Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 40

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DIVISION OF NEW YORK


JEFFREY STEWART NEWTON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
THOMAS PATRICK FREYDL,
)
FREYDL & ASSOCIATES, LTD, a
)
California Corporation, KAREN
)
VIRGINIA FREYDL, THOMAS PATRICK )
FREYDL II, FOCUS ON CARS, a
)
California Corporation, SOUTH BAY
)
STUDIOS (A DIVISION OF FOCUS ON )
CARS) , CALIFORNIA TEQUILA, L.L.C. )
and UNNAMED DOES NOS 1-10,
)
EXCLUSIVE,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________ )

Case No. 1:13-cv-00303-LAP


Hon. Loretta A. Preska

VERIFIED COMPLAINT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, Jeffrey Stewart Newton, an individual, and hereby files his
Verified Complaint with this Honorable Court, as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1.

This is an Action for Declaratory Judgment, as well as for Damages and/or

Equitable Relief for Fraudulent Inducement, Breach of Contract, Failure to Comply With Income
Assignment Order, Tortious Interference With Contract, Fraud, Unjust Enrichment, Fraudulent
Transfer, Civil Conspiracy, Consequential Damages and Punitive Damages.

2.

This Action further seeks to recover any and all costs of this Action including, but

not limited to, actual reasonable attorney fees (if any), costs and filing fees.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PLAINTIFF
3.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton, an individual, is a resident of the States of

Michigan and New York.1


IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANTS
4.

Defendant Thomas Patrick Freydl, an individual, is a resident of the State of

California. He is a disbarred California attorney and indefinitely suspended Michigan attorney.


Both disciplinary actions were imposed against him for multiple acts of professional misconduct,
including multiple acts of the misappropriation of substantial client funds, inter alia. He is an
inveterate thief and tax cheat. He shall be referred to in these proceedings as Freydl. His
California Bar Record, showing disbarment, is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 1. His
Michigan Bar Record is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 2. His California Conviction
Record for Practicing Law Without A License is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 3.
Several of his tax liens are attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 4. He continues to practice law
and is currently a Plaintiff in this Court, demanding attorney professional fees of $150,000.00
notwithstanding his total lack of historical admission to the New York Bar and described

Neither Richard A Newton nor the Estate of Joyce A. Newton, Deceased are Plaintiffs

herein.

disbarment and suspension. See Freydl v Meringolo, 1:09-cv-07196-BSJ-KNF (the Meringolo


Action).
5.

Defendant Freydl & Associates, LTD is a defunct California corporation owned

exclusively by Freydl, Entity No. C2858146. It was incorporated on March 6, 2006. It has been
continuously suspended since October 1, 2007. Its corporate address is 20434 South Santa Fe
Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90810. The significance of this address is described, infra. Its official
California Secretary of State Corporate Status is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 5. It shall
be referred to in these proceedings as LTD. 2
6.

Defendant Karen Virginia Freydl is a resident of the state of Florida. She is

Freydl's former wife.


7.

Defendant Thomas Patrick Freydl II is a resident of the state of Connecticut. He

is Freydl's son. He shall be referred to in these proceedings as Freydl Junior.


8.

Defendant Focus on Cars, Inc. is an active California corporation, Entity No.

C1261346. It shall be referred to in these proceedings as FOCS BS.


9.

Defendant South Bay Studios is a division of Focus on Cars. It shall be referred

to in these proceedings as FOCS BS.


10.

Defendant California Tequila, L.L.C. is an active California Limited Liability

Company, Entity No. 200212610081.

LTD is a sham or dummy corporation with no apparent corporate purpose other than to
defraud Freydls creditors.

11.

Defendants Unknown DOES NOS 1-10 are as yet unknown co-conspirators,

agents, assignees, affiliates or subsidiaries of Freydl, or successor or new corporations,


partnerships, limited liability companies or assumed names involving or to Freydl or Freydl &
Associates, LTD.
JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS
12.

This Court has jurisdiction to consider Newtons claim for declaratory judgment

under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. 2201.


13.

This Court has jurisdiction to consider Newtons state law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1332(a)(1), as the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000.00, and there
exists complete diversity between the parties. This Court also has jurisdiction to consider
Newtons state law claims under its pendant jurisdiction.
14.

Freydl has voluntarily submitted to this Courts jurisdiction by virtue of his

initiation of the Meringolo Action.


15.

LTD is subject to this Courts jurisdiction by virtue of its status as a Third Party

Defendant in the Meringolo Action.


16.

Karen Virginia Freydl is subject to this Courts jurisdiction as a civil co-

conspirator of both Freydl and LTD, and each of them.


17.

Freydl Junior is subject to this Courts jurisdiction as a civil co-conspirator of

both Freydl and LTD, and each of them.

18.

FOCS BS is subject to this Courts jurisdiction as a civil co-conspirator of both

Freydl and LTD, and each of them, and the fact that FOC BS does business in this judicial
district.
VENUE ALLEGATIONS
19.

Venue is proper in this case, under 28 U.S.C. 1391(a)(3) and (b)(3), because

Freydl is subject to this Courts personal jurisdiction by virtue of the Meringolo Action, because
he admitted in his Declaration therein that many of the transactions or occurrences that form the
subject matter of this Action and caused damage to Plaintiff, occurred in this judicial district,
because he conducts and transacts business or affairs in this district, and because he can be found
here.
20.

Venue is also proper in this case, under 28 U.S.C. 1391(c)(2) because LTD is

subject to this Courts personal jurisdiction by virtue of its appearance as a Third Party
Defendant in the Meringolo Action, because it is a co-conspirator of Freydl, and because it is a
judicial district in which Freydl is subject to the Courts personal jurisdiction.
21.

Venue is also proper in this case, under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(3), because Karen

Virginia Freydl and/or Junior Freydl are subject to this Courts personal jurisdiction, because
they are co-conspirators of Freydl, and because it is a judicial district in which Freydl is subject
to the Courts personal jurisdiction.
22.

Venue is also proper in this case, under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(1), (b)(3) and (c)(2),

because FOCS BS is deemed to reside in this judicial District because it is subject to this Courts

personal jurisdiction, because this is a judicial District in which Freydl is subject to this Courts
personal jurisdiction, because it conducts and transacts business or affairs in this judicial District,
because it is a co-conspirator of Freydl, and because it can be found here.
COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
23.

In the early to mid 1990s, Newton worked3 as an independently contracted

research attorney for Freydl at Freydls former Michigan law office, then located at 1400 North
Woodward, Suite 205, City of Bloomfield Hills, County of Oakland, State of Michigan, where
Freydl practiced law under the tradenames Frasco, Freydl & Caponigro and Freydl &
Associates.

At the time, Freydl enjoyed a splendid law practice, replete with celebrity

entertainment and sports clientele and all the trappings of success.


24.

In 1994 and 1995, Freydl represented Anna Nicole Smith in a litigation matter in

which she ultimately accumulated a $250,000.00 legal bill that she never paid. This motivated
Freydl to begin misappropriating funds from clients and business associates. In pursuit of and in
furtherance of his then nascent criminal enterprise, Freydl approached Newton with various
phony entertainment law investments and pressured him to enter into them. Unfortunately,
Newton both trusted Freydl and was fearful of getting fired, so he reluctantly agreed to invest
with Freydl. Ultimately, the various entertainment law related investments were eventually

This Action relates to Freydls theft of Newtons life savings and its attendant consequential
damages, which exponentially eclipse Newton's earnings at Freydl & Associates and Frasco,
Freydl & Caponigro, Freydls Michigan lawfirms.

revealed as wholly illusory. When the dust finally settled, Freydl stole approximately eighty five
thousand dollars ($85,000.00) from Newton.
25.

Accordingly, on April 25, 1997, Newton sued Freydl in the Court of General

Jurisdiction in the State of Michigan, County of Oakland, City of Pontiac. Freydl aggressively
contested the lawsuit, and even filed a spurious bankruptcy to administratively close the case for
eight (8) months.4 Finally, on August 11, 1999, Newton and Freydl entered into the 1999
Revised Final Consent Judgment in the amount of seventy thousand dollars ($70,000.00) plus
costs, interest and attorney fees.5
26.

The amount of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment was based upon a

penalty doubling of an initial June 18, 1999 Consent Judgment in the amount of thirty five
thousand dollars ($35,000.00) that the parties entered into on June 11, 1999 and which Freydl
failed to honor.
27.

As an inducement to Newton to enter into the 1999 Revised Final Consent

Judgment, Freydl filed an Affidavit with the Michigan Court that denied that he benefited, either
directly or indirectly, from interstate wire transfers in the amount of $27,000.00 from Newton to
the Bank of America account of an entity known as 3 Ring Productions which was, upon
4

During this time, Newton fell into foreclosure on his home and entered into a miniscule
settlement with Freydl only to attempt to save his home. Since Freydl welched on the deal,
Newton ultimately lost his home to foreclosure and approximately $320,000.00 in equity
with it.

Recently, Freydl denied in Court testimony in Michigan that he entered into the Consent
Judgment.

information and belief, at all times relevant, a Freydl affiliate. Accordingly, Freydls described
representations concerning 3 Ring Productions and the $27,000.00 wire transfers were
collateral to the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.
28.

Upon information and belief, Freydls described representations concerning 3

Ring Productions and the $27,000.00 wire transfers were false (i.e., Freydl did, in fact, benefit
from such transfers).
29.

The thirty five thousand dollar ($35,000.00) June 18, 1994 Consent Judgment was

based exclusively upon two $17,500.00 non-sufficient or account closed checks that Freydl
wrote to Newton (and his brother, Richard A. Newton, who is not a party to these proceedings)6
on March 28, 1994 nearly nineteen years ago.7 A copy of these checks are attached hereto and
labeled as Exhibit 6.

Jeffrey Stewart Newton is not Richard A. Newtons agent, attorney, or any relation other than
blood relative. He expressly disclaims any other relationship with Richard A. Newton
whatsoever. Richard A. Newton is not a party to these proceedings and does not hereby
submit to the jurisdiction of this Court. Richard A. Newton assigned his claim to Jeffrey
Stewart Newton on April 7, 2009 and has no interest in this matter whatsoever. See
Assignment, attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 7. The handwritten notations on the New
York Index Number submission was copied at the direction of the Court Clerk from the
Michigan Attestation and Exemplification of Records at the Clerks request. See New York
Domestication Package, attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 8.

The 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment is also not based upon any claim of the Estate of
Joyce A. Newton, Deceased, who, likewise, is not a party to these proceedings. Jeffrey
Stewart Newton does not represent the Estate of Joyce A. Newton in these proceedings, and
he has no authority to submit the Estate to the jurisdiction of this Court. The handwritten
notations on the New York Index Number submission was copied at the direction of the Court
Clerk from the Michigan Attestation and Exemplification of Records at the Clerks request.
See Exhibit 8 hereto (New York Domestication Package).

30.

Freydl has never paid Newton anything on the 1999 Revised Final Consent

Judgment.
COUNT ONE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl,
Thomas Patrick Freydl II, Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios, California Tequila)
31.

Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in One through Thirty above

as though same had been fully set forth herein.


32.

There exists a real, actual and justiciable controversy between the parties

regarding entitlement to (a) the substantial funds transferred by Freydl to Karen Virginia Freydl
and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II notwithstanding the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment;
(discussed infra); (b) the substantial funds earned by Freydl from FOCS BS since June 22, 2011
that have not been paid over to Newton, as required by the June 22, 2011 Minute Order;
(discussed infra) and (c) the substantial funds transferred by Freydl to Freydl & Associates, LTD
since March 6, 2006, notwithstanding the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment and/or the June
22, 2011 Minute Order.
33.

Newton therefore requests that the Court order and adjudge that Newton is

entitled to take immediate ownership of all funds transferred by Freydl to any of the within
Defendants since August 11, 1999 pursuant to, and up to and including, the full amount of the
1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment, with actual damages in an amount to be determined by
the jury and with both accrued and per diem interest to be determined by the Court.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:


A.

For a Declaratory Judgment that Newton is entitled to the full amount of all

transfers from Freydl to any of the named Defendants8 from August 11, 1999 forward, up to and
including the full enforceable amount of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment, together
with damages in an amount to be determined by the jury,9 interest and costs, including per diem
interest, as determined by the Court;
B.

For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

C.

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D.

For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorneys fees; and

E.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.
COUNT TWO FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT
(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl)
34.

Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in One through Thirty Three

above as though same had been fully set forth herein.

Or to other as yet unidentified Defendants, the identity of which may become known to
Newton during the course of these proceedings.

Transfers exceeding the amount of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment are damages to
be determined by the jury.

10

35.

The 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment was based upon the June 18, 1999

Consent Judgment, which gave Freydl until July 21, 1999 to pay Newton $35,000.00, or else the
amount of said June 18, 1999 Consent Judgment would automatically double.
36.

The $35,000.00 amount set forth in the June 18, 1999 Consent Judgment was

based upon two post dated $17,500.00 Account Closed checks that Freydl tendered to Newton
as an inducement to him to tender $35,000.00 to Freydl (Exhibit 6 hereto).
37.

Freydl fraudulently induced Newton to enter into the 1999 Revised Final Consent

Judgment in at least the following respects: (a) that he intended to honor the 1999 Revised Final
Consent Judgment when, in fact, he did not, and (b) that he did not benefit, either directly or
indirectly, by two $13,500.00 April 7, 1994 wire transfers (totaling $27,000.00) from Newton to
3 Ring Productions when, in fact, he did.
38.

Upon information and belief, Freydl benefited, either directly or indirectly, from

the April 7, 1994 wire transfers from Newton to 3 Ring Productions.


39.

Freydls misrepresentation that he did not benefit from the described $27,000.00

wire transfers to 3 Ring Productions constituted a promise to take future action which was
collateral to the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment, not contained within it, and served as an
inducement for Newton to enter into it.
40.

Freydls misrepresentation that he did not benefit from the described $27,000.00

wire transfers to 3 Ring Productions was not specifically contradicted by any of the detailed
representations or warranties contained in the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.

11

41.

Freydls cumulative actions from August 11, 1999 to the present constitute

overwhelming evidence that he never intended to honor any Consent Judgment with Newton.
42.

Freydls promise to honor the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment constituted a

promise to take future action which was collateral to said Judgment, not contained within it, and
served as an inducement for Newton to enter into it.10
43.

Freydls promise to honor the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment was not

specifically contradicted by any of the detailed representations or warranties contained in the


1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.
44.

Freydl made his promise to honor the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment with

a preconceived and undisclosed intention of not performing it.


45.

Freydls above-described misrepresentations of material fact were collateral to the

1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment and served as an inducement for Newton to enter into it.
46.

Freydls above-described misrepresentations of material fact were not specifically

contradicted by any of the detailed representations or warranties contained in the 1999 Revised
Final Consent Judgment.

10

The initial, June 18, 1999 Consent Judgment featured a performance inducement/penalty
clause: the amount of said Judgment was $35,000.00 (the minimum amount needed by
Newton to save his home from foreclosure). Said June 18, 1999 Consent Judgment gave
Freydl three (3) weeks to pay the $35,000.00. When Freydl failed to pay the $35,000.00, the
amount automatically doubled to $70,000.00, hence, the amount of the 1999 Revised Final
Consent Judgment, which did not feature a performance inducement/penalty clause.

12

47.

Freydls

above-described

misrepresentations

constitute

materially

false

representations.
48.

Freydl made the above-described misrepresentations of material fact with actual

knowledge of their falsity and with the intention that Newton would rely upon them.
49.

Freydl intended to defraud Newton thereby.

50.

Freydls above-described misrepresentations of material fact constitute Fraud on

the Court.
51.

Newton

reasonably

relied

upon

Freydls

above-described

material

misrepresentations in deciding to enter into the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.
52.

Newton suffered damages as a result of his reliance upon Freydls above-

described misrepresentations of material fact.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:
A.

For rescission of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment, and

B.

In the alternative, for damages for an Action in Deceit in an amount to be

determined by the jury;


C.

For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D.

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

E.

For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorneys fees; and

F.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.

13

COUNT THREE BREACH OF CONTRACT


(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl)
53.

Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in One through Fifty Two

above as though same had been fully set forth herein.


54.

The 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment constitutes a valid, enforceable

contract between Newton and Freydl.


55.

Newton fully performed his obligations under the 1999 Revised Final Consent

Judgment.
56.

Freydl breached the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment by failing to perform

any of his obligations under it.


57.

Newton sustained substantial damages, including substantial consequential

damages, as a direct result of Freydls breach of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:
A.

For damages against Thomas Patrick Freydl in an amount to be determined by the

B.

For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

C.

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D.

For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorneys fees; and

jury;

14

E.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.
COUNT FOUR
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH INCOME ASSIGNMENT ORDER
(Against Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios, California Tequila,
Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD)
58.

Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in One through Fifty Seven

above as though same had been fully set forth herein.


59.

In June, 2011, the Orange County, California Superior Court Ordered FOCS BS to

pay Newton Freydls monthly FOC BS income, and for Freydl to pay the same to Newton. A
copy of the June 23, 2011 Minute Order, Case No. 30-2011-00469301-CU-EN-CJC, Hon.
Steven L. Perk, is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 8.
60.

Notwithstanding the Minute Order, FOC BS has continued to pay Freydl each and

every one of his monthly FOC BS income checks, and Freydl has not paid the same over to
Newton, all in violation of the Minute Order and in Contempt of the Orange County, California
Superior Court and Judge Perk.
61.

Notwithstanding the Minute Order, FOC BS has permitted, and continues to

permit, each and every one of Freydl's monthly income checks to be diverted into the bank
account of an unrelated, suspended corporation that is not an owner, employee, contractor,
associate or affiliate of FOC BS, all in violation of the Minute Order and in Contempt of the
Orange County, California Superior Court, thereby fraudulently rendering the deposited funds

15

unavailable to Newton for collection. Copies of exemplar FOC BS checks to Freydl (front and
back), showing deposit into Bank of America Corporate Account, Freydl & Associates, LTD,
Routing No. 122-000-661, Account No. 23638-71631, are attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit
9. This extremely dangerous manipulation is tantamount to the diversion of Court-ordered child
support to a payor employee's straw man account, and a message that it is verboten must be sent
by this Honorable Court to would-be wage assignment avoiders.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:
A.

For damages against Focus on Cars/South Bay Studios and/or Thomas Patrick

Freydl in an amount to be determined by the jury, but in an amount not less than the full value of
the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment, together with accrued statutory interest thereon;
B.

For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

C.

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D.

For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorney fees; and

E.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.
COUNT FIVE
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT
(Against Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios)
62.

Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in One through Sixty One

above as though same had been fully set forth herein.

16

63.

At all times relevant, a contractual business relationship (the 1999 Revised Final

Consent Judgment, including its domestication in New York and California) existed between
Newton and Freydl.
64.

At all times relevant, FOC BS was actually aware of the 1999 Revised Final

Consent Judgment (contractual business relationship) between Newton and Freydl.


65.

Prior to January, 2003, Ron Kusumi (a longstanding key FOC BS employee) and

other employees and/or agents of FOCS BS represented to Newton, via the interstate telephone
transmission lines, (1) that Freydl maintained a longstanding law office at FOCS BS, (2) that he
was an owner, employee, contractor, associate or affiliate of same, and (3) that mail sent to him
there would be properly transmitted to him without obstruction, interception, interference or
retardation.
66.

In January, 2003, FOCS BS, through its employees and/or agents, including, but

not limited to, Ron Kusumi, (1) voluntarily and intentionally devised or willfully participated in
a scheme to defraud Newton out of money; (2) with the intent to defraud Newton; (3) using
interstate wire communications, by intentionally deceiving and misrepresenting to Newton, that
FOC BS had unilaterally terminated any and all dealings, business relationships, and associations
of any nature whatsoever between Freydl and FOCS BS, and barred him permanently from the
Premises11 when, in fact, none of these things were true.

11

Such deception eliminated the singular available physical address for Freydl, who had
otherwise rendered himself absolutely unfindable.

17

67.

FOC BS' described actions constitute the crime of Wire Fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343.

68.

In January, 2003, FOCS BS, through its employees and/or agents, including, but

not limited to, Ron Kusumi, willfully obstructed, intercepted, interfered or retarded the passage
of mail addressed to Freydl from Newton, including, but not limited to, a 2003 Subpoena duces
tecum.
69.

FOC BS' fraud intentionally deceived Newton that Freydl no longer maintained

an office at FOCS BS by returning official mail that was addressed to Freydl at his FOCS BS
office address to Newton (the 2003 Subpoena), falsely representing that Freydl was not at this
address by handwriting same on such mailing's envelope when, in fact, this was not true. A
copy of the returned envelope is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 10.
70.

Again in August, 2009, FOCS BS, through its employees and/or agents, including,

but not limited to, Ron Kusumi, willfully obstructed, intercepted, interfered or retarded the
passage of mail that was addressed to Freydl at his FOC BS office address from Newton,
including, but not limited to, a 2009 Judgment Renewal Summons and Complaint, Oakland
County, Michigan Circuit Court Case No. 2009-103041-CZ (Renewing Judgment in Case No.
1997-543058-CZ).

The August 16, 2009 Proof of Service, Summons and Complaint for

Renewal of Judgment, 2009 (Richard Ferrette, showing service by mail at 20434 South Santa Fe
Avenue, Long Beach, CA), is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 11. The May 17, 1997
Cover Letter, Thomas Patrick Freydl to Jeffrey Stewart Newton (showing Freydl's use of the very

18

same, 20434 South Santa Fe Avenue, Long Beach, CA address at Focus on Cars/South Bay
Studios for his law office), is attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 12.
71.

FOC BS's described actions constituted the crimes of Mail Tampering and/or Mail

Fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1701(h) and/or 1341.


72.

Newton did not discover FOCS BSs fraud or criminal activity until Freydl mailed

Newton legal pleadings from his longstanding office at FOCS BS in August, 2011, proving, with
complete certainty, that Freydl maintained such an office at FOCS BS continuously at all times
relevant hereto and, therefore, that mail sent to him there should have been properly delivered to
him absent obstruction, interception, interference or retardation by FOC BS.
73.

At all times relevant, Freydl has enjoyed monthly income (averaging

approximately $3,000.00 per month) from FOC BS.


74.

At all times relevant, notwithstanding its actual knowledge of the contractual

business relationship between Newton and Freydl (the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment),
as well as Newton's extensive collection efforts thereof, FOC BS knowingly, intentionally and
continuously permitted its monthly income checks to Freydl to be fraudulently and wrongfully
deposited into a defunct corporate account that is not a party to the contractual business
relationship (the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment) between Newton and Freydl, thereby
fraudulently rendering the deposited funds unavailable to Newton for collection. See attached
example checks from FOC BS to Freydl (front and back), showing deposit into Bank of America
Corporate Account, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Routing No. 122-000-661, Account No. 23638-

19

71631 (Exhibit 9 hereto). This extremely dangerous manipulation is tantamount to the diversion
of Court-ordered child support to a payor employee's straw man account, and a message that it is
verboten must be sent by this Honorable Court to would-be wage assignment avoiders.
75.

FOCS BS acted with intent to defraud and/or harm and/or employed dishonest,

improper, unfair or wrongful means and/or acted solely out of malice for the purpose of
defrauding and/or harming Newton in deceiving and misleading him.
76.

FOCS BSs actions were neither legally nor socially justified.

77.

FOCS BS knew that its actions were untrue and/or criminal when it made them.

78.

FOCS BSs actions were not intended to advance its own economic interests.

79.

FOC BS' described conduct intentionally, improperly, wrongfully and tortiously

interfered with Freydl's performance of his contractual business relationship with Newton (the
1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment) by preventing Freydl's performance of it, causing Freydl
to breach it, or by causing Freydl's performance of it to be more expensive or burdensome,
causing injury and damages to Newton, including, but not limited to, pecuniary injury (failure to
pay Freydl's income over to Newton, commencing in 1999) and interference with the judicial
process [obstruction, interception, interference or retardation of official mailings and the
consequences thereof (interference with collection and judgment renewal)].
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:

20

A.

For damages against Focus on Cars/South Bay Studios in an amount to be

determined by the jury, but in an amount not less than the full value of the 1999 Final Revised
Consent Judgment, together with accrued statutory interest thereon;
B.

For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

C.

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D.

For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorney fees; and

E.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.
COUNT SIX
FRAUD
(Against Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios)
80.

Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in One through Seventy

Nine above as though same had been fully set forth herein.
81.

FOC BS made the following intentionally deceptive and misleading statements to

Newton, inter alia:


a.

that mail sent to Freydl at FOC BS would be properly transmitted to him

without obstruction, interception, interference or retardation;


b.

that FOC BS had unilaterally terminated any and all dealings, business

relationships, and associations of any nature whatsoever between itself and Freydl, and barred
him permanently from the Premises; and

21

c.

that Freydl was not at this address (as written on returned envelope

containing Subpoena, Exhibit 10 hereto);


82.

FOC BS omitted making the following statements, inter alia, to Newton, to whom

it owed a duty of disclosure thereto:


a.

that FOC BS had obstructed, intercepted, interfered with or retarded

Newton's mailings to Freydl in 2003 (Subpoena) and 2009 (Summons and Complaint for
Renewal of Judgment);
b.

that FOC BS had not unilaterally terminated any dealings, business

relationships, or associations of any nature whatsoever between itself and Freydl, or barred him
permanently or otherwise from the Premises, and that Freydl continued to maintain an office at
FOC BS; and
c.

that Freydl's monthly FOC BS income checks were being diverted into the

bank account of an unrelated, suspended corporation that was not an owner, employee,
contractor, associate or affiliate of same.
83.

FOC BS's described statements or omissions were false, deceptive or misleading.

84.

FOC BS intended to deceive Newton by its described statements or omissions.

85.

Newton reasonably relied upon FOC BS's described statements or omissions to

his detriment.
86.

Newton has been injured and has sustained damages as a result of his reliance

upon FOC BS's described statements or omissions.

22

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:


A.

For damages against Focus on Cars/South Bay Studios in an amount to be

determined by the jury, but in an amount not less than the full value of the 1999 Final Revised
Consent Judgment, together with accrued statutory interest thereon;
B.

For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

C.

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D.

For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorney fees; and

E.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.
COUNT SEVEN UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Against Karen Virginia Freydl and Thomas Patrick Freydl II)
87.

Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in One through Eighty Six

above as though same had been fully set forth herein.


88.

At all times relevant hereto, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl

II were actually aware of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.12


89.

At all times relevant hereto, Freydl transferred money to Karen Virginia Freydl

and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II notwithstanding the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.

12

Such individuals previously illegitimately attempted to parlay their wrongful receipt of funds
from Freydl into professional misconduct on the part of Newton in retaliation for his
potentially corrective efforts of their illegal behavior. Their hopes were quickly annihilated
by the Michigan Attorney Grievance Commission.

23

90.

At all times relevant hereto, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl

II received money from Freydl in violation of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment,
notwithstanding their actual awareness of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.
91.

Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II wrongfully benefited from

Freydls transfers to them at Newtons Expense.


92.

Equity and good conscience require full restitution to Newton from Karen

Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:
A.

For damages against Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II in an

amount to be determined by the jury, but in an amount not less than the full value of the 1999
Final Revised Consent Judgment, together with accrued statutory interest thereon;
B.

For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

C.

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D.

For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorneys fees; and

E.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.
COUNT EIGHT FRAUDULENT TRANSFER
(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates,
LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl, Thomas Patrick Freydl II)

24

93.

Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in One through Ninety Two

above as though same had been fully set forth herein.


94.

At all times relevant, all legal or quasi-legal professional services at issue herein

for which payment was received therefor and is sought to be recovered herein were performed by
Freydl.
95.

At all times relevant hereto, Freydl & Associates, LTD was suspended for

nonpayment of California Franchise Taxes pursuant to California Revenue & Tax Code
19719(a)13 and was therefore legally incapable of engaging in any business transactions,
including, but not limited to, the provision of legal services.
96.

At all times relevant hereto, Freydl was a Defendant in an action for money

damages versus Newton or a judgment in such action was docket against him, Case No. 1997543058-CZ, Oakland County Circuit Court, Michigan.
97.

At all times relevant hereto, Freydl transferred funds to Freydl & Associates,

LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II notwithstanding the 1999 Revised

13

It is a crime to do so. 19719(a) provides:


(a) Any person who attempts or purports to exercise the powers, rights, and privileges
of a corporation that has been suspended pursuant to Section 23301 or who transacts or
attempts to transact intrastate business in this state on behalf of a foreign corporation, the
rights and privileges of which have been forfeited pursuant to the section, is punishable by
a fine of not less than two hundred fifty dollars ($250) and not exceeding one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment not exceeding one year, or both fine and
imprisonment. Id.

25

Final Consent Judgment and their actual knowledge of its existence, including, but not limited to,
the funds delineated in the attached exemplar checks from John Meringolo, Meringolo &
Associates, Gruppo Santony, Second Renaissance, Damon Live Action, Nicholas G. Popravsky,
Timothy E. Clontz, Square Planet Media and California Tequila, inter alia, all attached hereto
and labeled as Exhibit 13. Moreover, the Meringolo checks represented legal services performed
by Freydl for Meringolo in New York City, during a time that Freydl admitted that he lived there,
as verified in his Declaration, attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 14. Similarly, the Clontz
check represents New York legal work by Freydl. Irrefutable proof that Freydl transferred
money to Karen Virginia Freydl in violation of the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment is
attached hereto and labeled as Exhibit 15. Newton did not discover these wrongful transfers
until after his discovery of the Meringolo Action and Freydl's whereabouts in late January, 2011.
98.

Pursuant to New York Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 273(a), all of the

transfers from Freydl to anybody or anything, including, but not limited to, Freydl & Associates,
LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl or Thomas Patrick Freydl II subsequent to April 25, 1997 (the date
of the filing of the Complaint in Newton vs. Freydl, Oakland County Circuit Court Case No.
1997-543058-CZ), were fraudulent as to Freydl without regard to Freydl's actual intent, because
Freydl failed to satisfy the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.
99.

At all times relevant hereto, pursuant to CPLR 276, each and every transfer or

conveyance of money made by Freydl to Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl

26

and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II was made with actual intent to defraud Newton, and are
therefore fraudulent as to him.
100.

Freydls transfers to Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or

Thomas Patrick Freydl II were made while Freydl was insolvent, or, alternatively, the transfers
caused his insolvency, thereby rendering said transfers fraudulent pursuant to CPLR 273.
101.

At the time of the transfers, Freydl was engaged in, or was about to engage in

business transactions for which his remaining property constituted unreasonably small capital,
thereby rendering said transfers fraudulent pursuant to CPLR 274.
102.

At the time of the transfers, Freydl believed that he would incur debt beyond his

ability to pay, thereby rendering all said transfers fraudulent pursuant to CPLR 275.
103.

Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II

did not convey property to Freydl in exchange for their receipt of funds, thereby rendering said
transfers fraudulent pursuant to CPLR 272.
104.

Freydls transfers to LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II

did not discharge an antecedent debt in exchange, thereby rendering said transfers fraudulent
pursuant to CPLR 272.
105.

Freydls transfers to LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II

were not for equivalent value, thereby rendering said transfers fraudulent pursuant to CPLR
272.

27

106.

Freydls transfers to LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II

were not made in good faith.


107.

Freydl intended to hinder, delay, or defraud Newton in making the transfers.

108.

The overwhelming proof of Freydls fraud includes, but is not limited to, the

indicia (badges) of fraud of close relationships between himself and LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl
and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II, transfers outside the usual course of business and inadequate
consideration for the transfers.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:
A.

For damages against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen

Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick Freydl II in an amount to be determined by the jury, but in
an amount not less than the full value of the 1999 Final Revised Consent Judgment, together
with accrued statutory interest thereon;
B.

For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

C.

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D.

For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorneys fees; and

E.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.
COUNT NINE FRAUDULENT TRANSFER
(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates,
LTD, Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios, California Tequila)

28

109.

Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in One through One Hundred

Eight above as though same had been fully set forth herein.
110.

Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios and California Tequila are all owned,

controlled, operated or managed by Richard Ricardo Gamarra (Gamarra).


111.

Gamarra is a longstanding, close personal friend of Freydl, who maintains his law

office at Gamarra's movie studio, Focus on Cars South Bay Studios, and has done so for
many years.
112.

At all times relevant hereto, Focus on Cars - South Bay Studios, California

Tequila, and/or Richard Ricardo Gamarra possessed actual knowledge of the 1999 Revised
Final Consent Judgment.
113.

At all times relevant hereto, Focus on Cars - South Bay Studios, California

Tequila, and/or Richard Ricardo Gamarra transferred or conveyed money to Freydl and/or
Freydl & Associates, LTD notwithstanding that each of them possessed actual knowledge of the
1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.
114.

At all times relevant hereto, Freydl (Agent Freydl) held himself out to be the

authorized agent of Focus on Cars - South Bay Studios, California Tequila, and/or Richard
Ricardo Gamarra.
115.

Focus on Cars - South Bay Studios, California Tequila, and/or Richard Ricardo

Gamarra have all authorized Agent Freydl to act on their behalf with respect to all matters
complained of herein, and have held him out as their, and each of theirs, exclusive agent to the

29

world. Furthermore, Focus on Cars - South Bay Studios, California Tequila, and/or Richard
Ricardo Gamarra, and each of them, has affirmed, ratified and approved each and every
transfer or conveyance of money from themselves or Freydl to Freydl or to Freydl & Associates,
LTD, imposing upon them by operation of the law of agency and the rules of equity (both of
which are incorporated into 280), full and unconditional liability to Newton, up to the full
amount of the 1999 Revised Consent Judgment in its entirety, together with accrued statutory
interest thereon.
116.

While acting directly as the authorized agent of FOC BS or California Tequila,

Agent Freydl deposited checks made out to him by FOC BS or California Tequila, into the bank
account of an unrelated, suspended corporation that is not an owner, employee, contractor,
associate or affiliate of FOC BS or California Tequila, Bank of America Corporate Account,
Freydl & Associates, LTD, Routing No. 122-000-661, Account No. 23638-71631 (See Exhibit 9
hereto), thereby fraudulently rendering the deposited funds unavailable to Newton for collection.
117.

At all times relevant hereto, pursuant to CPLR 276, each and every transfer or

conveyance of money made by FOC BS or California Tequila and/or Freydl to Freydl or to


Freydl & Associates, LTD was made with actual intent to defraud Newton, and are therefore
fraudulent as to him.
118.

At all times relevant hereto, pursuant to CPLR 278, and 280 and otherwise,

Newton seeks to set aside or annul all conveyances or transfers of money from FOC BS or
California Tequila and/or Freydl to Freydl or to Freydl & Associates, LTD to the extent necessary

30

to satisfy the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment in its entirety, together with accrued
statutory interest thereon, and to recover these monies directly from FOC BS or California
Tequila.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:
A.

For damages against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Focus on

Cars, South Bay Studios, and California Tequila in an amount to be determined by the jury, but in
an amount not less than the full value of the 1999 Final Revised Consent Judgment, together
with accrued statutory interest thereon;
B.

For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

C.

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D.

For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorneys fees; and

E.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.
COUNT TEN CIVIL CONSPIRACY
(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl,
Thomas Patrick Freydl II, Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios, California Tequila)
119.

Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in One through One Hundred

Eighteen above as though same had been fully set forth herein.
120.

FOCS BS and California Tequilas actions (where applicable) constituted the

independent torts of Misrepresentation, Fraud, Tortious Interference With Contract, Failure to

31

Comply With Income Assignment Order, Fraudulent Transfer, as well as the crimes of mail
tampering and mail and wire fraud.
121.

Karen Virginia Freydl and Thomas Patrick Freydl IIs actions constituted the

independent torts of Fraudulent Transfer and Unjust Enrichment.


122.

FOCS BS conspired with Freydl to deceive and defraud Newton into believing

that they had unilaterally terminated any and all dealings, business relationships, and associations
of any nature whatsoever between Freydl and FOCS BS, and barred him permanently from the
Premises when, in fact, none of these things were true, thereby interfering with Freydl's
performance of his contractual business relationship with Newton (the 1999 Revised Final
Consent Judgment) by preventing Freydl's performance of it, causing Freydl to breach it, or by
causing Freydl's performance of it to be more expensive or burdensome.
123.

FOCS BS and/or California Tequila conspired with Freydl to enable Freydl to

deposit checks made out to him by FOC BS or California Tequila into the bank account of an
unrelated, suspended corporation that is not an owner, employee, contractor, associate or affiliate
of FOC BS or California Tequila, Bank of America Corporate Account, Freydl & Associates,
LTD, Routing No. 122-000-661, Account No. 23638-71631 (See Exhibit 9 hereto), thereby
fraudulently rendering the deposited funds unavailable to Newton for collection.
124.

FOCS BS and/or California Tequila conspired with Freydl to avoid compliance

with the Minute Order (Exhibit 8 hereto).

32

125.

FOCS BS conspired with Freydl to deceive and defraud Newton by committing

the crimes of mail tampering, mail fraud and wire fraud.


126.

Karen Virginia Freydl and Thomas Patrick Freydl II conspired with Freydl to

unjustly enrich themselves at Newton's expense.


127.

Newton has in fact harmed by such conspiracy inasmuch as he has not yet been

able to enforce the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:
A.

For damages against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Focus on

Cars, South Bay Studios, California Tequila, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick
Freydl II in an amount to be determined by the jury, but in an amount not less than the full value
of the 1999 Final Revised Consent Judgment, together with accrued statutory interest thereon;
B.

For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

C.

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D.

For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorneys fees; and

E.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.
COUNT ELEVEN CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl,
Thomas Patrick Freydl II, Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios, California Tequila)

33

128.

Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in One through One Hundred

Twenty Seven above as though same had been fully set forth herein.
129.

Newton suffered extensive consequential damages as a result of Defendants

conduct including, but not limited to, the loss of most of the equity in his mortgage free and
clear longtime condominium home. Solely because of the actions of the Defendants, Newton
was forced to take out extremely expensive foreclosure financing on said condominium which
again, due, solely to the actions of the Defendants, he was unable to pay. Ultimately, he was
forced to sell the condominium for almost nothing regarding his consequential Defendant-caused
mortgage debt on it to avoid eviction. All of these losses were caused solely by the Defendants
massive fraud against Newton, as more fully set forth supra, thereby entitling Newton to
significant consequential damages in an amount to be determined at trial.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:
A.

For damages against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Focus on

Cars, South Bay Studios, California Tequila, Karen Virginia Freydl and/or Thomas Patrick
Freydl II in an amount to be determined by the jury, but in an amount not less than the full value
of the 1999 Final Revised Consent Judgment, together with accrued statutory interest thereon;
B.

For consequential damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

C.

For punitive damages in an amount to be determined by the jury;

D.

For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorneys fees; and

34

E.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.
COUNT TWELVE - PUNITIVE DAMAGES
(Against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD, Karen Virginia Freydl,
Thomas Patrick Freydl II, Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios)
130.

Newton restates and realleges the counts set forth in One through One Hundred

Twenty Nine above as though same had been fully set forth herein.
131.

The following acts of the Defendants, inter alia, mandate an extraordinary award

of punitive damages, to deter such despicable conduct by others in the future:


A.

Freydl's fraudulent inducement of Newton to enter into the 1999 Revised Final

Consent Judgment and eventual repudiation of his very entry into said Judgment;
B.

The conspiracy of FOC BS, California Tequila and/or Freydl & Associates, LTD

with Freydl as their agent to actively conceal, shelter and insulate Freydl's physical whereabouts
and address, so that Newton could not find him, despite considerable time and expense, and
enforce the 1999 Revised Final Consent Judgment;
C.

The conspiracy of FOC BS, California Tequila and/or Freydl & Associates, LTD

with Freydl as their agent to actively divert and wrongfully convey or transfer substantial funds
into an unrelated, defunct, sham corporate bank account (LTD), thereby rendering same
unavailable for collection by Newton;
D.

The failure of FOC BS, California Tequila and/or Freydl & Associates, LTD with

Freydl as their agent, to comply with the Minute Order, in contempt of the Orange County,
California Superior Court;

35

E.

FOC BS's obstruction, interception, interference or retardation of important,

official U.S. Mail to Freydl, including, but not limited to, subpoenas, Summonses, Complaints
and Writs, thereby actively interfering with the judicial process in obstruction of justice;
F.

Karen V. Freydl and Thomas Patrick Freydl, II's filing of spurious bar grievances

against Newton in retaliation for his legitimate collection actions;


G.

The fraudulent conveyance or transfer of substantial sums of money and unjust

enrichment thereby;
H.

Karen Virginia Freydl's illegitimate divorce from Freydl for the sole purpose of

judgment collection avoidance, initiated a mere six (6) months after her perjurious assertion of
spousal immunity to avoid divulging Freydl's physical address and asset location;
I.

Freydl's perjury as to his physical whereabouts during testimony in the Oakland

County, Michigan Circuit Court;


J.

Freydl's acceptance of nearly $100,000.00 from attorney John Meringolo and

fraudulent conveyance of same to Freydl & Associates, LTD to avoid collection by Newton; and
K.

Superior officer(s) at FOCS BS and/or California Tequila that were employed in a

managerial capacity participated in, authorized, consented to, or ratified Freydls misconduct,
such that their participation in his wrongdoing renders FOCS BS and/or California Tequila
blameworthy and arouses the institutional conscience of FOCS BS and/or California Tequila for
corrective action.

36

132.

Defendants described conduct is so morally bankrupt, so bereft of integrity, so

repugnant to honesty and fair dealing,14 so despicable in conception, inception and


implementation, so devoid of all sense of human integrity, so disgusting to men and woman of
any moral character whatsoever, so repulsive to those of honor, so characteristic of moral
turpitude and so hideously evil in every respect, as to demand extraordinary punitive damages, so
as to discourage similarly situated persons from behaving in such a putrid and fetid manner
apposite all bounds of human decency.
133.

All Defendants described conduct evinces such a high degree of moral turpitude

and demonstrates such wanton dishonesty as to imply a criminal indifference to civil obligations
and is of a character of outrage associated with crime.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Jeffrey Stewart Newton prays for relief, as follows:
A.

For punitive damages against Thomas Patrick Freydl, Freydl & Associates, LTD,

Karen Virginia Freydl, Thomas Patrick Freydl II, Focus on Cars, South Bay Studios and/or
California Tequila in an amount to be determined by the jury;
B.

14

For costs and disbursements, including reasonable actual attorneys fees; and

As Freydls previous theft of client funds and attempted cover-up was described by TriCounty Hearing Panel #66, and noted in the Michigan Attorney Discipline Board Opinion,
Grievance Administrator v Freydl, 96-193-GA (This document is available on the Michigan
Attorney Discipline Board's website as well as via a simple Google search using the
singular search term Freydl).

37

C.

For such other and further relief as the court may deem just, proper and equitable

in the premises.
Respectfully submitted,

DATED:

__________________________
Jeffrey Stewart Newton
Plaintiff In Pro Per
208 Willis Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 48067
1223 Church Road
Saugerties, NY 12477
(248) 694-1400

January 9, 2013

38

VERIFICATION
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
))ss
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
I, Jeffrey Stewart Newton, first being duly sworn, do hereby declare, under penalty of
perjury, that the foregoing is true to the best of my information, knowledge and belief.
Further Deponent Sayeth Not.
Respectfully submitted,

DATED:

__________________________
Jeffrey Stewart Newton
Plaintiff In Pro Per
208 Willis Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 48067
1223 Church Road
Saugerties, NY 12477
(248) 694-1400

January 9, 2013

On January 9, 2013, Jeffrey Stewart Newton appeared before me and signed the within
document.

______________________________
Notary Public, Oakland County
My Commission expires: ___________________

39

JURY DEMAND
I, Jeffrey Stewart Newton, Plaintiff in pro per, do hereby demand a trial by jury of all
matters so triable herein.
Respectfully submitted,

DATED:

__________________________
Jeffrey Stewart Newton
Plaintiff In Pro Per
208 Willis Avenue
Royal Oak, MI 48067
1223 Church Road
Saugerties, NY 12477
(248) 694-1400

January 9, 2013

40