STATE OF
IN THE
| JAN SZATKOWSKI, Plaintiff VS. RYAN T. RIEFF, ROBERT TOKARS, BRYAN HANEY,
Defendants | CAUSE NO: 53C 04 0702 SC 00895 RESPONSE, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES AND VERIFIED COUNTERCLAIM, THIRD PARTY COMPLAINT, JURY DEMAND OF RYAN T. RIEFF, BRYAN M. HANEY AND ROBERT L. TOKARS |
| RYAN T. RIEFF, BRYAN M. HANEY, ROBERT L. TOKARS, Counterclaimants/ Third Party Plaintiffs VS. JAN SZATKOWSKI, CITY OF BLOOMINGTON, KEVIN ROBLING, SARAH WEBBER-LIU, LIEUTENANT ANTHONY POPE, WILLIAM J. BEGGS, RE/MAX ACCLAIMED PROPERTIES, ANDREW WALKER, Counterdefendant/ Third Party Defendants | |
RYAN T. RIEFF, BRYAN M. HANEY and ROBERT L. TOKARS, In Pro Se, respond to the Complaint of JAN SZATKOWSKI as follows:
Defendants have at all times been current with respect to their obligations to their landlord Seth Patinkin (“Patinkin”) under their 2006-2007 Monthly Rental Agreement for
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred because he does not have standing to bring this eviction lawsuit.
SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred because this lawsuit is in violation of a court order issued by Honorable Mary Ellen Diekhoff.
THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in their entirety because Plaintiff is not party to any contract with Defendants.
FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff has suffered no damages as a result of Defendants’ tenancy.
FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Any damages allegedly suffered by Plaintiff were caused by the actions or omissions of third parties outside of the control of Defendants.
SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred in their entirety because of the statute of frauds.
SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
There was no reliance by Plaintiff, reasonable or otherwise, on the actions or inactions of Defendants.
EIGTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defendants’ tenancy is not in violation of the Title 20 Zoning Ordinance or any other municipal ordinance or law of any kind.
NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
The conditions precedent to any rights claimed by Plaintiff were not satisfied.
TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred because he is not the landlord or property manager.
ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of “unclean hands.”
TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Plaintiff’s claims are barred because he has breached his partnership agreement with Patinkin.
COUNTERCLAIM AND THIRD PARTY CLAIMS
RYAN T. RIEFF, BRYAN M. HANEY and ROBERT L. TOKARS, In Pro Se, as and for their Counterclaim against JAN SZATKOWSKI and Third Party Complaint against WILLIAM J. BEGGS, RE/MAX ACCLAIMED PROPERTIES, ANDREW WALKER, INDIANA UNIVERSITY, STACEE EVANS and THEODORE MILLER, verify and allege as follows:
NATURE OF ACTION
1. Ryan T. Rieff (“Rieff”), Bryan M. Haney (“Haney”) and Robert L. Tokars (“Tokars”) have resided at
2. Since shortly after move-in, Counterdefendant Szatkowski and the Third Party Defendants have been engaged in an illegal and persistent campaign to intimidate and harass Rieff, Haney and Tokars with the singular goal of causing them to discontinue residing at the Property. This campaign has culminated in the filing of this eviction lawsuit, despite full compliance by Rieff, Haney and Tokars with all terms of the Monthly Rental Agreement and with all ordinances relating to their occupancy of this property. On
3. The City of Bloomington filed a Complaint (“City Lawsuit”) against, inter alia, Rieff, Haney and Tokars on 05 January 2007 (Cause No. 53C 08 0701 OV 00049) for alleged violations of the Title 20 Zoning Ordinance, which limits occupancy in certain non-grandfathered houses near campus to three (3) unrelated adults.
4. This action has been filed in direct violation of an order (“Diekhoff Order”) issued by Honorable Mary Ellen Diekhoff in February 2006 in the matter Patinkin v. Szatkowski (Cause No. 53C04 0507 PL 01424), which preserves the status quo with respect to the utilization of 414 E. 1st Street by tenants and the flow of rent monies received therefrom.
PARTIES
5. Jan Szatkowski (“Szatkowski”) is Patinkin’s estranged business partner, and he maintains residences in
6. William J. Beggs (“Beggs”) is a licensed attorney at the law firm of Bunger & Robertson in
7. RE/MAX Acclaimed Properties (“RE/MAX”) is an independently owned and operated franchisee of RE/MAX International, Inc. based in
8. Andrew Walker (“
9.
10. Stacee Evans (“Evans”) is a Staff Attorney at SLS.
11. Theodore Miller (“Miller”) is a professor of Public and Environmental Affairs and resides at
12. The City of
13. Kevin Robling (“Robling”) is Corporation Counsel for the City of
14. Sarah Webber-Liu (“Liu”) is Assistant City Attorney for the City of
15. Lieutenant Anthony Pope (“Officer Pope”) is an officer in the Bloomington Police Department who made an unannounced nighttime visit to
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16. This is a civil action seeking damages, injunctive relief and other remedies for a number of flagrant, illegal actions undertaken by various third parties with the common purpose of ousting the Counterclaimants from their home in
17. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action because this matter concerns real property, organizations and persons in
18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Counterdefendant Szatkowski and Third Party Defendants Beggs, RE/MAX,
19. Venue is proper in
20. All conditions precedent to the bringing and maintenance of this action have been satisfied or waived.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The Ownership and Management of the Property
21. Counterdefendant Szatkowski entered into a signed partnership agreement
with Counterclaimants’ landlord, Seth Patinkin (“Patinkin”) on
22. According to the pleadings in Patinkin v. Szatkowski, Counterdefendant Szatkowski breached his obligations under the Partnership Agreement by (a) failing to meet capital contribution requirements; and (b) refusing to transfer deeded ownership of the Property to either of the corporate entities formed by Szatkowski and Patinkin.
23. The Diekhoff Order has governed the utilization of the Property and the flow of rents therefrom since February 2006.
24. Patinkin has duly observed the Diekhoff Order since inception, making
payments of $1,559.33 each month in observance of the monies payable for principal, interest, tax and insurance relating to the Property through January 2007 (See Patinkin Certification Dated 23 March 2007)
25. Patinkin agreed to Counterclaimants’ rent reduction demand to reduce the monthly rent due from $2,500 to $1,200 because of hardships forced upon the Counterclaimants relating to the City Lawsuit and incessant harassment from Third Party Defendants Beggs and Walker.
26. Patinkin has been solely responsible for all emergency repairs, maintenance and improvements to the Property required during the course of the tenants of the Counterclaimants.
27. Upon information and belief, Patinkin was solely responsible for all emergency repairs, maintenance and improvements to the Property required during the 2005-2006 lease term.
28. Upon information and belief, Counterdefendant Szatkowski has not
contributed whatsoever to payments for emergency repairs, maintenance and improvements to the Property required during the 2006-2007 lease term.
29. Upon information and belief, Counterdefendant Szatkowski has not contributed whatsoever to payments for emergency repairs, maintenance and improvements to the Property required during the 2005-2006 lease term.
30. Patinkin has filed an action in September 2006 to foreclose a $24,221 mechanic’s lien he filed on the Property in September 2005. That action is also pending in the Monroe Circuit Court.
The Ulterior Reason for Filing this Eviction lawsuit
31. Upon information and belief, this eviction lawsuit has been filed for purposes other than assuring compliance with the Title 20 Zoning Ordinance.
32. Upon information and belief, the real reason Counterdefendant Szatkowski filed this eviction lawsuit was for the purpose of ousting Counterclaimants from their home in order to make the property more desirable to the non-investor marketplace.
33. Upon information and belief, Third Party Defendant Walker has been thus far unable to attract a bid from any investor to purchase
34. An email message sent on
A History of Fraud: the Szatkowski-Beggs Team
35. Upon information and belief, Counterdefendant Szatkowski’s filing of this eviction lawsuit represents only the latest in a series of fraudulent acts committed by Counterdefendant Szatkowski and Third Party Defendant Beggs.
36. For one example, the pleadings in Tevac v. Jan Szatkowski et al. (Cause No. 53C06 0510 PL 01908) reveal that Counterdefendant Szatkowski is accused of fraudulently certifying a Vendor’s Affidavit in connection with his sale of the property located at
37. For a second example, Counterdefendant Szatkowski has fraudulently dissolved corporate entities, in which he and Patinkin were partners, without the knowledge or consent of Patinkin. (See Certification of Patinkin Dated
38. For a third example, Third Party Defendant Beggs is currently the subject of a disciplinary investigation by the Indiana Supreme Court for unethical and illegal extra-judicial measures he has made in an attempt to create leverage against Patinkin.
39. For a fourth example, Third Party Defendant Beggs represented to the 2005-2006 tenants of
40. For a fifth example, the civil cover sheet submitted by Third Party Defendant Beggs in connection with the eviction lawsuit did not identify any related matters, despite the fact that there are at least three related lawsuits pending in the Monroe Circuit Court as well as one related lawsuit pending in federal court: Patinkin v. City of Bloomington, Szatkowski, Beggs, et al. (Civil Action No. 07C-1113, Hon. Matthew F. Kennelly).
A History of Intimidation by Beggs and his Agents
41. The only interaction defendants have ever had with Counterdefendant Szatkowski was a physical confrontation on 02 February 2007 during which time he appeared at 414 E. 1st Street and demanded Counterclaimants’ signature on a document (“Beggs Release”) authored by Third Party Defendant Beggs, in which Counterclaimants would be “released” from their obligations under the Monthly Rental Agreement in exchange for certain certifications. The Beggs Release is attached hereto as Exhibit B and made a part of this Complaint.
42. At Beggs’ instruction, Third Party Defendant Walker has made repeated and unwanted efforts to cause the Counterclaimants to sign the Beggs Release.
43. On several occasions, Third Party Defendant Walker has admonished the Counterclaimants from having any dealings with Patinkin, and to direct all payments to “the owner” of the Property, Counterdefendant Szatkowski.
44. On several occasions, Third Party Defendant Walker has warned the Counterclaimants that the City of
45. On several occasions, Third Party Defendant Walker has warned the
Counterclaimants that Counterdefendant Szatkowski would sue them if they did not sign the Beggs Release.
46. On one occasion, Third Party Defendant Walker showed the
Counterclaimants to prospective rental properties into which they would be able to move into, once they moved out of the Property.
Repeated Refusals to Inspect the Premises
47. This eviction lawsuit has been filed under the false presumption that the Counterclaimants are over-occupying the premises at
48. On the first occasion, the City of Bloomington Legal Department refused to inspect stating “an inspection would not prove that [Counterclaimants] are not over-occupying the premise”.
49. On the second occasion, Counterdefendant Szatkowski’s attorney, Third Party Defendant Beggs, objected to this Court that “the City of
50. Counterclaimants continue to offer the right to inspect the premises to the City of
Harassment by the Legal Department
51. Upon information and belief, Third Party Defendant Robling caused Officer Pope to visit the premises during an unannounced nighttime visit on
52. During this visit, Officer Pope entered the Property against the wishes of the Counterclaimants.
53. During this visit, Officer Pope remained in the living room of the Property for approximately fifteen (15) minutes against the wishes of the Counterclaimants.
54. During this visit, Officer Pope demanded the names of “over-occupying tenants”, and the Counterclaimants were unable to provide this information to him.
55. In his police report, Officer Pope falsely reported that Counterclaimant Rieff answered the door. (See Police Report submitted by Beggs)
56. In his police report, Officer Pope falsely reported that Counterclaimant Rieff told him that “six individuals resided at the Property”. (See Police Report submitted by Beggs)
57. Upon information and belief, Officer Pope prepared his police report with the assistance of Robling.
58. The day after Officer Pope’s visit, Counterclaimant received the following email message from City Attorney Liu:
Today I received a police report written by a member of the Bloomington
Police Department and regarding
indicates that said property is over-occupied (in violation of the law)
by you and your roommates.
I very strongly suggest that you contact the City’s chief attorney,
Kevin Robling, to set up a time when he, you, and all your roommates can
meet to discuss this situation. Mr. Robling is reached at
(812)349-3426.
59. Subsequently, on
warned the Counterclaimants that “the City is currently undetermined as to whether it will inform the Dean of Students of Indiana University”. This letter is attached hereto as Exhibit C and made a part of this Complaint.
60. In a subsequent letter from Third Party Defendant Robling to Patinkin dated 02 January 2007, a copy of which was conveyed by Patinkin to Counterclaimant Rieff shortly thereafter, Robling informed Patinkin “Please be advised that …. any action that [Third Party Defendant Liu] has taken, she has taken at my direction.”
61. On
Manipulation by Student Legal Services
62. Shortly after being served with the City Lawsuit, the Counterclaimants completed an Intake Form in the offices of Student Legal Services, the not-for-profit legal clinic which provides legal representation to
63. Third Party Defendant Evans subsequently took on the representation of the Counterclaimants with respect to the City Lawsuit.
64. During one of their first meetings at the offices of Student Legal Services, the Department Secretary, Dorothye Robling (also blood relative of Third Party Defendant Robling) told the Counterclaimants “Just bring us everything you can on [Patinkin]. What is good for the City is good for you.”
65. Upon information and belief, subsequent to the above meeting, Dorothye Robling made a telephone call to Third Party Defendant Robling.
66. Subsequently, Third Party Defendant Evans’ assistant, law student Nicolette Mendenhall, made two notable attempts to force the Counterclaimants to take action favorable for the City of
A. In a letter sent in early February 2007, Nicolette Mendenhall
(“Mendenhall”) threatened the Counterclaimants to sign the Beggs Release and to provide the identities of the unnamed defendants under the guise of refusing to file their responsive pleadings. A copy of this letter is attached hereto as
Exhibit D and made a part of this Complaint.
B. In a second letter about a week later, Mendenhall threatened the
Counterclaimants that either they provide the identities of the unnamed defendants, execute the Beggs Release and assist the City of
67. At that time, already in default of the deadline imposed by the Court for receipt of their responsive pleadings, the Counterclaimants filed their own response In Pro Se because Evans flatly refused to do so.
COUNT I
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE IN A CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIP
Against Counterdefendant Szatkowski and All Third Party Defendants
68. Rieff, Haney and Tokars repeat each and every allegation set forth in the
preceding paragraphs as if such allegations were specifically set forth herein at length.
69. The Count I defendants were at all times aware of the contractual relationship between the Counterclaimants and Patinkin.
70. The numerous attempts by Counterdefendant Szatkowski and by Third
Party Defendants Beggs and Walker to assume control of the rental revenues and property management of
71. The Count I defendants interfered in the Monthly Rental Agreement by encouraging the Counterclaimants to vacate the Property.
72. The Count I defendants interfered in the Monthly Rental Agreement by encouraging the Counterclaimants not to pay rents to Patinkin.
73. The Count I defendants interfered in the Monthly Rental Agreement by
encouraging the Counterclaimants to sign the Beggs Release.
74. The Count I defendants by threatening the Counterclaimants with fines and eviction, while at the same time refusing to allow an official inspection of the premises, tortiously interfered in the Monthly Rental Agreement.
75. The Count I defendants at no time had any reasonable justification for pressuring the Counterclaimants to vacate the premises and/or breach the Monthly Rental Agreement.
WHEREFORE, Counterclaimants/Third Party Plaintiffs seek:
(1) Such monies as may be found to be due in this action, together with attorney’s fees, interest, costs of suit, compensatory damages, consequential damages, incidental damages, treble damages and punitive damages;
(2) A restraining order enjoining the Count I defendants from interacting with Rieff, Haney and Tokars
(3) Any other relief deemed by this Court to be equitable and just.
COUNT II
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
Against Counterdefendant Szatkowski and All Third Party Defendants
76. Rieff, Haney and Tokars reallege and incorporate by reference all
foregoing paragraphs as though set forth at length herein.
77. The Count II defendants’ repeated attempts to cause Rieff, Haney and
Tokars to vacate the premises under the guise of threatened legal action by Counterdefendant Szatkowski and by the City of
78. The Count II defendants’ repeated attempts to cause Rieff, Haney and Tokars to sign the Beggs Release under the guise of threatened legal action by Counterdefendant Szatkowski and by the City of
79. The Count II defendants’ repeated attempts to cause Rieff, Haney and Tokars to identify the unnamed “over-occupying” parties of the City Lawsuit were coordinated and intentional.
80. The Count II defendants’ repeated attempts to cause Rieff, Haney and Tokars to enter into plea agreements with the City of
81. The threats of contacting the Dean of Students of Indiana University conveyed by Third Party Defendants Robling and Liu to the Counterclaimants were intentional and calculated to distress the Counterclaimants.
82. The filing of this eviction lawsuit was intentional and calculated to cause the Counterclaimants severe emotional distress.
83. The filing of the City Lawsuit was intentional and calculated to cause the Counterclaimants severe emotional distress.
84. Third Party Defendant Miller’s execution of an affidavit in late November 2006 was intentional and calculated to stress cause the Counterclaimants severe emotional distress.
85. Miller’s affidavit was deliberately misleading and calculated to improve the chances that the City of
86. Third Party Defendant Evans’ decision to deliberately offer misleading legal advice to Rieff, Haney and Tokars was calculated to improve the chances that the City of
87. The misleading legal advice proffered by Third Party Defendant Evans to Rieff, Haney and Tokars was designed to intimidate them.
88. Third Party Defendant Evans threatened to deliberately miss the filing deadline for the responsive pleadings in the City Lawsuit in order to distress the Counterclaimants.
89. Third Party Defendant Evans’ repeated threats to pull representation of the Counterclaimants in the City Lawsuit were deliberate and calculated to distress the Counterclaimants.
90. Third Party Defendant Evans withdrew her representation of Rieff, Haney and Tokars because they did not provide her with information she sought from them.
91. Third Party Defendant Evans’ misleading legal advice was calculated to force the Counterclaimants into a disadvantageous position in the City Lawsuit.
92. Third Party Defendant Evans’ decision to leak information about privileged discussions she had with her clients Rieff, Haney and Tokars was intentional and calculated to force them into a disadvantageous position in the City Lawsuit.
93. Third Party Defendant Evans intentionally misrepresented certain information relating to the occupancy of
94. Third Party Defendant Evans’ purpose in misrepresenting information relating to the occupancy of
WHEREFORE, Counterclaimants/Third Party Plaintiffs seek:
(1) Such monies as may be found to be due in this action, together with attorney’s fees, interest, costs of suit, compensatory damages, consequential damages, incidental damages, treble damages and punitive damages;
(2) A restraining order enjoining the Count II defendants from interacting with Rieff, Haney and Tokars
(3) Any other relief deemed by this Court to be equitable and just.
COUNT III
RACKETEERING
Against Counterdefendant Szatkowski and
Third Party Defendants Robling, Liu, Beggs, Walker, Evans
95. Rieff, Haney and Tokars reallege and incorporate by reference all
foregoing paragraphs as though set forth at length herein.
96. The Count III defendants are persons within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3).
97. The Count III defendants’ association with each other and others constitutes an enterprise pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).
98. As described above, the Count III defendants directly and indirectly conducted the affairs of this enterprise and participated in the affairs of this enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), (c).
99. As described above, the Count III defendants’ conduct constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5):
(a) Third Party Defendant Beggs’ mailing of his letter of 27 December
2006 to Rieff, Haney and Tokars and of the Beggs Release in early February 2007 constitute mail fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1341 because they were intended to defraud Rieff, Haney and Tokars into believing that Patinkin had no legitimate ownership or management interests in 414 E. 1st Street.
(b) Third Party Defendant
Mulvihill on 06 February 2007 constitutes wire fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1343 because this email message was intended to defraud the Legal Department into believing that Patinkin was engaged in illegal activities with respect to his management of 414 E. 1st Street.
(c) Third Party Defendant Beggs’ filing of this eviction lawsuit and its civil cover sheet constitutes common law fraud because he has purported to deceive this Court and others into believing: (i) that the occupancy of the property located at 414 E. 1st Street is not in compliance with the Title 20 Zoning Ordinance; (ii) that Patinkin does not enjoy any ownership or management interests in the property located at 414 E. 1st Street; and (iii) that there are no pending related matters.
100. Rieff, Haney and Tokars have been injured in their persons by reason of the racketeering activities of the Count III defendants in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b) and (c).
WHEREFORE, Counterclaimants/Third Party Plaintiffs seek:
(1) Such monies as may be found to be due in this action, together with attorney’s fees, interest, costs of suit, compensatory damages, consequential damages, incidental damages, treble damages and punitive damages;
(2) A restraining order enjoining the Count III defendants from interacting with Rieff, Haney and Tokars
(3) Any other relief deemed by this Court to be equitable and just.
COUNT IV
CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT RACKETEERING
Against Counterdefendant Szatkowski and
Third Party Defendants Robling, Liu, Beggs, Walker, Evans
101. Rieff, Haney and Tokars reallege and incorporate by reference the
foregoing paragraphs as though set forth herein at length.
102. The Count IV defendants are persons within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3).
103. The Count IV defendants’ association with each other and others
constitutes an enterprise pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).
104. As described above, the Count IV defendants directly and indirectly conducted the affairs of this enterprise and participated in the affairs of this enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), (c).
105. As described above, the Count IV defendants’ conduct constitutes a pattern of racketeering pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5):
(a) Third Party Defendant Beggs’ mailing of his letter of 27 December
2006 to Rieff, Haney and Tokars and of the Beggs Release in early February 2007 constitute mail fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1341 because they were intended to defraud Rieff, Haney and Tokars into believing that Patinkin had no legitimate ownership or management interests in 414 E. 1st Street.
(b) Third Party Defendant
Mulvihill on 06 February 2007 constitutes wire fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1343 because this email message was intended to defraud the Legal Department into believing that Patinkin was engaged in illegal activities with respect to his management of
(c) Third Party Defendant Beggs’ filing of this eviction lawsuit and its civil cover sheet constitutes common law fraud because he has purported to deceive this Court and others into believing: (i) that the occupancy of the property located at 414 E. 1st Street is not in compliance with the Title 20 Zoning Ordinance; (ii) that Patinkin does not enjoy any ownership or management interests in the property located at 414 E. 1st Street; and (iii) that there are no pending related matters.
106. The Count IV defendants conspired with each other to commit the described acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d).
107. Rieff, Haney and Tokars have been injured in their persons because of the
racketeering activities of the Count IV defendants in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d).
WHEREFORE, Counterclaimants/Third Party Plaintiffs seek:
(1) Such monies as may be found to be due in this action, together with attorney’s fees, interest, costs of suit, compensatory damages, consequential damages, incidental damages, treble damages and punitive damages;
(2) An restraining order enjoining the Count IV defendants from interacting with Rieff, Haney and Tokars
(3) Any other relief deemed by this Court to be equitable and just.
COUNT V
CONSPIRACY
Against Counterdefendant Szatkowski and
Third Party Defendants Robling, Liu, Beggs, Walker, Evans
108. Rieff, Haney and Tokars reallege and incorporate by reference all
foregoing paragraphs as though set forth herein at length.
109. The Count V defendants engaged in a confederation with each other to
commit the abovementioned torts.
110. The conspiracy between the Count V defendants had the common purpose and design of injuring Rieff, Haney and Tokars in their persons.
111. The Count V defendants’ commission of the abovementioned torts in furtherance of this conspiracy proximately caused Rieff, Haney and Tokars to incur damage to their persons and to be subjected to an order to vacate the premises at
112. In fact, Rieff, Haney and Tokars have already incurred substantial legal expenses as a direct result of the defendants’ wrongful acts.
WHEREFORE, Counterclaimants/Third Party Plaintiffs seek:
(1) Such monies as may be found to be due in this action, together with attorney’s fees, interest, costs of suit, compensatory damages, consequential damages, incidental damages, treble damages and punitive damages;
(2) An restraining order enjoining the Count V defendants from interacting with Rieff, Haney and Tokars
(3) Any other relief deemed by this Court to be equitable and just.
COUNT VI
FRAUD
Against Third Party Defendants Evans, Officer Pope and Miller
113. Rieff, Haney and Tokars reallege and incorporate by reference all
foregoing paragraphs as though set forth herein at length.
114. Third Party Defendant Evans willfully induced Rieff, Haney and Tokars to accept representation by Student Legal Services under false pretenses.
115. Rieff, Haney and Tokars acted in reasonable reliance to their detriment on the representations made by Third Party Defendant Evans.
116. Third Party Defendant Evans misled Rieff, Haney and Tokars about her true intentions regarding their attorney-client relationship.
117. Third Party Defendant Officer Pope deliberately falsified the contents of his police report from
118. Third Party Defendant Miller deliberately falsified the information in the affidavit he submitted to the Legal Department.
119. The Count VI defendants intentions by deceiving this Court and Rieff, Haney and Tokars were (a) to build a legal case against them for the City of
120. Rieff, Haney and Tokars have suffered and continue to suffer damages because of the aforesaid fraud of the Count VI defendants.
WHEREFORE, Counterclaimants/Third Party Plaintiffs seek:
(1) Such monies as may be found to be due in this action, together with attorney’s fees, interest, costs of suit, compensatory damages, consequential damages, incidental damages, treble damages and punitive damages;
(2) An restraining order enjoining the Count VI defendants from interacting with Rieff, Haney and Tokars
(3) Any other relief deemed by this Court to be equitable and just.
COUNT VII
HARASSMENT
Against Counterdefendant Szatkowski and All Third Party Defendants
119. Rieff, Haney and Tokars reallege and incorporate by reference all
foregoing paragraphs as though set forth herein at length.
120. The Count VII defendants made continued, repeated and unwanted efforts to cause Rieff, Haney and Tokars to discontinue residing at the premises at
121. The Count VII defendants made continued, repeated and unwanted
efforts to cause Rieff, Haney and Tokars to sign the Beggs Release.
122. The Count VII defendants made continued, repeated and unwanted
efforts to threaten Rieff, Haney and Tokars under the guise of enforcement of the Title 20 Zoning Ordinance and under the guise of legal action by Counterdefendant Szatkowski.
WHEREFORE, Counterclaimants/Third Party Plaintiffs seek:
(1) Such monies as may be found to be due in this action, together with attorney’s fees, interest, costs of suit, compensatory damages, consequential damages, incidental damages, treble damages and punitive damages;
(2) An restraining order enjoining the Count VII defendants from interacting with Rieff, Haney and Tokars
(3) Any other relief deemed by this Court to be equitable and just.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Counterclaimants/Third Party Plaintiffs hereby request a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
Dated:
_________________________________
RYAN T. RIEFF
In Pro Se
_________________________________
BRYAN M. HANEY
In Pro Se
_________________________________
ROBERT L. TOKARS
In Pro Se
Ryan T. Rieff
Bryan M. Haney
Robert L. Tokars
Tel: 812-340-4730
