Preview
MIDDLESEX, SS
Je
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
9-11 Amsterdam Trust
SUPERIOR COURT
CASE NO. IG- Sb a
Plaintiff, -———FiED,
“IN THEOFFICE OF THE
Vv. CLERK OF COURTS
Martin Weise, Liesbeth Uiterloo,
122 Arlington Development I Corp.,
Kevin Jones, Cashflow Capital, LLC,
606 Richmond Hill Road, Inc.,
131 North Cottage Street Development
1, Inc., Liesbeth Contracting Corp.,
Defendants
297 Netherland Development I Corp.,
303 Netherland Development I Corp.,
W Develop Group Brokers, Inc.
Bank of America, N.A. and People’s
United Bank, National Association
as Trustee Process Defendants
FORS THE COUNTY OF AYP DLESEX
FEB 26 20%
COMPLAINT
. The plaintiff is a Massachusetts trust with an office address of Suite 25, 550
Cochituate Road Framingham, MA 01701.
. The defendant Martin Weise (Weise) is an individual whose primary residence is reported as
606 Richmond Hill Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314.
. The defendant Liesbeth Uiterloo (Uiterloo) is an individual whose primary residence is
reported as 606 Richmond Hill Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314.
. The defendant 122 Arlington Development 1 Corp, (122 Arlington) is a New York
Corporation with a business address of 606 Richmond Hill Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314
and is wholly-owned by the defendant Martin Weiss.
. The defendant131 North Cottage Street Development 1, Inc., is a New York corporation
with a business address of 2440 Broadway, Suite 239, New York, NY 10025 and is wholly
owned by the defendant Martin Weiss.6. The defendant Liesbeth Contracting Corp. is a New York corporation with a business
address of 603 W. 115" Street, Suite 172, New York, NY 10025 and is wholly owned by
the defendant Martin Weiss.
7. The defendant 606 Richmond Hill Road, Inc., is a New York corporation with a business
address of 211 W. 92™ Street, Suite 41, New York, NY 10025 and is wholly owned by the
defendant Martin Weiss.
8. The defendant Kevin Jones (Jones) is an individual and the managing member of codefendant
Cashflow Capital, LLC, (Cashflow) with an office at 28 West 39th Street, New York, NY
10018.
9. The defendant Cashflow Capital, LLC, (Cashflow) is a New York limited liability
corporation with an office at 28 West 39th Street, New York, NY 10018.
10. The trustee process defendant 297 Netherland Development I Corp., is a New York
Corporation with a business address of 606 Richmond Hill Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314
and is wholly-owned by the defendant Martin Weiss.
11. The trustee process defendant 303 Netherland Development I Corp., is a New York
Corporation with a business address of 606 Richmond Hill Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314
and is wholly-owned by the defendant Martin Weiss.
12. The trustee process defendant W Develop Group Brokers, Inc., is a New York
Corporation with a business address of 606 Richmond Hil! Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314
and is wholly-owned by the defendant Marlin Weiss.
13. The trustee process defendant People’s United Bank, National Association is a federally
chartered banking entity with a principal business address of 850 Main Street, Bridgeport,
CT 06604 and a Middlesex County address at 45 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA
02138.
14. The trustee process defendant Bank of America NA is a federally chartered banking
entity with a principal business address of 100 North Trion Street, Charlotte, NC 28202
and a Middlesex County Address at 1414 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138.
Jurisdiction
This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 223A Section 3 et
seq. wherein the defendants availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business activities
in Massachusetts and were primary participants in the wrongdoing as alleged herein.Factual Allegations
15.In the spring of 2015 the defendants Jones, Cashflow, Weise and Uiterloo
contacted the plaintiff and its affiliates in Massachusetts to seek funding for several
business ventures.
16.One such venture related to the solicitation by the defendants of an investment
wherein the plaintiff would procure loans and other funding for the defendants in
exchange for the transfer of common stock and related voting rights in an entity
known as 606 Richmond Hill Road 1, Inc. (the Corporation) purportedly owned by
the defendants Weise and Uiterloo.
17.On or about June 30, 2015, based on the solicitation of all of the defendants, the
defendant Uiterloo conveyed stock in the Corporation to the plaintiff in
Massachusetts.
18.In conjunction with the stock and securities transfer, the plaintiff facilitated an
investment including a commercial real estate loan in relation to a multifamily,
residential property located at 9-11 Amsterdam St., Mount Vernon, NY (The
Property) which was ultimately conveyed to the Corporation.
19.In soliciting the acquisition of the shares of the Corporation by the plaintiff, the
defendants represented that The Property to be owned by the Corporation would
be rehabilitated by the defendants as licensed contractors and subcontractors in
accordance with the law and resold based on an estimated $600,000 after repair
value thereby resulting in a profit for The Corporation and, thereby, a guaranteed
minimum return to the plaintiff in the amount of $128,775.00.
20.In soliciting the plaintiff and it’s associates, the defendants represented they had
the requisite honesty, character, integrity, skill, licensing and experience to
coordinate construction required to rehabilitate The Property and that they would
do so in full accordance with the law and the related lending documents.
21. Weise and Uiterloo purport to own and operate the defendant Liesbeth Contracting
Corp. which the defendants proposed to provide licensed construction services for
the rehabilitation of The Property.
22.In contradiction to the representations and warranties of the defendants, neither the
defendants nor Liesbeth Contracting Corp. at times pertinent hereto, held required
licensing to provide the promised construction services relative to The Property,
nor did the defendants contract with requisite, third-party contractor licensees.
23.At all times pertinent hereto, and with respect to all of the warranties and
representations of the defendants herein, the plaintiff did reasonably rely on all of
said representations and warranties that were made to the plaintiff inMassachusetts.
24.In reliance upon the warranties and representations of the defendants and in
conjunction with the securities transfer and related loan documents the plaintiff
facilitated a wire payment in Massachusetts as a portion of the commercial funding
proceeds to be applied toward payment of construction materials relative to The
Property.
25.The defendants solicited in Massachusetts, and received from a Massachusetts
bank, a wire transfer in the amount of $35,000 (The Construction Disbursement)
directed by the plaintiff and based upon the promise by the defendants that the
proceeds of the wire would be disbursed solely and exclusively into the account of
the general contractor and would be used exclusively toward the payment of
deposits required to order and obtain construction materials required at The
Property.
26.The defendants failed and refused to account for The Construction Disbursement
but instead submitted fraudulent, modified receipts from vendors such as the Home
Depot falsifying receipts, inflating and distorting actual amounts expended.
27.The defendants, in failing and refusing to account for The Construction
Disbursement also submitted evidence they used The Construction Disbursement
for personal benefit including payment of legal fees and payment of insurance
coverage on another property owned by Weise and by the other defendants.
28.The defendant Weise fraudulently transferred The Construction Disbursement to
the defendant 131 North Cottage Street Development 1, Inc a corporation owned
by Weise, and converted, diverted and disbursed the proceeds for illegal and
improper purposes not related to The Property.
29. Weise improperly directed the defendant 131 North Cottage Street Development
1, Inc. to disburse a portion of The Construction Disbursement for the benefit of
the defendants 606 Richmond Hill Road, Inc, and 122 Arlington Development i
Corp in order to complete the rehabilitation of property at 432 S. 8 Ave., Mount
Vernon, New York.
30. The defendant 606 Richmond Hill Road, Inc, conveyed the property at 432 S. 8th
Ave., Mount Vernon, New York improved with the monies of the plaintiff to the
defendant 122 Arlington Development 1 Corp on or about October 27, 2015.
31.The property at 432 S. 8th Ave., Mount Vernon, New York improved with the
monies of the plaintiff and owned by the defendant 122 Arlington Development |
Corp was sold on or about December 31, 2015 resulting in combined payments to
the defendant corporations 122 Arlington Development 1 Corp and Liesbeth
Contracting Corp both owned by Weiss in excess of $150,000.00.32.The deceptive conduct of the defendants resulted in an inspection of The Property
by the lender and its representatives wherein it was determined that Weise,
Uiterloo and Liesbeth Contracting Corp. had failed to obtain the specified
permitting, licensing or construction materials that had been required and paid for
by The Construction Disbursement.
33. The inspection of The Property by the lender and its representatives also disclosed
that Weise, Uiterloo and Liesbeth Contracting Corp. had filed false building permit
documentation at the building Department in the city of Mount Vernon New York
wherein the defendants misrepresented the scope of work at The Property
indicating a budget of a fraction of the actual budget being claimed and indicating
no electrical or plumbing was being performed.
34. The inspection of The Property by the lender and its representatives also disclosed
that Weise, Uiterloo and Liesbeth Contracting Corp. had performed illegal,
substandard electrical and other work requiring permits by licensed electricians,
plumbers and related laborers, said work having been performed and completed in
a substandard fashion and in flagrant violation of building code requirements and
having been performed by unlicensed individual supervised by the defendants or
by the defendants themselves.
35.The conduct of the defendants caused, inter alia, a default to occur relative to the
loan documents concerning The Property.
36. The resulting default of the lending documents and the defalcation and fraud by
the Defendants, is resulting in the loss of control and ownership of The Property.
37.The conduct of the defendants, directly resulting in the loss of control and
ownership of The Property has resulted in substantial economic and related loss to
the plaintiff.
38. At no time did the defendants Weise, Uiterloo, Jones or Cashflow ever register as
broker-dealers or agents authorized as required by Massachusetts general laws
chapter 110A and 950 CMR 10 et seq. when offering the sale and transfer of
securities.
39.The defendants Jones and Cashflow were paid approximately Ten Thousand
Dollars ($10,000) in connection with the sale of the securities by the defendants to
the plaintiffs.
40. The acts and omissions of the defendants as outlined herein constitute fraud and
deception in the offer or solicitation of investments relative to the sale of securities
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
41.Notwithstanding the fraud, forgery, deception and illegality perpetrated by the
defendants they have filed false claims with regulatory agencies and a false,purported mechanics lien on The Property alleging that over $80,000 remains due
and owing to the defendants through their company, Liesbeth Contracting Corp.
for construction work that has been performed on The Property.
42. Notwithstanding the fraud, forgery, deception and illegality perpetrated by the
defendants they have made libelous and slanderous statements about the plaintiff
to the Bar counsel at the Board of Bar Overseers in Massachusetts.
43. At all times pertinent hereto the actions of the defendants involved solicitations by
phone, e-mail and otherwise to the plaintiff in Massachusetts.
Count 1 — Fraud and Conversion
44, The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual
allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those
allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint.
45.The defendants, or their agent(s), made a false representation of a material fact
with knowledge of its falsity for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to act thereon,
and that the plaintiff relied upon the representation as true and acted upon it
resulting in damage to the plaintiff.
46.The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and
other damages to the plaintiff.
Count 2 — Unjust Enrichment
47.The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual
allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those
allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint.
48.The facts as outlined herein confirm that a benefit was conferred upon the
defendants by the plaintiff.
49.The defendants are in possession of the monetary and other benefits bestowed by
the plaintiff.
50. The acceptance or retention by the defendant of the monies and benefit under such
circumstances make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without
repayment to the plaintiff.
51. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and
other damages to the plaintiff.Count 3 - Negligent Misrepresentation
52. The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual
allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those
allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint.
53. The defendants in the course of their businesses supplied false information for the
guidance of the plaintiff, causing and resulting in pecuniary loss to the plaintiff
who justifiably relied upon the information.
54.The defendants failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or
communicating the information.
55. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and
other damages to the plaintiff.
Count 4 - Breach of Contract
56. The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual
allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those
allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint.
57. The agreement(s) between the plaintiff and the defendants were all breached by
the defendants as set forth herein.
58. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and
other damages to the plaintiff.
Count 5 — Promissory Estoppel
59. The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual
allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those
allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint.
60. As alleged herein, the defendants made representations intended to induce reliance
by the plaintiff who did so rely to the detriment of plaintiff.
61. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and
other damages to the plaintiff.
Count 6 — Breach of Fiduciary Duty
62. The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual
allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those
allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint.63. The defendants owed a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff which duty was breached by
the actions and omissions set forth herein.
64. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and
other damages to the plaintiff.
Count 6 — Libel and Slander
65. The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual
allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those
allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint.
66.The defendant Weise made verbal or written statements to the Massachusetts
Board of Bar Overseers disparaging the plaintiff and knowing the statements to be
false and malicious.
67.The defendants have made verbal or written statements disparaging the plaintiff
and affiliates title to the subject property and knowing the statements to be false
and malicious.
68. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial reputational,
monetary and other damages to the plaintiff. ,
Count 6 — Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution
69. The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual
allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those
allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint.
70.The defendant Weise made verbal or written statements to the Massachusetts
Board of Bar Overseers disparaging the plaintiff and knowing the statements to be
false and malicious and for improper, ulterior motive.
71. The defendant Weise, Uiterloo and Liesbeth Contracting Corp. have filed false and
malicious actions claiming invalid liens against The Property intending to
accomplish the ulterior motive of forcing the plaintiff to sell the defendants The
Property which has been devalued and control lost due to the actions of the
defendants.
72.The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and
other damages to the plaintiff.
Count 6 - Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices in violation of Massachusetts
general Jaws chapter 93A
73.The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factualallegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those
allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint.
74. The defendants’ acts and omissions occurring in the stream of commerce in
Massachusetts are unfair and deceptive.
75. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and
other damages to the plaintiff.
Count 7 — Illegal Offering of a Security in violation of Massachusetts general laws
chapter 110A and 950 CMR 10 et seq.
76. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1- 24 of the complaint are hereby restated
and incorporated herein.
77.Chapter 110A: Section 101 states that: "It is unlawful for any person, in connection
with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly;
(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,
(2) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material
fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the
circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, or
(3) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would
operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person."
78.Chapiter 110A: Section 102. states that: “It is unlawful for any person who receives,
directly or indirectly, any consideration from another person primarily for advising
the other person as to the value of securities or their purchase or sale, whether
through the issuance of analyses or reports or otherwise
(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud the other person, or
(2) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or
would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the other person.
79. The conduct of the defendants constitutes a device, scheme and artifice to defraud
and is an act, practice and course of business resulting in fraud and deceit as
outlined in the law and which fraud and deceit has resulted in direct and significant
economic harm to the plaintiff.
80.Chapter 110A: Section 201. states that:
a. It is unlawful for any person to transact business in this commonwealth as
a broker-dealer or agent unless he is registered under this chapter.
b. It is unlawful for any broker-dealer or issuer to employ an agent unless the
agent is registered. The registration of an agent is not effective during any
period when he is not associated with a particular broker-dealer registered
under this chapter or a particular issuer. When an agent begins or terminatesa connection with a broker-dealer or issuer, or begins or terminates those
activities which make him an agent, the agent as well as the broker-dealer
or issuer shall promptly notify the secretary.
c. It is unlawful for any person to transact business in this commonwealth as
an investment adviser or as an investment adviser representative unless he
is so registered under this chapter.
81.The defendants acted as broker dealers and agents without registration as required
by law and were not exempt from such requirement.
WHEREFORE, as to each and every Count set forth in the complaint, the Plaintiff
respectfully requests the court grant the plaintiff actual damages, treble damages pursuant
to the Consumer Protection Act and other claim(s) herein providing for multiplication of
damages, together with all costs and attorney fees and such other and further relief the
court may deem just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
9-11 Amsterdam Trust
By its attorney and trustee,
David F. Hadlock
BBO #545688
Hadlock Law Offices, P. C.
Suite 25, 550 Cochituate Road
Framingham, MA 01701
DHadlock@HadlockLaw.com
(508) 405-2001
10
Preview
MIDDLESEX, SS Je COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS 9-11 Amsterdam Trust SUPERIOR COURT CASE NO. IG- Sb a Plaintiff, -———FiED, “IN THEOFFICE OF THE Vv. CLERK OF COURTS Martin Weise, Liesbeth Uiterloo, 122 Arlington Development I Corp., Kevin Jones, Cashflow Capital, LLC, 606 Richmond Hill Road, Inc., 131 North Cottage Street Development 1, Inc., Liesbeth Contracting Corp., Defendants 297 Netherland Development I Corp., 303 Netherland Development I Corp., W Develop Group Brokers, Inc. Bank of America, N.A. and People’s United Bank, National Association as Trustee Process Defendants FORS THE COUNTY OF AYP DLESEX FEB 26 20% COMPLAINT . The plaintiff is a Massachusetts trust with an office address of Suite 25, 550 Cochituate Road Framingham, MA 01701. . The defendant Martin Weise (Weise) is an individual whose primary residence is reported as 606 Richmond Hill Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314. . The defendant Liesbeth Uiterloo (Uiterloo) is an individual whose primary residence is reported as 606 Richmond Hill Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314. . The defendant 122 Arlington Development 1 Corp, (122 Arlington) is a New York Corporation with a business address of 606 Richmond Hill Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314 and is wholly-owned by the defendant Martin Weiss. . The defendant131 North Cottage Street Development 1, Inc., is a New York corporation with a business address of 2440 Broadway, Suite 239, New York, NY 10025 and is wholly owned by the defendant Martin Weiss.6. The defendant Liesbeth Contracting Corp. is a New York corporation with a business address of 603 W. 115" Street, Suite 172, New York, NY 10025 and is wholly owned by the defendant Martin Weiss. 7. The defendant 606 Richmond Hill Road, Inc., is a New York corporation with a business address of 211 W. 92™ Street, Suite 41, New York, NY 10025 and is wholly owned by the defendant Martin Weiss. 8. The defendant Kevin Jones (Jones) is an individual and the managing member of codefendant Cashflow Capital, LLC, (Cashflow) with an office at 28 West 39th Street, New York, NY 10018. 9. The defendant Cashflow Capital, LLC, (Cashflow) is a New York limited liability corporation with an office at 28 West 39th Street, New York, NY 10018. 10. The trustee process defendant 297 Netherland Development I Corp., is a New York Corporation with a business address of 606 Richmond Hill Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314 and is wholly-owned by the defendant Martin Weiss. 11. The trustee process defendant 303 Netherland Development I Corp., is a New York Corporation with a business address of 606 Richmond Hill Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314 and is wholly-owned by the defendant Martin Weiss. 12. The trustee process defendant W Develop Group Brokers, Inc., is a New York Corporation with a business address of 606 Richmond Hil! Rd., Staten Island, NY 10314 and is wholly-owned by the defendant Marlin Weiss. 13. The trustee process defendant People’s United Bank, National Association is a federally chartered banking entity with a principal business address of 850 Main Street, Bridgeport, CT 06604 and a Middlesex County address at 45 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138. 14. The trustee process defendant Bank of America NA is a federally chartered banking entity with a principal business address of 100 North Trion Street, Charlotte, NC 28202 and a Middlesex County Address at 1414 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138. Jurisdiction This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 223A Section 3 et seq. wherein the defendants availed themselves of the privilege of conducting business activities in Massachusetts and were primary participants in the wrongdoing as alleged herein.Factual Allegations 15.In the spring of 2015 the defendants Jones, Cashflow, Weise and Uiterloo contacted the plaintiff and its affiliates in Massachusetts to seek funding for several business ventures. 16.One such venture related to the solicitation by the defendants of an investment wherein the plaintiff would procure loans and other funding for the defendants in exchange for the transfer of common stock and related voting rights in an entity known as 606 Richmond Hill Road 1, Inc. (the Corporation) purportedly owned by the defendants Weise and Uiterloo. 17.On or about June 30, 2015, based on the solicitation of all of the defendants, the defendant Uiterloo conveyed stock in the Corporation to the plaintiff in Massachusetts. 18.In conjunction with the stock and securities transfer, the plaintiff facilitated an investment including a commercial real estate loan in relation to a multifamily, residential property located at 9-11 Amsterdam St., Mount Vernon, NY (The Property) which was ultimately conveyed to the Corporation. 19.In soliciting the acquisition of the shares of the Corporation by the plaintiff, the defendants represented that The Property to be owned by the Corporation would be rehabilitated by the defendants as licensed contractors and subcontractors in accordance with the law and resold based on an estimated $600,000 after repair value thereby resulting in a profit for The Corporation and, thereby, a guaranteed minimum return to the plaintiff in the amount of $128,775.00. 20.In soliciting the plaintiff and it’s associates, the defendants represented they had the requisite honesty, character, integrity, skill, licensing and experience to coordinate construction required to rehabilitate The Property and that they would do so in full accordance with the law and the related lending documents. 21. Weise and Uiterloo purport to own and operate the defendant Liesbeth Contracting Corp. which the defendants proposed to provide licensed construction services for the rehabilitation of The Property. 22.In contradiction to the representations and warranties of the defendants, neither the defendants nor Liesbeth Contracting Corp. at times pertinent hereto, held required licensing to provide the promised construction services relative to The Property, nor did the defendants contract with requisite, third-party contractor licensees. 23.At all times pertinent hereto, and with respect to all of the warranties and representations of the defendants herein, the plaintiff did reasonably rely on all of said representations and warranties that were made to the plaintiff inMassachusetts. 24.In reliance upon the warranties and representations of the defendants and in conjunction with the securities transfer and related loan documents the plaintiff facilitated a wire payment in Massachusetts as a portion of the commercial funding proceeds to be applied toward payment of construction materials relative to The Property. 25.The defendants solicited in Massachusetts, and received from a Massachusetts bank, a wire transfer in the amount of $35,000 (The Construction Disbursement) directed by the plaintiff and based upon the promise by the defendants that the proceeds of the wire would be disbursed solely and exclusively into the account of the general contractor and would be used exclusively toward the payment of deposits required to order and obtain construction materials required at The Property. 26.The defendants failed and refused to account for The Construction Disbursement but instead submitted fraudulent, modified receipts from vendors such as the Home Depot falsifying receipts, inflating and distorting actual amounts expended. 27.The defendants, in failing and refusing to account for The Construction Disbursement also submitted evidence they used The Construction Disbursement for personal benefit including payment of legal fees and payment of insurance coverage on another property owned by Weise and by the other defendants. 28.The defendant Weise fraudulently transferred The Construction Disbursement to the defendant 131 North Cottage Street Development 1, Inc a corporation owned by Weise, and converted, diverted and disbursed the proceeds for illegal and improper purposes not related to The Property. 29. Weise improperly directed the defendant 131 North Cottage Street Development 1, Inc. to disburse a portion of The Construction Disbursement for the benefit of the defendants 606 Richmond Hill Road, Inc, and 122 Arlington Development i Corp in order to complete the rehabilitation of property at 432 S. 8 Ave., Mount Vernon, New York. 30. The defendant 606 Richmond Hill Road, Inc, conveyed the property at 432 S. 8th Ave., Mount Vernon, New York improved with the monies of the plaintiff to the defendant 122 Arlington Development 1 Corp on or about October 27, 2015. 31.The property at 432 S. 8th Ave., Mount Vernon, New York improved with the monies of the plaintiff and owned by the defendant 122 Arlington Development | Corp was sold on or about December 31, 2015 resulting in combined payments to the defendant corporations 122 Arlington Development 1 Corp and Liesbeth Contracting Corp both owned by Weiss in excess of $150,000.00.32.The deceptive conduct of the defendants resulted in an inspection of The Property by the lender and its representatives wherein it was determined that Weise, Uiterloo and Liesbeth Contracting Corp. had failed to obtain the specified permitting, licensing or construction materials that had been required and paid for by The Construction Disbursement. 33. The inspection of The Property by the lender and its representatives also disclosed that Weise, Uiterloo and Liesbeth Contracting Corp. had filed false building permit documentation at the building Department in the city of Mount Vernon New York wherein the defendants misrepresented the scope of work at The Property indicating a budget of a fraction of the actual budget being claimed and indicating no electrical or plumbing was being performed. 34. The inspection of The Property by the lender and its representatives also disclosed that Weise, Uiterloo and Liesbeth Contracting Corp. had performed illegal, substandard electrical and other work requiring permits by licensed electricians, plumbers and related laborers, said work having been performed and completed in a substandard fashion and in flagrant violation of building code requirements and having been performed by unlicensed individual supervised by the defendants or by the defendants themselves. 35.The conduct of the defendants caused, inter alia, a default to occur relative to the loan documents concerning The Property. 36. The resulting default of the lending documents and the defalcation and fraud by the Defendants, is resulting in the loss of control and ownership of The Property. 37.The conduct of the defendants, directly resulting in the loss of control and ownership of The Property has resulted in substantial economic and related loss to the plaintiff. 38. At no time did the defendants Weise, Uiterloo, Jones or Cashflow ever register as broker-dealers or agents authorized as required by Massachusetts general laws chapter 110A and 950 CMR 10 et seq. when offering the sale and transfer of securities. 39.The defendants Jones and Cashflow were paid approximately Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) in connection with the sale of the securities by the defendants to the plaintiffs. 40. The acts and omissions of the defendants as outlined herein constitute fraud and deception in the offer or solicitation of investments relative to the sale of securities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. 41.Notwithstanding the fraud, forgery, deception and illegality perpetrated by the defendants they have filed false claims with regulatory agencies and a false,purported mechanics lien on The Property alleging that over $80,000 remains due and owing to the defendants through their company, Liesbeth Contracting Corp. for construction work that has been performed on The Property. 42. Notwithstanding the fraud, forgery, deception and illegality perpetrated by the defendants they have made libelous and slanderous statements about the plaintiff to the Bar counsel at the Board of Bar Overseers in Massachusetts. 43. At all times pertinent hereto the actions of the defendants involved solicitations by phone, e-mail and otherwise to the plaintiff in Massachusetts. Count 1 — Fraud and Conversion 44, The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint. 45.The defendants, or their agent(s), made a false representation of a material fact with knowledge of its falsity for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to act thereon, and that the plaintiff relied upon the representation as true and acted upon it resulting in damage to the plaintiff. 46.The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and other damages to the plaintiff. Count 2 — Unjust Enrichment 47.The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint. 48.The facts as outlined herein confirm that a benefit was conferred upon the defendants by the plaintiff. 49.The defendants are in possession of the monetary and other benefits bestowed by the plaintiff. 50. The acceptance or retention by the defendant of the monies and benefit under such circumstances make it inequitable for the defendant to retain the benefit without repayment to the plaintiff. 51. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and other damages to the plaintiff.Count 3 - Negligent Misrepresentation 52. The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint. 53. The defendants in the course of their businesses supplied false information for the guidance of the plaintiff, causing and resulting in pecuniary loss to the plaintiff who justifiably relied upon the information. 54.The defendants failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information. 55. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and other damages to the plaintiff. Count 4 - Breach of Contract 56. The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint. 57. The agreement(s) between the plaintiff and the defendants were all breached by the defendants as set forth herein. 58. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and other damages to the plaintiff. Count 5 — Promissory Estoppel 59. The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint. 60. As alleged herein, the defendants made representations intended to induce reliance by the plaintiff who did so rely to the detriment of plaintiff. 61. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and other damages to the plaintiff. Count 6 — Breach of Fiduciary Duty 62. The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint.63. The defendants owed a fiduciary duty to the Plaintiff which duty was breached by the actions and omissions set forth herein. 64. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and other damages to the plaintiff. Count 6 — Libel and Slander 65. The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint. 66.The defendant Weise made verbal or written statements to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers disparaging the plaintiff and knowing the statements to be false and malicious. 67.The defendants have made verbal or written statements disparaging the plaintiff and affiliates title to the subject property and knowing the statements to be false and malicious. 68. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial reputational, monetary and other damages to the plaintiff. , Count 6 — Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution 69. The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factual allegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint. 70.The defendant Weise made verbal or written statements to the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers disparaging the plaintiff and knowing the statements to be false and malicious and for improper, ulterior motive. 71. The defendant Weise, Uiterloo and Liesbeth Contracting Corp. have filed false and malicious actions claiming invalid liens against The Property intending to accomplish the ulterior motive of forcing the plaintiff to sell the defendants The Property which has been devalued and control lost due to the actions of the defendants. 72.The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and other damages to the plaintiff. Count 6 - Unfair and Deceptive Acts and Practices in violation of Massachusetts general Jaws chapter 93A 73.The plaintiff hereby restates, realleges and incorporates herein all of the factualallegations set forth in this complaint including, but not limited to, those allegations contained within the Factual Allegations portion of this complaint. 74. The defendants’ acts and omissions occurring in the stream of commerce in Massachusetts are unfair and deceptive. 75. The acts and omissions of the defendants have caused substantial monetary and other damages to the plaintiff. Count 7 — Illegal Offering of a Security in violation of Massachusetts general laws chapter 110A and 950 CMR 10 et seq. 76. The allegations set forth in paragraphs 1- 24 of the complaint are hereby restated and incorporated herein. 77.Chapter 110A: Section 101 states that: "It is unlawful for any person, in connection with the offer, sale, or purchase of any security, directly or indirectly; (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud, (2) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading, or (3) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person." 78.Chapiter 110A: Section 102. states that: “It is unlawful for any person who receives, directly or indirectly, any consideration from another person primarily for advising the other person as to the value of securities or their purchase or sale, whether through the issuance of analyses or reports or otherwise (1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud the other person, or (2) to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the other person. 79. The conduct of the defendants constitutes a device, scheme and artifice to defraud and is an act, practice and course of business resulting in fraud and deceit as outlined in the law and which fraud and deceit has resulted in direct and significant economic harm to the plaintiff. 80.Chapter 110A: Section 201. states that: a. It is unlawful for any person to transact business in this commonwealth as a broker-dealer or agent unless he is registered under this chapter. b. It is unlawful for any broker-dealer or issuer to employ an agent unless the agent is registered. The registration of an agent is not effective during any period when he is not associated with a particular broker-dealer registered under this chapter or a particular issuer. When an agent begins or terminatesa connection with a broker-dealer or issuer, or begins or terminates those activities which make him an agent, the agent as well as the broker-dealer or issuer shall promptly notify the secretary. c. It is unlawful for any person to transact business in this commonwealth as an investment adviser or as an investment adviser representative unless he is so registered under this chapter. 81.The defendants acted as broker dealers and agents without registration as required by law and were not exempt from such requirement. WHEREFORE, as to each and every Count set forth in the complaint, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the court grant the plaintiff actual damages, treble damages pursuant to the Consumer Protection Act and other claim(s) herein providing for multiplication of damages, together with all costs and attorney fees and such other and further relief the court may deem just and proper. Respectfully submitted, 9-11 Amsterdam Trust By its attorney and trustee, David F. Hadlock BBO #545688 Hadlock Law Offices, P. C. Suite 25, 550 Cochituate Road Framingham, MA 01701 DHadlock@HadlockLaw.com (508) 405-2001 10