`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`DEAN
`V
`J. BISSELL, IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS OF CANADA REGULATORY
`COUNCIL, ABC CORPS 1 -100 (FICTIOUS ENTITIES), ALLAM, ANDREW
`ROMAN PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, AMLANI, ARCH INSURANCE
`CANADA LTD, ASHMORE, ASHWORTH, ATKINS, AVIVA
`INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, AWWAD, BALBIRAN, BARAM,
`BARKER, BASSIRULLAH, BASTARACHE, BELEVICI, BELL AND SHIVAS,
`P.C., BELL JR., BERASKOW, BERESKIN & PARR LLP, BERNIER,
`BEVERELY, BOLDT, BORDERS IMMIGRATION
`CONSULTANCY, BRITU, BROOKS, BURKE, BURNS, CANADIAN
`ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL IMMIGRATION CONSULTANTS,
`CARDOZO DE CARDOSO, CEDAR GROVE POLICE DEPARTMENT,
`CHOI, IMMIGRATION, REFUGEES, AND CITIZENSHIP CANADA,
`CLASSIC LUXURY LLC, COCKERILL, COWIE, CPA ONTARIO, DAMITZ,
`DASS, DAW, DEETH WILLIAMS WALL LLP, R. DENNIS, E. DENNIS,
`DICKENSON, D'SOUZA, EATON, EL – GHANDOURI,
`EVEREST INSURANCE COMPANY OF CANADA, FABER, FARROL,
`FORBES CHOCHLA, FORTIN, FURLONG, GABRIELA NAJAR DE LIMA,
`FUHRER,GAGNON, GAUDET, GELBLOOM, HAMID-OKE, HARPER,
`HARRINGTON, HAWE, HERNANDEZ, HILLIER, HSIEH, HUSSEN, HUYNH,
`IGBOKWE, IWAJOMO, JADE, JANE DOES 1 - 100 (FICTIOUS PERSONS),
`JOHN DOES 1 - 100 (FICTIOUS PERSONS), JOHN MCNEIL RISK
`CORPORATION, N. JONES, R. JONES, JOZSA, KEELE COTTRELLE,
`KELLY, KENNEDY, N. KEWLEY, R. KEWLEY, KINGDON, KRAJEWSKA,
`LAFRENIERE, LARRY, LASKIEWICZ, LEBARON, LEBEBVRE, D. LEBLANC,
`R. LEBLANC, LEE, LEON, LI, LIMA, LISOWSKI, LIU, LLOYD'S OF LONDON
`INSURANCE, K. LY, S LY, MACKENDRICK, MACKIE, MARBELL, MAY,
`MCAULEY, MCCEACHY, MCDERMOTT, MCKAY, MCNAIR, MENDICINO,
`MILLER THOMPSON, MILMANTAS, MISTRY, MOONEY, MURRAY,
`NAJAR DE LIMA, NONO, NOONAN, NR COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE
`SOLUTIONS INC, ORR, O'TOOLE, PACE, PAGE, PAHL, PALIARE
`ROLAND ROSENBERG ROTHSTEIN LLP, PARENT, PAULAUSKA,
`PERETZ, PEREZ, PERRAM, PSOCH, PUMPHREY, QUEENS UNIVERSITY,
`RAMOS, RANKIN, RISK, ROMAN, ROUKEMA, RYAN, SACCUCCI,
`SANFORD, SHIVAS, SIDHU, SIERRA GLOBAL MANAGEMENT LLC,
`SINGH, JONAL, SINGHERA, SINGLETON UQUHART REYNOLDS
`VOGEL LLP, SMITH, J. SODEN, S. SODEN, STANLEY, STEPHENS,
`STEPHENSON, STRIPNIECKS, TEMPLE INSURANCE COMPANY,
`TONELLI, TOWER, TOWNSHIP OF CEDAR GROVE, TUCCI, VAN
`STADIUUM, VARNAM, VINSOME, WALL, WARD, WARDEL, WEN, WIEBE,
`WILLIAMS, WINEGUST, XI, XL REINSURANCE AMERICA INC, YIN,
`YORK UNIVERSITY, ZAJACK & ZILLEGEN
`
`Case Number:
`
`CIVIL RICO COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff(s):
`
`Ryan Dean
`3540 W. Sahara Ave, 752
`Las Vegas, NV, 89102
`rcic20xx@gmail.com
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-09770-MCA-ESK Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 2 of 457 PageID: 2
`
`Pre – Note: Use the link immediately below: It contains the “PDF Court Filing” and the “Actual Document” that was
`filed to create the PDF court Filing. Use the file called “Actual Document” as it far more user friendly in terms of
`accessing all of the other links embedded in the document, and the reader will only need to type in one url in total:
`Simply type the address immediately below in the url browser as you would any internet address and hit <enter>:
`
`https://www.dropbox.com/sh/xcz51upmbkrp74h/AACyxSxLsNoRzVhJSG3H8V2_a?dl=0
`
`Next, to download and access the file that says “Actual Document” double click. Off to top right-hand corner there is
`
`Prologue
`
`the download symbol
`
`
`
`1. Ultimately this is a story of an attempt to send a man away to state prison for the rest of his natural life and
`
`aggravated violations of 18 USC § 1512 and 18 USC § 1513 – Tampering and Retaliating against a witness, victim,
`
`or an informant – in the commission of an attempted murder – and numerous other RICO Predicate
`
`Racketeering Act Offenses, and related conspiracy offenses to commit these Offenses.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`It is a story of Extortion and Criminal Coercion.
`
`It is also a story of utter Civil Rights Violations under 18 USC § 1983 and 18 USC § 1985.
`
`4. New Evidence has recently been discovered with respect to all of these matters that uncovers the Evil Scheme to
`
`defraud by defendants.
`
`5. These Crimes fall under the United States Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”)
`
`– as well as the corresponding State(s) RICO (or equivalent) statutes.
`
`6. Plaintiff(s) is a defined term to include Mr. Ryan Dean. More Plaintiff(s) will likely be added that include Mr.
`
`Kevin Klassen, Ms. Nancy Salloum, and others directly affected by the actions of the defendants. Plaintiff(s) can
`
`also be corporate Plaintiff(s) and/or another entity. Time has been a factor in writing this complaint because
`
`there are concurrently several other legal proceeding to be dealt with at this time related to these matters, and
`
`as such errors and admissions and Plaintiff(s) will be added/subtracted, as the case may be in due course.
`
`7. Ms. Lisa Bissell (“Bissell”), currently the “Plaintiff” in ESX – L – 984 – 19 and former CEO of Pure Grown Diamonds
`
`Inc, confederated and conspired with defendants, including her own lawyers, to accuse knowingly, malevolently,
`
`and falsely, Mr. Ryan Dean (“Dean”), of a one-time brutal and heinous sexual assault, the night of February 7,
`
`2017 for the end of Extortion Takes – if Dean survived. Ms. Bissell was a Self – Professed ‘Spin Doctor’ who was
`
`comfortable going onto TV and making out that Lab Grown Diamonds were better than “a girl’s best friend.”
`
`8. Bissell weaponized her craft and “story telling” abilities, and fabricated a tale that she was the one time brutal
`
`sexual assault victim of Dean, followed up by falsely claiming that Dean was making constant and nefarious
`
`threats of breaking and entering into her home, re-raping Ms. Bissell due to the ‘fact’ that ‘…no one would hear
`
`him enter or hear her scream, “like the last time” and then ending in grisly Mass Murder of Bissell, her family,
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-09770-MCA-ESK Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 3 of 457 PageID: 3
`
`and her children – each and every time that Bissell and Dean spoke on the phone and/or face-to-face from the
`
`period of February 8, 2017 – May 1, 2017.
`
`9. Of course, there was no physical evidence of any sexual assault and indeed Bissell testified that she
`
`destroyed/did not keep any evidence and of course there were no recordings of Dean making these so called
`
`predicable threats.
`
`10. Now, Bissell’s police report that has been unlawfully concealed for nearly four years has been obtained and it
`
`forecloses on the possibility of these supposed “threats,” and indeed the supposed brutal sexual assault itself.
`
`11. Everything that has been fabricated has been a scheme to defraud Plaintiff(s), while at the same time making
`
`the Township of Cedar Grove stand on their policies, that were clear ‘color of state law’ violations of Dean’s due
`
`process rights, for instance, trigging 42 USC § 1983 claims. The Police are the ones who have also withheld this
`
`exculpatory Evidence for nearly four years.
`
`12. Ms. Bissell’s main plan, then being financed by the Canadian defendants (as described below), was to unjustly
`
`have Dean incarcerated into New Jersey State Prison for the remainder of his natural life – and then arrange for
`
`his murder by any number of unsavory individuals there, such as this individual: https://youtu.be/YawI85U7QtA
`
`13. Prisons are full of men justly accused who are serving life and/or decades long sentences for their actual crimes
`
`and committing murder to many of them, committing murder again is something that does not bother them in
`
`the least.
`
`14. Ms. Bissell et al were falsely planning to send Dean to Prison and Prison is full of Murderers and Rapists and
`
`generally Murderers have no disincentive to not murder again – as they are already in Prison for a very long time
`
`– and generally murderers frown on rapists as it is well known in our society. In any event, Bissell et al falsely
`
`accused Dean and tried to have him locked away to be around these unsavory individuals and that dramatically
`
`increased Dean’s chance of being murdered and especially so because violent ‘rapist’ and “about-to-be-
`
`murders-of-children” in prison are not so welcome inmates – and Bissell designed it to be precisely that way.
`
`Sinister. Bissell et al could have easily arranged to ‘finsih the job’ by paying $500 or $1,000 to complete the
`
`deed.
`
`15. In has been nearly four years since this Evil Odyssey started and Dean has survived Bissell et al’s sneak attack
`
`and her various documented changing stories making each deviation of her story telling more far-fetched than
`
`the last. This is now a paper case, that has Bissell herself stating there was no physical evidence as well as she
`
`sought no medical treatment and her admitting she committed evidence destruction, for instance.
`
`16. There are dozens of other documented instances where Bissell counters herself on the same subject in front of
`
`numerous different Courts. Perjury and Subornation of Perjury and Conspiracy to commit Perjury and
`
`Subornation of Perjury are front and central to all of these matters.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-09770-MCA-ESK Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 4 of 457 PageID: 4
`
`17. On March 18, 2021, the ‘smoking gun’ of Dean’s utter innocence was ‘given’ to him by the Cedar Grove (NJ)
`
`Police Department, after they resisted for years, by way of their written municipal policy to do so. They released
`
`the actual original police report of August 9, 2017 – when Bissell first falsely reported the rape, and it shows
`
`what an utter sham Bissell and her co-conspirators’ stories are - as well as supports the true accusations of the
`
`crimes that they have perpetrated on an aggravated basis at against Plaintiff. It is a truly sinister diabolical story.
`
`18. The August 9, 2017 police report states in part: “…Bissell said they [herself and Dean] never spoke of that night
`
`again….” in express reference to February 7, 2017 (the false rape date), foreclosing on any possibility of Bissell’s
`
`false claim of Dean’s constant threats on the phone or face-to-face of breaking and entering into her home, re-
`
`rape, and the Mass Murder of Bissell, her family, and her children, “like the last time.” In the section entitled
`
`“Act II”, all of this is covered in great detail.
`
`19. There are many more direct contradictions to Bissell’s perjurious claims in writing, but as horrendous as all of
`
`this is, the story is much larger and nefarious, as it involves Dean’s enemies in Canada, and their reaching into
`
`the United States paying for and/or financing Bissell et al’s scheme. All RICO predicate activity is by definition a
`
`money laundering offense under 18 USC § 1956 and 18 USC § 1957 but by paying and/or financing Bissell and
`
`her Associates-In-Fact in the United States with this plot elevates all of this into an Evil Plot by those engaging in
`
`prohibited activities. The Canadian defendants were involved for the reason of retaining control of their
`
`Enterprise and did violate the prohibited activity of “[F]or any person who has received any income derived,
`
`directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity… in which such person has participated as a
`
`principal within the meaning of section 2, title 18, United States Code, to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any
`
`part of such income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or
`
`operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign
`
`commerce” 18 USC § 1962(a). They torpedoed a hedge fund which clearly is (negatively) affecting interstate or
`
`foreign commerce.
`
`20. These crimes involve managers and directors of the Immigration Consultants of Canada Regulatory Council
`
`(“ICCRC”), the managers and directors of their lobby group the Canadian Association of Professional Immigration
`
`Consultants (“CAPIC”), many high-level members of Canadian Government bureaucracy, law firms, and their
`
`lawyers, and numerous other individuals all who have committed and/or conspired to commit Predicate Acts
`
`and they are members of the Immigration Association-In-Fact and members of it (defined in the section called
`
`“Act I”), and all are culpable of 18 U.S. Code § 1959 - Violent crimes in aid of racketeering activity and the related
`
`conspiracy.
`
`21. There are violations of 18 USC § 1589, 18 USC § 1590, and 18 USC § 1594, all relating to forced labor and abuse
`
`of legal process – which certainly qualifies as conduct unbecoming of a regulator or in this case the “Immigration
`
`Enterprise” as defined below.
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-09770-MCA-ESK Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 5 of 457 PageID: 5
`
`22. The perpetrators of these Predicate Acts represent the Darkest side of the human spirit in covering up “their
`
`crimes,” by accusing a man elected (Dean) to investigate their alleged corruption back in 2016.
`
`23. In 2016, Dean was a member of the ICCRC and ran for and won an elected director position on the board of
`
`ICCRC on a platform of openness and transparency and to investigate the ICCRC board members and managers
`
`et al for their then ‘alleged corruption.’ The Immigration Associates-In-Fact filed a blizzard of discipline
`
`complaints for Dean winning his election. The and to stymie the investigation and after Dean’s appearance at
`
`the Parliament of Canada to testify, and after being told by the Parliament of Canada not to witness tamper -
`
`twice, the Immigration Associates-In-Fact (see below for definition) shortly thereafter unlawfully removed Dean
`
`from his directorship, and the Immigration Associates-In-Fact denied Dean’s appeal on August 2, 2017.
`
`24. Dean was getting ready to file a Canadian Federal Judicial Review, and at the same time file this matter into the
`
`United States District Court – as there were then some 400+ US based members of the ICCRC being oppressed
`
`by the Immigration Associates-In-Fact members.
`
`25. Instead, on August 9, 2017, the Associates-In-Fact, via Ms. Bissell, put into motion the pre-planned
`
`reprehensible scheme to falsely accuse Dean of a brutal vaginal, digital, and anal rape - to the point of making
`
`Bissell supposedly bleed from her anus - and Dean was made to appear before Judge Murray in the Essex County
`
`Family Part, New Jersey Court by August 17, 2017. Dean was not given any due process notice whatsoever of
`
`the supposed constant threats of Mass Murder. The prosecutor was looming about and Dean’s plans of running
`
`an international hedge fund were dashed as was any notion of Dean appealing his unlawful removal from the
`
`board to the Canadian Federal Court within the requisite 30-day time limit to file it as well as Dean was
`
`prevented as a witness and victim of the Immigration Association-In-Fact members (“Immigration defendants”)
`
`– see more definitions below - scheme from reporting the matter to Federal, State, and local police as well as
`
`filing for relief in the United States District Court.
`
`26. Later in Act II, it will be shown that Dean was prevented from filing anything that related to the False Accuser
`
`Associates, and in turn the Immigration Associates-In-Fact by order of a Judge until February 5, 2019 – a key
`
`date. Dean was left to use only Canadian Avenues against the Immigration Associates-In-Fact and it did produce
`
`Evidence related to these matters herein and shows the interrelatedness.
`
`27. To unravel the entire scheme has become a two-step process:
`
`i.
`
`Prove Bissell et al’s utter Fraud, Perjury, and Subornation of Perjury – a process that is near
`completion.
`Begin the RICO process showing that all defendants are connected and interrelated.
`
`28. To complete step “i” above would have been next to impossible had Dean been incarcerated in NJ State Prison.
`
`ii.
`
`Besides, convicted rapists do not make for such good witnesses in front of a Jury and even less so if they are
`
`dead, convicted rapists. That Dean was not convicted (nor formally charged by the NJ State Prosecutor’s Office)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-09770-MCA-ESK Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 6 of 457 PageID: 6
`
`meant that Dean could dedicate a substantial amount of time being a ‘detective,’ and indeed a “private
`
`prosecutor” per the Supreme Court of the United States with respect to the RICO statute and now this matter is
`
`ripe and ready to be prosecuted.
`
`In rejecting a significantly different focus under RICO, therefore, we are honoring an analogy that Congress
`itself accepted and relied upon, and one that promotes the objectives of civil RICO as readily as it furthers
`the objects of the Clayton Act. Both statutes share a common congressional objective of encouraging civil
`litigation to supplement Government efforts to deter and penalize the respectively prohibited
`practices. The object of civil RICO is thus not merely to compensate victims but to turn them into
`prosecutors, "private attorneys general," dedicated to eliminating racketeering activity. 3 Id., at 187
`(citing Malley-Duff, 483 U.S., at 151 ) (civil RICO specifically has a "further purpose [of] encouraging
`potential private plaintiffs diligently to investigate"). The provision for treble damages is accordingly
`justified by the expected benefit of suppressing racketeering activity, an object pursued the sooner the
`better.[Rotella v. Wood et al., 528 U.S. 549 (2000)] (Emphasis added by Plaintiff(s) and is done so
`throughout this complaint by Plaintiff(s) unless so said otherwise).
`
`29. The Associates-In-Fact of the Immigration Enterprise (defined below) confederated and conspired with the False
`
`Accuser Associates-In-Fact (defined in Act II) of the False Accuser Enterprise (defined below). Act III will, in part,
`
`make a showing that the incidents of racketeering activity embrace criminal conduct that has either the same or
`
`similar purposes, results, participants or victims or methods of commission or are otherwise interrelated by
`
`distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated incidents. In short, it will be shown that all defendants have
`
`been using the same types of tactics and methods to carry out their various schemes and by doing so that in and
`
`of itself, according to Congress, is evidence of the connection.
`
`30. All defendants are employed by or associated with enterprise(s) engaged in, or the activities of which affect,
`
`interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such
`
`enterprise's affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 USC § 1962.
`
`31. Their combined pattern of racketeering activity, on an aggravated basis, has resulted in the destruction of one of
`
`New York’s most exiting Emerging Hegde Funds – the Saga Enterprise – that will be described herein. Saga
`
`Global Capital Management LLC was based in Connecticut and therefore Connecticut Civil RICO applies to all
`
`damages the Saga Enterprise sustained through this document.
`
`32. On a personal note, the Associates-In-Fact of these two Enterprises have transformed Dean, by way of their
`
`racketeering predicate acts, into somewhat of the plight and title character and the protagonist Edmond Dantès
`
`of Alexandre Dumas's 1844 adventure novel The Count of Monte Cristo. Dantes was cast into the Chateau d’If
`
`unjustly and for political and other criminal malevolent reasons. For Dean it has not been any “adventure,” and
`
`the isolation and fallout due to our social media connected world has been real, as what these Associates have
`
`done has negatively affected nearly every aspect in Dean’s life, property, and business. There have been
`
`numerous egregious injuries in fact and proximately caused by defendants.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-09770-MCA-ESK Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 7 of 457 PageID: 7
`
`33. All Associates-In-Fact are deemed state actors (see Act II) as they have violated nearly every Constitutionally
`
`Guaranteed Federal Right of Dean – an American Citizen (as well as a Canadian Citizen).
`
`Background of RICO and Jurisdiction Primer
`
`34. This complaint relies on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b):
`
`FRAUD OR MISTAKE; CONDITIONS OF MIND. In alleging fraud or mistake, a party must state with particularity
`the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other conditions of a
`person's mind may be alleged generally.
`
`35. This complaint further relies on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(g) relating punitive damages and Article III
`
`standing issues and the overall egregiousness of what has transpired:
`
`SPECIAL DAMAGES: If an item for special damages is claimed, it must be specifically stated.
`
`36. Plaintiff(s) state that there have been so many obnoxious legal proceedings going on all at once that it has been
`
`difficult to draft this complaint and admittedly it needs (much) further revision, editing, and cutting it down.
`
`However, April 20, 2021 is a four year anniversary and this complaint needed to get filed.
`
`37. In this complaint it is somewhat necessary to give a brief primer to stakeholders with respect to this matter who
`
`are not familiar with the RICO Statute and that starts with the intent of the Congress of the United States. Keep
`
`in mind that 10% of the ICCRC membership is in the United States and the Immigration Enterprise is and has
`
`been reaching into the United States each and every time they send an email, wire broadcast, and bulletin
`
`announcement. The Immigration Enterprise has a Principle living in Buffalo, New York. Just by these facts alone,
`
`it affects interstate and foreign commerce and the USDC has jurisdiction over all of these matters.
`
`38. In using the combined military and medical science metaphors by Senator McClellan, S. 1861 RICO was
`
`designed to eradicate the “cancer” of organized crime's penetration into the nation’s economy “by direct
`
`attack, by forcible removal and prevention of return.” For Senator McClellan, the “most direct route to
`
`accomplish” getting rid of once and for all “organized crime influences from legitimate organizations” was
`
`the prohibition of the racketeer himself from the infiltrated enterprise: “If an organization is acquired or run
`
`by the proscribed method, then the persons involved are removed from the organization” (115 Cong. Rec.
`
`9567 (1969).
`
`39. Mr. Richard Dennis, a director of ICCRC, and resident and (likely) American Citizen living in Buffalo, NY, is such
`
`a person and he is connected to all Immigration Associate-In-Fact members.
`
`40. Congress “is primarily concerned with domestic conditions.” Arabian Am. Oil Co., 499 U.S. at 248 (quoting
`
`Foley Bros., 336 U.S. at 285); accord Kiobel, 133 S. Ct. at 1664 13); Carnero v. Boston Scientific Corp., 433 F.3d
`
`1, 7 (1st Cir. 2006). (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-09770-MCA-ESK Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 8 of 457 PageID: 8
`
`41. Moreover, Congress stated that the purpose of RICO’s remedial provisions was to afford enhanced sanctions
`
`and new remedies,” and accordingly mandated that RICO Ashall be liberally construed to effectuate its remedial
`
`purposes (Section 904(a) of PUB. L. NO. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, 923, 947). The Supreme Court has similarly
`
`characterized Section 1964 as a far-reaching civil enforcement scheme,” Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S.
`
`479, 483 (1985), and has explained that Congress’ liberal-construction mandate is to be applied anywhere, it is
`
`in 18 USC § 1964 where RICO’s remedial purposes are most evident. See Supreme Court of the United States
`
`(“SCOTUS”) Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 27 (1983); United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S
`
`42. What is needed here…are new approaches that will deal not only with individuals, but also with the
`
`economic base through which those individuals constitute such a serious threat to the economic well-being
`
`of the nation. In short, an attack must be made on their source of economic power itself, and the attack must
`
`take place on all available fronts.
`
`43. The Congress finds that (1) organized crime in the United States is a highly sophisticated, diversified, and
`
`widespread activity that annually drains billions of dollars from America's economy by unlawful conduct and
`
`the illegal use of force, fraud and corruption; (2) organized crime derives a major portion of its power
`
`through money obtained from such illegal endeavors as syndicated gambling, loan sharking, the theft and
`
`fencing of property…and other forms of social exploitation; (3) this money and power are increasingly used
`
`to infiltrate and corrupt legitimate business and labor unions and to subvert and corrupt our democratic
`
`processes; (4) organized crime activities in the United States weaken the stability of the Nation's economic
`
`system, harm innocent investors and competing organizations, interfere with free competition, seriously
`
`burden interstate and foreign commerce, threaten the domestic security, and undermine the general welfare
`
`of the Nation and its citizens; and (5) organized crime continues to grow…because the sanctions and
`
`remedies available to the Government are unnecessarily limited in scope and impact.
`
`44. In our view, Congress had a more natural and commonsense approach to RICO's pattern element in mind,
`
`intending a more stringent requirement than proof simply of two predicates, but also envisioning a concept
`
`of sufficient breadth that it might encompass multiple predicates within a single scheme that were related
`
`and that amounted to, or threatened the likelihood of, continued criminal activity.
`
`45. RICO should be broadly and liberally applied, innovative defenses should be curtailed, and any remedies for
`
`perceived abuses or misuses of the statute should come from Congress, not from the courts.
`
`46. In short, in this instant case it will be shown that this is far more than simply a ‘garden variety fraud case.’ This is
`
`racketeering at the most sinister and vile level.
`
`47. International law recognizes five principal bases upon which a nation may exercise its criminal jurisdiction
`
`over citizens and non-citizens for conduct committed outside that nation’s territorial limits: (1) the “objective
`
`territorial principle,” which provides for jurisdiction over conduct committed outside a State’s borders that
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-09770-MCA-ESK Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 9 of 457 PageID: 9
`
`has, or is intended to have, a substantial effect within its territory; (2) the “nationality principle,” which
`
`provides for jurisdiction over extraterritorial acts committed by a State’s own citizen; (3) the “protective
`
`principle,” which provides for jurisdiction over acts committed outside the State that harm the State’s
`
`interests; (4) the “passive personality principle,” which provides for jurisdiction over acts that harm a State’s
`
`citizens abroad; and (5) the “universality principle,” which provides for jurisdiction over extraterritorial acts
`
`by a citizen or noncitizen that are so heinous as to be universally condemned by all civilized nations.
`
`Yousef, 327 F.3d at 91 n.24; accord Vazquez-Velasco, 15 F.3d at 840; Chua Han Mow, 730 F.2d at 1311
`
`(collecting cases). (Emphasis added and indeed, throughout wherever anything it is deemed to be ‘emphasis
`
`added’ unless so stated otherwise.) In this instant case, all five of these conditions are met as will be shown
`
`herein.
`
`48. The analysis in RJR Nabisco is also consistent with the general notion that ancillary crimes, such as conspiracy
`
`or aiding and abetting, apply extraterritorially if the underlying crime so applies. See, e.g., United States v. Ali,
`
`718 F.3d 929, 939 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (“extraterritorial reach of an ancillary offense like aiding and abetting or
`
`conspiracy is coterminous with that of the underlying criminal statute.”); Chua Han Mow, 730 F.2d at 1311
`
`(conspiracy statute applies extraterritorially if underlying substantive statutes does). For example, courts
`
`have applied penal laws extraterritorially in a variety of circumstances, including where sovereign interests of
`
`the United States or its citizens may be adversely affected. See, e.g., United States v. Delgado-Garcia, 374
`
`F.3d 1337, 1343-51 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (holding that the offense of conspiracy….)
`
`49. Permissible Domestic Application and “Focus” of RICO Statute applies even when a case involves some
`
`foreign activity that is not reached by a permissible extraterritorial application, a statute nonetheless has
`
`permissible domestic application when the alleged domestic conduct is within “the ‘focus’ of congressional
`
`concern.” Morrison, 561 U.S. at 266 (citation omitted). If the alleged domestic conduct involves the acts that
`
`“the statute seeks to ‘regulate,’” and if the parties who are allegedly injured are among those “that the
`
`statute seeks to ‘protec[t],’ ” then the claim qualifies as Felix-Gutierrez, 940 F.2d at 1203-06 (holding that
`
`under 18 U.S.C. § 3, accessory after the fact to those crimes applied extraterritorially)
`
`50. Most of the crimes took places within the United States.
`
`51. A domestic application, even if the case also involves some amount of foreign activity. Id. at 267 (citation
`
`omitted). Morrison’s holding has prompted courts to dissect RICO to determine Congress’ “focus” of concern.
`
`If the alleged domestic activity in a case satisfies all elements of both RICO and all the predicates, then that
`
`case constitutes a permissible domestic application of RICO. In this context, it may be unnecessary to even
`
`address the statute’s focus. If, however, a court does engage in this analysis, a case in which all elements are
`
`satisfied by domestic conduct necessarily addresses Congress’ focus, regardless of the foreign activity. See,
`
`e.g., Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005); European Community v. RJR Nabisco, 764 F.3d 129,
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-09770-MCA-ESK Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 10 of 457 PageID: 10
`
`142 (2d Cir. 2014), cert. granted 2015 WL 4575964, 84 USLW 3082 (U.S. Oct 01, 2015).
`
`52. Johnson Elec. N. Am. v. Mabuchi Motor 344 America Co., 98 F. Supp. 2d 480, 485 (S.D.N.Y 2000) (“Where
`
`RICO predicate acts occurred primarily in the United States, jurisdiction exists”). If, however, the alleged
`
`domestic conduct in a case does not satisfy all the elements of RICO and the charged predicates, we will have
`
`to determine whether the alleged domestic activity nonetheless falls within the focus of Congress’ concern
`
`such that use of RICO is a permissible domestic application of the statute, despite the existence of foreign
`
`activity. (“But the presumption against extraterritorial application would be a craven watchdog indeed if it
`
`retreated to its kennel whenever some domestic activity is involved in the case.”). Nonetheless, there is a
`
`good argument that a RICO indictment or complaint reflects a domestic application of RICO if the enterprise
`
`or the pattern element is satisfied by activity in the United States. See RJR Nabisco, 764 F.3d at 142 n.14
`
`(leaving that issue undecided).
`
`53. At least two district courts adopted a “nerve center test” to determine whether the enterprise was domestic
`
`or extraterritorial. See, e.g., Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. v. Seamaster Logistics, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 2d 933, 938–41
`
`(N.D.Cal.2012); European Community v. RJR Nabisco, 2011 WL 843957 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), judgment vacated by
`
`European Community v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 764 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2014). The “nerve center test” determines
`
`where the enterprise is located and Mr. Richard Dennis is one of the main “nerves” in Buffalo, NY.
`
`54. RICO charges were permissibly “based on a pattern of racketeering activities that were conducted by the
`
`Defendants in the territorial United States.”
`
`55. Plaintiff(s) have herein alleged that all elements of the wire fraud, money fraud, and Travel Act violations
`
`were completed in the United States or while crossing the U.S. border
`
`56. Congress’ Authority Under the Commerce Clause Congress’ authority to prohibit RICO violations stems from
`
`the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, Article I, § 8, cl. 3, which provides that Congress shall have power
`
`“[t]o regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes . . . .
`
`” For many years, the Supreme Court interpreted Congress’ authority under the Commerce Clause very
`
`broadly to include regulation of intrastate conduct that affected interstate commerce, as well as interstate
`
`commerce itself. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), is the landmar