The fraudulent acts have been designed to oppress our rights in a malicious manner while engaging in acts that seem to have been designed to bill his client with no legal basis for doing so.   Jim appears to be looking at this as a way to shut down our valid complaint illegally while enriching himself on his client. 

The following are 12 acts of which we feel constitute Fraud , Misconduct, CCP violations or other statutes violations by Fitzpatrick 

1. Motion to Set aside default with no legal basis - Fitzpatrick sent notice of a Motion to Set aside default, blaming himself for the default.  However, in his declaration he provided no statements indicating he had even been engaged prior to the default date nor any basis for “excusable neglect” for the motion.  At face value, the motion should have been dismissed. 

2. General Denial for Unlimited Verified Complaint  - Fitzpatrick's’ notice to set aside default included a general denial. The complaint was a verified unlimited complaint. It required a verified response but Fitzpatrick ignored that. 

3. The General Denial Document included over 30 possible defenses, and over 10 of those were tied to a suggestion they had a defense via the Real Estate Contract in use. Such defense has been tied to Legal Lobby Racketeering scheme related to CAR Contract Manipulation which has been presented to the CA Bar multiple times prior now. (ie - it appears Fitzpatrick was attempting to use a templated defense document created for racketeering scheme protection)

4. Declaration to Court stating no opposition to Motion had been presented - Fitzpatrick filed a motion with the court just days prior to the hearing stating no opposition to his motion had been presented when in fact a Declaration in Opposition had been prepared and served on him week(s) prior. 

5. Declaration to Court stating a General Denial was the proper response - Fitzpatrick filed a declaration stating the complaint was not verified when in fact the verification statement was bold and clear.  

6. Participation in a “stagecraft” Motion hearing - part 1 - Fitzpatrick appeared in person for the motion hearing.  When called he approached the table and moved to the right, occupying the plaintiffs seat. When I approached he turned to me and said, “Excuse me. I’m usually on the plaintiffs side of complaints” as he moved to the left side of the table. 

7.  Participation in a “stagecraft” Motion hearing - part 2 - When Judge Wills started speaking, instead of hearing arguments he ruled on the motion with no input, awarding the set aside to Fitzpatrick with no “excusable neglect” basis to do so and with seemingly no concern for proof he had been engaged by the client before the default date.  

8. Participation in a “stagecraft” Motion hearing - part 3 - Judge Willis told Fitzpatrick a verified response was due because Holly had signed the complaint, as if a missing signature was the reason for the improper response, when no such position was even proposed by Fitzpatrick. 

9. Improper Filing on non-connected complaints - Fitzpatrick via his paralegal, Josie Favila, attempted to make “related case” filings on complaints other than those his client was involved in.  Fitzpatrick and Favila should know they can not file documents with the court on cases where their client is not a defendant. Churning work for billing purposes and/or attempting to overwhelm us with irrelevant filings is all that makes sense. 

10. Duplicate Service of Documents  -  Fitzpatrick via his paralegal, Josie Favila, served documents to us multiple times. Churning work for billing purposes and/or attempting to overwhelm us with irrelevant filings is all that makes sense.  

11. Discovery Documents filed with the Court -  Fitzpatrick via his paralegal, Josie Favila, provided discovery request documents to the court with notices of service.  Discovery documents need not be filed with the court. Churning work for billing purposes and/or attempting to confuse us with irrelevant process is all that makes sense. 

12. Verified Complaint included Prayer for Attorney Fees - When Fitzpatrick did file his verified response, it included a Prayer for Attorney Fees. This is a case for fraud and fraud only. Fitzpatrick appears to have no legal basis for that suggestion, which gives rise to the attempted use of FUD for coercive purposes.