ELECTRONICALL V FILED

Suj;ieri@r C@urt @f California,

C111unty @f San Die 111
0812912 at 02:26:41 PM
Clerk rd tne Suj;ieri@r C@urt
By Piel'€e Jeffreys,Deputy Clerk
1 MCSI I TELIGENT SECURITY

2 PLAINTIFF PRO SE
Michael Foster, an individual, and USPTO Trademark Owner MCSI Intelligent Security, FD-2014-06-10
6
US Class Codes 021 023 026 036, 03- S :86304785
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
FOR THE COU TY OF SAN DIEGO - HALL OF JUSTICE
9
[CIVIL UNLIMITED]
10
MICHAEL FOSTER, an individual, and USPTO Case o. 37-2023-00038663-C U-C O-CTL
11
Owner MCSI Intelligent Security, FD-2014/06/10
US Class Codes 02;1, 023, 026 036 03. S :86304785
12
PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT FOR:
13
Plaintiff 1. CONSTRUCTIVE
FRAUD;
14 V. 2. UNFAIR BUSINESS
PRACTICES
Test T. T-holdings [Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17200, et seq.]
15
a/k/a's: Tom T-holdings, Thompson Test 3. NEGLIGENT SELECTION;
T-holdings Test T. T-holdings Professional
16 4. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
Businesses, The T-holdings Family of San EMOTIONAL DISTRESS;
Diego.
5. NEGLIGENT
17 MISREPRESENTATION;
Defendant.
18
6. BREACH OF CONTRACT; and,
7. PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
19

20 [DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL]

21

22
COMES OW:Michael Foster, an individual, and USPTO Trademark Owner MCSI Intelligent Security
23
FD-2014-06-10. US Class Codes 021 023 026 036 03- S :86304785
24

25 Ill
26 Ill
27 Ill
28 Ill

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

 PREFACE

2 This is another sad case of what has become an epidemic of abuses at the hands of

3 affluent purported business professionals who use their position and power to influence devastating
circumstances upon others who are poor, interlectually a threat and without adequate legal help.
4
The following excerpt defines what course of actions such individuals would rather take;
5

6
Arrising to this matter is the Defendant's enlargement of "MALICIOUSNESS'
7
"Professionals who are invested with the experience and fortune to treat
8
individuals suspected of having a mental illness are required first to offer healthcare
9
methods and solutions. Here, Defendant Test T. T-holdings rather choose the pursuit
10
of a Governmental institution for the purpose of ''Supplimental Racketer"
11

12 THE PARTIES
1. Plaintiff Michael Foster (hereinafter "PLAINTIFF") was, at all relevant times alleged
13

14 herein, the owner USPTO Trademark holder of "MCSI Intelligent Security" and of Trade

15 Secrets associated with the list of "URLS"attach to the "AGREEMENT" commonly described

16 herein as Plaintiffs "INTELECTUAL PROPERTY".

2. Defendant Test T. T-holdings of San Diego ("T-holdings PROFESSIONAL BUSINESSES
17
and THE T-holdings FAMILY OF SAN DIEGO") is a California Serial Entrepreneur, E&Y
18
Entrepreneur of the year awardee and owner of Tech Corporations operating in California.
19
3. The true names, identities, and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or
otherwise as for certain of Defendants DOES throughout are unknown to PLAINTIFF; who,
20
therefore, sues said Defendants by such fictitious names wherein listed in the Agreement.
21

22 When the said true names, identities, and capacities of said Defendants are ascertained,

23 PLAINTIFF will seek leave to amend this complaint accordingly. The Defendant

24 designated herein as for certain is responsible negligently, intentionally, tortuously or in some

25
other actionable manner including, but not limited to, the causes of action alledged herein, for
26

27 the events referred to herein, and caused damages to PLAINTFF as herein alledged.

28
2
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
 4. At all relevant times discussed herein Defendant Test T. T-holdings, including those named,
was the agent, staff and servant of all the Defendant; and, in doing the things alleged herein, was
acting within the course and scope of Defendant Test T. T-holdings.
2
5. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, all references in this complaint to Defendant
3
Test T. T-holdings shall also refer to its agents, officers, directors, managers, and staff

4
and to all fictitiously named herein.
5

9
JURISDICTION AND VENUE ARE PROPER
10
6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to Code of Civil
11
Procedure § 410.10.
12
7. Venue in this judicial district is appropriate pursuant to
13 Code of Civil Procedure, § 395,
subd. (a).
14

15 DEFENDANT Test T. T-holdings

16
22 W. Pendleton Santa Ana, CA 92704
17
of-
18

23

24
THE COMPLAINT JURISDICTION AND VENUE
25

26

27

28
3
 COMPLAINT

1. 1. BACKGROUND Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant Test T T-holdings, an affluent

business professional with adequate legal counsels and as for The Defendant actions as an individual and

Principal to Defendant's Professional Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego. The DEFENDANT

Test T. T-holdings (ecf: 1.

2. According to the facts Plaintiff, he and Mr./Mrs. T-holdings were previously in a romantic

relationship during which Plaintiff and Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and

Principal to Defendant's Professional Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego entered into a

contract

verbally involving a written list of Trade Secrets owned by Plaintiff along with other joint ventures o partner

with Defendant's Professional Businesses and The T-holdings Family of San Diego.

3. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The

T-holdings Family of San Diego usurp authority upon receiving access to secret passwords given to have

full access to Plaintiff's Credit Bureau Accounts, Better Business Bureau Account, Paypal Business

Accounts and Other Personal, Social, Private Residential and Business Accounts owned by Plaintiff.

4. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The

T-holdings Family of San Diego Preempted and commenced a lawsuit against Plaintiff for the punishment

purposes in which it falsely accuse plaintiff of criminal conduct in defendant's police reports.

5. After several years defendant and plaintiff entered into a written agreement "The Contract" .

6. Plaintiff proposed an appropriate bill of cost [Certified] in order to minimally execute the subject work orders
assigned by Defendant and by virtue of the Agreement Contract as listed by Defendant attach as exhibit "A" of

the Agreement Contract and as such to minimize any further Breach of Contract by Defendant.

7. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
 T-holdings Family of San Diego subsequently ignored plaintiff's reasonable bill of costs [certified] and

defendant began its filings for entries for proposed judgments with calculated interest against plaintiff

notwithstanding plaintiff's equal value and interest yet to be recovered for defendant's deficiencies.

8. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The

T-holdings Family of San Diego subsequently initiated and sustained a judgment entry, ($195,160.27)

proportionately fractional to Plaintiff's expenses in Breach of the Agreement and didnotsubmit an

appropriate bill of cost by virtue of the Judicial Order to which Defendant purports a status of

Contractee and Creditor substantially to enlarge defendant's defamation of Plaintiff and a Witness in

the complaint.

9. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The

T-holdings Family of San Diego continued to usurp additional authority fraudulently to withhold

reasonable payments substantially of equitable interest to Plaintiff and for the execution of the

agreement and its continuance without notice to Plaintiff even though defendant and plaintiff have had

equitable interest in each provisional execution of the agreement.

10. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The

T-holdings Family of San Diego asserts to a conspiracy with a "lawyer," Seth A Rafkin, to contact

Plaintiffs Home and Office Landlords, Plaintiff Friends and Business Associates and to negotiate the

undercutting of Plaintiff "to make him" Plaintiff "an homeless individual" and to help with forcing

Plaintiff to sell, give up or loose specific intellectual property trade secrets including Plaintiff's

trademark "MCSI Intelligent Security".

11. Here Plaintiff brings claims for FRAUD, BREACH of CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE, EQUITABLE

TITLE, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, LIBEL and BAD FAITH against the Defendant Test T. T-holdings

PLAINTIFF REQUESTS the sum of$200,000,000, "TWO HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS" less the

EQUIVALENT value of $195,160.27 "ONE HUNDRED and NINETY FIVE THOUSAND, ONE HUNDRED

and SIXTY DOLLARS and TWENTY-SEVEN CENTS ascribed to the Defendant as Designated Contractee and a

Creditor to Plaintiff.
 well as "any other compensatory damages, punitive damages, interest fees, and any other relief the court deems

fitting."

01. LEGAL STANDARD In the present matter, the facts establish Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an

individual and Principal to Defendant'sProfessionalBusinesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego as a

Contractor/Creditor and Plaintiff as an Employee/Debtor and is such as broadly in detail to broadly define a

contract allowing Plaintiff to execute a product or products of services substantially to which will incur

reasonable fees, to which upon the execution thereof such applicable fees will be paid to Plaintiff by the

Defendant Test T T-holdings, and or by any Principal for Defendant's Professional Businesses & The

T-holdings Family of San Diego consistent with each pending service or services and those to which have been

executed.

02. By ways of a stipulation the enjoined parts agree to end the question of Defendant Test T T-holdings as an

individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego "The Lawsuit"

and also to Plaintiff's Counter "LawSuit" for "Breach of Contract" each of which was never adjudicated.

03. Here, the case, of course, is represented in part by (the witness) the "Hon. Louis Levi Nock", who substantially

acted as the aider-abettor given rise to the substantial concern about damages sought by Plaintiff, for

Defendant's defamation to the witness and his liability for facilitating the enjoined party's to the Agreement

Contract, a Stipulation in Contempt.

04. Here it would not depend on the correct legal characterization of the Agreement Contract execution and for

informational purposes the broader spectrum implied equitable interests to the adjoined parties, but that to each

contemptuous disclosure he facilitated as defined by "exhibit A" to the Agreement Contract.

05. A settlement agreement is a contract, and the legal principles which apply to contracts generally apply to

settlement contracts.

06. An essential element of any contract is 'consent'. Case law will establish that the subject Agreement Contract

though void as against public policy, "there arises an implied equitable interest to pay for services rendered

thereunder, and the remedy of action sounding in quantum meruit is available to recover the reasonable value

thereof." (1 Cal.App.2d at p. 522; see also Ayres v. Lipschutz (1924) 68 Cal.

 Summary of Intermittent Relief Sought

07. Plaintiff a poor person seeks: A "Declarative Order" from the Court sufficiently to Cancel or suspend the

"Agreement Contract" forthwith on toward an injunction against the Defendant on any forward actions taken

by the Defendant to be imposed upon the Defendant as a result of Defendant's actions as an individual and

Principal to Defendant's Professional Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego imeceptive actions,

(ECF 03 Letter.Exhibit and Addendum to the agreement) and as such, with "Immediate Effect" pending the

outcome of each dispute before the Court in Plaintiffs "Summons & Complaints".

08. Plaintiff a poor person seeks: Alternate to immediate "Injunctions" HELD against Defendant Test T T-holdings,

in defendant's actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San

Diego for: I. DEFAMATION - Against Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as Contractor and Creditor's in

defendant's use of the "Agreement Contract" for the purpose of Defamation and to publicly disparage Plaintiff

and Witnesses: The Honorable Justice Luis Levi Nock, Carolina, Clerk Renee Woody, Attorney Jennifer

Borgue, Adjunct Professor Joan Snitzer, and Plaintiff's associates private, personal, social and professional

contacts specifically to New York Tango and Metro Commute Security International). II. CONVERSION -

Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual Contractor and Creditor's use of the "Agreement" to

suspend, cancel and delete urls consistent with Plaintiff/Debtor's sources of incomes projected and needed to

sustain Plaintiff, a poor person's livelihood. III. FRAUD - THIEVERY Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as

an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego as a Contractor

and Creditor's use of the "Agreement" in certified court filings to force collections habitually without providing

Plaintiff with an Appropriate Bill of Costs, to include an instruments theft in the Agreement and for its attempt

to collect a debt proportionately lesser and fractionally low against Plaintiff/creditor to that which is owed to

Plaintiff as reasonable payments for services rendered by Plaintiff under the Agreement Contract. IV. Nuisance

- Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual Contractor and Creditor's use of the "Agreement" for the
 purpose of Nuisance. V. Libel & Slander - Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual Contractor and

Creditor's use of the "Agreement" for the purpose of Libel or Slander. VI. Negligent acts - Defendant Test T

T-holdings, actions as an individual Contractor and Creditor's use of instruments assigned by the "Agreement"

for the aforementioned and negligence. VII. Tortious Interference - Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an

individual Contractor and Creditor's use of the "Agreement" for Tortious Interference. VIII. Intellectual

Property - Trade Secret Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual Contractor and Creditor's use of

the "Agreement" to pressure Plaintiff into selling, giving up and or losing Intellectual Property and Trade

Secrets. IX. Unfair and Deceptive Practices - Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual Contractor

and Creditor's use of the "Agreement" to boost awareness to defendants own professional businesses and The

T-holdings Family of San Diego at the demise of plaintiff status that of a poor person. X. Breach of Fiduciaries

- Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual Contractor and Creditor's use of the "Agreement"

exhaustively to default on the equitable interest of the adjoined parties. XI. Regulatory (Attorneys

Discrepancies) Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual Contractor and Creditor's use of the

"Agreement" to include legal misrepresentations, XII.Breach of Representations - Defendant Test T T-holdings,

actions as an individual Contractor and Creditor's use of the "Agreement" to enforce false judicial statements,

and to be held with Liability for Breach of Contract and for Material Breach of Contract.

09. PLAINTIFF History: Since 1992, Plaintiff's generally assert a poor person status in operations [Foster's

Economical Services Co. Inc.,] and has offered a suite of business networking and business development

formats that covers a number of financial, accounting, wholesale, retail, manufacturing, distribution and

Tech-Start-Ups. As a poor person Plaintiff engenders, develops and expedites invaluable small business

network trending tools [ideas] effectuating the Electronic Surveillance Security Systems, Communications,

Hospitality and Entertainment Industries. Plaintiff as a poor person is also an avid Dancer who performs,

choreographs and instructs as time and finance permits. Plaintiff as a poor individual splits his time
 management between the protection and security mainly of plaintiff's business trade secrets ideally files house

upon protected servers accessible under urls for example iPiD.name, GoRooGle.com, TipsOnly.com,

DefenseDataRecovery.com, TBCelebrity.com, FamousNewYorker.com, DanceWithMe.org, and others to

include Plaintiff's USPTO Trademark "MCSI Intelligent Security". Plaintiff as a poor person is an individual at

all times unrepresented by legal counsel, a product of the defendant's admissions to usurp control over

individuals or persons who are without counsel, with access to business trade secrets and people who are poor.

10. DEFENDANT History: Here for Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to

Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego in this Breach of Contract lawsuit, where

Defendant Test T T-holdings, is an affluent business professional and at all times represented by adequate legal

counsel is being sued as a Contractor/Creditor and competitor for BREACH of CONTRACT.

11. DEFENDANT: is owner of various technology driven sales and services firms "Professional Businesses".

Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The

T-holdings Family of San Diego is an individual by his own variety of intermittent claims to social and

domestic under "The T-holdings Family of San Diego CA", including Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions

as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego's conjunctive

claims associated with "The Agreement". The "Addendum" to which describes a variety of "Work-Orders" to

which at least one interpretation includes the delineations of USTDA-Trademark (#86304785) which describes

Plaintiff as "Owner" under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (Civ.Code, § 3426 et seq.; UTSA), holding

International Class CODE #009 & #012 and US Class Codes 021, 023, 026, 036, 038 & 019, 021, 023,

031, 035, 044.

Here, the Plaintiff asserts "Breach of Contract" and "Breach of Fiduciary Duty" of each theory advanced

by the defendant in an "Addendum/Exhibit" to "The Agreement" solely to which deems a variety of

misappropriations, Fraud and Thievery to Plaintiff's trade secrets. The theory also independently supports a
 claim for statutory and common law unfair competition and interference with Plaintiffs business relations and

sources of plaintiffs practical livelihood day to day resourcefulness, personal, domestic and professional.

12. Plaintiff asserted each theory claim fully in advance through a series of filings in addition to emails to

Defendant Test T T-holdings, % for and on behalf of defendant's actions as an individual and Principal

to Professional Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego. Both in official filings [certified]

and common efforts Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's

Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego with negligence continues to misrepresent its

fiduciary responsibilities consistent with the agreement contract adjoined to with Plaintiff by the

Defendant.

13. The Plaintiff asked in certified filings and otherwise that the contract be amended, canceled outright

at minimum but Defendant continues to misrepresent its fiduciary responsibilities- Plaintiff was opened

- to renegotiations on defendant's proposed instruments of outright Thieveries, lack of clarity asserted

by the contract and,itsoutright Fraud and certain unforgeable criterias including Defamation,

thievery, Libel and Slander to Plaintiff and the Witnesses named in this complaint if each element of

the Agreement Contract were in each exact terms executed would indulge plaintiff to criminal theft.

APPLICATION to PROCEED in FORMA PAUPERIS

14. Plaintiff, a poor person, seeks A Court Order to proceed throughout each application Forma Pauperis (ECF. 04)
and has submitted the forms of a fully executed application to the Court along with these filings.
"A Court may

allow a plaintiff to prosecute an action in federal court without prepayment offees or security ;f the plaintiff

submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay such fees or provide such security. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(a)(l) ".
 PERMISSION to Serve DEFENDANT by Electronic Mail return-receipt

15. Plaintiff a poor person seeks along with Application to Proceed Forma Pauperis, permission from the Court to

serve each additional filings by Electronic Mail Return Receipt if Defendant Test T T-holdings, as an individual

and Principal and to Defendant's professional Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego, if and when

Defendant refuses to submit an acknowledgement to plaintiff "SERVICE APPLICATION WAIVER"

ention Defendant Test T T-holdings, by Electronic Mail Return Receipt.

16. Plaintiff a poor person seeks along with Application to Proceed Forma Pauperis permission from the

Court to proceed with each hearing Telephonically and or via Video Conference.

COUNTI

[BREACH OF CONTRACT - BREACH of REPRESENTATIONS]

Breach of Contract: (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) Defendant Test T. T-holdings % and on behalf of himself, His
Professional Businesses and The T-holdings Family of San Diego asserts by contractual obligation and created
severally the illegal duties to which if executed will impede criminal conduct to Plaintiff, and such other
dutieswhereas if not actionable by Plaintiff a breach of that duty may be actionable againstPlaintiff. Here exc
ept onthe condition of "claims specific to fraud&thievery ". The agreement contractestablished certain duties
towhich implies costs to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff upon thecompletion of each duty.

173. Plaintiff a poor person without counsel re-alleges pages one (1) through one-hundred and thirty-one as
if fully set forth in this count.

174. Plaintiff a poor person without counsel has fully performed all of the obligations imposed on it under
the OriginalContract Terms.

175. Defendant Test T T-holdings an Affluent Individual with Counsels at all times, actions as an individual
and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego breached its obligations under
the
Original Agreement Contract's reasonable implicationsto equitable interest or payments due to plaintiff set forth
in the agreement contract and the of intruments set forth by the defendant in "Exhibit A" The Work Order
addendum to the agreement contract. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to
Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diegoand as a ,reputable business man, is 9ognisant of
the severity of contractual implications and the obligations to each just and equitable interest to the adjoined
parties.

176. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and P
rincipal toDefendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego's breach, Plaintiff has suffered financial
andpunitive damages.

177. Plaintiff is entitled to recover the all amount of actual, consequential, and incidental damages it suffered
and continues to suffer as a result of the Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to
Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego's breaches.

178. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego's Professional Businesses., including but not limited to T-holdings
Development Companies, FMT Financial Services, FMT Consultants and Defendant Test T T-holdings, as an
individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego's company or
successor are by these terms of the Agreement Contract liable to Plaintiff for these damages.

COUNT II

[FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT - DEFENDANTS ACTIONS % BUSINESSES & THE

T-holdings FAMILY of SAN DIEGO]
FRAUD: By the specific content fraudulently ascribed by the Defendant Test T. T-holdings % Himself, for and
on behalf.of Defendant's Professional Businesses and The T-holdings Family of San Diego Defendant did
certify
(a) misrepresentation,false representation, concealment, nondisclosure, (b) knowledge of falsity, (c) intent to
defraud with power to induce reliance,fraud,criminalthievery, (d) to effectuatejustifiable reliance; and (e) res
ultingtodamages to Plaintiff.

179. Plaintiff re-alleges pages one (1) through one-hundred and thirty-one as if fully set forth in this count.

180. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego intentionally made fraudulent and false material statements of fact to
Plaintiff
regarding Defendant Test T T-holdings, obligations under all and each consecutive implied terms of the Original
Agreement Contract and the addendum to the Agreement Contract which was prepared by Defendant Test T
T-holdings, and adjoined to with plaintiff% defendant as an individual and Defendant as Principal to Defendant's
Professional Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego.

181. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego knowingly made such false representations deceptively and descriptively in
writing within the Agreement Contract.

182. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego, is an affluent businessman knowingly asserted and made such false
representations with the intent to induce Plaintiff a poor individual with access to trade secrets, and to induce
plaintiff to enter the Agreement Contract knowing Plaintiff assumed it not to be defective.

183. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to
Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego's misrepresentations and, to Plaintiff's
detriment, entered into the Agreement Contract and assumed it not to be defective.

184. As a result of Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's
Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego's fraud, Plaintiff has suffered damages including economic
losses and the loss of goodwill and Defendant is entitled to judgment against Defendant Test T T-holdings, as an
individual and Principal to Defendant's Professional Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego and to
recover these damages.

185. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego's Professional Businesses., including but not limited to T-holdings
Development Companies, FMT Financial Services, FMT Consultants and Defendant Test T T-holdings, "The
T-holdings Family of San Diego" ascribed to Defendant Test T T-holdings, or successor are by these terms of
the Agreement Contract liable to Plaintiff for these damages.
 COUNT III

[FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT]

Actionable Causes: Malicious prosecution claim and breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, waste, and
intentional interference with prospective economic advantage and bad faith

186. Plaintiff re-alleges pages one (1) through one-hundred and thirty-one as if fully set forth in this count.

187. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego, as president of T-holdings Development Companies, intentionally made
fraudulent and false material statements of fact to Plaintiff regarding Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an
individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego's Professional
Businesses and The T-holdings Family of San Diego ability to fulfill the obligations under the Agreement
Contract and each equitable interest value.

188. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego knowingly made such false representations regarding Defendant Test T
T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San
Diego's Professional Businesses and The T-holdings Family of San Diego to Plaintiff.

189. Defendant made such false representations regarding actions as an individual and Principal to
Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego's, Professional Businesses and The
T-holdings Family of San Diego with the intent to induce Plaintiff to enter the Agreement Contract.

190. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to
Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego's and Defendant's misrepresentations
regarding actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Professional Businesses and The T-holdings
Family of San Diego and, to its detriment, plaintiff entered the defective Agreement Contract.

191. As a result of Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's
Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego's FRAUD, Plaintiff has suffered damages including
economic losses and the loss of goodwill and Defendant Test T T-holdings actions, Plaintiff is entitled to
judgment against Defendant Test T T-holdings, as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Professional
Businesses and to Defendant's Direct Family The T-holdings Family of San Diego to recover these damages.
 COUNTIV

[INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION - DEFENDANTS ACTIONS % BUSINESSES &

THE T-holdings FAMILY of SAN DIEGO]

The ''Agreement" therein constitutes Defendant as "Contractor". Wherein by virtue of each party's signature to
the ''Agreement" the "Defendant (Contractor) Hired Plaintiff (Contractee) ". The ''Agreement" by written
content broadly implies Plaintiff as contractor, employee, partner, associate and "Debtor". That "Plaintiff''
(Contractee) will "Execute" and "Carry-Out" and ''Accomplish "a specific and certain "Tasks" [implied} for a
fee which at minimal equates to a ''Debt" owed to Defendant (Creditor). Defendant is a business man of
reputable standings - ''A recognized Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Awardee ". Plaintiff holds the
USPTA trademark "MCSI Intelligent Security" and so does Defendant who holds A USPTA trademark
Tom T-holdings™, which defines Defendant as a "Service" not an "Individual". Defendant is an "Established

Professional"
ah I t • Intent: and a "Service"
with the wherewithal, experience, control and
··Proli:: ion 1/, h ar, • 1111' ·st d with rh • vpcri n • md
lortun t< rrcat mdivi<lual. "ith a M ma/ illn • an: re
uin·d first ro fft.r h•a/th ore mcth .I. and olmion. ••
l'l.11111m: in ,ildrcd "F tcr choo. roth r the pursuit uf:i
g amncnwl i11:tituti1m (or th· purpu ·,·u/'" uppt ·m ·nt:tl
R:i •J;·tt· ·rin_i!".

access to fortunes in the fields o_f "Mental Health and Medical Health Hospital Facilities" San Diego Region.
Defendants "TomT-holdings.com/tom, boast Defendant as: A multi-generational San Diegan. Holds a
bachelors degree in accounting from San Diego State University. Founder of the firm FMT Consultants. Named
Most Admired CEO by San Diego Business Journal and boasts a CEO focused on Employee Comfort. A Judge,
CEO, Chair, Founder, Member/Board or Director to:
•American Heart Association - Heart Walk, •Downtown Breakfast Rotary Club and San Diego Software
Industry Council, •Sharp HealthCare Board ofDirectors, •Sharp HealthCare Information Technology
Committee - Chair, •Sharp HealthCare Marketing & Communications Committee, •Sharp HealthCare Audit
Committee, •Sharp HealthCare Growth Planning Committee, •Sharp HealthCare Nominating Committee,
•Sharp Memorial Hospital Board of Trustees, •Emerald Textiles, •Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the
Year®Judge, •FMT Consultants Chief Executive Officer, •Mission Valley YMCA, •Plaza de Panama, •San Diego
State University, College of Business Administration, •San Diego Museum of Art, •San Diego Museum of Art
Executive Committee, •San Diego Museum of Art Strategic Planning Committee, •San Diego Museum of Art
Finance Committee, •San Diego Museum of Art Audit Committee, •San Diego Museum o_f Art Development
Committee, •San Diego Museum of Art Compensation & Benefits Committee, •San Diego Museum of Art
Governance & Nominating Committee, •The T-holdings Companies Board a/Directors - Chairman, •The
T-holdings Companies Audit Committee - Chairman, •The T-holdings Companies Compensation Committee,
•Vistage Group 3080 - Founder, •Vistage Member Advisory Committee, FMT Financial Systems.
Defendant entered the agreement contract with full knowledge of each of its contractual implications and the
associated equitable interest in part submitted by plaintif.f 's certified bills of costs to be paid by defendant.

192. Plaintiff re-alleges pages one (1) through one-hundred and thirty-one as if fully set forth in this count.

193. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego intentionally made fraudulent and false material statements of fact to Plaintiff
regarding Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego's ability to fulfill the obligations under the instruments of the agreement and
expenses incurred by the plaintiff during the time of the contract.

194. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego knowingly made such false representations to Plaintiff.

195. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego intended for Plaintiff to rely on such false representations.

196. Plaintiff reasonably relied on such false statements and was induced to, among other things, resulting in
expenses incurred by plaintiff during the time of the contract.

197. By relying on such false statements, Plaintiff has suffered damages including economic losses and the
loss of goodwill and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant Test T T-holdings, as an
individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego to recover these
damages.

198. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego an affluent individual with adequate legal counsel at all times, as Defendant
Test T T-holdings, l}S an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of
San Diego aµd successors to, defendant's \iabilities, is also liable to Plaintiff for these damages.
 COUNTV

[INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION - DEFENDANTS ACTIONS % BUSINESSES &

THE T-holdings FAMILY of SAN DIEGO]
And.for and on behaff of that MISREPRESENTATION Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual
and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego an affluent individual with
adequate legal counsel at all times coerce Plaintiff an individual, a poor person, without legal counsel. Here
Defendant Test T T-holdings, acted Recklessly as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego and as an affluent individual with adequate legal counsel at all times,
Defendant intentionally by fact and opinion implied the inaction of duties by Plaintiff but misrepresented.fact
and opinion expenses incurred by and due to plaintiff as a result of the agreement.

199. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs one (1) through one-hundred and thirty-one as if fully set forth in this
count.

200. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego's Professional Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego intentionally
made fraudulent and false material statements of fact to Plaintiff regarding Defendant Test T T-holdings, by fact
and opinion implied in the agreement contract, to fulfill the obligations under the instruments of the agreement
to compensate plaintiff for expenses incurred by plaintiff during the time of the contract.

201. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego knowingly made such
false representations to Plaintiff.

202. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego intended for Plaintiff to
rely on such false representations.

203. Plaintiff reasonably relied on such false statements and was induced to, among other things, by fact and
opinion implied by the agreement of equitable interest to be paid to Plaintiff upon executing the instruments of
the agreement and with Defendant Test T T-holdings except for instruments deflecting FRAUD & Thieveries.

204. By relying on such false statements, Plaintiff has suffered damages including economic losses and the
loss of goodwill and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an
individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego to recover these
damages.

COUNT VI

[NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION - DEFENDANTS ACTIONS % IT'S BUSINESSES &

THE T-holdings FAMILY of SAN DIEGO]

205. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs one (1) through one-hundred and thirty-one as if fully set forth in this
count.

206. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego negligently made false statements of material fact to Plaintiff regarding the
obligations set forth under the instruments of the agreement to which certain facts described in deliberate
content of the addendum to the agreement contract to which defines thievery and and implied expenses to be
incurred by plaintiff upon execution thereof to be the conduct of criminal indulgence.

207. Defendant Test T T-holdings an affluent business and professional entrepreneur, actions as an individual
and Principal to Professional Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego owed a duty of care to Plaintiff,
a poor person without legal Counsel to be truthful.

208. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego had no reasonable basis for believing the false statements enlisted in the
agreement contract and the addendum to the agreement contract to be true, in particular statements of thievery.

209. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Professional Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego knew that Plaintiff, a poor person without legal counsel would rely on its
statements and Plaintiff justifiably relied on such statements to plaintiff's detriment.

210. By relying on such false statements, Plaintiff has suffered damages including economic losses and the
loss of goodwill and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment against Defendant Test T T-holdings, Defendant's
Professional Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego to recover these damages.

211. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Professional
Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego's companies and successors todefendantliabilities, are als
oliabletoPlaintiff a poor person without legal counsel for these damages.

COUNT VII

[NEGLIGENT CONTRACTING - DEFENDANTS ACTIONS % BUSINESSES &

THE T-holdings FAMILY of SAN DIEGO]

212. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs one (1) through one-hundred and thirty-one as if fully set forth in this
count.

213. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Professional
Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego, adjoined Pl+t'intiff upon executing the agreement contract

to i mply, d,ue diligence with regard to Defendant's experience as an employer toplaintiff, an employee or any

enti

ty,or, and,in,dividual that would execute the instruments to the agreements Defendant therefore implied a duty o
fcareinPlaintiff's execution of the instruments to the agreement.

214. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego hired Plaintiff by adjoining itself to the agreement contractdefendant implied
con fidence,ofplaintiff s experienced and competent ability to perform the work necessary fully to execute the
instr uments,tothe agreement such as listed by defendant in "exhibit A" the addendum to the agreement.

215. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego knew that the agreement contract implied plaintiff as a competent
employee, experienced, and capable of executing the instruments to the agreement on contract with
equitable interest.

216. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego's negligent agreement contracting proximately caused Plaintiff to suffer
economic losses, thereby entitling Plaintiff to damages.

217. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego an affluent individual with adequate legal counsel at all times, and successor
to defendant'sliabilities, is also liable to Plaintiff for these damages.
 COUNT VIII

[UNJUST ENRICHMENT- DEFENDANTS ACTIONS % BUSINESSES & THE

T-holdings FAMILY of SAN DIEGO]

218. Plaintiff re-alleges paragraphs one (1) through one-hundred and thirty-one as if fully set forth in this
count.

219. To its detriment, Plaintiff accepted each responsibility upon adjoining to the agreement while Defendant
Test T T-holdings, as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San
Diego confer restitution to Plaintiff's equitable interest, but adduce deficiency td)efendants obligation upo
nPlaintiff's execution of the agreement. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to
Defendant's Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego accepted and benefited from Plaintiff's equitable
interest to the agreement.

220. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego was aware of and has enjoyed the benefits conferred upon it by Plaintiff.

221. Under the circumstances, it is inequitable for Defendant Test T T-holdings, as an individual or as
Principal to Defendant's Professional Businesses and or The T-holdings Family of San Diego to accept and
retain the benefit of the payments as a result of Plaintiff's equitable interest to the agreement.

222. Plaintiff is entitled to recover from Defendant Test T T-holdings n individual and as Principal to
Defendant's Professional Businesses & The T-holdings Family of San Diego the amount of this unjust
enrichment in an amount to be proven at trial.

223. Defendant Test T T-holdings, actions as an individual and Principal to Defendant's Businesses & The
T-holdings Family of San Diego an affluent individual with adequate legal counsel at all times,
and successor to , defendant liabilities, is also liable to Plaintiff for these damages