John Infantino's Grande Investment Portfolio Fake is Four Billion Dollars Worth of Nothing

This investment portfolio below is completely false. Four billion dollars worth of nothing. It comes from a brochure John Infantino created for his latest, and still active, investment scam site The Grande Organization. Nothing listed on Infantino's Grande this, and Grande that, is actually his. The numerous, upscale listings on the site either do not exist, or do not have a connection to John David Infantino. He uses that fake site to convince his investment scam victims that he is one outstanding real estate developer. 

That First Public Trust logo is for a corporation which has never existed, but Infantino touts it as his century old family business where he became an internationally leading property developer. The name is like a magician's trick: to make a person think that it is for a real corporation that is trustworthy. Infantino's modus operandi is to first get the public to trust him, then scam tons of money out of them. 

The brochure is at this link: 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxIzRHwses8yd2VPZ0lzVGlTRHM/view

 

Infantino Makes False Claims That He Is An Asset Manager For VA Facilities and His Ft. Howard VA Development Is Complete

The first lease to the Fort Howard, Md., Department of Veterans Affairs property, for the development of a proposed veterans community - John D. Infantino's bogus Bayside at Fort Howard - on valuable Chesapeake Bay waterfront, was terminated after Infantino did not take any steps to begin the actual development or construction of the Project. Never the less, he purports that the Bayside at Fort Howard project is a success, and he uses it as a reference to convince investors that he is a very successful real estate developer and property asset manager. Nothing he says about his professional history and business references is factual. 

In the snipped images seen below, Infantino claims that Bayside at Ft. Howard is a successful project, and he claims to be the asset manager of several VA facilities:

United States Soldier's and Airmen's Home; 

Durham, North Carolina VA's Medical Research Building; 

Philadelphia VA Medical Center; 

San Diego VA Medical Center; 

and the San Francisco VA Medical Center. 

It's all lies, which devastate his investor scam victims, and entire communities suffer the losses he inflicts on them when they publicly trust him. That First Public Trust on the PDF never existed. Web search and find me some info on it, if you don't believe me. And that Grande Corporation logo is John David Infantino's current base for his scams. 

The PDF where the images below came from was created in or after 2017, and is at this link:    

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxIzRHwses8yd2VPZ0lzVGlTRHM/view

John Infantino Did Not Apply For Rezoning of Ft. Howard

 The first lease to the Fort Howard, Md., Department of Veterans Affairs property, for the development of a proposed veterans community - John D. Infantino's bogus Bayside at Fort Howard - on valuable Chesapeake Bay waterfront was terminated after Infantino did not do anything to make the project happen, but file a development plan. He purported that he needed to develop the property into 1,300 residential units, for it to be economically viable, but the land was zoned for 550 and many Ft. Howard area residents wanted it lowered to a more reasonable 350. Infantino did not try to have Baltimore County rezone the property for 1,300 homes. He submitted plans for 1,300 living units and "170,000 square feet of amenities and services", anyway.

What is copied below comes from court records when Infantino sued the United States (every American citizen) as a 'smoke screen' to cover his scams:

"FHSHA (Ft. Howard Senior Housing Associates) was required under the Lease to comply with County requirements or seek a modification of the requirements. Here, the government argues, it is undisputed that FHSHA never submitted a formal permit application to Baltimore County requesting approval for 1,300 units or otherwise asking the County to modify the zoning restrictions that limited to 550 the number of units that could be built at the Fort Howard site.

FHSHA next argues that its failure to construct the CBOC (Community Based Outpatient Clinic) xshould be excused because the parties were mutually mistaken regarding two facts underlying their Lease. First, FHSHA argues that the parties were mutually mistaken in their belief that the County would approve FHSHA's construction of 1,300 housing units at Fort Howard under the Lease. Second, FHSHA argues that the parties were mutually mistaken in their understanding that "Baltimore County [would] not have authority to issue permits but [would] be given [only] a courtesy review of site plans." Compl. ¶ 67.

The government argues that FHSHA was obligated to comply with Baltimore County density requirements and thus bore the risk of the County not approving the construction of 1,300 units at the Fort Howard site. In such circumstances, the government argues, FHSHA cannot rely on reformation of the Lease as a basis for finding that its failure to construct the CBOC was excused.

The court agrees with the government. As discussed above, although the Development Plan provided that FHSHA intended to build 1,300 units, the Lease expressly provided that the Lease, not the Development Plan, controlled and stated that the VA did not represent or warrant that the Fort Howard site would be suitable for any particular purpose. Def.'s App'x 54, Article 24.H. Thus, the Development Plan's statement that the proposed site was in keeping with Baltimore County's intent for the area is not relevant. Because, as discussed above, the Lease required FHSHA to comply with state and local requirements associated with the development and construction of the project, FHSHA was required to obtain county approval to build the full 1,300 units, and thus assumed the risk that it would not be able to obtain such approval when it signed the Lease. Accordingly, there was no mutual mistake. In such circumstances, the court finds that FHSHA cannot establish that it is legally entitled to reformation of the Lease.

As discussed above, the court agrees that the Lease required FHSHA to obtain Baltimore County's approval for the development of the property. If FHSHA knew that it would have to construct 1,300 units rather than 550 units to make the Lease viable, FHSHA was required at a minimum to try to get permission from the County to build more than 550 units. The undisputed facts show, however, that FHSHA never sought a variance from Baltimore County. To the contrary, FHSHA decided not to seek a variance, but instead sought only an exemption from local land use rules. See supra n. 15. A request for an exemption is not the same as seeking to comply with local land use requirements through the variance process or otherwise.

Because FHSHA bore the risk under the Lease for complying with Baltimore County's density requirements and failed to even attempt to comply with Baltimore County's zoning code, it cannot show that its failure to construct the CBOC should be excused because it could not finance the project. FHSHA simply failed to fulfill its obligations under the Lease. As such, the court finds that FHSHA's impossibility defense fails as a matter of law.16"

 "5. The Development Plan

As described in Article 10.A.1 of the Lease, "Lessee has commenced and completed the Development Plan which sets forth Lessee's overall plans, including but not limited to planned Permitted Uses for the Parcels, for developing the Property into the Project pursuant to this Lease. . . ." Id. at 23, Article 10.A.1.3 The Development Plan includes, amongst other items, the obligation to construct 1,300 units—including 353 active senior units; 481 independent living units; 165 assisted living units; and 106 skilled nursing units—and 170,000 square feet of amenities and services. Id. at 98, 103.4 Pursuant to Article 4.A.3 of the Lease, FHSHA was required to develop the Property in accordance with the Development Plan. Id. at 10."

Court report copied from:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150601917

John Infantino Lied About Not Having to Comply With County Laws, Codes and Ordinances or Pay Taxes

The first lease to the Fort Howard, Md., Department of Veterans Affairs property, for the development of a proposed veterans community - John D. Infantino's bogus Bayside at Fort Howard - on valuable Chesapeake Bay waterfront was terminated after Infantino did not take any steps to begin the actual development or construction of the project. Infantino publicly put forth the lies that he did not have to pay taxes on the project, nor "to comply with state or local requirements relating to land use, building codes, permits or inspections." What is copied below comes from court records, when Infantino sued the United States (every American citizen) as a 'smoke screen' to cover his scams:

"Plaintiff (John Infantino) recognizes that the Lease states that FHSHA (Ft. Howard Senior Housing Associates) would comply with "applicable local and State laws, codes and ordinances," but argues that the Federal government's exemption from such laws means that none of the state or local requirements or taxes are "applicable."

The government argues that it did not breach its duty to cooperate or violate any implied warranties because the VA, in the terms of the Lease, exercised its statutory authority to require such compliance. The government argues that the version of 38 U.S.C. § 8166(a)8 in effect at the time the parties entered into the Lease gave the VA the "discretion" to require a lessee that enters into an EUL to comply with state or local requirements relating to land use, building codes, permits or inspections and thus the VA was entitled to require compliance with state and local laws and regulations. Specifically, the government relies on the second sentence of § 8166(a), contending that it expressly states that any construction, alteration, repair, remodeling, or improvement" is not subject to state or local "land use, building codes, permits, or inspections unless the Secretary provides otherwise." 38 U.S.C. § 8166(a) (emphasis added). The government argues that the Lease by its terms demonstrates that the Secretary of the VA did not exempt FHSHA from complying with state and local laws, instead stating in Articles 4.A.1, 4.A.2, and 10.H.1 that FHSHA is subject to all applicable laws. According to the government, "applicable" laws include the local Baltimore County zoning requirements.

it is clear that these terms unambiguously state that state and local laws are relevant to the project. Plaintiff's contention that "applicable" should be read to mean "none" is simply inconsistent with the plain language of the lease and must be rejected. Accordingly, the VA's later insistence that FHSHA comply with state and local laws was not a breach of the lease, but rather entirely consistent with it.

The Lease expressly required that FHSHA

pay and discharge, . . . prior to delinquency, all taxes, general and special assessments, and other charges of every description that during the term of this Lease may be levied or assessed against the Property and all interests therein and all improvements and other property thereon, whether belonging to [the VA] or the Lessee.

Def.'s App'x 44, Article 17.B. Accordingly, if a state or local government imposed taxes on FHSHA's interest in the property, FHSHA was obligated to pay such taxes and the VA did not have the power under § 8167 to exempt FHSHA from paying state or local taxes."

Court report copied from:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150601917

First Default Notice The VA Sent To John Infantino, Bayside at Fort Howard Scam

The first lease to the Fort Howard, Md., Department of Veterans Affairs property, for the development of a proposed veterans community - John D. Infantino's bogus Bayside at Fort Howard - on valuable Chesapeake Bay waterfront, was terminated after Infantino did not take any steps to begin the actual development or construction of the Project, nor properly respond to the notice (plus other official notices) sent that is copied below, which comes from court records, when Infantino sued the United States (every American citizen) as a 'smoke screen' to cover his scams:

"On February 11, 2009, VA sent FHSHA (Ft. Howard Senior Housing Associates) a its first default notice demanding that, within thirty days, FHSHA remit in full the sum of $126,530.00. This amount represented the total amounts cited in five electric utility bills that the VA previously issued to FHSHA from September 28, 2006 through November 6, 2007, and one electric utility bill that the VA issued on September 22, 2008. The government attributed the $126,530.00 demand to Baltimore Gas & Electric utility services that were provided to, and thus benefitted, the leased premises, excluding the CBOC used by the VA. Id. at 640-703, Default Notice 1."

Court report copied from:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150601917

A Second Default Notice From The VA To John Infantino About Ft. Howard

The first lease to the Fort Howard, Md., Department of Veterans Affairs property, for the development of a proposed veterans community - John D. Infantino's bogus Bayside at Fort Howard - on valuable Chesapeake Bay waterfront, was terminated after Infantino did not take any steps to begin the actual development or construction of the Project, nor properly respond to the notice (plus other official notices) sent that is copied below, which comes from court records, when Infantino sued the United States (every American citizen) as a 'smoke screen' to cover his scams:

"On February 27, 2009, in accordance with Article 23.B of the Lease, the VA sent FHSHA (Ft. Howard Senior Housing Associates) a second default notice identifying that FHSHA was breaching its obligations and responsibilities under the following provisions of the Lease:

a. Article 4.A.1 — FHSHA is failing to finance, develop and maintain the Project as required by Article 4.A.1 of the Lease.

b. Article 4.A.7 — FHSHA is failing to operate, manage and maintain the Property as required by Article 4.A.7 of the Lease.

c. Article 4.A.9 — FHSHA is failing to maintain and properly secure access to the Property as required by Article 4.A.9 of the Lease.

d. Article 4.A.12 — FHSHA is failing to pay Rent as required by Article 4.A.12 of the Lease.

e. Article 4.D — FHSHA is failing to maintain and repair the Property as required by Article 4.D.

f. Article 6.C.8 — FHSHA has failed to provide VA unaudited income statements, balance sheets and cash flow statements* within the time periods required by the Lease. In addition, FHSHA failed to notify VA of the lawsuit filed against FHSHA by STV Incorporated (see Maryland Judiciary Judgment and Liens Search below). Both of these actions are required by Article 6.C.8 of the Lease.

g. Article 12.B.1 — FHSHA is failing to manage, protect, preserve, maintain and repair the Property as required by Article 12.B.1 of the Lease.

h. Article 12.B.2 — FHSHA is failing to employ a local, designated representative for emergency management, protection, preservation, maintenance and repair as required by Article 12.B.2 of the Lease.

i. Article 13.A.1 and Article 13.A.4 — FHSHA has failed to maintain and deliver to VA a current certificate of insurance or a certified copy of each policy of insurance, as required by Article 13.A.1 and Article 13.A.4 and requested by VA on numerous occasions."

"Id. at 704-09, Default Notice 2. Default Notice 2 further stated:

[I]n addition to remedying the aforementioned Lease breaches, FHSHA's failure to make progress, including its failure to obtain financing and begin construction of the Project, is endangering FHSHA's ability to complete Phase 1 of the Development Plan in the time required by the Lease. VA hereby demands assurances from FHSHA that it will complete Phase 1 of the Development Plan in accordance with the Lease, including construction and acceptance of the CBOC (Community Based Outpatient Clinic) within thirty-nine (39) months of the Effective Date of the Lease. . . . "

"On March 16, 2009, FHSHA responded to the VA's February 27, 2009 Default Notice 2. The response did not indicate that FHSHA would begin curing any of the identified defaults, with the exception of identifying a contact person and providing the requested income statements. The response did not provide assurances that the construction would be completed within the timelines set forth in the Lease"

Court report copied from:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150601917

*As per previous communications with an aide to the Turkish President, where John David Infantino ran some scamming: "John Infantino is a master forger."

Infantino wasn't doing anything to make Bayside at Fort Howard happen, and he had no steady employees, no offices maintained long except virtual ones.

Therefore, I believe that the requested income statements provided are falsified.

Here is court info on lawsuits against John Infantino Fort Howard Senior Housing Associates:

Judgment Information

Original Judgment Case Number: 24C09007222 County: BALTIMORE CITY Judgment Entered Date: 11/16/2009 Amount: $987,957.65 Book Page: For: STV Incorporated Against: Fort Howard Senior Housing Associates, LLC Judgment Status Comments: plus any pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, court costs, attorneys' fees to the extent not already included. Judgment Comments:

Original Judgment Case Number: 24C09007222 County: BALTIMORE CITY Judgment Entered Date: 11/16/2009 Amount: $604,497.40 Book Page: For: STV Incorporated Against: Federal Development, LLC Judgment Status Comments: plus any pre-judgment interest, post-judgment interest, court costs, attorneys' fees to the extent not already included.

On August 17, 2009, the VA terminated the Lease. 

After the lease was terminated, came this lawsuit and judgment against Infantino:

Case Information

Court System:	Circuit Court for Baltimore City - Civil System
Case Number:	24C09005473
Title:	Kann And Associates Inc vs Federal Developement LLC, et al
Case Type:	ContractFiling Date:08/26/2009
Case Status:	Closed/Inactive
Case Disposition:	Judgment/VerdictDisposition Date:11/18/2011

Judgment Information

Original Judgment Case Number: 24C09005473 County: BALTIMORE CITY Judgment Entered Date: 12/15/2011 Amount: $746,895.86 Book Page: For: Kann And Associates Inc Against: Federal Developement LLC Fort Howard Senior Housing Associates, LLC Federal El Paso Associates LLC Judgment Status Comments: jointly and severally

.

A Notice Sent To John Infantino By The VA

The first lease to the Fort Howard, Md., Department of Veterans Affairs property, for the development of a proposed veterans community - John D. Infantino's bogus Bayside at Fort Howard - on valuable Chesapeake Bay waterfront, was terminated after Infantino did not take any steps to begin the actual development or construction of the Project, nor properly respond to the notice (plus other official notices) sent that is copied below, which comes from court records, when Infantino sued the United States (every American citizen) as a 'smoke screen' to cover his scams:

"Id. On March 3, 2009, the VA sent FHSHA (Ft. Howard Senior Housing Associates) a notice identifying several concerns:

(i) FHSHA has failed to maintain the Property in a good, clean and safe condition, (ii) make timely repairs, and (iii) properly secure the Property. . . . VA is concerned for the safety of the veterans accessing the Property and the protection of VA assets. In accordance with Article 12.B.2 of the Lease, VA hereby notifies FHSHA that if substantial attempts to correct all deficiencies related to maintenance, repairs and security are not performed within thirty (30) days on all Parcels, VA will correct such deficiencies at the sole cost and expense of FHSHA. . ." 

Court report copied from:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150601917

Default Notice #3 From The VA To John Infantino International Super Scammer

The first lease to the Fort Howard, Md., Department of Veterans Affairs property, for the development of a proposed veterans community - John D. Infantino's bogus Bayside at Fort Howard - on valuable Chesapeake Bay waterfront, was terminated after Infantino did not take any steps to begin the actual development or construction of the Project, nor properly respond to the notice (plus other official notices) sent that is copied below, which comes from court records, when Infantino sued the United States (every American citizen) as a 'smoke screen' to cover his scams:

"Id. at 759-64. On March 10, 2009, the VA sent FHSHA (Ft. Howard Senior Housing Associates) a third default notice, which demanded that FHSHA remit to the VA $3,101.55. Id. at 710-25, Default Notice 3. The VA attributed this amount to certain Baltimore City water services and Baltimore County sewer services that were provided to, and thus benefitted, the portion of the Leased Premises, excluding the CBOC (Community Based Outpatient Clinic) used by the VA. Id."

Court report copied from:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150601917

Fourth Default Notice From the VA to Ft. Howard (fake) Developer John Infantino

The first lease to the Fort Howard, Md., Department of Veterans Affairs property, for the development of a proposed veterans community - John D. Infantino's bogus Bayside at Fort Howard - on valuable Chesapeake Bay waterfront, was terminated after Infantino did not take any steps to begin the actual development or construction of the Project, nor properly respond to the notice (plus other official notices) sent that is copied below, which comes from court records, when Infantino sued the United States (every American citizen) as a 'smoke screen' to cover his scams:

"On April 24, 2009, the VA sent FHSHA (Ft. Howard Senior Housing Associates) a fourth default notice for failure to respond to two Requests for Information sent to FHSHA on February 27, 2009. Also on April 24, 2009, FHSHA sent a letter to the VA stating that FHSHA planned to respond to each of the letters from the VA on or before the end of May 2009. On May 13, 2009, the VA sent a letter to FHSHA stating:

[I]n accordance with Article 23.B of the Lease, FHSHA is required to cure the defaults identified in Default Notice 1 prior to May 18, 2009 and cure the defaults identified in the Default Notice 2 prior to June 2, 2009. If FHSHA fails to cure the defaults identified in the Default Notices, VA intends to exercise VA's rights under the Lease, which includes, but is not limited to, termination of the Lease."

Court report copied from:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20150601917