiff prior to her departure
and admitted their existence and stated to Plaintiff that he wasn’t the only one with
the problem.
125. After the failure of the Association and Defendants to address Plaintiff’s and his
Trust’s disputes over accountings, utility bills, and collection practices by the
Association’s and Defendant’s lawyers, Plaintiff attended a board meeting with
Defendants on or about 3/13/06.

126. During the 3/13/06 board meeting, Grenuk, Cameron, and other Defendants
discussed the measures that the Defendants were going to undertake in their
aggressive collection actions.
127. They also discussed how their lawyers rated the litigation and liability risk of taking
such actions on a low, medium, and high scale.
128. Such ratings are also contained on minutes supplied to the Plaintiff and are not
redacted.
129. The Defendants did not enter into executive session to discuss the actions and risks
and what their lawyers told them in his legal analysis of risks.
130. The Defendants waived all attorney/client privilege to the subject matter when they
not only openly discussed their conversations with over a dozen in attendance, but
also distributed minutes and papers indicating the discussions with their counsel.
131. As a consumer and investor advocate with a certain legal acumen in this area,
Plaintiff was distressed by the planned aggressive actions described that he knew
violated the condo instruments, GA and Federal law and posed serious liability and
exposure to the Condominium and his Trust that was unnecessary.
132. Plaintiff was also distressed over the open discussion of privileged communications
that waived any right to the attorney/client privilege.
133. Seeing what he saw and heard, the Plaintiff raised numerous objections to the
Defendants about the acts they were contemplating and the legal ramifications and
liabilities associated with the implementation of the proposed policies.
134. Defendant’s Grenuk and Cameron attempted to limit and stop Plaintiff’s discussions
and objections on several occasions.
135. Defendant Grenuk stated openly that he had discussed the risks and liabilities and
that he and the law firm had done a calculated “risk analysis” of the situation and
that they didn’t think anyone would file suit or obtain damages due to the actions,
even if they knew they violated the condo instruments and the law.

136. Grenuk also stated that there was adequate insurance coverage if there was a
lawsuit, but that he and the Association’s counsel did not believe these were big
risks in their risk/reward analysis.
137. Plaintiff, upset and concerned about the attitudes, actions, demeanor and legal
acumen of the Defendants, left the meeting after a discussion about hiring a new
independent property manager
138. Plaintiff was concerned about the legal liabilities due to:
a. the actions were so violative of the law;
b. books and records of the Association were in a admitted disarray and

missing;
c. The Association had been aggressively attempting to collect a $2500

utility bill from the Plaintiff and his Trust that were never the legal
obligation of the Trust or the Plaintiff;
d. The Associations and his agents had published a deadbeats list with his
personal name on it as well as other homeowners and distributed it to
other non-protected and third parties.
139. The aggressive collections actions outlined by the Defendants included:
a. Breaking and entering, without court order or authority, padlocking and re-
keying delinquent owner’s storage lockers which were their personal
property;
b. Booting and towing the automobiles of delinquent owners;
c. Publishing a dead beats list and circulating it to other owners even though
previous counsel advised against this and the Association’s books and
records were in complete disarray;
d. Having electric and water service disconnected without obtaining a court

judgment of $750.00 as required by GA law and the condo instruments;

e. Shutting off common internet and telephone service without obtaining a
court judgment of $750.00 as required by GA law and the condo
instruments;
f. Denying access to building, garage, parking spaces, and elevators; and
g. Foreclosure and debt lawsuits filed.
140. Plaintiff provided notice to the Defendants that the above actions would be in
violation of various state and Federal laws and asked that they not be implemented
so as not to cause the Association any liability.
141. On or about May of 2006, Defendants hired Defendant Edward Jarrett as their in-
house property manager and they held a board meeting on or about May 17, 2006.
142. Defendants then turned over the management of its aggressive collection actions to
Defendants Jarrett and Grenuk and they soon met with their collection attorneys to
discuss their desired aggressive steps and actions.
143. On or about June 14, 2006, one month after Jarrett’s hiring, Defendant’s Grenuk,
Cameron, and Reinking approved Defendant Jarrett’s plan to add two video
cameras, two monitors and a DVD recoding system for $6000 so that Defendant
Jarrett could exert his control and place targeted owners and residents under
surveillance as he did to the Plaintiff and other owners the Defendants had targeted
for harassment and abuse.
144. In June of 2006, Plaintiff was working on a strategic plan to assist the Condominium
in its financial crisis and approached Defendants about his plans and desired a
meeting with the Board to consider:
a. A plan to turn the Condominium into a CondoHotel that would require the
support of the Defendants in obtaining the support of the owners to redo
the Condominium documents in a special election; and
b. Using one of the Plaintiff’s law firms to file class action lawsuits against
prior counsel, management companies, developers and their agents who
defrauded the Condominium owners via various schemes.

i. Plaintiff had arranged to have such litigation done on a
contingency basis with no legal costs to OBL or the Defendants
145. Instead of addressing the Plaintiff’s legitimate requests and disputes, the Defendants
began aggressive, discriminatory, harassing, intimidating, and abusive actions
directed towards the Plaintiff.
146. The first aggressive action was a demand letter attached as Exhibit 8 on or about
June 14, 2006 from Defendant Ed Jarrett that demanded that Plaintiff pay the
Association $9,645.25.
147. Copies of the letter were sent to Plaintiff’s residence in Boca Raton, Florida without
his direction or permission.
148. After disputing the validity of the debt in the June 14, 2006 from Defendant Ed
Jarrett, Plaintiff negotiated, as a good faith gesture, with Jarrett to pay half the claim
demanded from his own personal account, if the board would meet with him to
discuss his business proposals and address his disputes.
149. Plaintiff had even told Jarrett that he would be willing to “eat some of the losses
from the disputes, if the parties could agree on the business proposals that would
bring in additional revenue and profits for all.”
150. Defendants Grenuk, Cameron, Rayside, and Reinking who were board members in
June and July of 2006 had a fiduciary duty to Plaintiff as the entity member,
representing his Condo, of the Association as well as other members to meet with
the Plaintiff to:
a. Let him detail his business proposals where he was offering the
Association from $25,000 to over $500,000 in cash, investment, capital
improvements, revenue and savings; and
b. Meet with the Plaintiff under the provisions of 20. (b) regarding the
Plaintiff and Defendant’s duties to act in good faith to resolve disputes and
grievances.
151. Instead of accepting Plaintiff’s good faith offer of over $4500.00 and meeting with
the Plaintiff, Defendant Joe Grenuk sent Plaintiff an email.

152. Defendant Grenuk’s e-mail stated that if Plaintiff didn’t pay the total amount of
$9,645.25 demanded, the board would not meet with him; Plaintiff could consider
his business proposals “dead on arrival;” and that things would get “ugly” if
Plaintiff did not pay the entire amount the COA was demanding.
153. Plaintiff again demanded from other board members a meeting as required by GA
law and the condo instruments and communicated to them directly and via
Defendant Jarrett, who they directed communication be directed towards.
154. Evidence of this request is attached as Exhibit 9.
155. Plaintiff had not, at that moment, begun a complete audit of the amounts claimed
owed, but soon thereafter in July of 2006, began auditing the figures supplied to him
by Defendants.
156. After a cursory review of the accounting ledger (Exhibit 10) provided to Plaintiff by
Defendant Jarrett’s attachment to Exhibit 8, Plaintiff discovered that:
a. Only $4,751.40 was allegedly due as the date of the letter, not the
$9,645.25 demanded for a difference of $4,893.85, more than double what
was claimed to be owed, and now being extorted from Plaintiff and his
Trust under the threats by Defendant Grenuk;
b. Plaintiff’s name, not the Trust, was associated with the account despite
over two years and dozens of communications to remove Plaintiff’s name
from all invoices since he had no personal or legal responsibility for
payment; and
c. The accounting ledger provided (Exhibit 10) did not account for over
$10,000 in payments, credits, debits, or transactions on the alleged account
of Plaintiff (that was actually the account of his Trust) from the date of
purchase on or about July 2, 2002 through May 1, 2004 the first date of
any transaction listed which shows a credit balance of $464.60 on that
date.
157. On or about July 12, 2006, Defendants Jarrett, Grenuk, Cameron, and Reinking met
and discussed solutions to the utility billing and metering problems and determined

that new meters would be required and that owners would be assessed for the
meters.
158. It was also decided that the Defendant’s and their employees, not an outside meter
reading company, would read the new meters and save from $3.50 to $6.00 per
meter reading that the outside independent companies would charge for meter reads.
159. The Defendants then created, directed, approved, carried out, and/or concealed a
fraudulent plan that would continue billing the Plaintiff, his Trust, other
homeowners and residents of OBL a monthly $6.00 meter reading and billing fee.
160. The new billing and accounting company (“HMS”) would “kickback” the $6.00
monthly fee to the Association, even though a paid Association employee would
take less than one hour of his time each month to read the new electric meters.
161. Defendants also were unhappy with performance of it’s legal counsel in their
collection efforts and were complaining that they were not aggressive enough.
162. In late July of 2006, Defendant Grenuk, advertised a storage unit for lease on the 8th
floor of the Condominium and Plaintiff had desired to lease and then purchase such
a unit.
163. Defendant Grenuk and Plaintiff negotiated a lease with a side agreement for a right
of first refusal to purchase the unit, if Grenuk were to sell his condo or storage unit.
164. Plaintiff also set in motion a trap to see how Grenuk would handle this personal
business relationship in light of his threats, acts, demands, and recalcitrant behavior
related to his duties as a board member and treasurer of the Association that Plaintiff
had observed firsthand.
165. On or about July 31, 2006 Plaintiff and Defendant Grenuk signed a lease for the
rental of the storage unit whereby Plaintiff was to make quarterly payments in
advance for the lease and to notice Grenuk at his AOL e-mail address and Plaintiff
paid Grenuk in advance for rent through the end of October, 2006.
166. Throughout June, July and August of 2006, the Plaintiff and his Trust made dozens
of requests for full and complete accounting records; billing formulas and methods
for utility bills; copies of utility bills and meter readings; payment records; and other

documents to audit the account of the Trust that was still wrongfully in the
Plaintiff’s name.
167. Plaintiff’s Trust wanted to pay OBL and Plaintiff concurred with such payments, but
needed to reconcile the thousands of dollars of differences in the demands directed
by the Defendants toward the Plaintiff and the amounts shown in the incomplete
accounting records as well as the disputed utility figures.
168. Furthermore, the inability to provide any records as requested for the complete
audit, made Plaintiff and his Trustee reluctant to pay OBL any fees, until the final
exact balance could be determined.
169. On or about August 15, 2006, as evidenced in Exhibit 11, Defendants Jarrett,
Grenuk, Cameron, Rayside, and Reinking met in another board meeting and
discussed, created, directed, approved, and/or carried out the following acts, actions,
and activities:
a. Approved a new accounting firm and system for OBL;
b. Defendants Grenuk and Jarrett met with collection lawyers to discuss their
unprofessional practices and dissatisfaction with their performance on
collections;
c. Jarrett and Grenuk created new incentives for more aggressive actions
toward collections to bring in more money;
d. Kickback the monthly $6.00 utility billing fee for meter reading back to
the Association.
e. Give back $68,000 leftover from renovation to a “select group” of owners,

including many of the Defendants, instead of the entire membership as
provided by law and the condo instruments; and
f. Mandate, against GA law and the condo instruments that homeowners,

including the Plaintiff, install a water heater for insurance and safety
purposes in excess of $500 and the $300 limitation in the condo
instruments without a vote.

170. On or about August 16, 2006 Defendants directed and approved that their law firm
send a notice of intent to foreclose on Plaintiff’s Condo to the Plaintiff’s trustee,
without providing the accounting information requested by both the Plaintiff and his
Trust and demanded $10,345.64 in payments for past due assessments.
171. Neither the Plaintiff or his Trust had received the accounting documents and ledgers
requested, especially the July 2002 to May 2004 records and the bills, invoices, and
meter readings for utilities so that they could be properly audited.
172. On or about August 23, 2006, immediately after receipt of the notice of foreclosure,
Plaintiff’s trustee disputed the amounts claimed due to OBL.
173. On or about August 31, 2006, Defendant’s legal firm, who they were unhappy with,
sent Plaintiff’s trustee an account history dated 8/30/06 attached as Exhibit 12.
174. Exhibit 12 still, despite over two-dozen written and verbal requests, still did not
reflect over $10,000 in payments, credits, debits, and transactions from July 2, 2002
through May 1, 2004.
175. Exhibit 12 also showed, according to the redacted and incomplete records that
Defendants had been noticed on by dozens of notices, that only $7,765.20 was due
as of 8/31/06 for a difference of $2,580.44 now being over-demanded and extorted
from Plaintiff and his Trust in the 8/23/06 letter.
176. These letters again, despite dozens of warnings to the Defendants, OBL, and their
law firm were sent to the Plaintiff and his elderly and infirmed family’s residence in
Boca Raton, FLA on 8/16/06 and 8/31/06.
177. The Trustees nor the Plaintiff ever directed the Defendants and their counsel to
address or send any communication to the Plaintiff’s family’s Boca Raton, FLA
address for any matter related to the Trust or Condo.
178. In fact, in 2005, after the first mailing to Boca Raton, Plaintiff demanded and
noticed Defendants, OBL, and their law firm on dozens of times not to contact him
or his family at the Boca Raton, FL address since:
a. The trust had no business at that address and Plaintiff was not responsible
for any bills; and

b. The Plaintiff’s family suffered from high blood pressure, Alzheimer’s,
depression, anxiety, sleeplessness, and diabetes and such matters tended to
unnecessarily place his family under duress and stress.
179. On or about 9/12/06, despite not receiving complete accounting records as requested
for over a year, Plaintiff’s Trustee sent a letter detailing that the records sent to him
by Defendant’s counsel showed only $7,765.20 was due as of 8/31/06 for a
difference of $2,580.44.
180. On or about September 13, 2006, as evidenced in Exhibit 13, Defendants Jarrett,
Grenuk, Cameron, Rayside, and Reinking met in another board meeting and
discussed, created, directed, approved, and/or carried out the following acts, actions,
and activities:
a. Accounting conversion from B/G to HMS;
b. Problems with legal billings; and
c. Use of aggressive tactics to collect past due utility bills.
181. On or about 9/12/06, despite not receiving complete accounting records as requested
for over a year, Plaintiff’s Trustee sent a letter detailing that the records sent to him
by Defendant’s counsel showed only $7,765.20 was due as of 8/31/06 for a
difference of $2,580.44.
182. On or about 9/27/06, Plaintiff’s Trust received a letter from Defendant’s counsel
admitting that an over-demand for payment was made upon the Trust. (emphasis
added)
183. Yet, despite such an admission, the Defendants demanded that late fees and legal
fees, that were caused by the Defendant’s and their counsel’s bad and unlawful acts,
must be paid, even though the Defendants still had not supplied the accounting
records necessary to audit their account.
184. On or about October 11, 2006, as evidenced in Exhibit 14, Defendants Jarrett,
Grenuk, Cameron, and Reinking met in another board meeting and discussed,
created, directed, approved, and/or carried out the following acts, actions, and
activities:

a. New accounting and invoices to go out 10/13/06;
b. Owners complaining about utility bills;
c. Cameron proposed a lawful “vote” for meter approval;
d. Defendants approved $400 electric meter assessment without lawful vote

as required by GA law and condo instruments on assessments over $200
per year in violation of Paragraph 11. (e) of the OBL Declaration.
e. Defendants approved a water heater replacement demand and related fines

without a lawful vote as required by GA law and the condo instruments for
demands in excess of $300 per year as stated on page 31 Paragraph18. (d)
(i) and (ii).
f. Defendants approved $68,000 returned form overage of special

assessment to owners with tiled balconies instead of going to the general
fund for common expense or paid back to owners on the pro-rata share of
their initial payment as required under GA §44-3-108 and Paragraph 11.
(h) of the OBL Declaration.
185. Despite numerous warnings by Plaintiff to Defendants on following the condo

instruments and law, on or about 10/17/06 Defendants sent Plaintiff, his Trust and
other OBL homeowners a “water heater resolution” (Exhibit 15) mandating that
owners pay upwards of $500 for replacement of water heaters in violation of GA
law and the OBL Declaration Paragraph18. (d) (i) and (ii).
186. Plaintiff warned the Defendants of the liability and class action legal consequences
of their actions, yet Defendants intentionally ignored and failed to heed any of
Plaintiff’s counsel, advice, and concerns.
187. Plaintiff, once again, requested meetings with the Defendants to discuss his
grievances, disputes, and concerns over the Defendant’s actions and willful
blindness to state and Federal law and the condominium instruments.
188. In October of 2006, Plaintiff’s Trust paid $1000 to AMS as a good faith gesture to
pay some utilities for some use by Plaintiff, even though no meter readings,

formulas, or proof of actual billing was ever received and the Defendant’s failed to
acknowledge the payment to its agent, AMS.
189. On or about October 18, 2006, despite demands for over $10,000 in the immediate
months, Defendant’s new accounting firm sent Plaintiff an invoice (Exhibit 16) in
his personal name showing that he and the account for the Condo only owed
$557.00 and nothing was past due for the prior 90 days.
190. On or about October 20, 2006, after admittedly providing over-demands for
payments in the thousands of dollars Defendant’s counsel sent a letter to Plaintiff’s
Trust stating it would bar Plaintiff from using his elevator; turn off his phone and
internet service; would deny Plaintiff from parking in his own parking space; and
other unlawful actions.
191. On or about October 24, 2006, Defendants directed and approved that a collection
agency send collection notices and demands in Plaintiff’s personal name to other
third and non-protected parties, not responsible for payment, in Boca Raton, Florida
as shown in Exhibit 17 and not to the Plaintiff himself.
192. On or about October 27, 2006, Plaintiff’s trustee with Plaintiff’s consent sent
Defendants a payment of $7,500 to be applied only toward all lawful monthly COA
fees and special assessments that were shown in the still incomplete accounting
ledger dated 8/30/06 minus several hundred dollars in claimed legal fees and late
fees due.
193. The trustee subtracted such amounts from the payments, since he felt it was unfair
to charge the Trust late fees and legal fees during the timeframe that the Plaintiff and
Trust received not one, but several unlawful and extortionate demands for payments
that were from $2000 to over $5000 more than what Defendant’s own “incomplete
records” demonstrated was owed.
194. On November 9, 2006, Defendant’s counsel sent Plaintiff’s Trust the $7,500 check
back and now demanded a payment of $14,586.34 almost double the prior demands
and $14,000.00 more than was claimed owed by Defendant’s accounting firm just a
week earlier. (emphasis added)

195. Eleven days later, on November 20, 2006, Defendant’s accounting firm sent Plaintiff
yet another invoice (Exhibit 18) showing that only $1,164.00 was due and owed to
OBL and that there was nothing past due for the prior 90 days, and now there was
over a $13,000 difference in Plaintiff’s accounting records. (emphasis added)
196. On or about November 13, 2006, Defendant Grenuk began making harassing and
threatening phone calls to three personal and business phone numbers of the
Plaintiff, including his family’s residence in Boca Raton, Florida, threatening to
throw his and his family’s property in the garbage, unless he paid what was owed
the Defendant.
197. Plaintiff sent Defendant Grenuk a check via overnight express mail to the office of
OBL.
198. Defendant Grenuk refused to accept the check and sent numerous harassing e-mails
and letters to the Plaintiff in Florida threatening to throw his and his family’s
property in the garbage and wrongfully, against the lease terms and GA law,
terminating the lease between the parties including over nine harassing phone calls,
e-mails and letters to Plaintiff in Boca Raton, Florida.
199. Prior to Thanksgiving of 2006, Defendants authorized a foreclosure letter be sent to

the Plaintiff’s elderly mother and father in Boca Raton, Florida which resulted in the
cancellation of Plaintiff’s Thanksgiving plans when his mother, due to the
harassment, stress, and duress caused by the Defendants, was hospitalized for three
days for high blood pressure.
200. Plaintiff, under the constant torment and the harassment of him and his family by
Defendant Grenuk, sent the Defendants and Grenuk emails detailing the harassment
of the Plaintiff and his elderly and infirmed family and seeking the removal of
Grenuk from the board due to his unlawful and abusive conduct.
201. Later, in December of 2007 and January of 2008, Defendants Grenuk and Jarrett
claimed these e-mails to be criminal acts of stalking, within days after learning of a
$10 million lawsuit to be filed against the Defendants and OBL by the Plaintiff’s
Trust and this lawsuit.

202. At the end of December, immediately after the annual meeting where Grenuk was
re-elected with additional Defendants under proxies that on information and belief
were forged by Defendants Grenuk and Jarrett to get Grenuk reelected and prevent
other independent parties from election to the board, Plaintiff sent the Defendants
several emails detailing the bad acts of the prior board and Grenuk and requesting a
meeting to air and resolve his grievances according to GA law and the provisions in
the Declaration.
203. The new board members again refused to meet with Plaintiff and instead intensified
their harassment and abuse of Plaintiff, his family and Trust in order to get Plaintiff
to release his claims against the Association, their agents, the Defendants, and their
lawyers.
204. The Defendants then conspired with one another other, their counsel and Roes,
Does, and Corporate Roes 1 to 18 to intentionally inflict emotional distress upon the
Plaintiff, his family, and other members of the association who disagreed with their
practices and targeted individuals the Defendants wanted out of “their” building.
205. Defendants then began a defamation and smear campaign against the Plaintiff since
Plaintiff was continuing his investigation and finding additional frauds, wrongful
and even criminal acts being conducted by the Defendants and notifying other
members of the Association.
206. In addition to the defamation and smear campaign, the Plaintiff was subject to
assault and physical battery by Defendant Grenuk and employees of the Defendants.
207. The Plaintiff, as well as other targeted persons, were placed under surveillance by
Defendants Grenuk and Jarrett and their comings and goings as well as who they
associated with were recorded and placed on DVDs by the new surveillance system
Defendant Jarrett had secured upon his arrival.
208. Based on interviews and investigations, there were over twenty videos made of the
Plaintiff upon Defendant Grenuk and Jarrett’s instructions.
209. In this timeframe, Defendant Jarrett informed the Plaintiff that he “couldn’t win this
fight;” that “he had been sued hundreds of times;” and that he would force the

Plaintiff out of the building before the Plaintiff would cause him to be removed
from his job” after Plaintiff threatened to have Jarrett removed.
210. In meetings with Plaintiff, Defendant Jarrett had expressed racial comments to the
Plaintiff who took such comments as not only racially insensitive and demeaning,
but offensive and discriminatory.
211. Defendant Jarrett also warned the Plaintiff to give up and if he didn’t he would “get
the Plaintiff out of the building in one way or another and he had ways to do it, had
done it before and that he was a really good liar and could lie really good in court.”
212. Defendant Jarrett also contacted the Plaintiff’s trustee and stated that “things were
going to end badly for Plaintiff” if he didn’t give up his efforts to remove the board
members and Jarrett from their duties.
213. In February and March of 2007, Defendants began consulting and conspiring with
their lawyers to develop a plan whereby they would:
a. Harass and intimidate the Plaintiff causing him to move out of the
building; and/or
b. Make the Plaintiff’s Trust sell the Condo; and/or
c. To react to their harassment so that the Defendants could file criminal

and/or stalking charges against the Plaintiff to get him out of the building
so that he could not cause further trouble and aggravation for the
Defendants.
214. This scheme and plan has been confirmed by employees of Jarrett, Grenuk, and
OBL.
215. On July 4, 2007, Edward Jarrett (“Jarrett”) informed Plaintiff in person that if he
didn’t back off that “you and your family will get some of that Texas justice you are
so fond of.”
216. At the time, Jarrett had full and complete knowledge that a wrongful foreclosure
complaint had been filed against the Plaintiff’s Trust as had been down in Texas
which led to Plaintiff becoming a consumer and investor advocate when Plaintiff

discovered that Bear Stearns and others in the mortgage industry were cooking their
books.
217. Bear Stearns and others have spent over $2.5 million attempting to silence the
Plaintiff over what he learned about the frauds for a $100,000 loan his family and he
wished to payoff in cash.
218. At no time did Jarrett or any of the Defendants inform the Plaintiff that a wrongful
foreclosure suit was filed against his Trust, even though the Plaintiff was an
Occupant of the Condo, the Association’s entity member and the Trust’s designated
attorney-in-fact.
219. On July 12, 2007, Plaintiff’s birthday, Plaintiff returned to the Condo after his
birthday celebration with a female friend, Bari Taylor.
220. Ms. Taylor stated to Plaintiff that they could not return to the Condo building since
she was told that Plaintiff and anyone with him would be arrested since he was
banned from the building and had a court order against him. (emphasis added)
221. Such a statement was far from the truth in that there was no such order or legal
circumstance that Plaintiff was aware of.
222. The witness claimed to have heard the statement from a friend of Defendants.
223. Plaintiff immediately contacted his legal colleague and attorney in New York, John
Klotz on the morning of July 12, 2007, and Klotz and Lavalle debriefed Taylor on
the phone about this outrageous belief that Taylor was provided.
224. During the same timeframe, a fellow neighbor at the Condominium who was a close
friend of the Defendants told Plaintiff that the Defendants were angry and upset with
Plaintiff and “looking for any way to get him out of the building including eviction
and foreclosure.”
225. The neighbor, who has asked to remain anonymous due to fear of retaliation by the
Defendants, told Plaintiff this at his pool and said that Defendants were watching
Plaintiff’s “every move” and had asked him and others to keep an eye on Plaintiff
and when he was at the pool and with whom.

226. The neighbor asked that Plaintiff “keep his name out of it and not let anyone know
that he told him what was going on.”
227. Plaintiff has kept the neighbor’s name out of the picture to honor his word since the
Defendants have directed harassment, abuse, and retaliatory acts at other owners
and residents who have come forth to tell the truth and expose their harassment by
the Defendants.
228. Defendants dismissed one long time concierge who would not lie and cover-up for
the Defendant’s bad acts, especially the assaults by Grenuk against the Plaintiff that
he personally witnessed.
WRONGFUL, UNLAWFUL, ILLEGAL & CRIMINAL ACTS OF

DEFENDANTS
229. Plaintiff made known the fraudulent schemes and scams as described above to the
Defendants, as well as noticed them of the harassment by Defendants Jarrett and
Grenuk against him and the other homeowners.
230. Plaintiff also made known to the Defendants, that Defendant Grenuk lacked moral
character and judgment whereby his actions and reactions could be severely clouded
and should be closely monitored.
231. Investigations by the Plaintiff has revealed severe drug and cocaine use by certain
Defendants.
232. While the Plaintiff does not pass any moral judgment on anyone’s personal lifestyle,
he is concerned about how such use could cloud the judgment of Defendants as well
as make them “react in hostile and aggressive ways” to the detriment of not only the
Plaintiff, but other homeowners.
233. Instead of addressing the issues raised by Plaintiff, the Defendants began an
intentional, wanton, malicious and aggressive course of conduct directed towards
Plaintiff, his family, and their Trust to further extort, steal, harass, abuse, defame,
embarrass, ridicule, assault, and even attempt to imprison Lavalle via false and
perjured affidavits and testimony.

234. Defendant Jarrett stated to Plaintiff on more than one occasion that his differences
were minor and that he was litigious and he didn’t understand such behavior and he
didn’t care to address Plaintiff’s complaints and disputes since “it is what it is.”
235. Defendant Grenuk also made similar appeals to the Plaintiff and stated that in the
end the Defendant’s frauds and unlawful acts were simply a “zero-sum game!”
236. Plaintiff would not go along with these appeals and Defendants still refused to
provide the documents needed for Plaintiff too audit the accounts.
237. Defendant Grenuk also admitted to the destruction of vital evidence and stated that
he would put “spoliation of evidence on his resume.”
238. Defendant Jarrett admitted to being a racist and bigot and said to Plaintiff, “what are
you going to do about it, sue me” and “you’re all talk and no action, that’s your
modus operandi.”
239. Plaintiff became more intense in his investigation and more adamant in his desire to
remove Grenuk and Jarrett from his building and began providing continual notices
via e-mails to the Defendants in a hope that they would fulfill their fiduciary duties
and dismiss Jarrett and remove Grenuk from the Board.
240. Instead, Defendants ramped up their plan to get Plaintiff to move or unlawfully evict
Plaintiff from his residence as described below in an effort to silence Plaintiff from
exposing the unlawful, illegal, and even criminal conduct of the Defendants to other
Owners and Residents of OBL.
241. These acts included:
a. Assessing the Plaintiff and his trust thousands of dollars in bogus,

unwarranted, and unlawful fines, fees, and assessments;
b. Increasing Plaintiff’s and his Trust’s water utility bills by over 2000%
from $30 per month to over $600 per month when they began reading
utility meters;
c. Hacking into Plaintiff’s computers and trailing his internet usage;

d. Breaking and entering into Plaintiff’s storage locker and re-keying the
locks to prevent Plaintiff access to his property;
e. Shutting off Plaintiff’s telephone and emergency 911 service;
f. Physically assaulting the Plaintiff on several occasions in and out of the

building;
g. Placing repeated and harassing phone calls to Plaintiff and his family;
h. Placing Plaintiff’s name and phone number on Internet and telephone chat
rooms whereby Defendant Grenuk had elderly and over-weight African-
American women calling Plaintiff at his residence at late hours from
midnight to 4 AM.
i. Spreading defamatory rumors about Plaintiff throughout the building and

his community;
j. Sending collection notices to credit agencies claiming Plaintiff was

indebted to OBL;
k. Threatening wrongful foreclosure of Plaintiff’s Condo;
l. Publishing Plaintiff’s name on a deadbeat list;
m. Having concierges note and video record Plaintiff’s coming, going,

company, and actions in the building;
n. Blocking Plaintiff’s use of elevators and parking garage;
o. Threatening arrest of Plaintiff’s on several occasions;
p. Filing false police reports against the Plaintiff;
q. Banning Plaintiff’s use of common areas without just cause;
r. Kicking Plaintiff’s guests out of the building;
s. Providing Plaintiff’s guests and others in the building physical notices that
Plaintiff was delinquent in his dues when he had no personal responsibility
and there was no delinquency;
t. Preventing guests from access to Plaintiff’s residence;

u. Interfering with Plaintiff’s mail and delivery services;
v. Violating Plaintiff’s due process rights;
w. Unlawfully evicting Plaintiff from his residence; and
x. Filing false and perjured stalking charges against the Plaintiff.
242. Pursuant to a Declaration of Condominium, OBL was obligated to perform several

conditions prior to any assessment, levy, collection, demand, lien, or suit upon any
fines.
243. Defendants were and are charged with carrying out the lawful provisions of the
OBL Declaration of Condominium, OBL Bylaws, and complying with Federal and
state laws, such as the Federal Fair Housing Act, Condo Act of Georgia and the
collection, debt, and criminal laws of the state of Florida in which Defendants
transacted, approved and directed their tortuous conduct.
244. Defendants had a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff and a duty to act in good faith and
deal fairly with Plaintiff and all members and residents of the Condominium.
245. Instead, Defendants targeted Plaintiff and other owners they desired out of the
building or to give up various legal rights they possessed.
246. One such person targeted by Defendants in the summer of 2007, was Piper Harris, a
real estate agent who owed a unit in the building.
247. Ms. Harris owned, and prior boards accepted, agreed, and approved her ownership
of the website domain name titled www.onebuckheadloop.com.
248. Ms. Harris has owed the domain and site for several years, but in 2007, Defendant
Grenuk, desired that Ms. Harris sell the Association the website domain name back
and not to market her properties through the domain name.
249. Defendant Grenuk, stating that he was “acting on his own behalf,” then invoked the
board’s and fellow Defendant’s desire to have the domain name or they were going
to change the name of the building and then embark in a “fight” with Ms. Harris that
she couldn’t win. (Exhibit 19)

250. Defendants then utilized an identical fact pattern to harass and defame Ms. Harris
forcing her to leave the building and tortiously interfering with her business by
claiming she was bribing employees and then seeking negative information about
her home sales from other owners Ms. Harris has sold units to in the building.
251. However, one of the most egregious efforts of harassment and intimidation was
directed to an elderly and disabled woman in the building named Allie Snook.
252. Ms. Snook had caught Defendant Jarrett and the Association’s female assistant
property manager in an uncompromising position in the women’s locker room of the
building.
253. Most recently, after discovery by Defendants that the Plaintiff had tapes and
evidence of the relationship between the married Jarrett and the female assistant
property manager, the female manager was dismissed before the facts of this case
came out for all homeowners and members to see.
254. Ms. Snook who was disabled and had a handicap parking permit, had her
automobile towed on three occasion by Defendants after they removed all the
handicap spots she, and other handicapped occupants and owners such as Plaintiff’s
mother, were lawfully entitled to under the Americans With Disabilities Act.
255. Defendant Jarrett had also called the police to report his fear that Ms. Snook had a
gun in her property and was in fear for his safety.
256. The continued stalking and harassment of Ms. Snook by Defendant Jarrett was so
severe, that she suffered a nervous breakdown requiring hospitalization and has had
to move to Florida, and rent her unit out due to her fear of Defendant Jarrett.
257. In the first week of December of 2007, Ms. Snook provided Plaintiff a copy of a
letter she sent to the board describing Jarrett’s harassment and abuse of her.
258. This angered and agitated the Plaintiff, even more.
259. From May of 2005 to the present date, Plaintiff and his Trust provided hundreds of
notices, demands, legal analyses, disputes, and other communications to the
Defendants advising them of the legal duties and responsibilities as board members
as well as detailing the harassment, frauds, and abuses found.

260. In an effort to silence Plaintiff, Defendants did create and then approve the rule
attached as Exhibit 20 in a resolution which violated the rights of the Plaintiff.
261. The rule sought to restrict and eliminate rights specifically granted under the
Declaration and Bylaws to the Plaintiff under GA law that would violate such rights
without an amendment of the Declaration and Bylaws by the membership as well as
Georgia law that provided specific obligations upon the Plaintiff.
262. The rule, unlawfully created by Defendants, was designed to limit, restrict, and even
eliminate Plaintiff’s constitutional rights to freedom of speech and due process and
his continual protest and notice to them of their unlawful behavior.
263. The rule created prohibited communication by the Plaintiff to the Defendants or
even attendance at open board meetings as was provided for and protected under the
condominium instruments and the Georgia Condo Act.
264. Later, when Plaintiff exerted his rights to attend an open board meeting in his own
residence the Defendants directed, approved, carried out and paid for legal
proceedings that claimed such attendance at an open board meeting with the
Defendants in Plaintiff’s own residence, constituted acts of criminal stalking.
265. Defendants then directed, approved, carried out and paid for legal proceedings
where Defendant’s Grenuk and Jarrett provided, with the support and consent of the
other Defendants, fraudulent and perjurious claims that:
a. Plaintiff stalked Defendants Grenuk and Jarrett outside his residence;
b. Plaintiff did not have the consent of Defendants Grenuk and Jarrett to
contact them;
c. Defendants Grenuk and Jarrett were in fear for their physical safety from
Plaintiff; and
d. Plaintiff’s contact with Grenuk and Jarrett served no legitimate business or

personal purpose;
266. In reality, Defendant’s actions were a subterfuge to gain legal sanction for their
actions to remove and ban Plaintiff from his residence so as not to allow Plaintiff

access to other homeowners he wished to solicit to remove Defendants from their
positions on the OBL board.
267. Despite dozens of requests for two years for a membership roster of the Association,
so a new election could be solicited, Defendants have refused to provide this list to
Plaintiff and other homeowners.
268. Defendants then invoked the nuisance provision that was designed to regulate
actions of owners and occupants in the use of their units and the Condominium.
Such provisions are commonly used to prohibit unlawful enterprises such as
gambling, drugs, prostitution, pet shelters etc. that would cause a nuisance and
disturbance to other owners and residents.
269. No owners or residents have complained to the Defendants about the Plaintiff’s
conduct except for the Defendants themselves.
270. The Defendants intentionally, despite warning, misconstrued and misinterpreted this
rule to assess fines against the Plaintiff to attempt to control Plaintiff’s actions and
exercise of his given rights under the Declaration as well as constitution and laws of
Georgia and the United States.
271. In doing so, the rule contained under Section 15. Subparagraph (f) of the
Declaration was meant to only deal with “Owners and Occupants” not employees,
board members or property managers.
272. The Defendants also claimed that emails and communications to the Defendants that
were sent outside of the Condominium were also included in their fining authority.
273. Defendants had full and complete knowledge that such a fine and the rule was
unlawful and was designed to further harass Plaintiff and defraud and extort money
from him and his Trust in order to get Plaintiff to give up his fight or move away.
274. Demands for such fraudulently and unlawfully assessed fines were sent to Boca
Raton and Naples, Florida
275. After the rule was created, the Defendants accelerated their campaign of harassment,
intimidation, assault, defamation, and abuse against the Plaintiff as retaliation for his

exposure of Defendant’s wrongful, illegal and even criminal acts to other owners
and residents in communications to them from Plaintiff.
276. Defendants designed and carried out plans that unlawfully and wrongfully
disconnected Plaintiff’s Internet and telephone service without lawfully obtaining a
judgment in excess of $750.00 as prescribed by the Declaration, Bylaws, and
Georgia Law.
277. When Plaintiff went to the office to complain, he was assaulted by Defendant’s
employee, Mark Phillips, and his complaint to them was a year later deemed and
sworn by them to be an act of stalking by Defendants.
278. Defendants also admittedly under oath, approved and carried out the breaking and
entering of a storage unit leased in the building by the Plaintiff and re-keyed his
storage unit to prevent his lawful access to his own property.
279. Such an action was previously threatened by the Defendants against the Plaintiff as
an aggressive collection measure and Plaintiff warned Defendants against its use
against him or any other owner or resident.
280. Defendants transmitted verbal and written communications to owners and residents
in the building as well as other members of Plaintiff’s community that Plaintiff was
delinquent in his personal obligations to the association when in fact, he had no
personal obligation and they did not detail the disputes of the Trusts or Plaintiff to
those they communicated such defamatory comments to.
281. Defendants transmitted verbal and written communications to owners and residents
in the building as well as other members of Plaintiff’s community that Plaintiff
suffered from mental illnesses including, but not limited to Pick’s Disease, Bi-Polar,
and Depression, none of which were or are true.
282. Defendants placed a sign over Plaintiff’s assigned parking spot warning him that his
auto would be booted or towed.
283. Defendants interfered with Plaintiff’s mail and delivery services by concealing
delivery of mail and packages.

284. Defendants did disconnect the safety fob key access for the Plaintiff’s entry into and
out of the Condominium and his parking structure placing Plaintiff and his family in
danger.
285. Defendants added over $35,0000 in unlawful fines, assessments, interest, fees,
kickbacks, expenses and utility scams as described herein to keep the Plaintiff’s
Trust’s account in a state of alleged perpetual default so as to extort and extract
further money, fines, and late fees from the Plaintiff and his Trust and to allow the
continued harassment, abuse, and defamation of the Plaintiff.
286. On three occasions, Plaintiff came down to his property office to personally inform
management of the assaults by Grenuk; dispute the disconnection of his phone and
911 service; notice the breaking and entering of his storage unit and complain about
the abuse and harassment of Defendant Grenuk.
287. Defendants have claimed and sued Plaintiff over such acts claming that these very
legitimate acts were criminal acts of stalking and prosecuted the Plaintiff to remove
him from his residence, defame him, and discredit his claims against the
Defendants.
288. Now, they seek a contempt order so as to place Plaintiff in jail for from 1 to 10
years, simply for sending e-mails to the Board detailing their egregious actions;
requesting their removal; and attempting, one last time prior to the filing of this suit,
a peaceful and fair resolution.
289. Instead of heeding such requests, Defendants sent Plaintiff’s confidential letter of
settlement to numerous other non-protected parties in the community.
290. The Defendants have intentionally ignored the Plaintiff’s claims; invoked their
wrongful rule; fined the Trust and not Plaintiff without the requisite notices and
rights to appeal; demanded that such fines be paid or the Condo foreclosed upon;
called the police on Plaintiff; and then months later claimed that such rightful
disputes and meetings before a minimum of three to five men were in fact criminal
stalking acts by Plaintiff that had no legitimate reason and were outside of his
residence.

291. The fines were then extorted under the direction of Defendants from Plaintiff and
his Trust by Defendant’s lawyers, even though they went against the provisions of
Defendant’s lawyers own direction as stated in the proper due process fining
procedures in #2 of Exhibit 21.
292. Defendants conspired to suborn perjured testimony and informed judges and court
officers that one of them resided in the Condominium on the first floor which was a
false statement designed to prevent Plaintiff from exerting his due process rights.
293. Plaintiff Lavalle was forced out of his residence causing over $2.5 million to date in
damages to the Plaintiff, his family business, and his Trust as well as preventing
Plaintiff from conducting his family business; allowing Plaintiff to obtain medical
treatment without additional expense; protecting Plaintiff’s property and preventing
Plaintiff from the quiet use and enjoyment of his residence; and hindering Plaintiff’s
liberty.
294. With respect to the fines wrongfully imposed, the Defendants had and have a
specific duty to send the violator: written notice identifying the violation and fine(s)
being imposed; and advising the violator of the right to request a hearing before the
Board to contest the violation or fine(s) or to request reconsideration of the fine(s).
295. At no time did Defendants send the required notices of either fines or conditions
required in such notices to the purported violator (Plaintiff/Lavalle) or his Trust nor
did the Defendants allow the Plaintiff to contest the fines in any manner whatsoever
according to the Declaration and bylaws.
296. Plaintiff, who was claimed to be the Violator, could not contest such fine, without
imposition of additional fines and even with the imposition of fines, the Defendants
would not even listen to requests or notices from the Plaintiff who was attempting to
reconcile his issues and claims in good faith under the terms provided for in
paragraph 20 of the Declaration which contains the following:
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(a) Dispute Resolution. Prior to filing a lawsuit against the
Association, the Board, or any officer, director, or property
manager of the Association, a Unit Owner or Occupant must
request and attend a hearing with the Board Of Directors. Any

such request shall be made in writing and shall be personally
delivered to any member of the Board of Directors or the
property manager, if any, of the Association (emphasis added).
The Owner or Occupant shall, in such request and at the hearing,
make a good faith effort to explain the grievance to the Board and
resolve the dispute in an amicable fashion, and shall give the Board
a reasonable opportunity to address the Owner’s or Occupant’s
grievance before filing suit. Upon receiving a request for hearing,
the Board shall give notice of the date, time, and place for a
hearing for the person requesting the hearing. The Board shall
schedule this hearing for a date not less than seven (7) nor more
than twenty-one (21) days from the date of receipt of the request.
297. Defendants have refused over sixty attempts (emphasis added) by the Plaintiff to
meet to resolve in good faith his claims and grievances against the Defendants and
OBL according to the provisions of the Condo Instruments and GA law.
298. On the one time that Defendants agreed to meet, but not discuss resolution of
Plaintiff’s claims and grievances, the Defendants claim that the e-mail and letter he
directed to Defendant Mark Allen (Exhibit 22) in a response to an e-mail he
received from Mark Allen (Exhibit 23), was an act of criminal stalking!
299. Plaintiff was required under Georgia law §44-3-76 to comply with such provision of
the Declaration.
300. To demonstrate the malice and the wanton disregard for the law and Plaintiff’s
rights, Defendants began to wrongfully assess fines for Plaintiff’s attempt to comply
and abide by the Declaration and Bylaws and even prosecuted Plaintiff for such
compliance, deeming such contacts to be acts of criminal stalking.
301. Defendants wrongfully assessed fines totaling over $800 for the Plaintiff’s single act
of appearing at a open board meeting where he was threatened with arrest by the
current board president and then treasurer, Defendant Grenuk, if he did not leave.
302. The wrongful fines were to be assessed for each “instance,” but in further support of
the fraudulent actions of the board, the fine was unlawfully assessed on a per person
in the room basis, not instance.

303. Plaintiff was previously allowed to attend Open Board Meetings according to the
OBL bylaws, the Defendants were charged for carrying out.
304. In addition the OBL Board failed to follow provisions from the Declaration for the
imposition of fines prior to their assessment, collection, lien, and suit:
In the event that any Occupant of a Unit violates the Declaration,

Bylaws, or a rule or regulation and a fine is imposed, notice of such
violation shall be sent to the Owner and Occupant, and the fine shall
first be assessed against such Occupant, provided, however if the fine is
not paid by the Occupant within the time period set by the Board, the
Unit Owner shall pay the fine upon notice of the Association, and the
fine shall be an assessment and a lien against the Unit until paid.
305. Neither the Owner (Plaintiff’s Trust) nor the Occupant (Plaintiff) were ever sent the
requisite notices of violations nor provided a notice of a right to a hearing or the
date such fines would be specifically assessed by the Defendants.
306. Such due process is also mandated by GA law and clearly known to Defendant’s law
firm who authored Exhibit 21 dealing with the due process rights of COA members.
307. The notices of fines not only did not contain the requisite notices required by law,
but were never sent or even copied to Plaintiff who was deemed to be the alleged
violator.
308. Upon extortionate demands and threat of foreclosure for payment by Defendants,
the Plaintiff’s Trust did send thousands of dollars in payments to be attributed
ONLY to monthly COA fees and assessments whereby against the stated written
direction of the trustees, the Defendants credited such payments towards the
imposition and collection of unlawful fines and fraudulent utility bills.
309. The thousands extorted by the Defendants were intended to be paid to the Plaintiff
for use in his everyday support, business, and personal finances.
310. Defendants personally benefited and gained by the unlawful imposition of fines and
fraudulent utility billings.

311. Defendants allowed the property manager to levy some of the fines without a
finding by the Board and again imposed a fine for each person in the room, rather
than each “instance” as the resolution wrongfully imposed.
312. As a result, instead of assessing a fine in the amount of $200 for an alleged violation
of a wrongful rule by Plaintiff, Defendants imposed a fine of $800.00 for Plaintiff’s
five-minute appearance at an open board meeting that he was legally entitled to
attend by law.
313. After learning of the fines automatic imposition on his account statements, the
Plaintiff sent the Defendants notice of the rules they must follow before the
imposition of fines.
314. He also stated that their actions could be deemed to not only be a willful violation of
the rules, but may subject them to civil and even criminal liability if such fines were
demanded or sued upon without following the proper procedures outlined in the
Declaration.
315. The Defendants again claimed that such notices were acts of stalking and threats of
physical violence, not lawsuits in perjurious affidavits and testimony against the
Plaintiff.
316. The Trust paid the amounts extorted and they have not been credited back, nor the
money returned to the Trust and form one basis upon which the Plaintiff comes
forward to this Court since the fees, charges, and money extorted from the Trust,
were to be paid to the Plaintiff from the Trust for living, medical, dental, and other
expenses in conformance with the Trust’s provisions for distribution.
317. To date, without any accountings for the periods of July 1, 2002 through May 1,
2004 the following fines shown on the schedule below have been wrongfully
assessed, levied, demanded, collected, extorted and/or suit filed upon by Defendants
through May 30, 2007:
SCHEDULE OF WRONGFUL FINES AGAINST OCCUPANT
DATE FINE BATCH AMOUNT

3/6/07 Occupant Fine 2407 $300.00

3/8/07 Occupant Fine 2422 $400.00
3/15/07 Occupant Fine 2472 $800.00
3/28/07 Occupant Fine 2564 $300.00
4/29/07 Occupant Fine 2774 $300.00
5/30/07 Occupant Fine 2990 $300.00
TOTAL: $2400.00
318. In addition to the wrongful fines imposed upon the Plaintiff, the Defendants
wrongfully demanded that Owners of units in the Condominium purchase new
water heaters at a cost from $500 to over $2400.
319. Despite the fact that the Plaintiff requested the installation and that funds and credits
owed the Trust be used for such installation, Defendants did not allow payment for
and installation of the wrongfully required water heater.
320. The water heater’s cost was from $500 to over $2400 and exceeded the $300.00 12-
month limitation as described below.
321. The imposition of “automatic fines” without the required notices and appeals
process described above and the willful violation of the provisions of the
Declaration constitute numerous breaches of the Declaration as well as further
fraudulent and wrongful acts by Defendants of which they were provided notice of
by the Plaintiff.
322. The May 17, 2006 Meeting Minutes of Defendants reflect the following entry on
page three with reference to the heading of “Insurance:”
Insurance – Ed meeting with insurance company on Monday to discuss

requiring homeowners to replace their hot water heaters (most units still
have original hot water heaters, which are nearing end of life). Potential
savings in insurance premiums. (emphasis added)
323. The Declaration of Condominium that governs the relationship between the
Plaintiff, his Trust and the Defendant states on page 31 under 18. (d) (i) and (ii) the
following language:
(d) Measures Related to Insurance Coverage
(i) The Board of Directors, upon resolution, shall have the authority to
require all or any Unit Owner(s) to do any act or perform any work
involving portions of the Condominium which are the maintenance

responsibility of the Unit Owner, which will, in the Board’s sole
discretion, decrease the possibility of fire or other damage in the
Condominium, reduce the insurance premium paid by the Association
for any insurance coverage or otherwise assist the Board in procuring
*r maintaining such insurance coverage. This authority shall include,
but not be limited to, requiring the Owners to install smoke detectors,
requiring Owners to make improvements to the Owner’s Unit, and
such other measures as the Board may reasonably require so long as
the cost of such work does not exceed three hundred ($300.00) dollars
per Unit in any twelve (12) month period.
324. Under the GA Condo Act, Defendants are obligated to follow the provisions of the
condominium instruments that govern their role and duties.
325. Defendants, despite proper notices from the Plaintiff, deemed such notices to be acts
of criminal stalking and continued to implement fines for the wrongful demands of
new water heaters.
326. Most recently, the Defendants notified Plaintiff and his Trust that they would level
$300 per month wrongful fines which amount to over $3600 a year for a $500 water
heater that Defendants wrongfully demanded be installed.
327. Again, the notices of fines to all owners and residents, does not specify a particular
rule or regulation violation and Defendants are without any knowledge whether the
Plaintiff has installed a water heater or not.
328. The Plaintiff, nor his Trust, received any notice of fine or the date such fine would
be assessed nor their right to contest such fine.
329. The water heater resolution the Defendants passed willfully violates the Declaration
and GA Law.
330. Furthermore, the imposition of unreasonable and grossly unfair fines and demands
for such fines violate the second paragraph of the Declaration governing the
demands of Defendants for new water heaters. Paragraph 18. (d) (ii) reads:
In addition to, and not in limitation of, any other rights the Association may
have, if any Unit Owner does not comply with the requirement made by the
board of directors pursuant to subparagraph (d) (i) above, the Association,

upon fifteen (15) days written notice (during which period the Unit Owner
may perform the required act or work without further liability), may perform
such required act or work at the Unit Owner’s sole cost. Such cost shall be an
assessment and a lien against the Unit as provided herein. The Association
shall have all the right necessary to implement the requirements mandated by
the Board pursuant to subparagraph (d) (i) of this Paragraph, including, but
not limited to, a right of entry during reasonable hours and after reasonable
notice to the Owner or Occupant of the Unit, except that access may be had at
any time without notice in an emergency situation.
331. In attempting to impose the fines, Defendants violated the Declaration and the GA
Condo Act in that they had no authority to make Owners install a water heater in
excess of a cost of $300.00.
332. The mailing of statements to Florida demanding the payment of such fraudulent
charges, once again, invokes this Court’s jurisdiction as well as is additional
evidence of mail and wire fraud and subject to adjudication under FLA 772.00.
333. In the alternative, if the demand for new water heaters was less than $300.00, and
the Trust or Plaintiff did not install the water heater in the unit as required, then
Defendants would be allowed to install one and then assess the cost to the Trust
which would then become a lien on the subject Condo.
334. Unreasonable fines totaling ten times the amount of the cost of such water heaters
constitute willful violations of the Declaration as well as frauds upon the Plaintiff
and his Trust in the conduct of both inter and intrastate commerce using the mails
and wires of the United States.
335. There was no right to fines and Defendants did not comply with the conditions
precedent listed above and below in relationship to proper notices and hearings
regarding fines and thus are prevented from assessing, levying, collecting,
demanding, or filing suit for the fines listed in the schedules above and below:
SCHEDULE OF WRONGFUL WATER HEATER FINES

DATE DESCRIPTION BATCH AMOUNT
4/20/2007 Water Heater Fine 2718 $100.00

336. Defendants created, directed, approved, and carried out the above scheme and have
participated in wrongdoing, unlawful behavior, and illegal acts as described above
and herein, including extortion.
337. The goal of Defendants is to show books of accounts to prospective purchasers that
the financial condition of the association is stronger than it actually is. Such
financial reports that are sent to homeowners and prospective homeowners and are
yet an additional fraudulent act using the United States mails and wires to transmit.
338. Such reports by the Defendants sent to the Plaintiff and his Trust in Florida
constitute violations of FLA 772.00 et seq.
339. Furthermore, Defendants have been unable to properly account and reconcile their
accounts for and demands from Plaintiffs and their Trust for almost two years and
the records supplied continue to cause intentional deception and confusion.
FACTS PERTAINING TO ABUSE OF PROCESS, ABUSIVE LITIGATION,

RETALIATION, HARASSMENT, UNLAWFUL & WRONGFUL
FORECLOSURE & STALKING CHARGES
Wrongful Foreclosure
340. In response to Plaintiff’s disputes, complaints, investigations and his discovery of

frauds, wrongful, unlawful, unethical, illegal, and even criminal acts, Defendants
engaged in a civil conspiracy with each other to further extort, harass, defame,
defraud, and abuse the Plaintiff.
341. One such act was to attempt an unlawful and wrongful foreclosure of the Condo that
is owned by the Plaintiff’s Trust.

342. The Condo is valued at between $650,000 and $750,000 with no mortgage and is
owned by the Trust for the benefit of Plaintiff and Defendants had full and complete
knowledge of the substantial equity and value to the Trust of the Condo.
343. There was never any dispute, attempt by, or reluctance of the Trust and its trustees to
pay all rightfully owed monthly COA fees and lawfully assessed special
assessments.
344. The Plaintiff and Trust simply would not accept and approve outrageous and
extortionate requests and demands for payment, including, but not limited to:
a. $100 “metered” water bills when no one was in the residence;
b. $30 to $60 “metered” water bills going up to over $600 per month;
c. $800 fines for attending an open board of directors meeting;
d. Late fees when Defendants were admittedly requesting thousands more

than what was owed the Association;
e. Payment of $5000 to $13,000 more than what invoices, records, and

ledgers from Defendants stated.
345. After the discovery by the trustees and the Plaintiff of the various utility frauds,
schemes, and scams as described herein, the Trust’s trustees had questions and
requested further information, data, documents, and evidence from Defendants to
determine the Trust’s rightful and legal obligation.
346. The Trust and Plaintiff attempted to pay their rightful obligation, but the Defendants
and their lawyers:
a. Refused to accept such payments and rejected them;
b. Demand payment of every penny, including unlawful amounts due;
c. Would not meet to negotiate in good faith resolutions.
347. Defendants could not and continued to refuse to account for thousands of dollars of
payments by the Trust that exceeded over $15,000.00.

348. Most recently, Defendants, over two years after Plaintiff’s initial complaints, finally
conducted an audit of the account that actually proves each of the Plaintiff’s
contentions for years and that funds were wrongfully extorted, charged to and
assessed against the Plaintiff and his Trust.
349. To date, after almost two years of disputes and requests for proper accounting data
to audit the Condo’s account, Defendants cannot still provide proper accounting
ledgers and information that shows the total payments the Plaintiff’s Trust has made
and the credits they are entitled to.
350. Defendants still refuse to provide any meter readings, calculations, bills, statements,
and invoices related to utility usage and billings for the period of
351. Defendants use Defendant Mark Allen’s prior bills and records and their own
accounting expert finds hundreds of dollars in over-billing in just one particular
month.
352. Yet now, two years after Plaintiff’s original disputes, Defendants openly state that
there was never any metered utility service and provide an admission against
interest that Defendants carried out and concealed the very mail and wire fraud
scheme the Plaintiff had discovered.
353. The Trust and its trustees had and have a fiduciary duty to the beneficiaries that
include the Plaintiff.
354. The trustees have a duty to insure that Trust assets are protected and are not wasted,
misused, stolen, or misappropriated.
355. The Trust and trustee authorized Plaintiff to conduct an investigation of the actions,
acts, and an accounting audit of the Trust’s account via a power of attorney attached
as Exhibit 24.
356. Despite rights granted to the Plaintiff under GA law in the declaration of
condominium and bylaws, the individual Defendants refused to adhere to their
fiduciary duties and deal in good faith with the Plaintiff to resolve disputes
according to GA law.

357. During an audit, Plaintiff, using forensic auditing and investigative techniques
uncovered numerous frauds, misrepresentations, misapplications, kickbacks, and
other deceptive acts that he brought to Defendant’s attention.
358. In response to Plaintiff’s auditing and investigative results, reports, and accountings,
Defendants engaged and carried out an aggressive, deceptive, fraudulent, and
abusive “foreclosure factory” legal scheme that has been perfected in the subprime
mortgage industry.
359. Defendant Grenuk claims to the Plaintiff’s trustee that no such evidence was ever
provided, despite hundreds of e-mails and communications to the contrary.
360. These COA/HOA abuse schemes are employed by Defendant’s foreclosure mill law
firms and lawyers Lazega and Johanson.
361. This cottage industry has now expanded into the Condominium community where
such lawyers and law firms, using the tactics first employed by predatory mortgage
servicers such as Ocwen, Fairbanks, EMC, and Litton, are now using the bylaws
and Declarations of Condominiums to wrongfully assess and collect fees from
homeowners.
362. They threaten foreclosure and even foreclose on their property under a pay as we
collect scheme with full and complete knowledge of the bad acts and frauds of their
clients.
363. Often, their own schemes, frauds, and unlawful acts are being concealed and
covered up in this “the client is right at any cost, even though we know the
representations are wrong and fraudulent.”
364. Such schemes have reached such a plateau that the Florida legislature is now
drafting new legislation to prevent such homeowner abuses by runaway boards,
management companies, and the foreclosure mill law firms.
365. Most recently, during the subprime crisis, these “foreclosure factory” schemes and
frauds, that Plaintiff Lavalle unearthed in the nineties have received vast and
nationwide attention by both state and Federal judges; state and Federal regulatory

agencies; and local and national media, including recent segments on ABC’s
Nightline and the Wall St. Journal with a number of Plaintiff’s colleagues.
366. Most recently, Pulitzer award winning business journalist for the New York Times,
Gretchen Morgenstern, wrote Exhibits 25 and 26 that describes similar and identical
unlawful acts and actions of Defendants and their lawyers in foreclosure mill
actions.
367. One such scheme is for Defendants and their foreclosure factory lawyers, such as
Lezaga and Johanson, to use board actions and accounting schemes to add
additional fees, charges, assessments, fines and other fraudulent accounting
manipulations to manufacture defaults, disputes, and foreclosures on a “fixed fee”
basis with guarantees that fees are only paid when obtained from the homeowners
under threats of foreclosure or litigation that results in collecting such fees.
368. These firms also rely on indemnification agreements and the use of third arty
insurers to claim mistakes and negligence to hedge their “bets” of knowingly taking
such unlawful and aggressive actions that they are fully aware violated state and
Federal statutes.
369. In the instant case, the Federal law used to protect borrowers and debtors, the
Federal Debt Collections Practices Act, can only be used by natural persons and
entities, such as the Defendant’s Trust, cannot sue under the act for the very abuses a
natural person could sue under.
370. Defendants were fully aware of this fact when they authorized and carried out the
unlawful billing and utility schemes to defraud Plaintiff and his Trust.
371. Such schemes are receiving the national attention of press and abused homeowners
and have even led to congressional investigations by Congressman Conyers and
Senator Leahy as can be judicially noticed at:
a. http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news/sub/article/action/ShowMed
ia/id/3484

372. This widespread abuse is reaching epidemic proportions and is a matter of important
public policy that needs to be immediately addressed and remedied by the courts
before further injury in caused to the citizens of this state and nation.
373. States across the nation are now addressing HOA and COA abuses in new
legislation that can be judicially noticed at:
a. http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/govt
374. In California, lawyers have even begun an investigation

(http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/news/sub/pressrel/action/ShowMedia/id/4
118 ) of the identical claims made in this lawsuit under their State’s RICO Act for:
a. Extortionate debt collection letters;
b. Bills for excessive fees not due;
c. Wrongful foreclosure notices;
d. Wrongful liens;
e. Threats of lawsuits; and
f. Retaliatory actions for disclosing such information. (emphasis added)
375. These racketeering acts have led to the creation of several national resource centers
and websites to assist homeowners and victims that have been abused and targeted
by abusive law firms and COAs, such as the Defendants and such sites can be
judicially noticed at:
a. http://www.ahrc.com/new/index.php/src/home
b. http://www.abusivehoa.blogspot.com/
c. http://www.texashoareform.org/
376. Such abuses are national in scope and carefully planned-out by foreclosure-factory
law firms such as Defendant’s firm Lazega and Johanson whose prior law firm,
Weissman, Nowack Curry & Wilco actively lobbied the Georgia legislature to
change the laws for condo regulations to allow them to profit from carrying out such
schemes and frauds by being paid first.

377. Defendant’s lawyers, Lazega and Johanson, have personally profited by such laws
by establishing their own firm and soliciting the clients of their prior law firm by
offering them more aggressive collection techniques as the ones they created to
harass, abuse, and intimidate the Plaintiff.
378. Even when foreclosure factory lawyers and law firms like Lezaga, and Johanson
have full knowledge of their client’s wrongdoing, they assist their clients, such as
Defendants, in developing schemes, frauds, and abuses to cover-up and conceal the
unlawful, illegal, and even criminal behavior.
379. They also coach such association directors and property managers, free of cost, in
the various schemes, as described herein, to make it difficult for homeowners to
litigate and resolve their disputes.
380. They direct aggressive and abusive legal action toward homeowners and residents in
order to not only retaliate, but to make an example of those who question authority
or do not follow their outrageous and unlawful demands.
381. Plaintiff has obtained evidence that shows lawyers from the Defendant’s own former
law firm, thought Defendants to be out of control.
382. These firms, which handle thousands of collection activities and foreclosures have
built factory like legal production systems whereby paralegals, which lack
supervision of supervising lawyers, create unlawful demands and aggressively
initiate lawsuits that are costly for homeowners to defend and fight and inexpensive
for the COA associations and their law firms to carry-out based on the
“partnerships” created.
383. In each instance, the law firms bill relatively small fees and often let bills go unpaid
for years until the law firm is actually paid out of the extortionate demands.
384. Plaintiff’s investigation shows that such was the case in the claims detailed herein.
385. Such a system provides the law firm incentive not to settle claims, but to abuse and
misuse the process to inure to their own benefit by profiting from fees and expenses
that should have never been billed or assessed and legal actions never taken if
disputes were resolved in good faith.

386. Lezaga, and Johanson, also added additional fees via services they charge to OBL
,COAs and homeowners that use firms, vendors, and services that they own, have
agency relationships with, or obtain commissions and/or kickbacks from.
387. Defendants and their lawyers, Lezaga, and Johanson, were fully aware of Plaintiff
Lavalle’s efforts as a consumer and investor advocate who has exposed and caused
hundreds of billions in losses, liability, exposure, write-downs, and lawsuits for
clients and vendors of Lezaga, and Johanson and their prior law firm WNCW.
388. Plaintiff’s Trust and Plaintiff were disputing thousands of dollars in unlawful,
unauthorized, fraudulent, and abusive fines, charges, kickbacks, fees, assessments,
and other demands by Defendants.
389. In the instant case, despite Defendants knowing that all rightful amounts for COA
fees and assessments had been made and despite knowing that they had collected
thousands in unlawful fines and fraudulent utility fees from the Plaintiff and his
Trust, the Defendants commenced a wrongful foreclosure action on or about May
15, 2007.
390. The motive of Defendants were intended to:
a. Conceal their bad, unlawful, illegal, and even criminal acts;
b. Further harass an abuse the Plaintiff and his family;
c. Make Plaintiff capitulate;
d. Attack Plaintiff prior to him filing suit;
e. Deter Plaintiff from filing suit;
f. Attempt to secure jurisdiction in a favorable venue;
g. Harass Plaintiff into moving;
h. Prevent Plaintiff from his constitutional due process and free speech
rights.

391. The amount claimed owed in the foreclosure complaint were for the unlawful and
wrongfully assessed fees, fines, charges, and expenses that the Trust was disputing
and did not owe.
392. The amount claimed in their foreclosure complaint was $7,349.37 as of May 8, 2007
as evidenced in Exhibit 25.
393. Yet, the accounting records provided Plaintiff by Defendants and their records as of
the date of filing, May 15, 2007, showed that $4,580.98 was claimed to be owed as
shown by Exhibit 26 and Exhibit 27.
394. Included in the amounts sued upon were the fraudulent utility bills that are
described herein that were not the legal obligation of the Plaintiff or Trust plus
amounts for water bills that exceed $600 per month for a 1500 sq. foot condo whose
water bills were about $15 to $60 prior to Defendants reading the Association’s
meters. (emphasis added)
395. When Plaintiff learned of this billing in December of 2007 prior to his departure for
Florida, he instant messaged Defendant Grenuk on 12/17/07 (Exhibit 28 ) asking for
an explanation of such an outrageous claim whereupon a communication between
Defendant Grenuk and Plaintiff ensued as follows:
a. Plaintiff: “I didn't get any answers to my questions! Do I have to wait until

your depo and will you testify truthfully or lie and perjure yourself?”
b. Plaintiff: “Still waiting on all the accounting records and please tell me
how we're pciking (sic)up 4% of the building 's utilities at almost $800 a
month? Come on Mr. Pres, how about some answers? Why are you all
spending almost $100K on legal fees and why the lawsuit with AMS?”
c. JGrenuk: “Take your index finger, wiggle it on the thermostat lever, and
that should take care of your utility bill problem.”
d. Plaintiff: “hmm its water moron;” “700 a month for WATER?”
396. Further comments from Grenuk in Exhibit 28 included:

a. “I am under no obligation to discuss anything with you, and again, your
bizarre behavior has made it impossible to deal with you as a normal
person. Sorry. The residents voted 160 to 1 for us. We have done nothing
wrong, and folks are very pleased with everything going on at the building
with the exception of you.”
b. “Every voter that vote cast a vote for me. Think that's close?”
c. “OK, i have to run along now. We'll be in comunication (sic) with the
owner of the unit if necessary. Please pay your county and city taxes. You
have yourself a great day.”
397. It must be noted, that Plaintiff’s home in Boca with a swimming pool, sprinkler
system, 2 ½ baths, daily washing, cooking, and three occupants, barely reaches
$100.00 per month.
398. It must also be noted that Grenuk stated that “I am under no obligation to discuss
anything with you” despite the following facts:
a. Plaintiff was the entity member designated under GA law and the condo
instruments as the person do deal with such association business;
b. The extortionate utility bill was still in Plaintiff’s name, despite years of
disputes and complaints;
c. The Plaintiff had a power of attorney supplied to Grenuk and Defendants

and the trustee noticed Grenuk to deal with Plaintiff;
d. Grenuk had solicited the proxy and vote of Plaintiff in prior years and just
weeks before.
399. However, to illustrate the wanton malice and vexatious nature of the Defendants and
Grenuk’s acts and litigation, the very next day on the 18th of December upon the
departure for Florida of the Plaintiff, Defendant Grenuk claimed that this and other
e-mails and IMs from Plaintiff were criminal acts of stalking and sought an ex-parte
TRO against the Plaintiff stating that Grenuk was fearful for his safety; Plaintiff had
no right or consent to contact him; the contact was not for any legitimate purpose or

business reason; the contact was outside of Plaintiff’s residence; and the
communications was threatening.
400. Yet, nowhere in the IM communication of December 17, 2007 does Grenuk even
reference not to contact him; stop contacting him; shows or demonstrates any fear of
safety, harassment or intimidation; or that the contact, over a $700 a month water
bill in Plaintiff’s name, shows that Plaintiff has no legitimate motive to contact him.
401. The foreclosure complaint filed by Defendants against the Trust was on May 15,
2007. Thereafter an amended complaint was filed on July 2, 2007.
402. The amended complaint was the ultimate act of intentional harassment and abuse
against the Plaintiff and his elderly and infirmed family, the Pews, who he looks
after as their only child.
403. There was only one amendment in the amended complaint, which was the address
where such complaint could be served.
404. Despite over fifty warnings not to contact the Plaintiff’s family, due to the fact they
had no legal responsibility for any demand by the Defendants and the fact that they
were elderly and suffering from various mental and physical illnesses, Defendants
amended the complaint to serve the Plaintiff’s family at their home address in Boca
Raton, Florida instead of the trustee for the Trust.
405. The complaint was filed May 15, 2007 and signed by Defendant’s lawyer Johanson
with the approval and direction of the Defendants against the expressed warnings of
the Plaintiff.
406. Yet, the complaint filed on May 15, 2007 and then amended in July of 2007 was not
served upon the Plaintiff’s Trust until December 3, 2007, over seven months after its
original filing and only after learning that Plaintiff intended to file this lawsuit.
407. Despite the fact that Plaintiff was in known possession of the Condo, the Defendants
schemed to not include him as a Defendant in the wrongful foreclosure action filed
against the Trust, but instead used the fraudulent stalking claims and allegations to
have the Plaintiff evicted and barred from his property.

408. The complaint filed was only against the Trust and did not name the Plaintiff,
despite placing his and his family’s address in their amended complaint.
409. However, the Trust had paid in full to OBL all of the extorted amounts complained
of and demanded by the Defendants and Defendants had full and complete
knowledge of this fact.
410. Defendants have failed to document and account for all payments made by the
Plaintiff’s Trust.
411. According to the records of the Merrill Lynch Trust Company, the following
payments have been made to Defendants and cover all sums due for the payment of
all lawful monthly COA fees and special assessments due.
SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS MADE ON ANNUAL BASIS
Year Total Amount Paid

2003 $5,453.15
2004 $7,619,68
2005 $9,864.08
2006 $15,700.34
2007 $16,059.08
Total Payments: $54,696.33
412. The following table, based upon the latest transaction history from Defendant’s
communication from the current President Grenuk shows the maximum amount that
is lawfully owed and due to the OBL for Monthly COA fees and lawfully assessed
special assessments since ownership of the subject property.
Monthly COA Fees 3/03 to 22 Payments @ $10,348.80

12/04 $470.40
Monthly COA Fees 1/05 to 36 Payments @ $20,520.00
12/07 $570.00
Special Assessment $9,345.20 $9,345.20
TOTAL $40,214.00

413. The disparity in figures and disputes between the parties related to Plaintiff’s Trust’s
account with OBL now exceeds over $20,000.00 that Defendants have extorted or
attempted to extort from Plaintiff’s Trust and attempted to extort directly from the
Plaintiff himself.
414. The Defendant’s lawsuit against his Trust was filed in May of 2007 with a
verification by OBL that $7,349,37 was owed as of May 8, 2007, a number that is
impeached by OBL’s own accounting ledger and Transaction History, provided to
Plaintiff on or about December 27, 2007.
415. On the date of the filing of their lawsuit, $4,580.98 was claimed to be owed by the
Trust, a difference of $2,768.39 which accounts for almost five complete months of
future monthly COA fees and the amounts of the unlawful and illegal utility bills
that were attempted to be extorted by the Defendants from the Plaintiffs for the past
four years!
416. The complaint was served upon the Trust on December 3, 2007 almost seven
months after filing and after receipt of over $9000.00 in additional payments.
417. An additional payment of $3,636.44 was made on or about December 27, 2007 after
a demand letter from Defendants (Exhibit 29) dated December 3, 2007 claimed that
$3,636.44 was owed and that a foreclosure action, which had already been taken
months earlier and served on the same date, (emphasis added) would be taken if the
amount was not paid.
418. The demand letter was also copied to Plaintiff and sent to Florida.
419. On December 15, 2007, Plaintiff confronted Defendant’s property manager, Edward
Jarrett, at a public party of 5,000 people surrounded by police officers and Marines
after Jarrett publicly mocked him at the party by pointing and laughing at Plaintiff.
420. Plaintiff went up to Defendant Jarrett and said “he who laughs first, laughs last” and
then informed Defendant Jarrett that he would do everything in his power to rid the
building of a racist and bigot like Jarrett and that he would do all in his power to
insure that Jarrett would never work for any other property again where he could
abuse people, especially disabled and older women.”

421. Jarrett then got within inches of Plaintiff’s face and began belittling, threatening,
and antagonizing Plaintiff until Plaintiff left.
422. Defendant Jarrett, on the same date as Grenuk, made false claims that Plaintiff
physically threatened Jarrett’s wife when no such threat ever occurred and took out
an ex-parte stalking order against Plaintiff.
423. Despite dozens of police officers, security and Marines, Defendant Jarrett nor his
wife talked to nor made any report to police or security of such an egregious
allegation since no such threat ever occurred.
424. Yet, while in the company of from three to five additional younger and bigger men
that Plaintiff, who suffers from a physical disability to his right shoulder,
Defendant’s Jarrett and Grenuk made at least three police reports to Police against
the Plaintiff in his own residence after Plaintiff came into the property office or
board room to confront Defendants about their abuse and harassment.
425. Defendants all claimed that such acts, constituted criminal stalking acts by the
Plaintiff.
426. Defendant Jarrett then filed, along with Defendant Grenuk, that these individual
events along with an e-mail sent immediately to Jarrett after their confrontation
were stalking acts against Jarrett and Grenuk.
427. In an ex parte hearing, they claimed that they were in immediate fear for their safety,
despite the fact that both Defendants knew that Plaintiff was in Florida for the
winter.
428. Such actions made good on the “veiled, implied, and direct threats” by Defendant
Jarrett and the Defendants in March and April of 2007, July 4, 2007, and that
neighbors and friends had warned the Plaintiff against.
429. Even after filing a foreclosure complaint and the amounts of payments paid in
dispute upon the threats of Defendants, the amounts paid by the Trust exceeds
$14,000.00 and is far in excess of the amounts complained of in Defendant’s
complaint.

430. The foreclosure complaint authorized and filed by Defendants was filed with malice
and for the sole purpose and intent of harassing and abusing the Plaintiff by the
Defendants and to make him move out.
431. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (“MERS”), the mortgage holder of Unit
#1907 of OBL, was indebted to the Defendant for over $13,000.00 with a mortgage
lien of an unknown value placed on the unit and Defendants did not file any
foreclosure action against MERS despite the Plaintiff offering the Defendants to
have his counsel handle such a foreclosure at no cost to Defendant.
432. In a court hearing on January 4, 2008, Defendant’s Grenuk and Jarrett provided
perjurious testimony that Plaintiff criminally stalked them via e-mails and personal
confrontations that:
a. Occurred outside the Resident of Plaintiff when all acts took place in the
Condominium and neither Jarrett or Grenuk resided in the Condominium;
b. Despite the legal rights afforded to Plaintiff and the direction by the
Defendants to contact them, Plaintiff’s contact were without their consent;
c. Despite the numerous legal disputes; contracts and agreements with each
other; bills in Plaintiff’s name; collection and demand letters to Plaintiff
from Defendants; phone calls and e-mails to Plaintiff asking for money;
and other contacts, that the responses and communication from Plaintiff
in return to such actions had no legitimate business, legal, or personal
purpose; and
d. Defendants were in fear for their personal safety since Plaintiff had
threatened to sue them and do what it took to place them in jail.
433. Due to the perjurious testimony by Defendants Jarrett and Grenuk, under the
direction of the other Defendants, a restraining order was issued against Plaintiff
barring him from 200 yards of his own property.
434. The order is now subject to several appeals on constitutional and fraud upon the
court grounds and is expected to be overturned by supervising and Federal courts.

435. Most recently, the Defendants, without any further contact with Grenuk or Jarrett as
ordered by the state court pro hac vice magistrate in Georgia, have sought contempt
charges against the Plaintiff seeking to have him criminally prosecuted for a jail
sentence of from one to ten years, simply for communicating to other board
members, as is his right under GA law, the declaration, the power of attorney and
the state and Federal constitutions for informing them of this lawsuit, and still
seeking a reasonable settlement by having the board dismiss Defendants Jarrett and
Grenuk due to not only the harassment of Plaintiff, but other owners and the
Plaintiff’s family.
436. New evidence has come forward that conclusively proves beyond any doubt, that
the Defendants engaged in a conspiracy to concoct the stalking claims to remove the
Plaintiff from his own property in order to keep him from causing additional trouble
and uncovering additional victims of the harassment and abuse of the Defendants
for a class action lawsuit.
437. The Plaintiff’s trust answered the wrongful foreclosure action with a detailed answer
and countersuit on January 2, 2008.
438. On or about January 16, 2008 after obtaining the restraining order against the
Plaintiff, the Defendants non-suited and dropped their wrongful foreclosure action
against the Plaintiff’s Trust, since their intention was to instigate and provoke a
reaction against the Defendants that they could use to wrongfully remove him from
his property, which was the objective of the Defendants.
439. Defendants never noticed of notified the Plaintiff, his trustee or their lawyers of
such non-suit and dismissal nor sent them any order to that effect.
440. Most recently, Plaintiff has been working with other aggrieved, elderly, and disabled
fellow owners and occupants to bring forth claims against the Defendant for
violations of Federal statutes including the Americans With Disabilities Act and the
Fair Housing Act.
441. Plaintiff’s investigation has discovered the following:

a. Defendant’s harassment of elderly and disabled owners and occupants in
order to make them move out;
b. Defendant’s treatment and lack of proper service to African-Americans;
c. Preventing and discouraging entrance into the building of African-

Americans, Hispanics, Asians and the elderly who come to the building
seeking to look at purchase and enter the building;
d. OBL’s contemplated purchase of a $1 million penthouse to turn into a

sales center operated by Defendant Jarrett in order to “screen” potential
owners and renters and screen out members of target minorities;
e. Defendant’s plans to have Defendant Jarrett, who has openly expressed

and admitted to having racist and prejudiced views, be the exclusive sales
and leasing agent for the Condominium;
f. Defendants telling real estate agents that they must introduce prospective
purchasers and lessors to Defendant Jarrett for screening and approval;
g. Defendants removing all handicap parking spots from the Condominium.
442. Most recently the Defendants, despite the warnings of the Plaintiff who is of 100%
Latin ancestry as to the liability imposed by their blatant discriminatory actions,
have addressed and taken measures described above and herein to promulgate acts
against targeted, racial, ethnic, elderly, and disabled groups.
COUNT ONE: RACKETEERING ACTS IN VIOLATION OF FLA 772.00
443. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each allegation contained in paragraphs “1 to 442” as
though the same were hereinafter more fully set forth.
444. Defendants attempted to commit; conspired to commit and solicited and coerced
other persons to commit violations of FLA Chapters 815, 817, 836.05 and U.S. 18
U.S.C. s. 1961(1) (A), (B), (C), or (D).
445. The Defendants operated the "Enterprise" via their individual direction of the
Association in concert with other partnerships, corporations, and groups of

individuals and entities through a pattern of criminal activity engaging in at least
two incidents of criminal activity and violations of FLA. Chapters 815, 817, and
836.05, that had the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims, and
methods of commission and are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are
not isolated incidents that continue to this date in time have all occurred within the
past five (5) years.
446. The acts complained of, while directed against the Plaintiff and his Trust from their
relationship with the Defendants, were also committed against dozens, if not
hundreds of additional members of the Association, owners, and residents of the
Condominium.
447. The Defendants, with criminal intent, received the proceeds and directed, through a
pattern of criminal activity, the investment of such proceeds into the investment of
the enterprise, its books, personal payments and kickbacks and other means of
financial gain.
448. The Defendants personally gained by such kickbacks, payments, and investments.
The Fraudulent Utility Billing Scheme & Enterprise
449. On or before May 10, 2003, OBL began engineering a fraudulent accounting
scheme designed to generate additional cash, payments, and cash flow that it was
not entitled to.
450. Defendants were fully aware of such schemes and have attempted to conceal such
schemes after they became members of the Board of OBL.
451. Prior to May 10, 2004, OBL sent duplicate and/or multiple bills for the same COA
fees causing MLTC to automatically pay, on behalf of Plaintiff’s Trust, more than
two months ahead of the due date for COA fees.

Defendants’ Specific Racketeering Acts
452. The use of the mails (18 U,S,C, §1341) or interstate wire transmissions (18 U.S.C.
§1343) (wire fraud) are prohibited in furtherance of “[a]ny scheme or artifice to
defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises…”
453. There is at both common and statutory law, an implied covenant of fair dealing in
any contract, including the Declaration of Condominium.
454. The actions of the all of the Defendants in creating, managing, supervising,
operating, and furthering the UTILITY OVERBILLING & FRAUDULENT
BILLING ENTERPRISE, as alleged herein, to attempt to extort money and property
from the Plaintiff and unlawfully capitalize on Plaintiff’s Trust’s Condo Declaration
by (1) attempting to collect illegal fees and charges; (2) attempting to force them
into foreclosure in order to profit from the equity in property; and (3) refusing to
bargain in good faith about known fraudulent, unlawful and disputed fees for
services never rendered, provided and/or obligated by anyone; is a scheme or
artifice to defraud as defined by both Sections 1341 and 1343. (the “Utility
Fraudulent Scheme”).
455. In furtherance of the Utility Fraudulent Scheme, the Defendants caused to be

transmitted by means of (1) the mails; (2) overnight delivery service or (3) interstate
wire communications, documents including account statements, responses to
requests for information, demand letters, invoices, spreadsheets, ledgers, utility
bills, all in violation of. §1341 and/or § 1343 which make criminal such the use of
mails, overnight delivery service or interstate wire communications in furtherance
of a scheme or artifice to defraud.
456. The following Table identifies for each act of mail or wire fraud the Exhibit Letter,
the date of the act, the sender/receiver, the method of transmission and a description
of the transmission. Where “Wire” is indicated, it means an interstate wire
transmission in violation of 8 U.S.C. §1343. Where “Mail” is indicated, it means the
use of the mails in violation 18 U.S.C. §1341.

SENDER/
DATE RECIPIENT METHOD DESCRIPTION
6/14/06 OBL/Lavalle & Mail Demand Letter Attempting To Extort
Trust Over $5000 Than Legally Due
10/24/06 TRANSWORLD/ Mail Collection Demand to 3rd Party For Debt
MLTC Not Legally Owed Nor Owed By Lavalle
8/16/06 WNC&W/ Mail Notice Of Foreclosure Extorting More
Lavalle, Trust, & Than $4000 Than Legally Due
Pews
6/15/06 OBL/ Mail Financial Transactions With Spoliation
Lavalle, Trust, Of Data From 8/02 to 5/10/04 Showing
Pews, & MLTC Obligation, if any, to be $3664.45 as of
June 1, 2006, not $9,645.25 demanded in
letter of 6/14/06
8/30/06 OBL & Mail & Financial Transactions With Spoliation
WNC&W/Pews, Wire Of Data From 8/02 to 5/10/04 Showing
Trust & Lavalle Obligation, if any, to be $6,112.28 as of
August 1, 2006, not $10,345.64
demanded in WNC&W letter of 8/16/06
9/3/04 VITERRA, OBL Mail & Communication of private and
& Wire confidential information on illegal and
WNC&W/Lavalle, disputed debt, not owed by Lavalle, as
Pews, Trust & well as fraudulent debt communicated
MLTC and demanded to be paid by 3rd and non-
responsible parties.
On Or OBL/ Mail & Spreadsheet showing unlawful
About Lavalle Wire application of extorted sums from Trust.
12/8/06
8/31/06 WNC&W/ Mail Cover Letter For Financial Transactions
Trust With Spoliation Of Data From 8/02 to
5/10/04 Showing Obligation, if any, to be
$6,112.28 as of August 1, 2006, not
$10,345.64 demanded in WNC&W letter
of 8/16/06
10/18/06 OBL & HMS/ Mail Invoice for COA fees known to not be
Lavalle legally owed by Lavalle and already paid.
11/20/06 OBL & HMS/ Mail Invoice for COA fees known to not be
Lavalle legally owed by Lavalle and already paid.
12/20/06 OBL/ Mail & Minutes of OBL Board showing
Lavalle & Trust Wire knowledge of meter fraud scheme.

457. By reason of the foregoing, each Defendant indicated violated Section 1341 and/or
Section 1343 of Title 18 of the United States Code on more than two occasions to
two different persons and entities including over two persons and entities in the state
of Florida.
458. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants participated in the affairs of the
UTILITY REBILLING ENTERPRISE through a pattern of racketeering activity in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(c).
The Fraudulent Fine & Assessment Billing Scheme & Enterprise
459. As described above and described herein, the Defendants against the advice,
counsel and evidence provided to the Defendants intentionally and with malice
created, approved, and carried out various fraudulent schemes and used extortionate
threats against the Plaintiff, his Trust, and other members of the Association to carry
out additional frauds using the mails and wire of the United States in violation of
Section 1341 and/or Section 1343 of Title 18 of the United States Code on more
than two occasions to two different persons and entities.
460. These acts included, but are not limited to the Defendants continuing and expanding
a fraudulent billing enterprise by:
a. Using a formula for utility RUBS square footage use that did not take into
account the height of ceilings on the 17th floor that inured to the benefit of
Defendants Allen, Reinking and other board members with units on the
17th floor;
b. After installing electric meters, creating false meter readings and billings
for targeted members, owners, and residents that Defendants wanted out of
the building by fraudulently increasing their monthly bills from 100% to
over 2000% and saving themselves money from their personal utility bills;

c. Charging from $100 to $300 a month fines to the Plaintiff, his Trust and
other owners for not installing a water heater that was unlawfully
demanded by Defendants to be installed;
d. Continuing to charge the Plaintiff, his Trust, other members, owners and
residents a $6.00 per month fee for the reading of meters that employees
of OBL took only one hour to do and having the agents of Defendants
kickback the $6.00 fee to Defendants;
e. Placing fraudulent fees, meters readings, utility usage and other costs into
computer systems that generated fraudulent bills and invoices that were
mailed into the state of Florida, county of Palm Beach;
f. Unlawful fines created, approved and demanded by the Defendants and

the Association;
g. Unlawful assessment of late fees, interest and other financial engineering

schemes to extort additional income, money and revenue from the
Plaintiff, his Trust and other owners that there was no legal basis for; and
h. Commencing wrongful and unlawful foreclosure actions using perjurious

affidavits claiming amounts not legally owed that were directed toward the
state of Florida.
Violations Of FLA 815.02
461. As described above and herein, Defendants created, implemented, concealed,

carried out, protected and furthered various billing, accounting, and utility frauds,
schemes, and scams utilizing the United States mail and wires.
462. In addition to using the United States mail and wires to create, implement, conceal,
carry out, protect and further the described frauds, each of the fraudulent schemes
and scam extensively used computers, computer systems, and programs in and
outside the state of Florida with the intended harm being created in Florida and
targeting Florida consumers, including the Plaintiffs.

463. Defendants, in violation of the legislative intent of FLA 815.02 introduced
fraudulent records into a computer system (emphasis added) as well as computer
networks and programs as described above and herein.
464. Defendant Does, Roes, and Corporate Roes 1 to 6 intentionally, willfully,

knowingly, and without authorization destroyed accounting and billing data related
to the Condo’s and Trust’s account as well as other Owners an Residents of OBL.
465. Defendants were fully aware of such destruction.
466. Defendants also intentionally introduced false and fraudulent data, information,
credits, debits, formulas, ratios, equations, and calculations into various accounting
and billing systems as described herein and above in an effort to fraudulently
induce:
a. Payments not legally owed or obligated to by the Plaintiff, his Trust and
others;
b. Secure advance payments for services never delivered or to be delivered

later;
c. Payments in excess of the Plaintiff’s or his Trust’s legal obligation, if any;
d. Payments concealed and used as kickbacks;
e. Payments of fees, fines, charges, expenses, and assessments not legally or

lawfully assessed or owed.
467. The Defendants created and committed the offenses described herein and above for
the purpose of devising and executing various schemes and artifices to defraud and
obtain money and property of the Plaintiffs the Defendants were warned and noticed
that the such actions were violations of law.
Conspiracy
468. Each of the Defendants conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. §1962(c) with each other in
order to effectuate the Utility Billing Fraudulent Scheme and each of the

racketeering acts set forth above constituted an overt act in furtherance of that
conspiracy.
469. By reason of the premises aforesaid, each and every Defendant has individually and
severally violated 18 U.S.C. §1962(d).
Damages
470. By reason of the foregoing violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and § 1962(d), the
Plaintiff suffered damages in such amount as may be determined by a jury but at
least in the amount of $2,500,000.00.
471. Defendant’s offenses are ongoing and it can be reasonably anticipated that future
damage may result.
472. WHEREFORE, by reason of the forgoing, Plaintiff has suffered damages in the sum
of at least $2,500,000.00 that are within this Court’s jurisdictional limits and he
prays that:
a. The amount of said damages, according to FLA 772.00 that are found by
the Jury be trebled;
b. All assessment of fines for water heaters; fines without due process notice;
money paid to homeowners for balconies that were not painted; all money
paid by homeowners for their water heaters; all unlawful late fees be
disgorged and returned to the Plaintiff, his Trust and other homeowners by
being deposited into the registry of this court;
c. Extreme punitive damages in the amount of at least $25,000,000.00 or

whatever figure a reasonable jury may decide, be awarded as a matter of
public policy and a statement to the public that COA and HOA abuse will
not be tolerated in the state of Florida or this nation;
d. Reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the trial and appellate courts
be awarded.

COUNT TWO: VIOLATIONS OF FLA 559.72 CONSUMER COLLECTION
PRACTICES
473. Plaintiff repeats and reiterates each and very allegation contained in paragraphs “1”
to “472” with the same force and effect as though the same were hereinafter more
completely set forth.
474. Plaintiff is a “consumer” and “debtor” as defined by FLA 559.55 (2)
475. OBL is a “creditor” as defined by FLA 559.55 (3)
476. Each Defendant was attempting to collect a “debt” and “consumer debt” which was
an alleged obligation (emphasis added) of the Plaintiff as defined by FLA 559.55
(1).
477. The “debt” and “consumer debt” which was an alleged obligation (emphasis added)
of the Plaintiff each Defendant was attempting to collect was meant for another
“Debtor.”
478. Each Defendant attempting to collect a “debt” and “consumer debt” which was an
alleged obligation (emphasis added) of the Plaintiff as defined by FLA 559.55 (1)
directed “communications” to the Plaintiff as defined by FLA 559.55 (5).
479. Defendants violated FLA. 559.72 (2) in that Defendants threatened force and
violence against the Plaintiff.
480. Defendants violated FLA. 559.72 (3), (5), (6), (7), (9), (14), (17) and (19) by having
knowledge of the following facts and/or committing the following acts:
a. Plaintiff had no legal responsibility for any obligation to OBL or

Defendants;
b. Defendants intentionally defamed and informed others via written

communications, e-mails, and voice that Plaintiff had not paid his
obligations to Defendants and OBL;
c. Defendants had full and complete knowledge that the Plaintiff disputed all
debts and obligations to OBL;

d. Defendants had full and complete knowledge that the Plaintiff’s Trust
disputed the debts and obligations they had to OBL;
e. Defendants intentionally, maliciously, unlawfully and wrongfully

informed others throughout the United States and Florida that Plaintiff was
indebted to OBL;
f. Defendants did not communicate to anyone that the Plaintiff was disputing
any legal obligation to OBL as well as any amounts claimed owed and
due;
g. Defendants did not communicate to anyone that the Plaintiff’s Trust was
disputing substantial amounts claimed owed and due;
h. Defendants did not communicate to anyone that the Plaintiff was disputing
any legal obligation to OBL as well as any amounts claimed owed and
due;
i. Defendants did not communicate to anyone that the Plaintiff and his Trust
were disputing substantial amounts claimed owed and due that neither had
any obligation for;
j. Such communication had no legitimate business purpose other than to

discredit, defame, harass, and harm the Plaintiff’s reputation;
k. Such communications did harm the reputations of the Plaintiff;
l. Defendants knew the information was false;
m. Defendants in a civil conspiracy with others, directed intentional

harassment, intimidation, threats, abuse, and otherwise intentionally
inflicted emotional distress upon Plaintiff and his family, Anthony and
Matilde Pew who were elderly and infirmed in retaliation for Plaintiff’s
and the Trust’s disputes of the debts claimed owed and Plaintiff’s
discovery of the Enterprise

n. Defendants unlawfully contributed to the disconnection of the telephone
service of Plaintiff whereby valuable and necessary 911 service and
business telephone service was disconnected;
o. Defendants unlawfully contributed to a concocted and fraudulent scheme

to unlawfully evict Plaintiff from his Condo and residence;
p. Defendants from 2004 to July of 2007 continued to claim, attempt to

collect, and threaten to collect a debt from Plaintiff, bills, invoices, fees,
and charges that Plaintiff had no legal responsibility or obligation for and
that were for a fraudulent bill with fake meter readings;
q. The debts claimed owed by Defendants from 2004 to July of 2007 were
not legitimate; were created by fraudulent pretenses; and were not the
legal obligation of Plaintiff;
r. Defendants published and threatened to publish a “deadbeats list” naming

Plaintiff for the purpose of harassment, defamation, and in an effort to
coerce and extort payments from the Plaintiff and his Trust that were
unlawful, illegal, and not legally obligated for by either the Plaintiff or his
Trust.
s. Defendant’s agent and president communicated with Plaintiff’s family

between the hours of 9:00 PM and 8:00 AM EST despite Plaintiff’s notice
to OBL not to contact the Pews.
WHEREFORE, by reason of the forgoing, Plaintiff has suffered damages that are
within this Court’s jurisdictional limits and he prays for the relief and damages set
forth herein and below.
COUNT THREE: VIOLATIONS OF FLA 817.061 MISLEADING SOLICITATION

OF PAYMENTS

482. From January 1, 2002 to July 31, 2007, Defendants sent statements, invoices, and
demands for payments for services never performed or delivered to the Plaintiff.
483. Defendants had full and complete knowledge that the bills and invoices were for
services never performed or delivered.
484. Defendants have admitted that such bills were for services never provided to the
Plaintiff, yet have still attempted to collect for such bills and invoices
COUNT FOUR: VIOLATIONS OF FLA DECEPTIVE & UNFAIR TRADE

PRACTICES ACT
486. Section 501.204(1), Florida Statutes, provides that “Unfair methods of competition,
unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the
conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”
487. As set forth herein, Defendants, acting individually and in concert with others, have
engaged in representations, acts, practices or omissions in trade or commerce which
are material and which were likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under
the circumstances; and
488. Defendants have engaged in acts or practices in trade or commerce which offend
established public policy and are unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or
substantially injurious to consumers.
489. By engaging in the foregoing, Defendant have engaged in deceptive and unfair trade
practices in violation of Section 501.204, Florida Statutes.
490. Defendants knew or should have known that the methods, acts or practices alleged
herein were deceptive or unfair.

491. Defendants were warned that schemes, acts or practices alleged herein were
deceptive and unfair.
492. The actions as set forth above and herein are violation of FLA. 501.204 (1) and (2).
493. Plaintiff is a “consumer” and “interested party” as defined by FLA. 501.203 (6) and
(7).
494. The collection acts, harassment, abuse, and fraudulent billing and allocations
schemes directed toward the Plaintiff by the Defendants described herein were and
are unconscionable, deceptive and unfair business and trade practices that have been
transacted in interstate and intrastate commerce as defined by FLA. 501.203 (8).
495. Such acts and representations made by the Defendants to Plaintiffs are in violation
of the FDCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 1692e as well as FLA. 501.204 (1) and (2).
496. There were other misrepresentations and violations of the FDCPA and FLA.
501.204 (1) and (2) that will be specified during discovery by each of the
Defendants.
497. The harassment, abuse, threats, fraudulent billing acts, kickbacks, and conspiracy to
evict Plaintiff from the Condo via perjured testimony and false affidavits as well as
the wrongful foreclosure instituted by the Defendants and supported by perjured
verifications are unconscionable acts.
COUNT FIVE: COMMON LAW FRAUD
499. Defendants made numerous representations to Plaintiff as to the amount, character,

nature and responsibility for debts.

500. Defendants made numerous representations to Plaintiff as to the amount, character,
nature of utilities used.
501. The Defendants knew that the representations of debt and amounts of utilities used
were indeed fabricated and false and intended to deceive and defraud the Plaintiff.
502. The Plaintiff believed and justifiably relied upon the statements of the Defendants
and due to Plaintiff’s conduct and reliance suffered pecuniary loss.
503. The actions of the Defendants alleged aforesaid, constitute common law fraud in
which each and every Defendant is a joint tortfeasor.
COUNT SIX: DEFAMATION, SLANDER & LIBEL
505. Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous and involves a continuing pattern
of defamation, slander, and libel for over two years.
506. Defendants have provided written, electronic, and verbal communications to third
parties in business relationships with the Plaintiff Lavalle, his Trustees, Trust, other
beneficiaries, residents and owners of the condominium, and members of Plaintiff’s
community that:
a. Plaintiff Lavalle suffers from Bi-Polar disease which is a false,

defamatory, slanderous, and libelous;
b. Plaintiff Lavalle was legally obligated to the Defendant OBL for past due
and delinquent COA assessments, fees, utility bills and other fraudulent
claims when Lavalle had no such liability, obligation or duty to the
Defendant OBL and Defendants;

c. Defendants published Plaintiff’s name on a deadbeats list and distributed it
to owners and other non-parties to intentionally defame and damage
Plaintiff when he had no personal obligation to the Defendants;
d. Plaintiff Lavalle physically threatened, stalked, and placed Defendants in

physical fear for their safety;
e. Plaintiff Lavalle was banned from his building and would be arrested if he
entered his building in July of 2007; and
f. Plaintiff Lavalle suffered from a variety of mental illnesses and his

allegations against the Defendants were false.
507. The slanderous, defamatory, and libelous conduct and actions of the Defendants
were designed to damage Plaintiff Lavalle’s reputation, image, and credibility
among his community and the Condominium where others are influenced by
Plaintiff.
were and did damage Plaintiff’s reputation, image, and credibility amongst his
neighbors, community and friends and have caused humiliation, angst, anger,
frustration, loss of credibility, reputation, friends, and business.
509. The Plaintiff has lost business and business opportunities and been threatened with
suit by a client due to his inability to perform his duties due to the Defendant’s
actions.
were done with malice in an effort to discredit Plaintiff and his allegations of
wrongdoing and criminal conduct by the Defendants.

COUNT SEVEN: CONVERSION & UNJUST ENRICHMENT
512. Defendant’s actions, conspiracy and willful interference with Plaintiff’s Lavalle’s
possession of the Condo and enjoyment therein constitutes an act of conversion by
the Defendants.
513. As described above, from February of 2007 to the present date, Defendants
conspired with one another in an effort to unlawfully and wrongfully evict Plaintiff
Lavalle from the Condo and his residence due to his exposure of wrongdoing and
unlawful conduct of the Defendants.
514. Defendants were successful in their effort when they hatched a plan to harass,
intimidate and abuse Plaintiff as described above to provoke a reaction to their
harassment whereby Defendants would then claim that the reactions of Plaintiff in
disputing and confronting Defendants for their acts were acts of stalking which
Defendant’s Grenuk and Jarrett instituted against Plaintiff.
515. Whereas, Plaintiff has been deprived of his right to possession of his property.
COUNT EIGHT: INVASION OF PRIVACY
517. OBL Board Defendants managed and oversaw the Internet service of the
Condominium.

518. Defendants did use their dominion over the Internet service, to not only disrupt such
service, but to electronically spy, tap into, and monitor Plaintiff’s use, traffic, and
navigation of the Internet and intercept communications from Plaintiff Lavalle.
519. Furthermore, Defendants placed Plaintiff under surveillance and had employees
videotape Plaintiff’s coming and going and who he associated with.
520. Defendants also harassed other owners who Plaintiff was working with to expose
the actions of the Defendants,
521. Defendants, despite prior warnings about such access by others, refused to take the
necessary and requisite steps to protect the Plaintiff and other owners and residents
of the Condominium to prevent the unlawful access and spying of Internet use by
the Plaintiff and others so that Defendants could keep tabs on the actions of Plaintiff
and other residents who opposed Defendants actions in the Condominium.
522. Such actions constitute an invasion of rightful privacy and intrusion upon seclusion
of Plaintiff Lavalle when the Defendants intentionally intruded via electronic means
upon the private space, solitude, and seclusion of Plaintiff and his private affairs.
COUNT NINE: TRESPASS, BREAKING & ENTERING
524. Defendants threatened to re-key and enter the storage units of Plaintiff via various
communications.
525. Defendants were warned not to enter or disturb the storage unit of Plaintiff and any
such act would be considered trespass and breaking and entering.

526. Despite such warnings, Defendants broke into and entered the Plaintiff’s storage
unit leased from Defendant Grenuk and re-keyed the locks of the storage unit and
refused to provide a new key or access to the unit for which payment had been
made.
527. Furthermore, Defendant Grenuk violated the terms of the agreement he reached with
Plaintiff Lavalle and harassed the Plaintiff and his family via phone calls and emails
threatening to throw their property in the trash, against state law and without court
order, if they refused to remove their property from the unit.
528. The actions of the Defendants constitute trespass and breaking and entering to
which the Plaintiff has suffered damages.
COUNT TEN: ABUSIVE & VEXTIOUS LITIGATION & ABUSE OF PROCESS
530. On May 15, Defendants filed a Complaint for Foreclosure upon the Plaintiff’s Trust
for amounts not legally owed or obligated to and in which all claimed amounts had
been paid.
531. The Foreclosure Complaint filed by the Defendants was supported by a verification
by Defendant Jarrett in which the claimed wrongful indebtedness was contradicted
by over $2800.00 by the Defendant’s own accounting records.
532. The Foreclosure Complaint was not served within the required legal timeframe and
in the interim, the Defendants further demanded and collected under additional
extortive threats, over $12,000.00 in additional payments that were income to the
Plaintiff, as described above, and did not amend or withdraw its Complaint for
Foreclosure.

533. The Complaint for Foreclosure was served upon the Plaintiff’s Trust on December
3, 2007, a full six months after it’s filing and only after Defendants learned that the
Plaintiffs would be initiating this suit.
534. Plaintiff’s Trust has paid all disputed amounts claimed owed.
535. Upon receiving word of the Defendant’s wrongful acts, Plaintiff Lavalle began
preparation of affirmative defenses and counterclaims to be exerted by the Trust
against Defendant OBL.
536. Defendants, despite knowing that Plaintiffs resided in the Condo and had possessory
interests in the Condo, did not serve or include the Plaintiff as a defendant in its suit
for foreclosure.
537. On or about the 15th of December, 2007, Plaintiff Lavalle attended the annual Toys-
For-Tots charity gala with friends.
538. This was the fourth year in a row Lavalle has attended the event.
539. Defendant Jarrett testified that this was the first Toys-For-Tots event he attended and
informed others to place Plaintiff under surveillance and that he knew what parties
Plaintiff would attend.
540. At the event, Lavalle saw Jarrett in attendance when he walked by him on several
occasions and ignored his presence, despite the fact that Jarrett had just wrongfully
served the foreclosure suit upon Plaintiff’s trust for a wrongful foreclosure.
541. However, later in the evening when Plaintiff went to get a drink, Jarrett was seated
with a woman presumed to be Jarrett’s wife when Jarrett began pointing towards
Plaintiff and making mocking and laughing gestures towards Plaintiff when Plaintiff
approached him.
542. Jarrett and Plaintiff got into a heated confrontation when Plaintiff leveled attacks on
Jarrett’s actions and said “those who laugh first, laugh last” whereby Jarrett went
into a belligerent tirade against Plaintiff.
543. Plaintiff defended himself and when Jarrett’s wife rose to intervene, Plaintiff stated
to his wife “you must be so proud to be married to such a man.”

544. Jarrett was fully aware that Plaintiff had learned of various harassment of other
residents and owners in the Condominium who caught Jarrett in uncompromising
positions with another female employee who likely to have evidentiary support after
a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery was and is having an
affair with Jarrett.
545. Jarrett has harassed this elderly and disabled woman who discovered the affair in
order to force and remove her from the building and stalked her.
546. Plaintiff was so upset with Jarrett’s behavior, that he wrote the attached e-mail
labeled Exhibit 30 upon his return home to the Condo, and e-mailed it in the
morning from the Condominium since his Internet service had been terminated by
Defendants.
547. On December 18, 2007, Jarrett and Grenuk together, filed in the Superior Court of
Fulton County in Georgia, Stalking charges against Plaintiff Lavalle claiming that
Lavalle had stalked Jarrett at the Toys-For-Tots party, threatened his wife, cyber-
stalked Jarrett via Exhibit 30 sent to Jarrett after the party and Jarrett claimed he was
in fear for his safety; that each of the incidents complained of occurred outside of
the Condominium; and that each confrontation and communication from Lavalle for
a two-year period from 2006 to 2007 were acts of stalking.
548. In their testimony, the two agents of the Defendants, with the Defendant’s
knowledge and approval, Jarrett and Grenuk, testified to certain facts that contradict
known evidence and support that was unavailable to Plaintiff at the time since
Jarrett and Grenuk obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against Plaintiff and
allowing him to reside in his Condo by telling the judge and court officers that one
of them resided in the Condominium.
549. To the contrary, neither man resides in the Condominium and only the Plaintiff
resides there.
550. In any event, evidence obtained by the Plaintiffs show that on or about February of
2007, the Defendants, fearful of Lavalle’s investigation and dissemination of the

information obtained from the investigation as described above, sought ways to
intimidate, harass, abuse and force Lavalle to move from the building.
551. In one heated discussion with Jarrett where Lavalle demanded his removal and said
that he would work to see him removed from management of the Condominium,
Jarrett replied with words to the effect that “I know Georgia law real good.” “I’ll get
rid of you along time before you ever get rid of me, I’ve done it before and I’ll do it
again.
552. He further commented to Lavalle that Lavalle needed to get with the program, that
he was in charge of the building now and it was his way or the highway and that if
he and Mark Phillips left, the building would go to pot and Plaintiff’s investment in
their trust would diminish since he and Mark were the best things that have
happened to the Condominium.
553. The wrongful foreclosure and stalking complaints which were planned, carried-out
and approved by each of the Defendants constitute abuse of process, vexatious
litigation and were done with complete malice and disregard to the facts and based
on false and perjured testimony.
554. The actions were brought without merit and for the expressed purpose to harass and
subdue and wrongfully evict Plaintiff from his property.
555. Soon after obtaining their desired intent to remove Plaintiff from his Condo, the
Defendants withdrew and dismissed their wrongful foreclosure complaint.
COUNT ELEVEN: TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE

557. Under the Georgia Condo Act, the Defendants are governed with carrying out their
duties under the OBL Bylaws and Declaration.
558. The Plaintiff and Defendants were both charged under the GA Condo Act with
complying with the terms and conditions of the Declaration and Bylaws.
559. Plaintiff went to extreme measures to insure his compliance and that of the
Defendants.
560. Defendants willfully and wantonly refused to comply with the law.
561. Plaintiff had a business proposal to present to the Association that would have
benefited all members of the Association.
562. Defendants intentionally refused to listen to and address the proposal in any manner
due to their retaliatory actions directed toward Plaintiff.
563. Defendants had a fiduciary duty to listen to the Plaintiff’s proposals.
564. Defendant Rayside had competing business interests that were in conflict to
Plaintiff’s business plans.
565. Defendants stated they did not wish to address the Plaintiff’s proposal since they
had their own personal agendas and wanted to control who resided and owned in the
building to further their discrimination against certain targeted minority groups.
566. Plaintiff was the entity member allowed by GA law and contract to deal with the
Association.
567. Defendants refused to honor those rights and tortiously interfered with his rights as
the entity member of the Association.
568. Furthermore, the Defendants created and implemented a slander campaign with
false claims designed to damage the personal and business reputation of the Plaintiff
in order to drive business away from him.
569. Despite knowing of those duties and the rights conferred upon the Plaintiff via his
association as a beneficiary of a trust that owns the Condo that confers upon the
Plaintiff the right to represent the Condo in the affairs of the association the
Defendants have tortuously interfered with the contractual relationship created

between the Plaintiff and OBL and his rights as both the beneficiary of a trust and
attorney-in-fact of the Trust.
570. Defendants have also tortuously interfered with the Plaintiff’s ability to conduct
family business matters; legal matters, and with business relationships of the
Plaintiff and his family.
571. In addition to being the residence of the Plaintiff in Atlanta, the Condo serves as the
epicenter for Plaintiff’s and his family’s business, professional, and philanthropic
interests.
572. Computers, hard drives, tapes, and over 150 file boxes and containers are
maintained in the Condo.
573. Various client files are also maintained and stored in the Condo.
574. Various business relationships of the Plaintiffs, including one with NOPI
Motorsports and its ownership, PEW Sports Group Sports Marketing Group, Pew
Mortgage Institute and others, have been severely damaged by the inability of
Plaintiff to access the Condo to retrieve documents, contracts, marketing materials,
and other deliverables and files of clients and business relationships of the Plaintiff.
575. In addition to the above, Plaintiff had prepared a business proposal for the
Defendants to consider with regard to seeking the member’s participation in a plan
to convert the Condominium to a Condotel concept like neighboring developments
to increase the value and utility of units in the building.
576. Defendants violated their fiduciary duty to Plaintiff and other members by refusing
to meet with Plaintiff to discuss the business opportunity and present it to the
membership for a vote.
577. Instead, Defendants in their desire to control the condo and prevent it from
“becoming the Ghetto Grand” called Plaintiff’s proposal DOA (Dead on Arrival)
without providing a proper audience to listen to the proposal.
578. Defendants have sought to interfere with other business relationships as well.

579. Most recently, they have attacked other realtors in the building in an effort to
discredit their credibility as well as position Defendant’s agent Jarrett as the sole
agent in the building to sell and lease units in the Condominium so as to limit,
restrict, prevent, and discriminate against potential owners and residents deemed
undesirable by the Defendants according to race, ethnic origin, age, disability and
other factors.
COUNT TWELVE: BREACH OF CONTRACT
581. Defendants and Plaintiff were and are governed by condominium instruments as
defined in the Declaration in paragraph 2. (m) that states:
a. “Condominium Instruments shall mean this Declaration and all exhibits to

this Declaration, including the Bylaws of the Association…”
582. Defendants breached paragraphs 5-6 of the Declaration Of Condominium agreement

by, inter alia, removing parking spaces intended for handicap parking as well as
storage units meant for use by the association and on information and belief, selling
and/or leasing such units without the approval or vote of the majority of members,
including the Plaintiff.
583. Defendants breached paragraphs 9 of the Declaration Of Condominium agreement

by, inter alia, creating, maintaining, and concealing a scheme whereby major
portions of utility bills were commingled, assessed, and collected from the
Homeowners and Residents instead of being added to the annual assessment as part
of the total allocation for costs related to liability for common expenses as defined
in paragraph 9.

584. Defendants breached paragraphs 10 (b) of the Declaration Of Condominium
agreement by, inter alia, creating a rule and regulation against the Plaintiff that has
nothing to do whatsoever with any act that uses the Condominium, the Subject
Property, Limited Common Elements and Common Elements.
585. Defendants breached paragraphs 10 (b) of the Declaration Of Condominium

agreement by, inter alia, creating a rule and regulation and improperly imposing a
fine multiple times for the same incident against the Plaintiff’s Trust due to actions
the Plaintiff took directly due to Defendant’s wrongful acts, harassment and
violation of the Declaration and that has nothing to do whatsoever with any act that
uses the Condominium, the Subject Property, Limited Common Elements and
Common Elements.
586. Defendants breached paragraphs 10 (e) of the Declaration Of Condominium

agreement by, inter alia, taking substantial insurance proceeds meant to repair
electric meters and allocating that money to other expenses in the budget and then
improperly charging the Trust in excess of $400.00 for such electric meters.

agreement by, inter alia, taking substantial insurance proceeds meant to repair water
damage to the lobby ceiling and allocating that money to other expenses in the
budget without properly repairing the ceiling.
588. Defendants breached paragraphs 11 (c) (i) of the Declaration Of Condominium

agreement by, inter alia, charging and assessing interest and late fees on other
charges, fees, costs, fines, and assessments which were other than the allowable
“monthly installment of annual assessment” as the Declaration only provides for.
589. Defendants breached paragraphs 11 (c) (iv)of the Declaration Of Condominium

agreement by, inter alia, taking actions against the Plaintiff limiting his access to
common elements and his right to enjoyment of the Condominium when his trust
was not in default and no suit had been filed.
590. Defendants breached paragraphs 11 (c) (v) of the Declaration Of Condominium

agreement by, inter alia, taking actions to suspend the Plaintiff’s telephone and

internet services without first obtaining a judgment in excess of $750.00 from a
court of competent jurisdiction.
591. Defendants breached paragraphs 11 (c) (v) of the Declaration Of Condominium

agreement by, inter alia, taking actions to suspend the Plaintiff’s telephone and
internet services even after payment of disputed assessments, fees, and costs had
been made.

agreement by, inter alia, creating one special assessment for Electric Meters and
dividing it into two fiscal years, instead of one year, that exceeds the $200.00
limitation per unit per year contained in the provision.

agreement by, inter alia, creating one special assessment for Electric Meters that
exceeds the $200.00 limitation per unit per year contained in the provision and
charging the Trust over $350.00 at a rate of $50.00 per month From January 1, 2007
through July, 2007.
594. Defendants breached paragraphs 11 (h) of the Declaration Of Condominium

agreement by, inter alia not applying surplus funds remaining from the special
assessment to payment of Common Expenses or distributed to all owners in
proportion to the liability for Common Expenses attributable to each unit, or added
to the Association’s reserve account when such surplus funds were returned to a
limited group of owners, that included certain OBL board members.
595. Defendants breached paragraphs 12 (a) (iv) of the Declaration Of Condominium

agreement by, inter alia, maintaining an insurance policy with deductibles in excess
of $1000.00 as provided in the Declaration.
596. Defendants breached paragraph 16. (b) of the Declaration Of Condominium

agreement by, inter alia, failing to properly monitor and regulate the leasing of unit
to keep such level under 25% in past years.

agreement by, inter alia, failing to properly maintain and repair the common water

pipes running through the Condo, after several proper notices to OBL, that caused
damages to the Condo and the unit #107 below.

agreement by, inter alia, failing to properly maintain and repair the common sewage
and toilet pipes running through the Condo, after several proper notices to OBL, that
caused damages to the Condo.

agreement by, inter alia, failing to properly repair the damages made to the Condo
due to the repairs made to the common pipes.
600. Defendants breached paragraph 18. (d) (i) of the Declaration Of Condominium
agreement by, inter alia, failing to seek approval of the Owners of the Condominium
prior to the mandatory requirement, subject to fines, that over $300.00 be spent, due
to insurance, casualty, and liability concerns concerning aging water heaters be
replaced for a cost to Owners and the Trust of at least $500.00 in a twelve month
period.
601. Defendants breached paragraph 18. (d) (ii) of the Declaration Of Condominium
agreement by, inter alia, failing to provide the Trust with a Fifteen days’ written
notice to perform the act, even though it violated paragraph 18. (d) (i) of the
Declaration Of Condominium, and then install the mandatory water heaters and
assess such cost to the Trust, instead of assessing fines far in excess of the
unauthorized cost of the water heaters.

agreement by, inter alia, failing to act upon over four dozen requests of the Plaitiff
and other Occupants to meet to resolve their grievances in a special hearing and
refusing to meet with the Plaintiff after over forty requests to do so and failing to act
in good faith to resolve such disputes.
603. Defendants breached paragraph 22. (a) of the Declaration Of Condominium

agreement by, inter alia, banning the Plaintiff and his guest from Common Elements
when all lawful assessments were paid.

604. Defendants breached paragraph 22. (a) of the Declaration Of Condominium
agreement by, inter alia, banning the Plaintiff from his Atlanta residence by having
its president and treasurer obtain a TRO, via false and perjured filings, barring
Plaintiff from coming within 200 yards of the Trust property, even though neither
the President or Property Manager live on the property.
605. Defendants breached paragraph 22. of the Declaration Of Condominium agreement

by, inter alia, arbitrarily taking actions as described above and herein that are in
violation of several provisions of the Declaration and not seeking a vote from 2/3 of
the owners to amend the Declaration or Bylaws to allow such acts.
606. Furthermore, the agreement between the parties also extends the Declaration to the
By-Laws of OBL that govern how it shall govern, rule, act and upon which
authority it has to do so. As such, the following additional violations extend from
violation of the OBL by-laws:
607. Defendants breached Article I, Section 5. of OBL By-Laws and agreement by, inter
alia, failing to accept the fact that the beneficiary of the Trust, the Plaintiff, that is
the Owner, has a right to represent the Trust to his benefit in dealing with the
Association.
608. Defendants breached Article II, Section 2. of OBL By-Laws and agreement by, inter
alia, failing to provide the names and addresses of all current owners on several
requests by Plaintiff and the Trust, in order for them to canvas and request a special
meeting of the Association.
609. Defendants breached Article III, B. Section 12. of OBL By-Laws and agreement by,
inter alia, by failing to maintain proper minutes for each Meeting of the OBL Board.
610. Defendants breached Article III, B. Section 13. of OBL By-Laws and agreement by,
inter alia, by failing to allow Plaintiff into an Open Meeting of the board, then
claiming to go into closed session, and threatening to have him arrested.
611. Defendants breached Article III, C. Section 15. (l) of OBL By-Laws and agreement
by, inter alia, by failing to keep adequate books with detailed accounts of the
receipts and expenditures from the inception of the Association through May, 2004.

612. Defendants breached Article IV, Section 8 of OBL By-Laws and agreement by, inter
alia, by failing to maintain full and accurate financial records and books of account.
613. Defendants breached Article V, Section 1 of OBL By-Laws and agreement by, inter
alia, by failing to provide copies of all rules and regulations to the Plaintiff and all
owners and occupants; creating unreasonable fines; providing proper notice to the
Plaintiff; failing to assess the fine to the Plaintiff first; and failing to set a time
period as to when such a fine is due.
614. Defendants breached Article V, Section 2 of OBL By-Laws and agreement by, inter
alia, improperly disconnecting the phone and Internet service of the Plaintiff without
following the procedures outlined in Paragraph 10 (c) (v).
615. Defendants breached Article V, Section 2 (a) of OBL By-Laws and agreement by,
inter alia, by failing to provide Plaintiff [the Violator] with written notice of each
violation; the amount of fine being imposed; and right to request a hearing to appeal
the fine or reconsideration of the fine.
616. Defendants breached Article V, Section 2 (b) of OBL By-Laws and agreement by,
inter alia, by failing to provide Plaintiff [the Violator] with the opportunity to
request a hearing or contest each fine being assessed due to the ban on his contact
with Board, let alone any notice of the fines to Plaintiffå.
617. Defendants breached Article VI, Section 9 (a) of OBL By-Laws and agreement by,
inter alia, by failing to maintain and provide to the Trust and Plaintiff; Articles of
Incorporation and Amendments; Bylaws currently in effect; resolutions adopted by
Board; minutes of all Board meetings; written communications to members over 3
years; list of names of directors and officers.
618. Defendants breached Article VI, Section 9 (b) of OBL By-Laws and agreement by,
inter alia, by failing to maintain and provide to the Trust and Plaintiff; accounting
records and the membership list.
619. Defendants breached the Declaration Of Condominium agreement by, inter alia
imposing and multiplying unreasonable fines for the identical actions of the Primary

Occupant in assessing fines on a per person basis rather than a per occurrence or
incident basis.
620. As a direct and proximate cause of OBL’s conduct, the Plaintiffs have sustained
damage to its property as heretofore alleged and the value of its condominium unit
and corpus of the Trust has been decreased by no less that $250,000.
COUNT THIRTEEN: NEGLIGENT MISPRESENTATION
622. At the time Defendants made their representations to the Plaintiff of amounts
claimed to be owed from June 2006 through December of 2007 they owed a duty to
the Plaintiff, inter alia, to promptly provide accurate and supportable accountings
and monthly invoice figures and to terminate collection and foreclosure proceedings
pending such documentation and support and to properly investigate, note, and deal
with his disputes.
623. Defendants breached their duty by failing to provide account or accounting figures
and support, especially accounting documents and ledgers from July of 2002
through May of 2004 and continuing to proceed with threats of foreclosure,
collection efforts and actual foreclosure action on the Trust property even after
being paid all sums owed and more.

COUNT FOURTEEN: MISFEASANCE, NONFEASANCE & MALFEASANCE
625. Defendants where charged with dutifully and lawfully carrying out the provisions of
the OBL Condominium Instruments, particularly the OBL Declaration and Bylaws.
626. The Condominium Instruments created a contract and agreement between the
Plaintiff and Defendants.
627. Defendants owed a duty of care to the Plaintiff who was the entity member of the
Association that Defendants were directed with managing.
628. Defendants took affirmative steps to create, approve, direct, enact, carryout, and
conceal wrongful, unlawful, illegal, and even criminal acts directed to the Plaintiff
that caused direct and proximate damages to the Plaintiff, his personal and
professional reputation, his business interests, and property.
629. Defendants willfully ignored dutifully and lawfully carrying out the provisions of
the OBL Condominium Instruments, particularly the OBL Declaration and Bylaws.
630. Defendants inadequately and poorly performed some of their duties in carrying out
the provisions of the OBL Condominium Instruments, particularly the OBL
Declaration and Bylaws, particularly the repairs due to the Plaintiff’s Condo.
COUNT FIFTEEN - - INTENTIONAL & NEGLIGENT INFLCITION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

632. Defendant’s conduct was outrageous, heinous and beyond the standards of civilized
decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized society.
633. Defendant’s conduct was extreme and outrageous and was part of a pattern of
conduct and not just an isolated incident.
634. Defendants ignored the implications of their conduct directed towards the Plaintiff.
635. Defendants took libelous and slanderous acts toward the Plaintiff.
636. Defendant’s claimed that Plaintiff suffered from a mental illness who was prone to
their provocation and thus the Defendants believed and knew that the Plaintiff was
vulnerable to the intentional acts of the Defendants.
637. Defendant’s were fully aware that Plaintiff’s family suffered from high blood
pressure, diabetes, depression, anxiety, sleepless nights, Alzheimer’s, and other
infirmities, and were told not to contact the Plaintiff’s family at any time since they
were vulnerable and prone to further suffering by the Defendant’s acts, yet despite
such warning, they continued their harassment of the Plaintiff’s family.
638. The acts of the Defendants were not negligent and were carefully planned,
calculated, and carried out to defame, hurt, and damage the Plaintiff.
639. Defendants owed the Plaintiff a fiduciary duty and duty of care as members of the
board and management of OBL.
640. Defendants were in a position of power by their direction, control and management
of the Association and Condominium.
COUNT SIXTEEN - - ASSAULT & BATTERY

642. Defendants Grenuk and Allen as well as their employee, Mark Phillips did commit
the act of intentionally assaulting the Plaintiff that caused the Plaintiff reasonable
apprehension of an immediate harmful and offensive contact.
643. Defendants Grenuk and Allen as well as their employee, Mark Phillips committed
these acts on and off the property of the Plaintiff.
644. On or about February 15, Defendant Grenuk came from a distance from about seven
feet towards Plaintiff with his fists drawn in attempt to threaten and physically strike
of Plaintiff the Plaintiff and Defendant Grenuk exchanged words over Grenuk’s
abusive conduct directed at a concierge of the Condominium.
645. Soon thereafter, when Plaintiff entered the Condominium property office, to
complain about Defendant Grenuk’s assault and to ask Defendant Jarrett to preserve
videotape of the assault by Grenuk, Grenuk along with Mark Phillips again took
aggressive steps by rising and then moving towards Plaintiff in an effort to strike
him when the Condominium’s concierge, Kevin Young, stepped in between Plaintiff
and Grenuk and Phillips to prevent them from striking the Plaintiff.
646. On or about March 2, 2006, Defendant OBL’s employee, Mark Phillips, did with
intent, physically assault and batter the Plaintiff by aggressively grabbing Plaintiff
and forcibly pushing Plaintiff against his will and without restraint or fight by the
Plaintiff, out of the property office of his Condominium where he had come to
complain about the Defendants unlawful and wrongful disconnection of Plaintiff’s
telephone and 911 service and slamming the door shut on Plaintiff.
647. Defendant Jarrett fired the Condominium’s concierge, Kevin Young a former
Marine, since he would not go along with fabricating evidence and providing
perjurious testimony against the Plaintiff.
648. Jarrett asked Young to write reports about what he witnessed and asked his to
rewrite what he originally wrote in order to skew the version of events that were
witnessed.

649. On three occasions between January 1, 2003 and the present date, Defendant Mark
Allen did with intent, physically threaten and strike the Plaintiff in public places that
included a nightclub and houseboat.
650. The unnecessary and aggressive acts described above were harmful and offensive to
the Plaintiff and were without his consent.
COUNT SEVENTEEN - - CIVIL CONSPIRACY
652. Defendants made several agreements and preconceived several plans, to conduct the
various unlawful acts as described above and herein.
653. Defendants engaged in concerted actions whereby by a combination of two or more

of the Defendants conspired to accomplish an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose
by criminal or unlawful means that caused substantial damage to the Plaintiff and
other members of the Association.
654. The unlawful plans described herein and above included, but are not limited to plans
to:
a. Bring fraudulent stalking charges against the Plaintiff;
b. File a wrongful foreclosure action against the Plaintiff’s Condo and Trust;
c. Fraudulently increase Plaintiff’s water bills by 2000%;
d. Fraudulently bill Plaintiff and other members for utility services never
provided;
e. Return leftover money from the special assessment to a select group of

owners, including many of the Defendants;

f. Bill Plaintiff and other members for bills they were not legally responsible
for;
g. Disconnect the Plaintiff’s and other members telephone and 911 service;
h. Fraudulently assess fines against the Plaintiff for acts protected under law;
i. Fraudulently assess fines against Plaintiff and other members for water
heaters not installed by unlawful demand by Defendants;
j. Bill Plaintiff and other members of the Association for meter utility usage
for water and electric utilities never provided;
k. Invade the Plaintiff’s privacy by placing him under surveillance and

monitoring his internet usage;
l. Breaking and entering into the Plaintiff’s storage unit;
m. Re-keying the locks to the Plaintiff’s storage unit;
n. Defame, slander, and libel Plaintiff be claiming he was:
i. Banned from the building and under threat of arrest back in July of
2007;
ii. Mentally ill and suffered from bi-polar, depression or Pick’s

disease;
iii. Delinquent in his payments to the Association;
COUNT EIGHTEEN - - VIOLATION OF FEDERAL FAIR HOUSING ACT
656. Plaintiff is an “aggrieved person” as defined in Sec. 802. [42 U.S.C. 3602]

657. The Condominium consist of 232 residential units with four elevators, many having
mortgages guaranteed, supported, and/or owned by Federal agencies including, but
not limited to Ginnie Mae, HUD, FHA, the VA and/or Federal Government
Sponsored Enterprises such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
658. The Condominium has been run from its inception in 1999 by an all white board
with nominations for new board members made by an appointed all white board and
nominations for new board member being all white despite the fact that
membership, ownership, and occupancy in the building is approximately 33% to
40% minority.
659. Defendants have engaged in the following prohibited practices as described in Sec.
804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] of the Act:
a. Interfering in the ability of persons of race, color, and national origin to

enter the Condominium to inquire about purchase and lease of units in the
building in violation of Sec. 804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] (a) and (d)
b. Discriminating against persons of race, color in the terms, conditions, or

privileges of sale or rental of a dwelling or in the provision of services or
facilities in connection therewith…(emphasis added) in violation of Sec.
804. [42 U.S.C. 3604] (b) by:
i. withdrawing their privileges for common use of common elements;
ii. Over-billing targeted minorities for their utilities;
iii. Setting different collection standards for minority groups and

people targeted;
iv. Aggressively foreclosing on minorities and not on other groups;
v. Denying minority members rights, services and access to

documents such as billing records; membership lists; and minutes
of board meetings
c. Making and printing notices,… statements indicating preference,

limitation, or discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, handicap,

familial status, or national origin, or an intention to make any such
preference, limitation, or discrimination in violation of Sec. 804. [42
U.S.C. 3604] (c) by:
i. Spreading word throughout the community that they were getting

rid of Blacks; the disabled and elderly; and gang-bangers;
ii. Informing real estate agents that Defendants needed to clear new
owners and renters with Defendants;
iii. Removing all handicap parking spots in the building.
DAMAGES
661. By reason of the foregoing violations as described above and herein, Plaintiff has
suffered damages to his property and person in such amount as may be determined
by a jury.
662. The actions of Defendants have caused emotional distress, duress, humiliation,
angst, anger, frustration, loss of credibility, and reputation for the Plaintiff.
663. Plaintiff has had to maintain insurance costs without the benefit of access to his
residence, property, automobile and medical care;
664. Plaintiff has been denied his ability to seek necessary medical tests, surgical
operations, and treatment that has had an impact on his health and well-being;
665. Plaintiff has suffered the scorn and ridicule of neighbors, strangers, owners,
residents, and friends due to the Plaintiff’s actions;
666. The value of Plaintiff’s lawsuits against other parties has been diminished due to the
Defendant’s actions;

667. Plaintiff has had his personal liberty denied;
668. Plaintiff has had his privacy invaded;
669. Plaintiff has been physically assaulted and battered by the Defendants and their
employees;
670. Plaintiff’s inability to enjoy his personal, love, and social life;
671. Plaintiff’s access to his belongings, clothing, books, records, and client files;
672. Said damages include, but are not limited to: payments for fees and expenses in
attempting to pay-off obligations; damages to trust corpus; damages to personal,
business, and community reputation; damages to business interests; liability to
clients; damages to value of property; expenses related to accounting costs; costs
associated with additional medical expenses; costs associated with additional living
and travel expenses; costs associated with additional business expenses; costs
associated with additional legal and accounting expenses; costs associated with
additional personal living expenses; costs associated with new clothing and shoes;
costs associated with unlawful eviction; legal fees, expert fees, investigation fees;
internet and programming fees; mailing and e-mail costs; additional support and
worker costs;
673. PR, advertising, communication costs and fees to rehabilitate Plaintiff’s name,
image, and reputation amongst his neighbors, friends, business associated and
community.
674. Defendant’s offenses and Plaintiff’s damages are ongoing and it can be reasonably
anticipated that future damage to property, business physical and mental health may
result.
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

676. Defendants are continuing to unlawfully exploit their positions as board members of
OBL to advance their own interests at the expense of other homeowners and
residents.
677. Consumers, homeowners, and residents including the Plaintiff, of his building and
those that also reside in the state of Florida will continue to be irreparably harmed if
Defendants are not enjoined from their unlawful actions.
678. By reason of the foregoing as a consumer, the Plaintiff is entitled to an Order

enjoining Defendants from taking the following wrongful and unlawful acts:
a. Defendants billing Plaintiff in his personal name;
b. Defendants removal of any additional handicap parking spots;
c. Defendant leasing or selling any additional parking spots in the building;
d. Defendants purchase of a penthouse condo in the building;
e. Defendants use of Ed Jarrett as a sales or leasing agent;
f. Defendants communication to any real estate agent to have all owners and
renters approved;
g. Defendants harassing any elderly, disabled, or minority person;
h. Defendants refusing to provide any owner or designated agent or member

with a list of other members when requested;
i. Defendants from destroying any documents whatsoever, but especially

ballots and proxies from prior elections that Plaintiff requested preserved;
j. Defendants charging, billing or collecting any cost from Plaintiff’s Trust

for any fee, expense or cost other that the regular monthly COA fee and
any special assessment properly voted on and approved by the
membership of OBL;
k. Defendants reading their own meters for utility services;
l. Defendants assessing any fine to any homeowner or resident without

providing proper notice of:

i. Date fine is due;
ii. Nature of the violation;
iii. Right to appeal the fine.
m. Defendants placing name of Plaintiff or his Trust or any other homeowner

or resident in any deadbeat’s list;
n. Billing in advance for services not provided;
o. Defendants having their agents bill consumers, homeowners, and residents

for fines, late fees, legal fees or any past due or defaulted amount without
proper notice and a mini-miranda notice that they have a right, under the
law, to dispute the amounts claimed owed and seek proper validation.
p. Defendants from billing consumers, homeowners, and residents for

COA/HOA fines and legal fees without insuring that proper notice from its
client, informing the homeowner or resident of all their due process rights,
as applicable, to appeal under the law of their state or under their
HOA/COA instruments or:
i. If such notice was not provided, to provide such legal notice as

part of their debt collection notice.
q. Defendants be prohibited from operating or collecting debts in the state of

Florida without proper registration of their agents with the state as a
registered debt collector.
r. Defendant billing OBL homeowners and residents with:
i. Water heater fines;
ii. Water, Water Service Charges;
iii. Any fines, assessments, legal fees or any amount other than the
monthly OBL HOA fee and metered utility billing without
approval of the Court or a special master.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
679. Plaintiff respectfully demands a trial by jury in this matter.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Defendants be cited to

appear and answer, and after final hearing of this cause, the Court enter judgment as
follows:
680. That Plaintiff recover its actual damages in the amounts found by the jury in no case
less than $10,000.000.00.
681. That Plaintiff’s damages be trebled pursuant to the provisions of Florida law as
described herein and above;
682. That Defendants disgorge all fees, revenues, and profits gained on operation of the
Fraudulent Utility Rebilling Enterprise and that the Plaintiff recover its
proportionate share thereof and the remaining amounts placed into the registry of
the Court for distribution to victims of the enterprise;
683. That Plaintiff recover reasonable attorney’s fees incurred in the prosecution of the
RICO, breach of contract claims, FLA Debt Collection claims and all claims
described above and herein that entitle Plaintiff to reasonable attorney’s fees.
684. That Defendants be enjoined from the activities as described above and herein;
685. That Plaintiff recover punitive damages from the Defendants as afforded by Florida
law;
686. The conduct of Defendants was heinous and part of general fraudulent practices
constituting “COA/HOA abuse and fraud” aimed at select groups, the Plaintiff and
the public in general and was a part of a pattern of conduct causing grave damage to
the public, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages in such amount as may be
determined at trial.

687. That the punitive damages so awarded be of a nature to protect the public interest,
residents, and consumers of this state and that the punitive damages be a minimum
of $25,000.000.00 or approximately 1/3 the value of the building;
688. Plaintiff further prays for any such other and further relief, whether at law or in
equity, to which he may be justly entitled.
Dated: Boca Raton, Florida

May 15, 2008
____________________________
NYE LAVALLE
“Plaintiff”
10675 Pebble Cove Lane
Boca Raton, FLA 33498
561/210-7171

VERIFICATION & AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF FLORIDA )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF PALM BEACH )
I, Nye Lavalle, do hereby depose and state as follows:
1. I am the Plaintiff named in the Complaint herein and the beneficiary of the Trust.
2. Article I Section 5. Of the Bylaws of OBL Titled Entity Members states “In the
event an Owner is a corporation, partnership, trust, or other legal entity not being a
natural person, then any natural person who is an officer, director, or other
designated agent of such corporation, partner of such partnership, beneficiary or
other designated agent of such trust, or manager of such legal entity shall be eligible
to represent such entity or entities in the affairs of the Association.”
3. As such, over the past 18 months, I undertook an extensive investigation of the

claims, allegations, and facts described above.
4. My investigation and knowledge gained therein and from my prior investigations

and experience have involved the review of over one hundred thousands of pages of
documents and evidence to date that relate to the facts and allegations stated in the
Complaint and over a 1000 pages of documents related to Defendants and OBL.
5. I am fully familiar with the facts set forth in the Verified Complaint herein and have
personal knowledge of the facts set-forth therein, which I hereby incorporate by
reference into this Verification.
6. The facts and allegations of said Verified Complaint are true to the best of my own
knowledge and are based upon my personal participation in the events set forth; my
review, analysis, audit and knowledge of the books and records, supplied to me by
OBL, the Defendants, and Trustee; and my independent investigations.
Signed under pains and penalties of perjury this 15th day of May, 2008
____________________________________
NYE LAVALLE “PLAINTIFF”

OBLBoard Lawsuit

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

OBLBoard Lawsuit

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Index No.

50 2008 CA 015152 XXXX MB AE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 15 JUDICIALTH

CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR

ONE BUCKHEAD LOOP CONDOMINIUM

NYE LAVALLE Index No. 50 2008

ONE BUCKHEAD LOOP CONDOMINIUM PLAINTIFF’S FIRST

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF: FLA

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE 1

Jurisdiction and Venue

2. At all times material hereto, Nye Lavalle, hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff” or

3. Events complained of herein took place in Palm Beach County, Florida.

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE 2

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE 3

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE 4

25. Defendant One Buckhead Loop Condominium Association is a GA corporation

26. Defendants JANE DOES 1 to 6, RICHARD ROES 1 to 6 and BUSINESS

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE 5

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE 6

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE 7

a. Commit what amounts to legal blackmail and extortion;

b. Impose their personal wills and agendas over their neighbors;

c. Harass certain targeted owners they want out of their building;

d. Discriminate against classes of owners they want out of their building;

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE 8

f. Deny due process rights to owners and residents;

i. Assessments increased more than state law, by-laws, rules, and

ii. Assessment collections far exceeding a reasonable need;

iii. A single assessment increase using several years of “accumulated”

b. Management company and foreclosure mill attorney abuses:

i. An unreasonable number of liens or lawsuits against owners;

ii. Extorting, and squeezing more money from homeowners by threats

iii. Delegation of power to an attorney or management company to sue

iv. Indemnification of the attorneys and management company so that

v. Payment of “bounties” to attorneys or the management company

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE 9

c. Improperly generating “late payments” and churning late fee payments;

i. Waiting weeks and months before cashing a check; and/or

ii. Declining and not accepting payments; and/or

iii. Intentionally sending bills to a wrong address and/or person.

d. Using aggressive foreclosure actions when the majority of homeowners

i. Foreclosing against those down-on-their-luck;

ii. Foreclosing on those with legitimate payment disputes;

iii. Foreclosing for trivial reasons such as unpaid fines;

e. Aggressive foreclosure actions the Plaintiff has been made aware of

ii. an oil stain on a driveway

iii. to recover attorneys fees only (no assessment debt)

iv. a two or three foot disagreement about placement of a lamppost

v. a window unit air conditioner;

f. Creating rules to retain preserve power and office:

i. Creating new deed restrictions, by-laws, or similar rules without a

g. Utilizing unfair tactics to eliminate opposition

PLAINTIFF’S FIRST VERIFIED COMPLAINT PAGE 10

h. Refusing disclosure of documents and records as provided by law;

i. Denying the right to vote or ballot stuffing

i. Sending violation letters and fines to their opponents immediately

ii. Creating arrears on accounts via false means.

j. Vendettas and Harassments

i. Harassing phone calls to opponents

ii. Abusive legal action directed towards opponents

iii. Fines directed towards opponents after voicing complaints

iv. False police reports against opponents

v. Wrongful disconnection of utilities