Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 1 of 75
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
`
`
`(1) KEITH GRANT;
`
`(2) STEPHANIE GRANT,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(1) FLYING BUD FARMS, LLC, an
`
`
`
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company;
`(2) PARAGON INDUSTRIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`an Oklahoma corporation;
`
`
`(3) ASSURANCE RESTORATION, LLC,
`
`an Oklahoma limited liability company;
`
`(4) GARY DAVID BACON, JR.;
`
`
`(5) BACON INVESTMENTS, LLC, an
`
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company;
`
`(6) DEREK WACHOB;
`
`
`
`(7) D-LUXE DISPENSARY, LLC, an
`
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company;
`
`(8) D-LUXE IP, LLC, an Oklahoma limited
`
`
`liability company;
`
`
`
`
`(9) D-LUXE FARMS, LLC, an Oklahoma
`
`
`limited liability company;
`
`
`
`(10) D-LUXE DISPOSAL, LLC, an Oklahoma
`
`limited liability company;
`
`
`
`(11) D-LUXE PROPERTIES, LLC, an
`
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company;
`
`(12) D-LUXE PROCESSING, LLC, an
`
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company;
`
`(13) D-LUXE HOLDINGS, LLC, an Oklahoma
`
`limited liability company;
`
`
`
`(14) D-LUXE HOLDINGS I, LLC, an
`
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company;
`
`(15) D-LUXE HOLDINGS II, LLC, an
`
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company
`
`
`(16) D-LUXE HOLDINGS III, LLC, an
`
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company;
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Case No.: 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ
`)
`) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 2 of 75
`
`(17) D-LUXE HOLDINGS IV, LLC, an
`
`
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company;
`(18) D-LUXE INVESTMENTS I, LLC, an
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company;
`
`(19) D-LUXE TRANSPORTATION, LLC, an
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company;
`
`(20) D-LUXE EXPRESS DISPENSARY, LLC,
`
`an Oklahoma limited liability company;
`
`(21) WIT D-LUXE HOLDINGS, LLC, an
`
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs Keith and Stephanie Grant bring this action to vindicate their federal rights under
`
`the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (“RICO”). The
`
`Grants also bring claims under Oklahoma law for private nuisance and injury to property. The
`
`Grants’ personal residence is located on rural property they own in Creek County, Oklahoma,
`
`within the Northern District of Oklahoma. The Defendants constructed and operate a large, illegal,
`
`industrial marijuana grow operation approximately less than 50 feet from the Grants’ property line
`
`and adjacent to their personal residence.
`
`In addition to RICO, federal law prohibits the cultivation, possession, and distribution of
`
`marijuana, conspiracies to cultivate, possess, and distribute marijuana, and continuing criminal
`
`enterprises engaged in the business of illicit drug trafficking, all of which remain felony crimes
`
`under the Controlled Substances Act of 1970 (“CSA”). Cultivating marijuana for sale is
`
`racketeering activity in violation of RICO.1
`
`
`1 Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper, 859 F.3d 865, 882 (10th Cir. 2017).
`2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 3 of 75
`
`Under RICO, the Grants are entitled to three times their actual damages, injunctive relief,
`
`costs, and attorneys’ fees for Defendants’ racketeering activity, that is, the commercial cultivation,
`
`possession, production, and distribution of marijuana.
`
`Under the Oklahoma state nuisance laws, the Grants are entitled to actual damages,
`
`punitive damages, and injunctive relief. As set forth in more detail below, the Grants have suffered
`
`significant injury to their property and have lost the use and enjoyment of what was once a quiet,
`
`secluded, and safe homestead.
`
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`Keith and Stephanie Grant chose to make their home in the country. Their home
`
`1.
`
`sits on several acres located just outside of Sapulpa in Creek County, Oklahoma. Keith grew up
`
`nearby. Keith’s elderly parents still live across the road and his brothers live on the two properties
`
`immediately east of the Grants’ home. The Grants chose the property because it was quiet, located
`
`adjacent to family, and provided solitude and security.
`
`2.
`
`In or about 2019, Defendant Gary Bacon, Jr. established an unlawful marijuana
`
`grow operation, called Flying Bud Farms, next door to the Grants’ personal residence. Shortly
`
`thereafter, Bacon and co-defendant Derek Wachob became business partners in the unlawful
`
`marijuana operation. Together, Defendants Bacon and Wachob expanded Flying Bud Farms, LLC
`
`to grow marijuana for sale to dispensaries, including their jointly-owned dispensary, D-Luxe
`
`Dispensary, LLC. Despite having 80 acres, Defendants Bacon and Wachob built the unlawful
`
`marijuana grow operation adjacent to the Grants’ home and approximately 50 feet from the
`
`Grants’ property line. Since the establishment of Flying Bud Farms, the Grants have lived in the
`
`constant presence of an openly operating unlawful marijuana cultivation and distribution
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 4 of 75
`
`enterprise and a construction zone. As a result, the Grants can no longer enjoy their home. The
`
`pungent odor of marijuana is relentless. The odor is most potent when the marijuana is ready for
`
`harvest. The odor is so strong that it can even be smelled across the road at Keith’s elderly parents’
`
`and aunt’s homes. The Grants, who live just next door, experience the full force of the odor. The
`
`odor has caused Stephanie to experience severe allergy symptoms, headaches, and nausea. Nor can
`
`the Grants escape the noise, whether it is the noise of the large industrial fans circulating the stench
`
`of marijuana or the frequent noise of industrial construction equipment moving earth and erecting
`
`a massive perimeter fence. The construction activities at the illegal marijuana operation included
`
`altering a floodplain without obtaining the required permit. As a direct result of Defendants Bacon
`
`and Wachob altering the floodplain, the Grants’ property and home experienced substantial
`
`flooding. The night and early morning hours are no better. The bright white marijuana grow houses
`
`are illuminated at night by industrial lights that shine into the Grants’ windows and into their home.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants Wachob and Bacon own other businesses. Defendant Wachob owns
`
`Paragon Industries, Inc., a manufacturer of steel piping used primarily in the oil and gas industry.
`
`Defendant Bacon co-owns Assurance Restoration, LLC, a disaster restoration service company.
`
`Defendants Wachob and Bacon have used Paragon and Assurance Restoration to advance the
`
`unlawful marijuana grow operation, including, but not limited to, providing employees, materials
`
`and equipment, thereby rendering Paragon and Assurance Restoration associates of the unlawful
`
`RICO enterprise.
`
`4.
`
`Defendants Bacon and Wachob fly helicopters, often multiple times a day, to and
`
`from the illegal marijuana grow operation. While it is not necessary for Defendants Bacon and
`
`Wachob to fly directly over the Grants’ home, they do so anyway at low altitudes. Sometimes they
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 5 of 75
`
`will circle or idle the helicopters over the Grants’ home, or even over the Grants themselves while
`
`the Grants are in their yard. Defendants Bacon and Wachob have left the helicopters running for
`
`up to 20 or 30 minutes after landing or before taking off. The Grants can hear the noise and feel
`
`the vibrations of the helicopters from within their home.
`
`5.
`
`Unlawful enterprises make for bad neighbors. This is especially true when the
`
`nature of the enterprise is drug trafficking. The Grants, whether inside or outside, have lost the
`
`use and enjoyment of their home. What was once a quiet and secluded home has become an
`
`unceasing unlawful industrial and construction zone. Not only have the Grants lost their use and
`
`enjoyment of their home, but they have suffered a loss in property value as a result of the nuisance,
`
`the open operation of an unlawful enterprise, and flooding. Homes next to unlawful enterprises,
`
`particularly those that are noisy, odorous, unsightly, and cause substantial flooding are simply not
`
`worth as much as quiet homes in the country.
`
`6.
`
`While Oklahoma legalized marijuana for medical use in 2018, the fact remains that
`
`marijuana cultivation, processing, distribution and sales remain federal felony crimes. According
`
`to the Tenth Circuit, “[m]arijuana is a controlled substance under the CSA [Controlled
`
`Substances Act]. So the manufacture, distribution, and sale of that substance is, by definition,
`
`racketeering activity under RICO.”2
`
`7.
`
`Here, the objects of the unlawful enterprise are to cultivate marijuana, possess
`
`marijuana, and commercially distribute marijuana for financial profit. Marijuana grow operations,
`
`by their very nature, emit pungent, foul odors. The infrastructure necessary to cultivate and grow
`
`
`2 Safe Streets Alliance, 859 F.3d at 884.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 6 of 75
`
`marijuana is an eyesore. The marijuana grow operation causes an increase in traffic, undesirable
`
`visitors, large cash transactions, and increased criminal activity. All of the foregoing, individually
`
`and in the aggregate, causes property values to drop and interferes in the use and enjoyment of
`
`what was supposed to be a quiet, secluded, and safe home.
`
`8.
`
`In Safe Streets Alliance v. Hickenlooper, the Tenth Circuit not only held that the
`
`cultivation of marijuana was per se racketeering activity, but also found “little difficulty concluding
`
`that the [Plaintiffs] plausibly pled an injury to their property rights caused by the stench that the
`
`enterprise’s operations allegedly produce.”3 The Court concluded that the odor of the marijuana,
`
`and the presence of an openly operating criminal enterprise, plainly presented a plausible claim of
`
`interference with property, injury to property, and a diminution in the value of the property.4
`
`9.
`
`The Tenth Circuit’s decision in Safe Streets dictates that marijuana operations,
`
`including grows and dispensaries, constitute unlawful racketeering activity under RICO. Those
`
`who engage in a pattern of racketeering activity are liable for three times the economic harm they
`
`cause plus costs and attorney’s fees.
`
`10.
`
`Those who conspire with racketeers are equally liable under RICO.5 It is not
`
`necessary that every conspirator engage in the unlawful cultivation and sale of marijuana. It is only
`
`necessary that the conspirators support the racketeering activity. Conspirators may include both
`
`individuals and companies that provide employees, equipment, materials, or funding to the
`
`racketeers. Such conspirators could include construction companies, rural broadband companies,
`
`
`
`3 Id. at 886.
`4 Id. at 886-87.
`5 Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 64 (1997).
`6
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 7 of 75
`
`disaster restoration companies, steel piping companies, and others—as well as officers and
`
`directors of such companies.
`
`11.
`
`The Court has the authority to award damages of three times the actual harm, plus
`
`costs and attorney’s fees, but also to order racketeers and their conspirators to immediately cease
`
`their unlawful activity pending the outcome of this litigation.
`
`II.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ RICO claims under 18
`
`12.
`
`U.S.C. § 1964 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
`
`13.
`
`This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law nuisance and
`
`injury to property claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).
`
`14.
`
`Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because all of the
`
`Defendants reside or transact business in the Northern District of Oklahoma and a substantial
`
`portion of the events giving rise to this suit occurred in the Northern District of Oklahoma. Venue
`
`over Plaintiffs’ RICO claims is also proper under 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a) because the RICO
`
`Defendants reside in the Northern District of Oklahoma and transact affairs in the Northern
`
`District of Oklahoma.
`
`III.
`PARTIES
`Plaintiffs Keith and Stephanie Grant are residents of Creek County, Oklahoma who
`
`15.
`
`own and live on approximately 15 acres of land immediately east and adjacent to the unlawful
`
`marijuana grow operation.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 8 of 75
`
`16. Defendant Flying Bud Farms, LLC (“Flying Bud”) is an Oklahoma limited liability
`
`company that has its principal place of business at 12260 W. 171st Street S, Sapulpa, Oklahoma
`
`74066. Flying Bud operates an unlawful marijuana grow operation, licensed by the State of
`
`Oklahoma, License Number GAAA-NYJO-QJDG.
`
`17. Defendant Gary David Bacon, Jr. (“Bacon”) is a member of Flying Bud. Bacon also
`
`co-owns Assurance Restoration, LLC, Bacon Investments, LLC and, upon information and belief,
`
`is an owner of some or all of the D-Luxe entities either individually or through his investment
`
`company, Bacon Investments, LLC. He resides at 12260 W. 171st Street S, Sapulpa, Oklahoma
`
`74066.
`
`18. Defendant Bacon Investments, LLC (“Bacon Investments”) is an Oklahoma
`
`limited liability company that has its principal place of business in Creek County, Oklahoma. Upon
`
`information and belief, Bacon Investments is wholly owned by Bacon.
`
`19. Defendant Derek Wachob (“Wachob”) is an owner of the D-Luxe entities, an
`
`owner of Paragon Industries, and participates in the direction, control, and management of Flying
`
`Bud. Wachob resides in Creek County, Oklahoma.
`
`20. Defendant D-Luxe Dispensary, LLC is an Oklahoma limited liability company that
`
`has its principal place of business at 927 S. Main Street, Sapulpa, Oklahoma 74066. D-Luxe
`
`Dispensary, LLC is an unlawful marijuana dispensary, licensed by the State of Oklahoma, License
`
`Number DAAA-JJX4-D7OP. D-Luxe Dispensary, LLC and Flying Bud are designated as
`
`“Associated Entities” on D-Luxe Dispensary, LLC’s license application submitted to the
`
`Oklahoma Medical Marijuana Authority (“OMMA”). D-Luxe Dispensary, LLC is wholly owned
`
`by D-Luxe Holdings, LLC. D-Luxe Holdings, LLC is owned 50/50 by Defendants Wachob and
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 9 of 75
`
`Bacon, either individually or through Bacon Investments. D-Luxe Dispensary, LLC and D-Luxe
`
`Holdings, LLC, along with D-Luxe IP, LLC, D-Luxe Farms, LLC, D-Luxe Disposal, LLC, D-Luxe
`
`Properties, LLC, D-Luxe Processing, LLC, D-Luxe Holdings I, LLC, D-Luxe Holdings II, LLC,
`
`D-Luxe Holdings III, LLC, D-Luxe Holdings IV, LLC, D-Luxe Investments I, LLC, D-Luxe
`
`Transportation, LLC, D-Luxe Express Dispensary, LLC, and Wit-D-Luxe Holdings, LLC, are all
`
`Oklahoma limited liability companies with their principal place of business in Creek County,
`
`Oklahoma. Upon information and belief, all of the foregoing entities are associated with each other,
`
`are part of a collective family of companies, and have common ownership. All of the D-Luxe
`
`entities identified herein shall be collectively referred to as “D-Luxe” throughout the Complaint.
`
`D-Luxe sells all kinds of unlawful marijuana products, including flower, concentrates, edibles, pre-
`
`rolls, topicals, and CBD extract. D-Luxe holds itself out as “a firm built on integrity by a TEAM
`
`working in unison towards a common goal of providing the highest level of customer satisfaction.”6
`
`21. Defendant Paragon Industries, Inc. (“Paragon”) is an Oklahoma corporation with
`
`its principal place of business at 3378 W. Highway 117, Sapulpa, Oklahoma, 74066. Paragon
`
`manufactures steel piping, primarily used in the oil and gas industry. Paragon holds itself out as “a
`
`Team working in unison toward a common goal of providing the highest level of customer
`
`satisfaction.”7
`
`22. Defendant Assurance Restoration, LLC (“Assurance Restoration”)
`
`is an
`
`Oklahoma limited liability company that has its principal place of business at 711 East Taft Street,
`
`
`6 https://d-luxedispensary.com/ (Last accessed December 30, 2021).
`7 http://www.paragonindinc.com/company (Last accessed December 30, 2021).
`9
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 10 of 75
`
`Sapulpa, OK 74066. Assurance Restoration provides fire, wind, water, and disaster restoration
`
`services.
`
`IV.
`THE NATURE OF THE UNLAWFUL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND
`DISTRIBUTION CONSPIRACY AND CONTINUING ENTERPRISE
`
`The Defendants
`The objects of the unlawful marijuana cultivation and distribution enterprise are to
`
`23.
`
`cultivate marijuana, possess marijuana, and commercially distribute marijuana for financial profit.
`
`The conspirators include, but may not be limited to, Defendants Wachob, Bacon, Bacon
`
`Investments, Flying Bud, D-Luxe, Paragon, and Assurance Restoration. These Defendants shall
`
`be referred to collectively as the “Defendants.”
`
`24.
`
`The Defendants engaged in a variety of methods and means to achieve the objects
`
`of the conspiracy, including but not limited to:
`
`a. The Defendants would and did construct and operate an unlawful marijuana grow
`facility known as Flying Bud Farms.
`b. The Defendants would and did construct facilities and purchase equipment
`specifically designed for the cultivation of marijuana.
`c. The Defendants would and did engage a broadband company to run fiber optics to
`the unlawful marijuana grow operation.
`d. The Defendants would and did use legal process to take possession of the property
`on which they constructed and operate the unlawful marijuana grow operation.
`e. The Defendants would and did facilitate the construction and erection of facilities
`necessary to commercially cultivate, possess, store, and distribute marijuana.
`f. The Defendants would and did construct and operate D-Luxe, which includes
`dispensaries and a variety of other businesses designed to achieve and distribute
`profits from the conspiracy.
`g. The Defendants would and did use facilities of interstate communication, to wit,
`the internet and telephones, to promote, advertise, coordinate, and otherwise
`facilitate the commercial sale of marijuana.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 11 of 75
`
`25.
`
`The Defendants acted in interdependence, each relying on the other, to achieve the
`
`objects of their unlawful marijuana cultivation and distribution enterprise:
`
`a. Defendant Flying Bud operates the illegal marijuana grow facility.
`b. Defendant D-Luxe transports, advertises and sells the unlawful marijuana product
`in a variety of forms. D-Luxe also manages the proceeds from the drug trafficking.
`c. Defendant Paragon provides the marijuana cultivation and distribution enterprise
`with resources including but not limited to employees, equipment, and materials.
`d. Defendant Assurance Restoration provides the marijuana cultivation and
`distribution enterprise with resources including but not limited to employees,
`equipment, and materials.
`e. Defendant Wachob controls and directs Flying Bud, D-Luxe, and Paragon.
`Defendant Wachob provides his time, money, effort, and control of his business
`interests to advance the marijuana cultivation and distribution enterprise.
`f. Defendant Bacon controls and directs Flying Bud, D-Luxe, Assurance Restoration,
`and Bacon Investments. Bacon provides his time, money, effort, and control of his
`business interests to advance the marijuana cultivation and distribution enterprise.
`
`g. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bacon Investments receives proceeds
`from the marijuana cultivation and distribution enterprise.
`
`It is Unlawful Under Federal Law to
`Manufacture and Distribute Marijuana
`Congress passed the CSA in 1970 as Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse
`
`26.
`
`Prevention and Control Act. Congress intended the CSA, among other things, to reduce drug
`
`abuse and the illegitimate traffic in controlled substances in the United States by prohibiting the
`
`unauthorized production, distribution, or possession of controlled substances.
`
`27. When it passed the CSA, Congress found that “[t]he illegal importation,
`
`manufacture, distribution, and possession and improper use of controlled substances have a
`
`substantial and detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people,” 21
`
`U.S.C. § 801(2), and that “[a] major portion of the traffic in controlled substances flows through
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 12 of 75
`
`interstate and foreign commerce,” id. § 801(3). The CSA seeks to remedy the social and economic
`
`ills caused by drug abuse and drug trafficking by prohibiting the illicit drug trade.
`
`28.
`
`The CSA categorizes drugs according to a series of schedules, with the most
`
`dangerous drugs falling under Schedule I. See id. § 812(b). Schedule I drugs have “a high potential
`
`for abuse.” Id. § 812(b)(1). Congress classified marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Id. § 812(c).
`
`Congress thus deemed marijuana to have a high potential for abuse. Id. § 812(b)(1). By classifying
`
`marijuana as a Schedule I drug, as opposed to classifying it on a lesser schedule, Congress made
`
`the manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana a criminal offense, with only one
`
`exception: use of the drug as part of a Food and Drug Administration preapproved research study.
`
`Id. §§ 823(f), 841(a)(1), 844(a).
`
`29.
`
`The large-scale manufacture and distribution of marijuana is a felony under the
`
`CSA. A first-time offender convicted of producing or distributing 1,000 or more marijuana plants
`
`is subject to a sentence of not less than 10 years and up to life imprisonment. Id. § 841(b)(1)(A).
`
`Growing 100 or more marijuana plants subjects the first-time offender to a sentence of 5 to 40 years
`
`imprisonment. Id. § 841(b)(1)(B). The cultivation and sale of smaller amounts of marijuana is
`
`punishable by maximum sentences that can be as long as 20 years’ imprisonment. See id. §
`
`841(b)(1)(C),(D). The CSA also criminalizes the possession of marijuana. Id. § 844(a).
`
`30.
`
`The CSA prohibits many other activities associated with the operation of a
`
`marijuana business. The CSA makes it a crime to possess “any equipment, chemical, product, or
`
`material” with the intent to use it to manufacture marijuana, id. § 843(a)(6), or to distribute any
`
`such material with knowledge that it will be used to manufacture marijuana, id. § 843(a)(7). The
`
`CSA prohibits the use of a telephone, email, mail, or any other “communication facility” in
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 13 of 75
`
`furtherance of the manufacture or sale of marijuana, id. § 843(b), and it is a federal crime to utilize
`
`the internet to advertise the sale of marijuana, id. § 843(c)(2)(A). It is a crime to reinvest the
`
`proceeds from marijuana operations, id. § 854(a), as is knowingly facilitating a financial transaction
`
`involving funds derived from manufacturing and selling marijuana, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957, 1960.
`
`It is a crime to knowingly lease, rent, maintain, manage, or control a place where marijuana is
`
`manufactured or sold. 21 U.S.C. § 856. Leading five or more people who commit a continuing
`
`series of federal marijuana crimes, as has occurred here, is an especially serious offense. Id. § 848.
`
`Attempting or conspiring to commit most of these crimes is also a criminal offense. See id. § 846;
`
`18 U.S.C. §§ 1956(a)(1), 1956(h), and 1957(a).
`
`31.
`
`The federal criminal prohibitions on the marijuana cultivation and distribution
`
`business make it clear that the federal government considers marijuana to be a dangerous drug.
`
`RICO defines most violations of the CSA as “racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D). Thus,
`
`any business engaged in the commercial cultivation and sale of marijuana is an unlawful operation
`
`for purposes of federal law. Those who conduct or conspire to assist such operations are subject to
`
`the criminal penalties and civil liability that RICO imposes. See id. § 1962(c), (d).
`
`32.
`
`As recently as July 30, 2021, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
`
`conviction of a marijuana dispensary owner, noting that “[s]tate law aside, marijuana remains
`
`illegal under federal law.” 8 Moreover, the court was unpersuaded by the “attitude of ‘defiance’
`
`toward federal law” and observed the defendant “repeatedly tried to suggest to the jury that his
`
`
`8 United Stats v. Trevino, 7 F.4th 414, 419 (6th Cir. 2021).
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 14 of 75
`
`conduct was legal under state law, even though the court had already held such testimony
`
`irrelevant.”9
`
`It is Unlawful Under Federal Law to Knowingly Conspire with a
`Marijuana Cultivation and Distribution Enterprise
`The United States Supreme Court, in its landmark decision Pinkerton v. United
`
`33.
`
`States, held that the act of one conspirator is attributable to all the conspirators. The Supreme
`
`Court rejected the argument that a conspirator cannot be held responsible for the substantive
`
`criminal offense for merely participating in the conspiracy or, in other words, that each conspirator
`
`must engage in the substantive offense. The Court held that a conspirator need not commit the
`
`substantive offense because other acts taken in furtherance of the conspiracy are attributable to
`
`each conspirator for the purpose of holding them responsible for the substantive offense.10 The
`
`foregoing is commonly referred to as “Pinkerton liability.”
`
`34.
`
`The United States Supreme Court extended Pinkerton liability to RICO
`
`conspiracies in Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63 (1997). The Court interpreted the RICO
`
`conspiracy provision, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), as “even more comprehensive than the general
`
`conspiracy offense[.]”11 “A conspiracy may exist even if a conspirator does not agree to commit
`
`or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense.”12
`
`35.
`
`It is not necessary that all RICO conspirators commit an overt criminal act. “If
`
`conspirators have a plan which calls for some conspirators to perpetrate the crime and others to
`
`
`
`9 Id. at 432.
`10 Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 647 (1946).
`11 Salinas, 522 U.S. at 63.
`12 Id.
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 15 of 75
`
`provide support, the supporters are as guilty as the perpetrators.”13 “One can be a conspirator by
`
`agreeing to facilitate only some of the acts leading to the substantive offense.”14
`
`36.
`
`The United States Supreme Court’s decisions in Pinkerton and Salinas make clear
`
`that anyone who participates in or takes actions in furtherance of the conspiracy is liable for the
`
`underlying substantive criminal racketeering. This is so even though the participant may not
`
`themselves have committed the racketeering offense. It is sufficient that the conspirator has taken
`
`action with the intent to advance the enterprise.
`
`37. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), it is “unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any
`
`of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section.” Cultivating and selling marijuana is
`
`a federal crime and constitutes racketeering activity. Under Pinkerton liability, anyone who
`
`provides assistance to an illegal marijuana grow or distribution operation is equally liable for
`
`conspiring to engage in racketeering activity. It is not necessary that each conspirator engage in the
`
`underlying substantive marijuana cultivation and distribution. It is sufficient that the conspirator
`
`assisted the cultivation, processing and distribution operation.
`
`V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`The Grants’ Property and Home
`The Grants own approximately 15 acres of land in the country near Sapulpa,
`
`38.
`
`Oklahoma. The Grants live in a home that is situated on a five-acre tract near their land’s western
`
`property line.
`
`13 Id. at 64.
`14 Id. at 65.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 16 of 75
`
`39. While all land is unique, the Grants’ property is particularly special to them. Keith’s
`
`family have lived in the immediate area his entire life. Today, Keith’s elderly parents live across
`
`the road in the same home in which Keith was raised. One of his brothers resides on the property
`
`immediately east of the Grants’. Another of Keith’s brothers resides on the next adjacent property
`
`to the east. Two of Keith’s aunts also live across the road from the Grants. The Grants place
`
`significant value on living close to their family and in the same area in which Keith grew up, and in
`
`close proximity to his aging parents for whom the Grants provide help and care.
`
`Flying Bud Farms’ Participation in
`The Marijuana Cultivation and Distribution Enterprise
`40. Defendant Flying Bud Farms commercially grows, cultivates, and distributes
`
`marijuana. Flying Bud filed its limited liability company Articles of Organization with the State of
`
`Oklahoma on December 3, 2018, and its Certificate of Limited Liability Company was issued the
`
`same day by the State of Oklahoma.
`
`41.
`
`The State of Oklahoma approved Flying Bud’s marijuana grow license on January
`
`16, 2019. Flying Bud is licensed by the State of Oklahoma to grow and cultivate marijuana, License
`
`Number GAAA-NYJO-QJDG.
`
`42. Defendant Bacon owns, operates, controls, and directs Flying Bud. Flying Bud
`
`operates at 12260 W. 171st Street S., Sapulpa, Oklahoma 74066, which is west and immediately
`
`adjacent to the Grants’ property.
`
`43. Defendants Wachob and Bacon are associated with each other, and each is
`
`associated with Flying Bud’s unlawful marijuana cultivation and distribution operation. Defendant
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 17 of 75
`
`Wachob has authority equal to Defendant Bacon to operate, control, and direct the activities of
`
`Flying Bud. Flying Bud operates openly and notoriously.
`
`44.
`
`In the Spring of 2019, Defendant Bacon began construction of the illegal marijuana
`
`grow operation on the 12260 W. 171st Street property. In early 2020, Wachob and Bacon became
`
`partners and began construction to greatly expand the operation.
`
`45. Upon information and belief, in constructing the unlawful marijuana grow
`
`operation, Defendants Wachob and Bacon utilized their other companies, Defendants Paragon and
`
`Assurance Restoration, to provide employees, materials, supplies, and financing for the
`
`construction project. The Defendants all understood that the property would be used to unlawfully
`
`grow and cultivate marijuana for sale to Defendant D-Luxe and other dispensaries who would then
`
`in turn engage in the illegal commercial sale of marijuana to consumers. The construction included
`
`infrastructure and facilities specially designed for the cultivation and growth of marijuana to
`
`advance the object of the conspiracy. This included the construction of three large grow houses, a
`
`two buildings, numerous outdoor growth pods, and numerous outdoor A/C units and industrial
`
`fans. Possessing and constructing these facilities, equipment, products, and materials for the
`
`cultivation and processing of marijuana violates 21 U.S.C. § 843(a)(6) and is racketeering activity
`
`under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(D).
`
`46.
`
`Although Defendant Bacon lived on the property at 12260 W. 171st Street, he did
`
`not possess title to the 12260 W. 171st Street property when construction began. In furtherance of
`
`the marijuana cultivation and distribution enterprise, on June 22, 2020, Defendant Bacon filed a
`
`Petition in the District Court in and for Creek County, Oklahoma to gain title to the 12260 W. 171st
`
`Street property through adverse possession from Debra Duck Bacon, Defendant Bacon’s
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 4:22-cv-00001-TCK-JFJ Document 2 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 01/03/22 Page 18 of 75
`
`stepmother. In his adverse possession lawsuit, Defendant Bacon alleged he had made “p