Showing posts with label CNET SCANDAL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CNET SCANDAL. Show all posts
CASE NO.: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT, BATTERY, FALSE IMPRISONMENT, TRESPASS TO REAL PROPERTY, TRESPASS TO PERSONAL PROPERTY, CONVERSION AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
The Witness Murders of Contra Costa County
The Convicts and Felons
Connecting Paul Pelosi to GaganMcCoy to a long list of attempts on Pete Bennett's life.
The Couples Unbelievable
The Power Couples and Pete Bennett
Pelosi hired an attorney connected to a law firm that represented Dr. Kim Fang of Alamo CA. Dr. Fang sued Bennett in 1987 where his witness was murdered in 2000 then Fang while being represented Attorney William Gagen was murdered. The home invasion robbery brought Contra Costa Sherrif Deputies to my door. Guilt by litigation. A few years later or less the witness intimidation began.
Peter Bennett
Telephone: (925) 705-1812
Facsimile: (000) 000-0000
In Pro Per
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
|
PETE BENNETT
Plaintiff,
v.
GARY COLLINS, and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
Defendants.
|
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
|
CASE NO.:
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT, BATTERY, FALSE IMPRISONMENT,
TRESPASS TO REAL PROPERTY, TRESPASS TO PERSONAL PROPERTY,
CONVERSION AND INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
|
Plaintiff alleges:
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
1. Defendant Gary Collins is an individual. Plaintiff Pete Bennett
is informed and believes that, at all times herein mentioned, defendant
Gary Collins was a resident of Contra Costa County , California
2. Defendants Doe 1 through Doe 20, inclusive, are sued herein under
fictitious names. Their true names and capacities are unknown to
plaintiff. When their true names and capacities are ascertained, plaintiff
will amend this complaint by inserting their true names and capacities
herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that
each of the fictitiously named defendants is responsible in some manner
for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiff's damages as herein
alleged were proximately caused by those defendants. Each reference in
this complaint to ''defendant,'' ''defendants,'' or a specifically named
defendant refers also to all defendants sued under fictitious names.
3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that at all
times herein mentioned each of the defendants, including all defendants
sued under fictitious names, was the agent and employee of each of the
remaining defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, was
acting within the course and scope of this agency and employment.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Assault)
4. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 3 this Complaint as if the
same were fully stated herein.
5. On or about September 21, 2004, defendant Gary Collins came to plaintiff
Pete Bennett’s residence at 161 Valle Vista Drive in Danville , California
6. In doing the acts as alleged above, defendant intended to cause plaintiff
an apprehension of a harmful or an offensive contact with plaintiff's
person.
7. As a result of defendant's acts as alleged above, plaintiff, in fact, was
placed in great apprehension of a harmful contact with plaintiff's
person.
8. At no time did plaintiff consent to any of the acts of defendant alleged
above.
9. As a proximate result of the acts of defendant as alleged above,
plaintiff suffered physical injuries to his elbow, shoulder, arm, knee, leg
and chest.
10. As a proximate result of the acts of defendant as alleged above,
plaintiff was hurt and injured in his health, strength, and activity,
sustaining injury to his nervous system and person, all of which have
caused, and continue to cause, plaintiff great mental, physical, and nervous
pain and suffering. As a result of these injuries, plaintiff has
suffered general damages.
11. As a further proximate result of defendant's acts, plaintiff has been
damaged in that he has been required to expend money and incur obligations
for medical services and treatment reasonably required in the treatment and
relief of the injuries herein alleged.
12. As a further proximate result of the acts of defendant, plaintiff has
incurred medical and related expenses.
13. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, as a further proximate result
of the acts of defendant, plaintiff will continue to incur medical and
related expenses.
14. As a further proximate result of the acts of defendant, plaintiff was
prevented from participating in his usual occupation and thereby lost
earnings to his damage.
15. Plaintiff is informed and believes that, as a further proximate result
of the acts of defendant, plaintiff's present and future earning capacity
has been impaired.
16. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was willful and malicious and
was intended to oppress and cause injury to plaintiff. Plaintiff is
therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Battery )
17. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 3 and 8 through 16 of
this Complaint as if the same were fully stated herein.
18. On or about September 21, 2004, defendant Gary Collins came to plaintiff
Pete Bennett’s residence at 161 Valle Vista Drive in Danville , California
19. In doing the acts as alleged above, defendant acted with the intent
to make a contact with plaintiff's person.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(False Imprisonment)
20. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 3 and 9 through 16 of this
Complaint as if the same were fully stated herein.
21. On or
about September 21, 2004, defendant Gary Collins used physical force and
threats of violence, including death threats, to confine plaintiff for a
period of time, against his will and without his consent. Following
this period of detention, defendant released plaintiff without charging him
with any crime or taking him before a magistrate.
22.
Immediately prior to the acts of defendant herein alleged, plaintiff had
been peacefully working in the study in his residence, located
at 161 Valle Vista Drive in Danville , California
23.
Plaintiff did not steal, nor was he in the process of stealing, any property
belonging to defendant or anyone else, nor had he committed any crime
against defendant or anyone else.
24. In
imprisoning plaintiff, defendant acted with deliberate malice and for the
purpose of harassing plaintiff and causing plaintiff physical and emotional
harm.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trespass to Real Property)
25. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 3 and 9 through 16 of this
Complaint as if the same were fully stated herein.
26. On or about September 21, 2004, defendant Gary Collins intentionally
entered a residence located at 161 Valle Vista Drive in Danville , California
27. Plaintiff did not give defendant permission for the entry and, in fact,
defendant entered plaintiff’s residence despite plaintiff’s explicit demands
for defendant to leave.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Trespass to Personal Property)
28. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 3 of this Complaint as if
the same were fully stated herein.
29. On or about September 21, 2004, defendant Gary Collins, without
plaintiff's consent, threw plaintiff into an antique table owned by
plaintiff.
30. In
doing the acts above, defendant proximately caused damage to said
table. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the cost to replace
or repair said table is approximately $400.00.
31. The aforementioned conduct of defendant was willful and malicious and
was intended to oppress plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an
award of punitive damages.
SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Conversion)
32.
Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 3 of this Complaint as if the
same were fully stated herein.
33. At
all times herein mentioned, and in particular on or about September 21,
2004, plaintiff was, and still is, the owner and was, and still is, entitled
to the possession of the following personal property, namely: an antique
table.
34. Plaintiff is informed and believes that on or about September 21, 2004
and at 161 Valle Vista Drive in Danville , California
35. On or
about September 21, 2004, defendant Gary Collins, without plaintiff’s
consent, intentionally damaged said antique table by throwing plaintiff into
it, all to plaintiff’s detriment.
36. The
aforementioned conduct of defendant was willful and malicious and was
intended to oppress plaintiff. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to an award
of punitive damages.
SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
(Intentional Infliction Emotional Distress)
37. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1 through 36 of this Complaint as if
the same were fully stated herein.
38. Defendant’s actions of physically attacking plaintiff, verbally
intimidating plaintiff, damaging plaintiff’s personal property and
trespassing on plaintiff’s real property, as alleged in this Complaint, were
knowing, intentional, and willful, and done with a reckless disregard of the
probability of causing plaintiff emotional distress.
39. As a proximate result of defendant’s conduct, as alleged in this
complaint, plaintiff suffered severe mental anguish and emotional and
physical distress, all to his general damages.
40. In
acting in the manner described in this Complaint, defendant’s conduct was
malicious and oppressive, and was carried out in willful and conscious
disregard of plaintiff’s rights and safety and subjected plaintiff to
cruel and unjust hardship.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiff Pete Bennett demands against defendants, and each of
them, as follows:
1. For general damages according to proof;
2. For medical and related expenses according to proof;
3. For lost earnings, past and future, according to proof;
4. For punitive damages;
5. For interest as allowed by law;
6. For costs of suit herein incurred; and
7. For such other and further relief as the court may deem proper.
Dated:
________________________
Peter Bennett
In Pro Per
CNET Commander Wielsch - 2570 Cloverdale Ave Concord, CA 94518
Commander Wielsch operated from building near 1986 Lynching - Walking
Distance
By Pete Bennett CNET Scandal Date: March 23rd, 2014
Concord CA -- In 1980 I rented a dingy 1000 SF Unit
at 2570 Cloverdale Ave Concord, CA 94518
Benny Chetcuti Jr. Walnut Creek Real Estate Investor Indicted For Fraud
Walnut Creek Real Estate Investor Indicted For Fraud
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 28, 2014
OAKLAND – A federal grand jury in Oakland yesterday returned a two-count indictment charging Benny Chetcuti, Jr. with wire fraud, stemming from Chetcuti’s Walnut Creek, Calif., based real estate investment business, announced United States Attorney Melinda Haag and FBI Special Agent in Charge David J. Johnson.
According to the Indictment, as early as Oct. 2002 and continuing through June 2010, Chetcuti allegedly defrauded private investors who loaned money to him and his business, Chetcuti & Associates. Chetcuti started Chetcuti & Associates in 1998 for the purpose of purchasing homes, renovating them, and selling them within a short time period. Chetcuti financed his business, in part, by obtaining loans from private investors in exchange for promissory notes that were supposed to be secured by interests in real properties. The Indictment alleges that Chetcuti defrauded investors by misrepresenting how much debt was already secured by the properties, falsely promising to record deeds of trust that would have secured the investors’ interests in the properties, directing others to impersonate lenders or title company officers in telephone calls, and forging letters purportedly written by lenders and title company officers.
A summons was issued upon filing of the Indictment. Chetcuti is scheduled to make his initial appearance on April 2, 2014 at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Kandis A. Westmore, United States Magistrate Court Judge in Oakland.
The maximum statutory penalty for each count of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 is 20 years imprisonment and a fine of $250,000, or twice the gross loss or gain resulting from the offenses, plus restitution and forfeiture, if appropriate. However, any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.
Andrew S. Huang is the Assistant U.S. Attorney who is prosecuting the case with the assistance of Vanessa Quant. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Please note, an Indictment contains only allegations against a defendant and, as with all defendants, Benny Chetcuti, Jr. must be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.
)http://www.justice.gov/usao/can/news/2014/2014_03_28_chetcuti.indicted.press.html
