throbber
Case 2:21-cv-09770-MCA-ESK Document 1 Filed 04/19/21 Page 1 of 457 PageID: 1
`
`
`
`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

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket