How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask Law Educator, Esq. Your Own Question
Law Educator, Esq.
Law Educator, Esq., Attorney
Category: Business Law
Satisfied Customers: 111468
Experience:  All corporate law, including non-profits and charitable fraternal organizations.
10285032
Type Your Business Law Question Here...
Law Educator, Esq. is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

Continuation of Replevin Case questions summarizing

Customer Question

Continuation of Replevin Case questions summarizing allegations of conspiracy between Plaintiff/Notary/Surety Company with the purpose of helping define claims/assessing potential success of counterclaim.In Sept 2011, Defendant Company purchased 100% of the stock of Target Company (Plaintiffs) in exchange for 20% of Defendant Company; purchase agreement signatures notarized by Notary.Plaintiff filed complaint with Sheriff alleging theft of equipment and forgery to, in our opinion, fraudulently gain control of assets and labor and rescind effect of valid sale. (Same facts as current Replevin Case).
..Sheriff questioned Notary how agreement had her signature/seals, notary subsequently produced signed statement denying notarization and false story of me lifting signature/seals from affidavit transferring Plaintiffs frequent flyer mileage. We now have evidence to disprove all of this; including a copy of check executed by Notary paying fees dated the same date as stock purchase agreement while both Plaintiff/Notary have admitted valid notarization, (recently obtained).In August 2014, I filed surety bond claim settled for the full limit of liability without admission.
..Surety produced release requiring myself, and Company/shareholders not a party to claim, release Surety from all liability and right to make claim against Surety/Affiliates and notary for anything including “any” future potential claims which was refused.
..Surety Company then admitted existence of E&O policy and intention to gain release. We decided to hold off pursuing E&O claim.
..Release executed by me as individual only, against bond and notary (amount of paid claim). Surety Company cited State reporting in removing confidentiality clause.Subsequently, Plaintiff submitted Notary’s statement before the court.Corporation subsequently filed surety bond claim wrongly thinking limit applied on occurrence basis.
..In response Surety established E&O claim in Company’s name and mine as an individual, admitted we had not made claim but in “good faith” established such, stated claim would be denied per Notary’s denial as intentional act, hired attorney for Notary, and produced letters threatening potential legal action by hired attorney per previous claim and making false/unsupported allegations.
..Despite previous written warning to Surety, several letters per above were submitted by Plaintiffs before the court and used arguments in allegations against Defendants as submitted before the court. The Notary in subpoena appearance denied providing copies to Plaintiffs, while Plaintiff stated Surety remained in contact in threats against Defendants.Florida statute requires Surety to report claims paid with circumstances. Notaries are officers of State subject to broad disclosure of Public Records Act which we would argue applies to Surety as well, as bond issuer under statute. Furthermore, Florida statute allows civil action for obstruction in affairs of state.
..After checking with State offices whether notice was made and being told no record, we again inquired with Surety who related we were ‘not entitled’ to this in May of 2015. We followed this with an email exchange this year with Governor’s chief counsel and staff related they had not received notification and their inquiry to Surety was not responded to. In addition, despite our notice with both surety claims, appears Notary also did not notify State, as per statute, that her signature/seals were in the possession of others.
..We served subpoena in May this year for Surety to produce any notification and received a copy of an email to a general State email address with the Surety simply stating “The claimant alleged notary improperly notarized a document.” Notification dated 10 months from the date of the claim payment, (May 2015), a few days after our notifying Surety the State had no record, and the same date they replied to us we were not ‘entitled’ to the information. We believe such notification was knowingly false/misleading (simple mistake vs. felony) and made only upon notice of our discovery of no such notification. This statement/description would also imply an admission notary had notarized the document. Nothing in claim referred to improper notarization or anything other than a denial. Furthermore, Surety’s citation of intentional nature of denial shows they were aware of the importance of such difference. We do not believe Surety had a right to withhold this information and positive statement we were not “entitled” to such evidencing their intent to obstruct. We believe this effort and refusal to disclose payment of notary’s surety obligation under E&O policy was a coverup of their wrongful/fraudulent payment of E&O claim.
..Fraudulent payment of bond obligation under E&O undertaken to allow continuation of notary’s denial while establishing obligation to support Surety in event of further civil/regulatory action and impede potential E&O claim
Submitted: 1 month ago.
Category: Business Law
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 1 month ago.
Thank you for your question. I look forward to working with you to provide you the information you are seeking for educational purposes only.
So if the evidence proves fraud by the notary in this issue, then they could be sued for fraudulently notarizing the document.
If the surety participated in the fraud, they too should be held liable (I do not remember if they were a party in the original suit, but if they were then this would require a motion to vacate and motion for sanctions upon proving the surety knowingly engaged in the fraud on you and the court as well). If the surety did not know of the fraud at the time, but paid the claim based on the fraud, they would not be liable in a suit, it would all fall onto the party and notary they got to sign.
Please do not forget to leave positive feedback by clicking on the 5 stars at the top of your page , as the experts are not employees of the site and get no credit for spending time with customers unless they leave positive feedback. Thank you.
Customer: replied 1 month ago.
A quick response as I am hard pressed for time. The surety and notary are not part of the original case. The intention is to file a motion for leave of the court to file a counterclaim/3rd party claim. If this is refused we would file a new, separate action on the same facts.The issue is not that the notary fraudulently notarized the document, but that the notary denied notarizing the document and put forth a signed and knowingly false statement that the only thing she notarized for the Plaintiff in "September" was an affidavit transferring airlines miles to my benefit and watched it being faxed to me and the airlines and that somehow I lifted her signature and seals from this affidavit. We can prove this did not happen. The Plaintiff and notary have now both admitted that the notarization was in fact authentic and valid with the notary merely stating she forgot she did it. However, the notary in her admission states that the Plaintiff "had her believing she did not notarize the agreement," and does not address her positive statements regarding the alternative "story." We believe she could not have come up with the alternative story except in conspiracy with the Plaintiff, based on his previous transfer of miles to me months earlier and which were exhausted prior to the date of her notarization.You state that if the surety did not know of the fraud at the time they would not be liable so in your opinion this is key. The fraud or complaint on our part is the denial of the notarization which is the basis of the Plaintiffs’ actions and in turn the conspiracy evolves from the third party’s (notary/surety) actions to support or further this denial. The initial surety bond claim made by me individually, presented the notary’s signed statement denying notarizing document and her “story,” the sheriff’s report detailing her denial, the actual Replevin Complaint as well as put forth that the notary had not made notification of her believe her seal was in the possession of others, while making the claim that these actions led to the insolvency of the Company and the only basis for the Plaintiffs’ Replevin Complaint. So we would argue they were fully informed of the fraud.I am confused with your statement, “If the surety participated in the fraud, they too should be held liable (I do not remember if they were a party in the original suit, but if they were then this would require a motion to vacate and motion for sanctions upon proving the surety knowingly engaged in the fraud on you and the court as well).” We are Defendants in the Replevin Complaint, our counterclaim/third party claim would allege a conspiracy by the notary and surety to support the resultant fraud upon the court and ongoing effort to interfere and obstruct. We would still seek and want a finding of fraud upon the court by the Plaintiffs, which appears to be a mere formality at this point. Are we totally off base on our right to pursue this line of action? Remember, there are two claims involved in this, the original surety bond claim (legit) and the subsequent payment of the notary’s liability under the E&O policy which we would claim is fraudulent.My question was directed toward identifying the potential claims against the notary and surety.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 1 month ago.
you need to prove the surety knew at the time that the claim or document was false. As far as the notary, their signature appears on the form, so unless they prove their signature was forged and it was not their signature, them later denying they signed it would not absolve them of being liable for falsely notarizing something. If they prove they did not notarize it then you have no cause against them and you have to prove the surety notarized it and falsified the notary signature or knew it was false. This is going to be almost an impossible task.
Customer: replied 1 month ago.
Thank you for your response, but again I am confused. We are not alleging they participated in the original fraud, we are alleging they conspired in perpetrating such fraud through obstruction, (failing to report the surety claim to the State, then filing a knowingly false and misleading notification of such paid claim, ignoring the State's inquiry, refusing to provide details to us), insurance fraud, (payment of the notary's surety bond under the E&O policy), bad faith claims practices, (attempting to gain release from liability without disclosure, opening an E&O claim in Company/my name and using such to intimidate the Company/Me including the threat of legal action) and tortious interference by providing Plaintiffs copy of the correspondence to me containing false accusations and unsupported accusations.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 1 month ago.
Thank you for your reply.
You are saying the same thing, that somehow they are liable, either before or after the fact. However, either way you have to show they had actual knowledge and continued to act despite that actual knowledge of the fraud. So, you have to prove they knew it was a fraud and paid the claim despite that knowledge to have a cause of action.
Customer: replied 30 days ago.
Thanks for your response. Are you saying our only grounds for action is fraud? That the surety has no accountability in regard to obstruction?
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 30 days ago.
Thank you for your reply.
The surety did not obstruct anything. They received a phony affidavit and if they knew the affidavit was phony then they would be part of the fraud, if not then they are not liable. If the notary was aware the affidavit was a fraud and notarized it anyhow, then they are liable with the person who made the fraudulent claim. Actually, without the surety knowing before they paid out that the claim was a fraud supported by a fraudulent affidavit, they too are the victim of fraud.
Customer: replied 30 days ago.
Not sure if you are following. The notary notarized a sales agreement. I filed a claim alleging denial of a valid notarization triggering a requirement that the surety report the payment to the state. They did not and refused to tell me whether they did or not. The surety also failed to report that her belief that her seals were in the possession of others as required and as noted in my claim. After writing surety again, 10+ months later, they did notify state but refused my request at confirmation stating I was not "entitled" to it. Such late notification was knowingly false and misleading stating I made claim for an improper notarization, difference between honest mistake and crime. Furthermore, such a statement implies notary admitted to notarizing agreement but somehow it was "improper;" was this when she realized her error and admitted notarizing, (May 2015)? None of this was discovered until this spring when in response to subpoena we discovered notary payment, notary admitted notarizing agreement, and the notification by surety was revealed. It was at this time that Plaintiff also admitted notarization was valid. In addition, per the Governor's chief counsel's office, surety refused to reply to their inquiry on the matter. We are also not sure they actually did notify state, subpoena revealed a simple email to a general email address while the reply from the Chief Counsel's office said they had not. It is our contention this matter should have been over at the time of the claim payment if not for the wrongful actions of the surety.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 30 days ago.
Thank you for your reply.
This falls on the notary, not the surety, and the plaintiff.
Customer: replied 30 days ago.
The failure of the surety to fulfill reporting requirements falls on notary?
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 30 days ago.
You are trying to make a case against the surety stretching the facts, the notary improperly notarizing the document is liability and the plaintiff committed fraud. If the surety was involved in the actual fraud, not just did not notify the state (that makes the surety liable to the state if they failed to fulfill that requirement, but not you).
Customer: replied 30 days ago.
Thanks for the reply. Then what is obstruction and why have the reporting requirement? And if they are liable to the State, why are they not liable to me? Is that not the basis of a claim of conspiracy? The wrong has resulted in losses to me and the company.I do not think I am stretching the facts, the facts are what they are. These laws were enacted to protect the integrity of an important function of the state and to prevent an abuse of such function as is evident here. The surety is a licensed entity of the State with an obligation to fairness and the operation of the law.
Customer: replied 30 days ago.
The fraud on the part of the surety is that they have actively engaged in hiding the notary's denial and the Plaintiff's fraud from authorities and obstructed in my/company's attempt to ferret out the truth and receive justice.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 30 days ago.
Thank you for your reply.
If the surety ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUD or the ACTION TO DEFRAUD YOU, they are liable. This is what I said from the beginning, you have to actually link them to active participation in the fraud, not merely they did not report, but they actively participated in it.
Customer: replied 29 days ago.
Thank you for your reply.But the facts plainly show that they did not merely fail to report. They failed to report a requirement they clearly were aware of as evidenced by their use of such to negotiate away a mutual confidentiality clause in the release. They only subsequently did report after multiple inquiries, (10 month delay) with such reporting falsely and misleadingly characterizing such claim payment as a minor error versus the potential of a felony crime. And compounding their misdeeds they refused to disclose such notification was made despite knowing the State had informed us that they did not have record of such and going so far as bluntly stating we were not "entitled" to such information when in fact we were "entitled" to such information, while it appears per our response from the Governor's Chief Counsel's office that they also refused to reply to that office's inquiry.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 29 days ago.
Thank you for your reply.
All of those issues are after the fact and not proof they knew of the fraud or participated in the actual fraud. So, again you are back to you bearing the proof that they actively participated in the fraud KNOWINGLY and not merely just refused to report and refused to cooperate with you by providing you documents.
Customer: replied 28 days ago.
There was an ongoing lawsuit which the Surety was aware that this information was integral and which they knowingly acted in obstructing its discovery. Why do I need to prove they knowingly participated in the original fraud, my underlying tort is that they knowingly engaged in obstruction in conspiracy of the Plaintiff's ongoing action. Whether or not that fraud was known to be true or not, does not provide the Surety an excuse or a right to obstruct my discovery. I would be including the Surety as a party to the lawsuit on that basis.But there is more to it. My claim was for a denial of a valid notarization, such denial being a fact obviously known by the Surety via the notary’s signed statement, the Sheriff’s report and the denial of my supposed claim. If the surety's subsequent notification of "an improper notarization" is true, it would explicitly require that there was in fact a notarization and that the Surety not only had this knowledge, but engaged in insurance fraud with the notary by paying the notary’s bond liability under the E&O policy for an intentional act, the denial. Even if the notary admitted that she could not remember if she had notarized the agreement as per her recent admission, would still render such E&O payment fraudulent and in either case make the Surety’s actions obstructive to my right to discovery of such. If the notary continued in their denial as per the written statement, which would be the only basis that the E&O policy payment was legitimate, would mean that the Surety’s notification was false and misleading and in violation of statute and an obstruction of due process. The laws enacted by the State were intended to prevent the very abuses of the office of the notary public that this case represents. This case should have been over in July 2014, if not for the abuses and misconduct on the part of the Surety.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 28 days ago.
Thank you for your reply.
If they were obstructing discovery in an ongoing suit, then the proper remedy for that was a motion to compel and a motion for order to show cause for contempt at the time of the ongoing suit.
I mean you say you have this evidence against the surety, if you can show they participated in the fraud, as you are saying, then you can name them in the suit, you are thinking of suing the notary as well, so naming the surety too is not going to cost more, then leave it to the surety to prove how they are not involved in the fraud against you.
Customer: replied 23 days ago.
Per your comment on the evidence I think I have, the evidence is straight forward as well as the facts associated with it, do you have an issue with the evidence?I am not sure where to take this response and maybe my question was too complex. My original question was intended to address the possible structure of claims for the given set of facts. If it would help, I’ll summarize again.Obstruction
The Surety failed to report the claim to the State as required by statute, filed a knowingly false report when pressured, refused to reply to the State’s inquiry and wrongly stated I was not entitled to the information when asked. Furthermore, the Surety was aware the notary had failed to report her belief that her seals/signature were in the possession of others as required by similar statute. Is obstruction the proper form of a claim in a suit or is there another way to plead the claim in civil court?Bad Faith Claims/Interference
The Surety opened an E&O claim in my name and Company’s name despite admitting in their initial correspondence that we had not filed a claim, denied such claim on the basis of intentional error (though paid notary on same facts), presented false allegations against Company/me, and threatened me with action by the attorney hired for the notary. This was then shared with Notary that ultimately ended up being submitted before the court and used by Plaintiffs to raise additional unfounded claims in such submissions. This was undertaken despite my written caution to Surety on sharing of information with Notary and becoming part of the very conspiracy on which my claim was based. The notary stated she did not give Plaintiff the correspondence.Insurance Fraud
The surety bond claim payment to me was for “denial of a valid notarization.” The only legitimate basis for paying the notary’s liability for such bond liability under an Errors and Omissions policy would be if she continued to deny having notarized the agreement. If the notary admitted to not remembering notarization of the agreement as she now claims in her written admission, such denial and the fabrication of the alternative story would be an intentional act and not covered by the E&O policy. The surety’s knowledge that such was not covered is evidenced by surety itself pointing out such in their denial of our supposed E&O claim. The notary, in her subpoena appearance denied ever claiming anything in regard to the surety other than having forgot she notarized the agreement.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 20 days ago.
Thank you for your reply.
IF there was a fraudulent claim, the party who filed the fraudulent claim is the party who is going to be liable for that, not the surety for paying on the fraudulent claim. If the surety got involved in a fraudulent claim against you and made a fraudulent claim or opened one in your name knowing it was fraudulent, then that is the cause of action for your attorney to file under. If the notary falsely notarized the document, then they too are liable for falsely signing the forms.
Customer: replied 20 days ago.
This is where we are at odds. You revert to the idea that I am claiming fraud on the part of the Surety in regard to the transaction or alternatively, not considering the actual basis for our claims. My claim in a counterclaim/3rd party claim would be a conspiracy on the part of the three parties to wrongfully deny a valid notarization.A civil conspiracy, in Florida, consists of the following elements: "(a) a conspiracy between two or more parties, (b) to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, (c) the doing of some overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy, and (d) damage to plaintiff as a result of the acts performed pursuant to the conspiracy." Walters v. Blankenship, 931 So.2d 137, 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).The Plaintiffs, notary and surety conspired to deny a valid notarization. The Plaintiffs by filing a fraud upon the court based on the denial. The notary through the simple act of denying such notarization and falsely creating a story to mislead (she could have claimed she did not remember), obstruction for failure to report her belief her seals were in the possession of others and insurance fraud for making a claim and accepting payment under her E&O policy. The surety for obstruction for failing to report the bond payment (for denial of a valid notarization), and after repeated inquiry knowingly, falsely and misleadingly reporting such claim to the State as a claim of an improper notarization, refusing to share such information with me or the Company, and refusing to respond to the State’s inquiry on such matter while also participating in insurance fraud by payment of the bond liability under the E&O policy for an intentional act which they clearly knew was wrong based on their stated intention to deny such similar claim they established in the name of myself and the Company.You state, if there was a fraudulent claim, the party who filed the fraudulent claim is the party who is going to be liable for that, not the surety for paying on the fraudulent claim. But the surety did know that such claim was fraudulent and the subsequent false reporting of the bond claim payment also showed their efforts to cover up such action by wrongfully claiming an improper notarization, a fact they knew was false but provided for their payment of the E&O claim. We would hold that the E&O claim was paid without any request on the part of the surety for the notary to respond to the basis of the claim of the denial of the notarization and without any due diligence. If the notary had simply stated that she did not remember this would not have been an issue. But the notary submitted a knowingly false and misleading statement inventing a story of allegations against me, (a deliberate, intentional act), which was submitted in a complaint against me to the sheriff and used by the Plaintiffs as the basis of the Repleven Complaint. In Florida, it is against insurance regulations to pay unsupported claims.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 20 days ago.
Thank you for your reply.
There also has to be proof that the surety had actual knowledge of the fraud at the time, which is something I have said over and over again. If you can show the surety had that knowledge that the notarization was fraudulent and the claim was fraudulent at the time they paid the claim, then you can seek to hold them liable. If you cannot show that knowledge, you are not going to succeed.
Customer: replied 17 days ago.
Thank you for the response. I agree you have said the Surety had to have knowledge of what you are saying is the fraud multiple times and as I have tried to impress in reply is that the conspiracy on the part of the Surety is the furthering or support of such fraud through obstruction, (failure to report to state, subsequent filing of a knowingly false and misleading report, and refusing to reply to the state's inquiry), bad faith claims practices, and insurance fraud in paying a knowingly false E&O claim on the part of the notary. My question concerned how to structure the claims.In regard to the Surety’s knowledge of the fraud; the fraud, as well as the basis of my paid claim against the surety bond, was a denial of a valid notarization. Of course the Surety had no knowledge of the fraud at the time of the initial denial or participated in that initial denial, but this denial forms the basis of both a complaint filed with the sheriff and the “ongoing” Replevin case. And as far as I understand, I could still be subject to criminal charges if the Plaintiffs were successful.My claim against the surety bond was for a denial of a valid notarization, the "fraud" in this instance. I provided the surety with a copy of the sheriff's report in which her denial is recorded as well as the signed statement where she stated she did not notarize the document and presented in response to the sheriff’s inquiry as to how I had her signature and seals, a knowingly false story of another notarization at that time and alleges the potential of forgery on my part. Knowledge of the notary’s denial of the notarization on the part of the Surety, at this point, is an established fact.The denial is a positive, intentional act not covered by an E&O policy, as correctly pointed out by the Surety itself in its denial of grounds for the supposed claim established by them in the name of the Company and myself. We would also allege the claim was paid without proper due diligence or explanation as to the denial or the fact that the notary had not informed the State of her belief that her seals were in the possession per regulations. The fact that at this time the notary continued to ignore this requirement, and the Surety did not require such notification be made, as further evidence of their knowledge/complicity in the fraud and an intentional effort to prevent any possible investigation/discovery by the State. It is our belief the Surety failed to timely report the claim to the State, subsequently filed a false and misleading notification, and thwarted our attempts for information allowing the denial/deception to continue in order to prevent further liability on their part.Again my question was in regard on how to structure the claims for civil conspiracy:Obstruction
The Surety failed to report the claim to the State as required by statute, filed a knowingly false report when pressured, refused to reply to the State’s inquiry and wrongly stated I was not entitled to the information when asked. Furthermore, the Surety was aware the notary had failed to report her belief that her seals/signature were in the possession of others as required by similar statute. Is obstruction the proper form of a claim in a suit or is there another way to plead the claim in civil court?
Bad Faith Claims/Interference
The Surety opened an E&O claim in my name and Company’s name despite admitting in their initial correspondence that we had not filed a claim, denied such claim on the basis of intentional error (though paid notary on same facts), presented false allegations against Company/me, and threatened me with action by the attorney hired for the notary. This was then shared with Notary that ultimately ended up being submitted before the court and used by Plaintiffs to raise additional unfounded claims in such submissions. This was undertaken despite my written caution to Surety on sharing of information with Notary and becoming part of the very conspiracy on which my claim was based. The notary stated she did not give Plaintiff the correspondence.
Insurance Fraud
The surety bond claim payment to me was for “denial of a valid notarization.” The only legitimate basis for paying the notary’s liability for such bond liability under an Errors and Omissions policy would be if she continued to deny having notarized the agreement. If the notary admitted to not remembering notarization of the agreement as she now claims in her written admission, such denial and the fabrication of the alternative story would be an intentional act and not covered by the E&O policy. The surety’s knowledge that such was not covered is evidenced by surety itself pointing out such in their denial of our supposed E&O claim. The notary, in her subpoena appearance denied ever claiming anything in regard to the Surety other than having forgotten she notarized the agreement.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 17 days ago.

To allege fraud on the surety, you will have to show that they knew because you told them or provided them proof before they paid the claim that the notarization was fraudulent. if you have that and you proved they had it before they paid the claim, there is your fraud on the part of the surety. Once you notified the surety of that information, then you argue that they had the duty to investigate before paying the claim. Your attorney of course would need the documents to support your specific fraud claim against the surety. Once you do that then your arguments about obstruction and bad faith would be the other part of your claims

Customer: replied 16 days ago.
We are still not on the same page as to the facts. The notarization of the agreement was valid and authentic. The fraud on the part of the plaintiff and notary is the denial of that valid notarization which was the basis of my paid claim against the surety bond. The misdeeds of the Surety consist of efforts on their part to allow the continuation of that denial/fraud through obstruction, interference and the fraudulent payment of the notary’s obligation to repay the bond claim under the E&O policy.Your focus has been on the claim of fraud on the part of the Surety, but I am leery of that course because of the burden of proof and thus revert to the application of conspiracy on the part of the Surety via obstruction, interference and the fraudulent payment of the notary’s obligation to repay the bond claim under the E&O policy. As such my question aimed at to define the claims associated with those misdeeds as part of a claim of conspiracy. For instance, I am uncertain on obstruction as a claim in civil court as with the other claims and my assumption is that these are underlying torts providing the basis of a conspiracy claim.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 16 days ago.
I told you from the beginning that fraud on surety was a stretch, you are the one who keeps trying to figure a way to nail the surety and notary. Obstruction is not really a civil tort claim, tortious interference with contracts can be a claim.
To have a tortious interference claim you need to prove:
(1) A valid contract existed between the plaintiff and a third party;
(2) The defendant knew of the contract;
(3) The defendant took actions intended to induce a breach or disruption of the contract;
(4) There was no legal justification for the defendant’s actions, and;
(5) Damages resulted.
Other than tortious interference, the only other way to attack them is breach of contract and negligence if you do not have enough for the specific proof of fraudulent intent.
Customer: replied 13 days ago.
I am just trying to find a way to "nail" the notary and surety. Maybe I am, if nailing can be defined as trying to get justice for losses suffered because she knowingly lied about her notarization and the surety did everything it could to hide her actions from authorities, allow such denial to continue and thwart my getting that justice. I have been involved in this lawsuit for over 5 years and lost everything I have with catastrophic effects on me and my family and you tell me I am trying to nail the surety and notary like someone who thinks they have a winning lottery ticket. No way will any compensation that I or the Company may realize for the wrongs be close to approximating the losses I have suffered or that of the shareholders.And you keep trying to pigeonhole my claim to the idea of having to prove fraud when it as always been my claim that it is a conspiracy to deny her valid notarization. As I quoted previously, “A civil conspiracy, in Florida, consists of the following elements: "(a) a conspiracy between two or more parties, (b) to do an unlawful act or to do a lawful act by unlawful means, (c) the doing of some overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy, and (d) damage to plaintiff as a result of the acts performed pursuant to the conspiracy." Walters v. Blankenship, 931 So.2d 137, 140 (Fla. 5th DCA 2006).”I would appreciate it if you could address whether such course of action, a claim of conspiracy is appropriate given the facts. Thank you.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 13 days ago.
Thank you for your reply.
You know, I really do not have more for you, I am sorry. I think you are stretching it and I have spent hours searching for a way to do what you want to do and I am guessing that your attorney who is representing your company is coming up blank too. You do know that you cannot represent your company in any lawsuit, it has to be represented by an attorney, so you are trying to sue the notary and surety because of what they did with your company and if you plan on filing suit, you would be charged with unauthorized practice of law.
As far as conspiracy, you have not shown any requisite intent, in other words the notary and surety had to discuss harming your business, so again, you are really stretching that as well.
Customer: replied 11 days ago.
Once again your failure to comprehend the facts as presented has led you to responses that are not supported by those facts while your willingness to make assumptions as to my motives and basis behind my questions is not worthy of a response and wholly inappropriate. As is obvious, I am unsatisfied by your responses and treatment and request my fee be refunded and the question and responses here be removed and kept confidential. If you have any issue with complying with this request please reply.
Expert:  Law Educator, Esq. replied 10 days ago.
I wish you the best, ***** ***** opting out of this because I have no further answers I can give you. I am sorry. Do not reply to me it will delay others who may wish to have something to add.
Happy Thanksgiving.