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