IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

IN AND FOR DUVAL COUNTY, FLORIDA

}
R D,
}
Plaintiff, }
v. }
CIVIL CASE
}
Andrew Doran (in his personal and in his } NO. 16-2014-CA-008522-XXXX-MA
Official Capacity as Notary); }
David L. Senesac (In his personal Capacity); } JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
}
Linda Cozine (In her personal Capacity); }
Defendants }
}

FOURTH AMENDED COMPLAINT

COMES NOW, Plaintiff, RD, (“Plaintiff”, or “Mr. D”), an elderly, disabled adult, and files

his Fourth Amended Complaint. The Defendants named herein, conspired to and have acted

beyond their positions, in order to give an illusion, contrary to fact. As a direct and proximate

cause of Defendants’ actions/inactions, the Plaintiff has been harmed, injured, and suffered

damages.

I. THE PARTIES

1.

Plaintiff, Mr. D, at all times relevant, has owned and resided at Unit 9218, 196 Madonna Ct.,

Ellijay, GA 30540.

2.

Defendant Andrew Doran (in his personal and official capacity as a notary) (“Doran”), at all

times relevant, has been a Notary Public Commissioned in the State of Florida. From

investigation, it appears that Doran resided at 4823 Bankhead Court, Jacksonville, FL 32207.
Mr. Doran has previously been served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint.

3.

Defendant David L. Senesac (in his personal capacity) (“Senesac”), at all times relevant, resided

at 1363 Marsh Grass Court, Jacksonville, FL 32218-8646. The United States District Court

ruled that Senesac has waived any objections to service of process [Doc.23, p.ids.311-313].

4.

Defendant Linda Cozine (in her personal capacity) (“Cozine”), at all times relevant, resided at

7710 Del Road, Jacksonville, FL 32244. Cozine has previously been served with a copy of the

Summons and Complaint.

5.

The Defendants1 were the agents, employees, representatives, partners, officers, principals, and/or

joint venturers of each of the remaining Defendants, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged,

were acting within the scope, course, and purpose of such agency, employment or position and

with permission and/or consent of the remaining Defendants.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6.

Plaintiff contends that, pursuant to F.S.A. §47.011, venue is proper in that the events that gave rise

to the complaint took place in Jacksonville, Florida, in Duval County; and all Defendants at the

time of the damages resided in Jacksonville, Florida.

7.

1
Whenever appearing in this complaint, each and every reference to Defendants or to any of them
is intended to be and shall be a reference to all defendants hereto, and to each of them unless said
reference is specifically qualified.

2
This Court has jurisdiction because the circuit courts shall have original jurisdiction not vested in

the county courts, and jurisdiction of appeals when provided by general law. (Art. V, § 5(b), Fla.

Const.) Alexdex Corp. v. Nachon Enterprises, Inc., 641 So. 2d 858, 861 (Fla. 1994).

8.

The most convenient forum for all parties involved is in the state of Florida, and the State of Florida

has an interest in enforcing the laws of the State of Florida. Plaintiff contends that this Court is a

Court of competent jurisdiction to rule on the matters herein. Venue and jurisdiction are proper in

this Court.

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

9.

This action is brought due to falsification of documents recorded into the public record, notary

negligence, and forgeries of identity by Defendants.

10.

On approximately February 21, 2013, defendant Andrew Doran (“Doran”), was a qualified notary

public for Duval County, Florida and was authorized to exercise the office of notary public within

the boundaries of Florida, F.S.A. §117.01(2). See “Exhibit A.”

11.

On approximately February 21, 2013, defendant Doran notarized a document “Exhibit B”

allegedly executed by defendant David L. Senesac (“Senesac”) as Vice President and Defendant

Linda Cozine (“Cozine”) as Vice President.

12.

Exhibit B was deficient and Doran was negligent when he notarized the document because the

document does not show how Doran verified the identity of the parties who executed the document.

3
 13.

Exhibit B was deficient and Doran was negligent when he notarized the document because the

document does not show that it was “sworn” before him. The document merely states “Signed,

Sealed and Delivered, this 21st day of February, 2013.”

14.

Exhibit B was deficient and Doran was negligent when he notarized the document as the document

does not state the monetary amount involved.

15.

Exhibit B is/was deficient and Doran negligent when he notarized the document, because nowhere

does the document reference the document showing authority for Senesac and Cozine to sign as

“Attorney-In-Fact” for Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.

16.

Exhibit B was deficient and Doran was negligent when he notarized the document as there is

nothing that indicates how Senesac and Cozine, who are Florida residents would have the authority

to sign for an entity whose address is 1111 Polaris Parkway Columbus, OH 43240 for property

located in Gilmer County, Georgia, as “Attorney-In-Fact” for the FDIC located presumably in

Washington, D.C., while the law firm requesting such recordation is located at 15000 Surveyor

Boulevard, Addison, Texas.

17.

Due to the negligence of Doran as a notary and the forgery of the positions of Senesac and Cozine,

Exhibit B has been entered into the public record and has caused a lien upon Plaintiff’s real

property.

18.

4
Plaintiff had personally paid $500,000.00 while building the home that said lien has been placed

upon for an undetermined amount of money as shown in Exhibit B.

19.

This action has nothing to do with Georgia property, except for the fact that Exhibit B placed a

lien on the property and resulted in harm to Plaintiff.

20.

The document has been “filed into the official record” and “contains a materially false, fictitious

or fraudulent statement or representation” (F.S.A. §817.535(8)(a)).

21.

Defendants unlawfully caused to be filed, “false documents or records against real or personal

property,” “with the intent to defraud or harass” the Plaintiff, and the instrument, Exhibit B,

contained “materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation that purports to

affect an owner’s interest in the property (F.S.A. §817.535).”

22.

Defendants knew or should have known that the making of and/or execution of Exhibit B was an

illegal act, pursuant to F.S.A. §817.54, which holds: “Any person who, with intent to defraud,

obtains any mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note or other instrument evidencing a debt from

any person or obtains the signature of any person to any mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note

or other instrument evidencing a debt by color or aid of fraudulent or false representation or

pretenses, or obtains the signature of any person to a mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note,

or other instrument evidencing a debt, the false making whereof would be punishable as forgery...”

23.

Defendants knew or should have known that the creation and execution of the Exhibit B, due to

5
the nature of the document, and the fact that the document was signed with fictional titles of the

signors, and attested by Doran, would be received as legal proof of a debt, would be filed/recorded

into a public record, and that their actions were made without concern for the consequences, and

with intent to defraud or injure the Plaintiff, they violated F.S.A. §831.01.

24.

Senesac and Cozine knew or should have known that a falsification of their positions as Vice

Presidents violated F.S.A. §831.06 in that the title was meant to indicate that they were “an officer

or agent of a corporation, is fraudulently affixed to any instrument or writing purporting to be a

note, draft or evidence of debt issued by such corporation, with intent to pass the same as true, it

shall be deemed a forgery.”

25.

Plaintiff contends that Doran had actual knowledge that he violated F.S.A. §117.05(4) when he

notarized the document.

26.

Defendants knew, or should have known that the FDIC does not execute assignments for any loans

received from defunct banks, even though the fictional Exhibit B showed: “This assignment is

made without recourse, representation or warranty, expressed or implied, by the FDIC in its

corporate capacity or as Receiver. This Assignment is intended to further memorialize the transfer

that occurred by operation of law on September 25, 2008 as authorized by Section

11(d)(2)(G)(i)(II) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, 12 U.S.C. §1821(d)(2)(G)(i)(II).”

27.

Plaintiff alleges that neither defendant Senesac or defendant Cozine held the position of Vice

President.

6
 FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
NOTARY NEGLIGENCE
(As Against Defendant Doran)

28.

Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 9-19, 22-27 as if fully restated herein.

29.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Doran, acting in his official capacity as Notary Public for the State

of Florida, negligently, and as his part in a conspiracy, attempted to give Exhibit B legitimacy

when he notarized Exhibit B.

30.

“The distinction between ‘may’ and ‘shall’ has often been discussed in Florida cases. The word

‘may’ when given its ordinary meaning denotes a permissive term rather than the mandatory

connotation of the word ‘shall.’” The Florida Bar v. Trazenfeld, 833 So.2d 734, 738 (Fla.2002).

Shands Teaching Hosp. & Clinics, Inc. v. Sidky, 936 So. 2d 715, 721 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006).

31.

Doran was negligent because, pursuant to F.S.A. §117.05(4) “When notarizing a signature, a

notary public shall complete a jurat or notarial certificate .... The jurat or certificate of

acknowledgment shall contain the following elements…” the following shows the elements:

a) Exhibit B does not show the “venue stating the location of the notarization in the

format ‘State of Florida, County of ______’” which shall be shown within the

jurat or certificate, and which thereby violated §117.05(4)(a), which Doran as

Notary Public knew or should have known, and resulting in Notary negligence.

b) Exhibit B is neither “sworn”, nor “acknowledged” in compliance with

§117.05(4)(b), which shall show the “type of notarial act performed, an oath or

acknowledgment, evidenced by the words ‘sworn’ or ‘acknowledged’.”

7
 c) The document shall indicate that the signers of Exhibit B “personally appeared

before the notary public at the time of the notarization.” (§117.05(4)(c))).

d) Exhibit B lacks the date the document was executed, which shall appear on the

document.

e) Doran was negligent in that Exhibit B failed to state how the identity of the signers

were verified the Notary Public shall show the “type of identification the notary

public is relying upon...either based on personal knowledge or satisfactory

evidence specified in subsection (5).” (§117.05(4)(f))

f) Doran was negligent in that he failed to certify on Exhibit B that he had

“satisfactory evidence that the person whose signature he notarized is the

individual who is described in and who is executing the instrument. A notary

public shall certify...the type of identification, either based on personal knowledge

or other form of identification, upon which the notary public is relying.”

(§117.05(5)).

32.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Doran was negligent in that the document falsifies the positions of

the entities whose signatures executed the document Exhibit B; the document appears to be

legitimate but was not signed under oath, and only gives the appearance of having been “sworn”.

33.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant Doran had actual knowledge that the two entities that purportedly

executed the document, did not hold the positions of Vice Presidents; failed to have Senesac and

Cozine “sworn” at the time of signing; Plaintiff alleges that document was notarized in blank; and

that Doran failed to verify the identity of Senesac and Doran.

8
 34.

As a direct and proximate cause of Doran’s negligent actions/inactions, a lien appears against Mr.

D’s in the official record, causing a cloud upon his title, that he has been unable to date, to have

removed, making his property unmarketable; thereby, Plaintiff has been harmed, injured, and

suffered damages.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE, AND VIOLATIONS OF F.S.A. §§ 817.535, 817.54
(Against All Defendants)

35.

Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 20 - 34 as if fully restated herein.

36.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants conspired to violate and violated F.S.A. §§ 817.535 and 817.54.

37.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Senesac and Cozine knowingly, willingly, wantonly, and with

malicious intent, misrepresented their titles as Vice Presidents when they signed Exhibit B with

the malicious intent, that Exhibit B be filed into the public records. Doran notarized Exhibit B

with the knowledge that Exhibit B would be filed into the public records.

38.

Plaintiff further alleges that defendant Doran (FL) notarized while knowingly, willingly, wantonly,

and with malicious intent to harass, harm, and defraud Plaintiff, and Senesac (FL) and Cozine (FL)

executed, a document as attorneys-in-fact for The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

(Washington DC) as Receiver of Washington Mutual Bank f/k/a Washington Mutual Bank,

FA\JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (Columbus, Ohio), for property in Georgia

39.

9
Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, intending for the document which contained materially false,

fictitious and fraudulent statements to be filed into the official record and thereby effected

Plaintiff’s interest in his property §817.535(a)(2), gives Plaintiff a cause of action without regard

to whether or not criminal charges are pursued.”

40.

Plaintiff alleges that he incurred financial loss as a result of the instrument being recorded in the

official record in the nature of court costs and attorneys’ fees. Plaintiff was unable to correct the

faulty recording in the official records which caused the lien to remain upon Plaintiff’s real

property. (Fla. Stat. Ann. §817.535 (West)).

41.

Plaintiff alleges a violation of F.S.A. §817.54, which holds that “Any person who, with intent to

defraud, obtains any mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note or other instrument evidencing a

debt from any person or obtains the signature of any person to any mortgage, mortgage note,

promissory note or other instrument evidencing a debt by color or aid of fraudulent or false

representation or pretenses, or obtains the signature of any person to a mortgage, mortgage note,

promissory note, or other instrument evidencing a debt, the false making whereof would be

punishable as forgery...”

42.

As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions/inactions violating F.S.A. §§ 817.535 and

817.54, Plaintiff has been harmed, damaged, and suffered injuries.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF

CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE, AND VIOLATIONS OF F.S.A. §§ 831.01, 831.06
(Against All Defendants)

43.

Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 9 - 37 as if fully restated herein.

10
 44.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated, and conspired to violate F.S.A. §§ 831.01, 831.06.

45.

More specifically, when defendants Senesac and Cozine2 falsified that they were Vice Presidents

and thereby forged their titles/identities, executed, and Doran attested Exhibit B, a public record,

of a public register, and Exhibit B was received as legal proof of the facts contained within the

document, with the intent to either defraud or injure Plaintiff, the Defendants violated §831.01.

46.

Plaintiff further alleges that Senesac and Cozine, having forged their positions as Vice Presidents,

their signatures purport to be signatures of an officer or agent of a corporation, and Exhibit B is

alleged to be evidence of a debt, and Exhibit B having been intended to pass the same as true, “it

shall be deemed a forgery” (F.S.A. §831.06).

47.

Plaintiff alleges that Cozine works for a banking entity, not as a Vice President, but as an

Operations Specialist Senior3 Exhibit C, which after researching the matter, the person in that

position is to “support the Branch Manager and Tellers to ensure customer financial transactions

are completed accurately and efficiently, while complying with all policies, procedures and

regulatory banking requirements”.

48

While Mr. D has found nothing about David L. Senesac, Plaintiff contends that if Senesac did hold

the position of Vice President, that information would have been found; nothing was found about

Senesac, and therefore, Senesac may not even be employed with a Banking institution; discovery

2
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/linda-cozine/71/683/9a9
3
http://houston.jobing.com/jpmorgan-chase-co1/lead-teller-operations-specialist-trainee-
2-17162654

11
will enhance the ability to prove that Senesac is liable to Mr. D for his actions.

49.

Plaintiff contends that Exhibit B could not have been recorded into the public record without being

duly notarized or attested, and thereby, as a direct and proximate cause of all defendant’s

actions/inactions, Plaintiff has been harmed, injured and suffered damages.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF

CIVIL CONSPIRACY
(Against All Defendants)

50.

Plaintiff incorporates ¶¶ 9 - 49, as if fully restated herein.

51.

Plaintiff alleges that the three (3) Defendants were part of a conspiracy.

52.

Plaintiff alleges that all three (3) Defendants sought to record fictional documents into the official

record, to harass, intimidate, harm, and injury Plaintiff, which constitutes an unlawful act.

53.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants signed and notarized Exhibit B so that it would be recorded into

public record and would cause Plaintiff harm.

54.

Plaintiff was harmed, injured and suffered damages as a direct and proximate cause of Exhibit B.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff prays that this Honorable Court:

a) call a Jury for all questions of fact;

12
 b) find Defendant Doran was negligent as alleged herein, and liable to Plaintiff for the

First through Fourth Claims for relief, for his actions;

c) find that Defendants Senesac and Cozine are liable to Plaintiff for their as set forth

in the Second through Fourth Claioms for relief as alleged herein;

d) Plaintiff be awarded court costs and attorney’s fees; and

e) that Plaintiff be awarded any relief that is fair and just.

Respectfully filed this 8th day of January 2017.

/s/ LA. W
L A. W, Esq.
Florida Bar Number:
Law Office of Williams, P.A.
P.O. Box 28447
Jacksonville, FL 32226-8447
Office: 904-576-2581
Fax: 800-408-5818

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have, this 6th day of January 2017, served a true and correct copy of the

foregoing Fourth Amended Complaint upon Defendants through their attorney on file by

electronic delivery.

13