Complaint Review: TCI Corp, Newport Coast Capital, Newport Coast Equities, Tim Cho, Hin-Kong Cho - Newport Beach California
Ripoff Report on CBS 19
Ripoff Report on CBS 19 - Global Marketing Alliance
Ripoff Report on ABC 15 - Smart Shopper
Ripoff Report - Girls Gone Wild
Ripoff Report on Fox 11 - Car Repair
- Author Confirmed
- TCI Corp, Newport Coast Capital, Newport Coast Equities, Tim Cho, Hin-Kong Cho 620 Newport Center Drive Suite 1100 Newport Beach, California U.S.A.
- Phone: 949-612-6340
- Web:
- Category: Corrupt Companies
TCI Corp, Newport Coast Capital, Newport Coast Equities, Tim Cho, Hin-Kong Cho Charge customers credit cards, false claims on classes and training seminars, non disclosure of non license requirements, non disclosure of actions against the companies and personally. Stolen customers monies, false statements regarding investments, real estate, estate planning Newport Beach All Over Internet Nationally California
*REBUTTAL Owner of company: These are fraudulent complaints used as extortion tactic
*REBUTTAL Owner of company: These are fraudulent complaints from one person
Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
content.
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
Ripoff Report
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
With great concern there are public disclosures regarding this infrastructure and it's CEO. There are countless claims and actions with liability found, and appears ongoing. The CEO a claimed leader in the financial industry, does not own his own home. Does not invest any of his own money, and appears to be a complete fraud, by public and agency opinion. If he is so great at being a trader, where is the licensing? Where are his own investments? If there is such a talent why not capitalize on that to help ones self? Why is there a real estate transaction involving a class action suit and government agency and this man accused of paying for a ferrarri car with the proceeds prior to his removing his name from the property, leaving the investors to fend for themselves? There is changes of company names going on weekly and monthly. A hearing was held in Newport Beach to toss out a business fee which the CEO didnt want to pay so he claimed he did not do business as TCI Corp, and he lost, had to pay, but still does business as TCI, as demonstrated on the net. Although there are cease and refrain orders on most of these companies, they are still open for business, and TCI has a jaded past. If ever anyone was the opposite of what the goods being solicited and sold are, this is it. No licensing, which means no schooling. What are the credentials to stand behind what these customers are being sold on?
Why would anyone invest in real estate with a company that has a CEO that does not practice what he preaches or sells. Cant buy his own property. What about intense schooling and a degree for the estate planning? This is not easy stuff. Spends much time on his website teaching others how to hide and protect their money from different situations. There is incorrect information on the website, and phone calls being made. Trusts, etc... can be found and taken by a court of law. There is always a money trail, paper trails, including experts which can find money on other ends of the world. There is always a trail. People who see and know, and the law in never that cut and dry. This is so dangerous for people to fall in this kind of trap. To listen to and believe there are successful CEO's of these companies who have expensive homes in ultra expensive area's, and cars kids dream of, and fancy office addresses, but nothing to back it up, when it is all a performed front for the express purposes of scams and misleading unsuspecting people into handing over their money. AND Trust. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
Why does this operation advertise a fancy address of Fashion Island, Newport Beach when there is never anyone in that office? Would anyone invest their hard earned money in a company that does not have employees, or even the CEO, appropriately dressed, a secretary in person, not an elaborate voice mail system to make it appear it is a large organization.
VERY IMPORTANT FOR INVESTORS:If this guy is a top trader where is he watching the market while being also a supposed Hollywood producer of movies, as listed on the internet and his credits? He should be in an office, with a suit on, and watching the market from open to close. You cannot be a hollywood producer and an investment counseler and a day trader all at the same time. Would you want this disclosed to you before making the recommended 50K investment in his "tradfing system"? If he is not on movie sets and never was, more fraudulent claims, and surely people, actors, actresses can be interviewed. Dates checked and verified. Just as secretarys and business office complexes can show how often a person works in their office. Do they just pick up the mail when there are checks and leave or actually conduct real business from 9 to 5? Every day. When the movie investments were being sold and solicited, none of the investors were informed that the CEO was also a producer in the movies. The sales pitch goes that they only raised capital for the movie production company which is bonded and secured, but of course, they didnt need any investors money, since they have so much of their own. Well then why spend so much in advertising and soliciting to get those customers? There are so many things not right about this whole organization and the people involved, that it is unbelievable that they are free and able to continue to legally bilk people out of money. This is a money business. This is not a burger business. An unlicensed guy is out there not in an office, and was found liable of being deceptive yet he continued on and continues to commit theft of services, and monies from the public. Everyone needs to be warned of nice looking websites that are bought and paid for like the advertisements they are and look well beyond that. SEE ATTEMPTS TO WARN PUBLIC BELOW:
State of California - Department of Corporations
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
BUSINESS, TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
DEPARTMENT OF CORPORATIONS
TO: Timothy Cho (aka: Tim Cho; Hin-Kong Cho)
Newport Coast Entertainment Corporation (aka: Newport Coast Equities)
Newport Coast Capital Corporation
620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1100
Newport Beach, California 92660
Mahmoud Karkehabadi (aka: Mike Karkehabadi; Mike Karkeh; Mike K)
Alliance Group Entertainment, Inc.
801 South Main Street
Burbank, California 91506
DESIST AND REFRAIN ORDER
(For violations of sections 25110, 25210 and 25401 of the Corporations Code)
The California Corporations Commissioner finds that:
1. At all relevant times, Timothy Cho aka Tim Cho; aka Hin-Kong Cho; (Cho) was a
president, principal and control person of both Newport Coast Capital Corporation aka Newport
Coast Equities (NCC) and Newport Coast Entertainment Corporation (NCEC). Both NCC and NCEC
were operated by Cho from 620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1100, Newport Beach, California
92660.
2. At all relevant times, Mahmoud Karkehabadi aka Mike Karkehabadi; aka Mike
Karkeh; aka Mike K (Karkehabadi) was the CEO, principal and control person of Alliance Group
Entertainment, Inc. (Alliance). At all relevant times, Alliance was operated by Karkehabadi from
801 South Main Street, Burbank, California 91506.
3. At all relevant times, NCC was an active California Corporation, having filed with the
California Secretary of State on or about April 6, 2005.
-2-
DESIST AND REFRAIN ORDER
28
State of California - Department of Corporations
4. At all relevant times, NCEC was an active California Corporation, having filed with
the California Secretary of State on or about May 9, 2005.
5. At all relevant times, Alliance was an active Nevada Corporation, having filed with
the Nevada Secretary of State on or about December 10, 2002. Alliance has also filed with the
California Secretary of State as a foreign corporation on or about February 25, 2005.
6. Beginning in at least April 2005, Cho and NCC registered and began operation of the
Internet website: www.nccptl.com. Beginning in at least June 2005, Cho and NCEC registered and
began the operation of the Internet website: www.nceus.com.
7. Cho, NCC and NCEC advertised a Real Estate Investment Division and a Motion
Picture Investment Division on both websites. Cho, NCC and NCEC also advertised investment
opportunities through newspapers such as the Los Angeles Times and through Internet classified
advertisements.
8. Cho, NCC and NCEC offered and sold securities in the form of movie production
loan programs in Alliance. Specifically, Cho, NCC and NCEC offered two investment programs
in Alliance: Program A promised 25% fixed return for a 12 month fixed term investment and
included annual interest payments. Program B promised 18% fixed return for a 12 month fixed term
investment and 1.5% monthly interest payments.
9. Cho and NCC (also referred to as Newport Coast Equity on the two websites)
offered or sold securities in the form of investment contracts comprised of pooled investor money
that was to be used to make real estate purchases. The website also stated that the
requirements/details for investments were:
a. An investment of $20,000 or greater;
b. A promised 10% return per transaction;
-3-
DESIST AND REFRAIN ORDER
State of California - Department of Corporations
c. A yearly goal of 3-4 transactions by Cho and NCC/ Newport Coast Equity;
d. The claim that a typical transaction period was to be 60-90 days;
e. Investor money would be available with 30 days notice;
f. Investor capital was said to be secured by the real estate during the transaction
period.
10. In connection with the offer and sale of these securities, Timothy Cho, Newport Coast
Capital Corporation, Newport Coast Entertainment Corporation, Mahmoud Karkehabadi and Alliance
Group Entertainment, Inc., made, or caused to be made, misrepresentations of material fact or
omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. These misrepresentations and omissions
included, but are not limited to the following:
a. Failure to disclose that the Federal Trade Commission filed suit, and obtained
a judgment against Timothy Cho for deceptive acts or practices in connection
with the promotion or distribution of an investment trading system, in violation
of Section 5(a) of the FTC Act and 15 U.S.C. Section 45(a). Cho was ordered
to refrain form making any further misrepresentations in the advertisement of
his investment trading system, which had been promoted and sold through his
company Tim Cho Investment Corp;
b. Failure to disclose that neither Timothy Cho, NCEC nor NCC are licensed as
broker-dealers, by the State of California, Department of Corporations
pursuant to Corporations Code 25210 of the California Corporate Securities
Law of 1968, but nonetheless effected transactions in the above mentioned
securities;
-4-
DESIST AND REFRAIN ORDER
State of California - Department of Corporations
c. Failure to disclose that the above-mentioned investments in movie production
loans and real estate investment pools are securities under Section 25110 of the
California Corporate Securities Law of 1968 and require qualification under
said law;
d. Failure to disclose that the California Attorney General filed suit, and obtained
a judgment against Mahmoud Karkehabadi for his involvement as a principle
of First National Credit (FNC). First National Credit deceptively marketed the
sale of its credit cards, in violation of California's false advertising and unfair
business practices laws;
e. Failure to disclose that the Pennsylvania Securities Commission issued a
Summary Order to Cease and Desist against NCEC and Cho for (1) the
unlicensed offer or sales of securities in the form of Movie Picture Finance
Agreements; and (2) the offer or sale of securities without a license from the
state to act as a broker-dealer of securities;
11. The Department of Corporations has not issued a permit or other form of
qualification authorizing Timothy Cho, Newport Coast Capital Corporation, Newport Coast
Entertainment Corporation, Mahmoud Karkehabadi nor Alliance Group Entertainment, Inc., to offer
or sell the above mentioned securities in this state. The investments are not exempt from the
qualification requirement under Section 25110 of the California Corporate Securities Law of 1968.
12. Neither Timothy Cho, Newport Coast Capital Corporation, nor Newport Coast
Entertainment Corporation have obtained a certificate as a broker-dealer from the California
Corporations Commissioner or have qualified as an agent by the Commissioner to offer or sell
securities in this state.
-5-
DESIST AND REFRAIN ORDER
State of California - Department of Corporations
Based upon the foregoing findings, the California Corporations Commissioner
is of the opinion that the investments offered and/or sold by Timothy Cho, Newport Coast Capital
Corporation, Newport Coast Entertainment Corporation, Mahmoud Karkehabadi and Alliance Group
Entertainment, Inc., are securities subject to qualification under the California Corporate Securities
Law of 1968 and are being or have been offered or sold without being qualified in violation of
Corporations Code Section 25110.
Pursuant to Section 25532 of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968, Timothy Cho, Newport
Coast Capital Corporation, Newport Coast Entertainment Corporation, Mahmoud Karkehabadi and
Alliance Group Entertainment, Inc., are hereby ordered to desist and refrain from the further offer or
sale in the State of California of securities in the form of investment contracts comprised of real
estate investment pools or movie production loans, unless and until qualification has been made
under said law or unless exempt.
Further, the California Corporations Commissioner is of the opinion that the securities offered
and sold by Timothy Cho, Newport Coast Capital Corporation, Newport Coast Entertainment
Corporation, Mahmoud Karkehabadi and Alliance Group Entertainment, Inc. were offered and sold
in this state by means of written or oral communications that included untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in violation of section 25401 of the
Corporate Securities Law of 1968.
Pursuant to Section 25532 of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968, Timothy Cho, Newport
Coast Capital Corporation, Newport Coast Entertainment Corporation, Mahmoud Karkehabadi and
Alliance Group Entertainment, Inc. are hereby ordered to desist and refrain from offering or selling
any security in the State of California, including, but not limited to, investment contracts comprised
-6-
DESIST AND REFRAIN ORDER
State of California - Department of Corporations
of real estate investment pools and movie production loans by means of any written or oral
communication which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact
necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading.
Timothy Cho, Newport Coast Capital Corporation, and Newport Coast Entertainment
Corporation have also effected transactions in securities as broker-dealers without first having
applied for and secured from the Commissioner a certificate, then in effect, authorizing these persons
to act in that capacity, in violation of Section 25210 of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968.
Pursuant to Section 25532 of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968, Timothy Cho, Newport
Coast Capital Corporation, and Newport Coast Entertainment Corporation are hereby ordered to
desist and refrain from effecting any transaction in, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase
or sale of any security in this state, unless and until they have applied for and secured from the
Commissioner a certificate, then in effect, authorizing these persons to act in that capacity.
This Order is necessary, in the public interest, for the protection of investors and consistent
with the purposes, policies, and provisions of the Corporate Securities Law of 1968.
Dated: May 21, 2007
Los Angeles, California
PRESTON DUFAUCHARD
California Corporations Commissioner
By
ALAN S. WEINGER
Lead Corporations Counsel
Enforcement Division
Investor
Trenton, New Jersey
U.S.A.
This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 07/25/2007 01:51 PM and is a permanent record located here: https://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/tci-corp-newport-coast-capital-newport-coast-equities-tim-cho-hin-kong-cho/newport-beach-california-92660/tci-corp-newport-coast-capital-newport-coast-equities-tim-cho-hin-kong-cho-charge-cust-263132. The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content
If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:
#2 REBUTTAL Owner of company
These are fraudulent complaints used as extortion tactic
AUTHOR: Tim - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Wednesday, November 18, 2009
These are fraudulent complaints are from one person posted to look like from many individuals. All of these complaints are used in an effort to extort money from me and my companies. The individual responsible for generating all these complaints is a professional scam artist and extortionist. We have found out this individual has 2 criminal convictions and involved with at least 25 civil cases, she has used this method to extort other companies and individuals for money as well. Below are her information:
Sandra Richmond, Alias: Sandra C. Richmond, Sandra E. Richmond, Sandra Colleen Moyer, Sandra Savicky, Sandra Schutt, Nikki Sabo, Sandra Cho, Deborah Susan Reckling,,
CRIMINAL RECORDS LANCASTER COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Case No. CP-36-CR-0002538-1996 Name: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Sandra Colleen Richmond DOB: 1/16/1961 Charge 1: False Reports To Law Enforcement Authorities Guilty plea to a lesser charge Charge 2: Disorderly conduct No Lo Contendere County/State: Lancaster, PA Offense Dates: 4/13/96 to 5/17/96 Date Filed: 6/21/96 Court: Court of Common Pleas Issuing Auth.: Lancaster Police Department Filed by: Peter Anders Lower Court Docket: CR00326-96 Criminal ID: CR00326-96 Legacy Docket: 44511 Legacy Docket: 2538CR1996 Disposition: 1) Guilty plea to a lesser charge. 2) Nolo Contendere plea Reports: Sandra Colleen Richmond, 415 W Marion St., Lancaster PA. #96-15202; Sec 4904 of PA Crimes Code (18 Pa. C.S. 4904)
Reports: Apr 13, 1996 (1710 hrs): Richmond made a false report of a robbery to Officers Hall and Will Genetti. Richmond alleged that on or near the 300 block of S. Ann St. she was robbed by a Hispanic female. Richmond claimed she asked the woman for directions to Chester St., and the woman assaulted her, robbed her of a change purse containing $20 from her vehicle. The change purse was allegedly inside a larger purse from the back seat of her car. Richmond also claimed that the woman smashed her vehicles rear windows to get the purse, and the woman and another individual vandalized her vehicle, causing $2000 in property damage. Richmond responded that she didnt see any street signs. Richmond stated she was in the area to give $20 she had owed to one Esther (no last name). She later changed her story stating she was in the area to see one Maude Burke. Richmond later stated she had not asked anyone for directions but was simply attacked and robbed at a stop sign. Officer Genetti noticed that Richmonds vehicle had no rear doors or windows, and obviously her rear windows had not been smashed. Officer Genetti gave Richmond a chance to change her story, while warning her that it was a crime to issue a false police report. Officer Genetti suspected this may have been a drug deal gone bad.
Apr 14, 1996 (1015 hrs): Richmond called Sgt. Anderson. Anderson found Richmond to be evasive, stating she would not answer questions and would not come to the police station to look at suspect photos.
Apr 14, 1996 (1050 hrs): Officer Genetti went to Richmonds home and spoke with her boyfriend, Darryl Moyer, Jr. Moyer said Richmond was in the vicinity of the alleged scene to look for a dress. This is the 3rd version of the story of why Richmond was in the vicinity of the scene.
May 15, 1996: Richmond called Capt. Arnold. She stated she wanted to meet to discuss the incident and report an additional incident. Richmond met with Capt. Arnold and Officer Anders. Richmond stated that a Hispanic female, 16-17 years of age, approached her, acted sweet and got into her car. Richmond stated that she and the female started fighting, then two African American males showed up and smashed in her windows and sunroof. Richmond stated Boy, someone must have been training someone down there. Im trying to figure out why my car wasnt moving. Someone trained them, they must have pressed my emergency brake.
Officer Anders filed charges against Richmond.
Convicted of a DUI in Lancaster on July 30th,1996. Case No. 1134-1996 Name: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Sandra Colleen Richmond DOB: 1/16/1961 Charge: Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol or Controlled Substance; PA Vehicle Code 75.3731 (a)(1) County/State: Lancaster, PA Offense Date: 2/15/96 (2143 hrs) Date Filed: 7/30/96 Court: Court of Common Pleas District: Magisterial District 02-2-02 Police Report: 96-6915 Issuing Auth.: Lancaster Bureau of Police Filed by: Officer Bradley R. Shenk Sentence: Accelerate Rehabilitative Disposition (ARD: an Alternative sentencing program) per conditions of order. License suspended 8 mos. (or 2 yrs/8 mos.) Attend ID to be paid 50 hours of community service.
Reports
PFA Order (Protection From Abuse Order) 5/5/95: 1974-95 - Mary Richmond vs. Sandra Richmond Mary Richmond, Sandras mother, filed a PFA (Protection From Abuse) Order against Sandra, alleging repeated physical beatings, death threat, stolen property, attempted to steal drugs, threatened to call Marys work to smear her to her employer.
2/6/96: 1134-1996 (Police Report 96-6915) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Sandra C. Richmond DUI, Offense: 2/15/96, Filed: 2/16/96. On 2/15/96 at 2143 hrs. Sandra Colleen Richmond was passed out in her gray Dodge sedan, PALP# AXW9619 in front of 136 N. Mulberry St., Lancaster, PA. Officer found Richmond stopped with the engine running and transmission in drive. Richmond was passed out and slumped over to the right with her head on the passenger seat. Her vehicle was partially blocking the roadway. Richmond had a plastic cup containing wine or champagne between her legs. Officer found a blue wax paper baggie commonly used to package heroin on the passenger seat, and a needle cap was found on the drivers seat. Richmond failed preliminary tests at the scene and later refused to have her blood drawn at the station. Richmond had a moderate odor of alcohol on her breath. ARD - The Commonwealth charged Richmond with I Count of DUI, sentencing her to a suspended license of 8 months, 2 yrs. Attend ID to be paid within 2 months. Perform 50 hours of community service.
4/7/97: 2538 1996 Police Report 96-15202 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania vs. Sandra C. Richmond Offense: 3/7/97, Filed: 4/7/97. Richmond pleaded down from False Reports to Authorities to Disorderly Conduct.
No Trespass Order
February 4, 2000 No Trespass Order as Respondent Following a pattern of harassing and libelous behavior by Richmond at Stephen Hogans office, Hogans attorney files a No Trespass Order, which Richmond then violates by coming to his office. She is cited for trespassing by the authorities.
Newport Beach Police Department 12/12/2006 - Police Report: Dr No. 06-12735 Threatening Phone Call Report: Sandra Richmond called a resident in Newport Coast CA and made threats to him and his family.
Newport Beach Police Department 12/23/2006 - Police Report: Dr No. 06-13098 Domestic Battery Report: PC 234(e)(1) Sandra Richmond physical beating on her husband.
Newport Beach Police Department 01/26/2006 - Police Report: Dr No. 07-00987 Threatening Phone Call Report: Sandra Richmond constantly calls a family in Ladera Ranch CA with threats of harm to them, their children and extortion.
CIVIL RECORDS NEWPORT BEACH, CA
Case No. 07HL00034 Case Name: Thomas Knaup vs. Sandra Cho, AKA Sandra Richmond Type: Civil Judgment / Unlawful Detainer Amount: Pending County/State: Newport Beach, CA Date Filed: 1/19/07 Date Updated: Pending Disposition: Open Reports: Judgment against Sandra C. Richmond, orders Sandra C. Richmond to leave property.
CIVIL RECORDS LEE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Case No. 4601158 Name: Sandra Moyer Cross Party Name: Lee County Tax Collector Record Date: 7/25/2005 County/State: Lee / Florida Type: Order Book Type: O Book: 4812 Page: 1084 Comments: CS04-CA-003086, 1998-2003, INTANGIBLE TAX WARRANTS Instrument #: 6908804 Note: The original document is necessary to verify the ID.
CIVIL LITIGATION - PENNSYLVANIA
Case No. CI-07-08382 Case Name: Dell & Homsher, LLC vs. Sandra Moyer, AKA Sandra Richmond, AKA Sandra Shutt Type: Civil Judgment Amount: Pending County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 8/22/07 Date Updated: Pending Disposition: Open Reports : Reports that Richmond owes their law firm approximately $48,202.
Case No. CI-02-02667 Case Name: Sandra Moyer vs. Eric J. Hoffman and Mary Beth Hoffman Type: Civil Amount: Pending County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 3/27/02 Date Updated: Pending Reports: Dell & Homsher from the above-listed case represented Sandra Moyer in that case.
Case No. CI-01-07750 Case Name: Robert N. Lepore, J. Stephen Hogan, Alma M. Hogan, DBA Hogan Development Company vs. Sandra Moyer Type: Civil Judgment / Unlawful Detainer Amount: Pending County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 8/1/01 Date Updated: 2/13/04 Reports: Suit involving J. Stephen Hogan re: rents at 350 Buch Ave., Mannheim Township, Lancaster County, PA 17601. On 9/13/02 the judge ruled to recover 350 Buch Ave. from Richmond. On 2/13/04 settlement reached, Richmonds counterclaim settled, costs paid, and the matter concluded.
Case No. CI-01-00278 Case Name: Sandra C. Moyer as Administrator of the Estate of Michael J. Sabo vs. Mary A. Richmond Type: Civil Judgment Amount: Pending County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 1/5/01 Date Updated: Pending Reports: Sandra C. Moyer sues her mother, Mary A. Richmond over the estate of her deceased brother, Michael J. Sabo. Threats of Violence and Act of Violence by Sandra: Mary Richmond files a Protective Order against Sandra Richmond citing death threats, physical abuse, burglary, attempted theft or Mary Richmonds pharmaceuticals and alleged drug abuse. Mother passed away.
Case No. CI-98-05268 Case Name: Sandra Moyer vs. Darryl L. Moyer, Jr. Type: Family court, Divorce Amount: Pending County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 5/7/98 Date Updated: Pending Reports: Threats of Violence: Richmond (Sandra Moyer) threatened to pay someone to have his legs broken. Case No. CI-98-05406
Case Name: National City Mortgage vs. Sandra C. Richmond Type: Mortgage Foreclosure Amount: $62,770.83 with interest from 10/20/98 Plaintiff Counsel: Frank Federman, Esq. Property: 415 W. Marion St., Lancaster, PA 17601 Mailing Address: PO Box 11231, Lancaster, PA 17605 Date Filed: 5/13/98 Date Updated: Pending Reports: Sandra C. Richmond skips on a $62,770.83 mortgage, leaving 415 W. Marion St. Lancaster residence vacant for months. Neighbor reported Richmond had moved out months prior and the property was vacant. Post Office had no forwarding address for Richmond. Property returned to the bank, recorded 4/6/99. Costs awarded to plaintiff counsel, $2301.92.
Case No. JC3211199536 Case Name: Sears Roebuck and Co. vs. Richmond Type: Civil Judgment Amount: $3574 County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 11/3/95 Date Updated: Pending
Case No. CJ-1994-8083 Case Name: Bank of Lancaster County vs. Richmond Type: Civil Judgment Amount: $1197 County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 12/9/94 Date Updated: Pending Reports: Bank of Lancaster is awarded $1108 against Sandra C. Richmond.
Case No. CI-1993-0449 Case Name: Richmond vs. Hershey Farm Company Type: Civil Demand Amount: $10,000 Plaintiff Counsel: Patrick Zimmerman, Esq. Property: Hershey Village Apartments, 350 Sun Valley Dr., Leola, PA 17540 Date Filed: 1/28/93 Date Updated: 1/3/97 Reports: Complaints served 2/2/93 on Richard P. Nuffort (Atty), 22 South Duke St., Lancaster, PA 17602; also on John F. Cottone, 1330 Wabank Rd., also on James R. Haines, 1173 Elm Ave. and also on J. Freeland Hatfield, 603 South West End Ave., all in Lancaster, PA 17603. On 7/30/96 Richmond was awarded $10,000 following settlement agreement, paid $1000 by Def. Michael L. Yingst, $1000 by Def. Hatfield, and $8000 by Def. Hershey Farm Company. Insurance Company for Hershey Farm, State Farm Insurance paid an additional $800 and Def. Hatfield paid an additional $200. Richmond assigned her action ($1000) against Yingst to Hershey Farm Company and Def. Hatfield. Threats of Violence An attorney reports that Richmond made threats against John F. Cottone of Hershey Farms Company.
Case No. CI-1992-0969 Case Name: Hershey Farm Company vs. Richmond Type: Civil / Unlawful Detainer Amount: Pending Property: Hershey Heritage Apartments, 1330 Wabank Rd., Unit 1, Lancaster, PA 17603 Date Filed: 3/2/92 Date Updated: 10/11/95 Reports: Terminated on 10/11/95 per Local Rule 350.
Case No. CI-1992-1248 Case Name: Woerner vs. Fishel (Co-Def. of Sandra Richmond) Type: Appeal From District Justice Amount: Unknown County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 3/18/92 Date Updated: 10/11/95 Reports: Notice of Appeal filed by Patrick Zimmerman, Richmonds attorney. Larry Woerner vs. Keith Fishel and Sandra Richmond, 637 Wyncroft Lane, Unit 1, Lancaster, PA 17601. Andrew Hooker Appel, Esq. filed against Fishel for $3482.83 plus costs. Judgment entered against Defendant. On 10/11/95 case terminated per Local Rule 350.
Case No. CI-1990-3563 Case Name: Martin & Virginia Maerz vs. Ted & Sandra Savicky (AKA Sandra Richmond) Type: Civil Judgment Defense Counsel: Patrick Zimmerman, Esq. Amount: $3205.49 County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 6/18/90 Preliminary objections by Defendants Date Filed: 8/24/90 Judgment awarded to Plaintiffs Date Updated: 6/17/92 Reports: Martin & Virginia Maerz are awarded $3205.49 against Sandra Savicky, AKA Richmond in an action filed on June 18, 1990. Case No. CI-1990-1268 Case Name: Sandra Colleen Richmond vs. Theodore Anthony Savicky Type: Divorce Amount: Unknown County/State: Lancaster, PA Date File: 3/28/90 Date Updated: 5/17/91 Reports: Threats of Violence: Sandra threatened Richard Savicky to slit his throat and get the mafia after him. His wife Charlotte also reports that Sandra threatened her life and that Sandra also threatened the life of their son and Sandras ex-husband, Ted Savicky.
CIVIL LITIGATION - TEXAS
Case No. 521369. Case Name: N. Gopal Swamy vs. Sandra Richmond (ex-wife, Nalini Swamy) Type: Civil Judgment Amount: Pending Court/County/State: Houston Court, Harris County, TX Date Filed: 2/18/88 (Film 871710005) Date Filed: 8/29/88 (Film 881691721) Date Filed: 11/10/89 (Film 805002314) Reports: Richmonds address in this suit: 1926 Rainy River Dr., Houston, TX 77088. See Witness Interviews for a summary on this case.
Case No. Reports: Reports that Sandra Richmond was sued by her employer, Allied Capital Mortgage, in Houston, Texas. Richmonds boss of that time is Don Strauss, Investigation ongoing.
February 18, 1988 Sandra Richmond is sued by N. Gopal Swamy in Houston, Texas. Mr. Swamy had sold a house to Richmond in Houston. Richmond stopped making payments. Swamy prevailed in court and has a judgment against her.
BANKRUPTCIES, LIENS, JUDGMENTS AND DEFAULTS
Case No. 9725057 Case Name: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Sandra E. Richmond Type: Chapter 7 Bankruptcy - Discharged County/State: Delaware, PA Date Filed: 11/10/97 Date Updated: 8/9/03 Reports: Richmonds SSN: 208-52-4170. Her address at the time was 415 W. Marion St., and possibly 232 W. Orange St., in Lancaster.
Case No. CV000051094 Case Name: Pet Emergency Treatment Service vs. Sandra Richmond Type: Civil Judgment Amount: $171 County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 12/16/94 Date Updated: 6/5/07 Reports: Richmonds address at the time was 415 W. Marion St., Lancaster, PA 17603. Pet Emergency Treatment Service is awarded $171 in action vs. Sandra Richmond.
Case No. CV000024895 Case Name: Sears Roebuck and Co. vs. Sandra C. Richmond Type: Civil Judgment Amount: $3514 County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 9/22/95 Date Updated: 6/5/07 Reports: Richmonds address at the time was 415 W. Marion St., Lancaster, PA 17603. Sears Roebuck and Co. is awarded $3514 against Sandra C. Richmond.
Case No. JC3083199436 Case Name: Bank of Lancaster vs. Sandra C. Richmond Type: Civil Judgment Amount: $1197 County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 12/9/94 Date Updated: 6/5/07 Reports: Richmonds address at the time was 350 Sun Valley Dr., Leola, PA 17540. The Bank of Lancaster is awarded $1197 against Sandra Richmond.
Case No. CV000046494 Case Name: Bank of Lancaster vs. Sandra C. Richmond Type: Civil Judgment Amount: $1108 County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 10/21/94 Date Updated: 6/5/07 Reports: Richmonds address at the time was 350 Sun Valley Dr., Leola, PA 17540. Bank of Lancaster is awarded $1108 against Sandra C. Richmond.
Case No. JC3211199536 Case Name: Sears Roebuck and Co. vs. Sandra C. Richmond Type: Civil Judgment Amount: $3574 County/State: Lancaster, PA Date Filed: 11/3/95 Date Updated: 6/5/07 Reports: Richmonds address at the time was 415 W. Marion St., Lancaster, PA 17603. Sears Roebuck and Co. is awarded $3574 against Sandra C. Richmond.
Possible Identity Theft Authority is looking into it, Richmond appears to have been using the identity of Deborah Susan Reckling, using SSN: 218-52-4710, DOB: 7/24/1951. Richmonds most probably accurate SSN is 208-52-4170 (DOB: 1/16/1961, DOB: 9/1/1960), which appears on her Bankruptcy record in Delaware County. Typographical errors can inadvertently occur where an individual transposes one of the numbers, for example, a 3 becomes an 8, or a 7 becomes a 9. In this case, there was a sequential change of the second number in the SSN, from a 0 to a 1. This is unlikely in that the numbers are not similar, and also because Richmond shows 5 addresses listed. These addresses were collectively reported to the credit bureaus 23 times, so it would appear that the appearance of these addresses are not random typographical errors.
Richmond used the name Nikki Sabo for an undisclosed purpose. As you know, Richmonds deceased brother was Michael Sabo, Richmond sued her mother, Mary Richmond over the estate. Unfortunately, Mary Richmond is now deceased, however the probate records are available.
There are many other threats and harassments with many other individuals and companies as discovery continue, Use the internet to put false derogatory information on individuals or companies for extortion. Threats of violence Commit perjury and lied under oath. Professional debtor Rent a home, not pay rent until being evicted. Dating Scam - Move in with lovers, when the relationship doesnt workout, made up false allegation to filed Protection From Abuse (PFA) orders to keep them from go to their own home and wouldnt move out until eviction. Forgery - forge documents Make up bogus charges of abuse or sexually harassment against employers, ex-lovers, married men to extort money. Make up bogus charges of sexually harassment conducts against attorneys in an effort to extort them to forgive the legal fees or to continue representing on her case. File false complaint against Police Officers for retaliation. At last hopefully, when Ms. Richmond continue to make untrue statements under oath which you can impeach in court by presenting this and the forthcoming evidence.
#1 REBUTTAL Owner of company
These are fraudulent complaints from one person
AUTHOR: Tim - (U.S.A.)
SUBMITTED: Thursday, November 12, 2009
All of these fraudulent complaints came from one individual in an effort to extort money from me and my companies. The individual responsible for generating all these complaints is a professional scam artist and extortionist. We have found out this individual has 2 criminal convictions and involved with at least 25 civil cases, she has used this method to extort us as well as other companies and individuals for money. She forged an investment contract in her own hand writing and claims that we owe her money. The contract was examined by a forensic handwriting expert and found to be fraudulent. We have also successfully obtained a restraining order from the court against her. Our companies have one of the best reputations in the industry and are well respected in the financial community. These reputations are demonstrated by satisfied clients.
Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.
