Article IV: Cocaine, Ecstasy and Swingers: Social Ventures in Africa?

This Article is in a series published by Brian Dinning at http://www.socialentrepreneurshipinafrica.com and relates to the RICO lawsuit Mr. Dinning filed against a cadre of people.  This provides some information on the predicate acts to support the RICO claim.

Article 4:  Cocaine, Ecstasy and Swingers:  Social Ventures in Africa?

 

By:  Brian Ray Dinning, JD, LLM and Social Venture Lawyer

 

July 7, 2012

 

As you have read in the prior Articles in this Series, for years my goal, vision and passion was, and still is very much so, to help dozens of needy communities in Africa by helping them to create jobs, hope and a better future.  But, as you have also read, unpredictable and unfortunate situations, such as the fraud of Wextrust Capital, created obstacles and roadblocks, which necessitated a change in partners or strategy or the direction of the project to ultimately accomplish what I have hoped for and worked toward for many years.  Each new change of direction however added a year or more onto each project as it took time to locate new partners, rebuild relationships and hold community and governmental meetings in Africa to communicate the new strategy with our social venture partners.

 

What do you do when people who you thought you could rely on for professionalism, honesty and integrity demonstrate the complete opposite and instead get in the way of the goal of helping others or your dreams?  Think about it – do you just give up on that dream?  Does it just become a thing of the past?  Or, do you pick yourself up and know that you can overcome any challenge (big or small) by making some changes so you can ultimately fulfill that dream and vision?  What you are about to read is one of the many challenging obstacles that created a course for change in the goal of helping the people of Africa.

 

Since I no longer had a job after quitting Wextrust Captial, having witnessed Joe Shereshevsky reveal himself as a man only too eager to sexually harass women, commit all manner of fraud and indulge himself with prostitutes, I needed to find a new job.  Furthermore, I wasn’t the only person hurt by Wextrust Capital – many of us had lost time, effort, money and ownership in the three social venture projects.  While I had to find a job, we all wanted to continue to move forward with our vision, not willing to give up on the people and projects we’d invested so much in.  We all wanted to continue to move forward with our vision of helping the local people of Africa with social venture projects and we all immediately started over – not willing to give up on people in need and on social venture projects that we had all worked so diligently on.

 

I was hired by a company in Fairfax, Virginia in March 2005 at an annual salary of $250,000 plus bonuses.  All of my spare time went toward working on social ventures in Africa.  Earth Conservancy, a non-profit that I consulted with over the years, opened an office in Alexandria, Virginia and employed four full-time consultants and several web designers and grant writers.  I was asked to coordinate the office in my spare time and to oversee the launch of a fundraising and social venture campaign for Earth Conservancy and Sunpoints Southern Africa to help rebuild the social venture projects.  Based upon the hard work of these consultants, I was asked to draft a treatise and power point presentation for the United States Department of State on the subject of for-profit/non-profit ventures entitled “Beyond Micro Enterprise,” and was invited by the State Department to speak at the World Africa Growth Opportunity Act Conference in Dakar, Senegal and Washington, DC in 2005 and 2006.

 

After losing projects to Wextrust Capital, the social venture partners still had the opportunity to resurrect portions of the first three projects as Wextrust Capital’s main pursuit was diamond mining.  So, once again, we were in need of other financial partners.  Having two venture capital firms fail to provide the agreed upon help to the local communities and fail to live up to the promises and agreements made to Sunpoints and the social venture partners, the group discussed raising the needed funds through friends and family to avoid the problems and shortcomings of the Wall Street Investment Banking world.  Unfortunately, as you will see, the friends and family option can also be full of challenges and perils.

 

In 2005, I was discussing my social venture work with Dr. John O, a doctor and former client (“John”).  He was fascinated with the social venture work and wanted me to meet two of his friends, Richard L. and Louis D (“Rick” and “Lou”).  Both MBAs, Rick was a Business MBA and Lou was a Finance MBA – both very valuable skill sets for any business or social venture project and they operated a successful business.  They seemed like the perfect fit and they truly embraced the idea of helping the local communities in Africa. At that time, the social venture partners were seeking to resurrect several community projects including:  Honingklip II, a mining project adjacent to the one taken from us by Wextrust Capital, Sunpoints Farm, a farm project, and Lion’s Walk Lodge a planned tourism lodge.  These projects were controlled by Michael van der Merwe and his brother, Pieter van der Merwe, as the social venture partners. Other social venture projects including amazingly beautiful properties on the Wild Coast of South Africa, which were started by Bossie Bosman as the social venture partner.

 

After discussing the non-profit and for-profit model of social ventures, Rick, Lou and John said that we should form a company to develop these projects and raise the necessary funding, which they calculated was approximately $10 million. In helping to conduct due diligence, enter into contracts and scope out these potential the projects in 2005, the three men donated money to Earth Conservancy as charitable donations.  The donations were used to pay due diligence costs, development expenses, operating expenses for Earth Conservancy, consulting fees, business expenses, travel and entertainment expenses and personal expenses pursuant to written Consulting Agreements and Business Plans.[1]  All funds that were wired to South Africa in 2005 for the scoping of these potential projects were sent to two South African social venture partners: Michael van der Merwe and Bossie Bosman.

 

On the for-profit side, Rick, Lou, John and I agreed to form a company called Pure Africa Management so that the four of us could all keep track of our consulting time and expenses and be reimbursed for that time and expenses as money became available from investors or from the potential project cash flow.  This was all documented in the voluminous Private Placement Memorandum and other documentation of the newly-forming Pure Africa Sustainable Development Fund, managed by Pure Africa Management.  I was asked to work full-time on the documentation, business plans and power point presentations.  John said that he would set up meetings at his home or at the office of Rick and Lou and they would invite their friends and colleagues to explain the projects to them so that they could raise the $10 million of necessary funding.  Rick would handle business administration and community relations in the Hampton Roads area and Lou would be the Chief Financial Officer and manage the funds and books of the business including the preparation of financial statements.

 

Before taking any outside investment, all four of us agreed that a due diligence trip to verify the existence of the projects, review the documentation, meet the South African social venture partners, meet the professional team including Sotheby’s International Realty and Smith Tabata Law Firm was necessary and prudent.  In January, 2006, we traveled to South Africa to view all projects and determine which projects to focus on.  In taking this trip, I was again asked to work full-time as a consultant for Pure Africa Management and the Pure Africa Sustainable Development Fund, LLC starting in February, 2006 by Rick, Lou and John.  In accepting this position, a Consulting Agreement documenting my consulting compensation was agreed to and signed.  Like everyone, I had bills to pay and personal obligations like child support, housing, food, car payments and more plus I would be leaving a lucrative job to focus on more risky social ventures start-up projects as a consultant.

 

The three men assured me that they would raise the necessary funds to pay my consulting fees of $250,000 plus all expenses for me to work full-time.  My employer did not want me working on African projects and instead wanted all my time and effort devoted to their company.  When I went on the due diligence trip in January, 2006 and committed to full-time work with these three men at Pure Africa Sustainable Development Fund, LLC, I would be leaving a good job.  However, I was excited by the new consulting work and the help from Rick, Lou and John on the social ventures and with this newly forming endeavor, we headed out for South Africa.

 

The trip was truly amazing at first and we visited the tourism site at Lion’s Walk Lodge, where  Sunpoints Southern Africa had secured a contract to purchase this farm in 2004 and a financial partner was needed to help build a tourism lodge there.  We also visited a possible diamond mine claim at the Farm Rugalatte named Honingklip II[2] and the Sunpoints Farms, large operating farms in the Free State of South Africa.[3]  We then flew to the Wild Coast of South Africa to view the project at Hole in the Wall and other sites.[4]  Hole in the Wall is a National Heritage Site for South Africa and it is truly beautiful.[5]  The trip was going very well and Rick, Lou and John seemed to be excellent business and financial partners to grow these social ventures for the people of Africa and provide the necessary funding.

 

But, as always, circumstances change and the entire project would have to be radically altered by what I and two other trip participants refer to as “The Trip from Hell.”  Once we were at the Wild Coast, we set up camp in Jeffreys Bay, a world-renowned surfing town located a few hours from the Wild Coast.  The first night, we ate at a local Mexican restaurant, as it was the only restaurant that was open.  When we were getting ready to leave after dinner, I noticed that John was gone.  I asked Rick and Lou “What happened to John?”  They replied, “he went with a guy he met at the bar to get some party supplies.”  “What party supplies? – Africa is a dangerous place at night and he left with a total stranger,” I said.  I was genuinely worried and concerned for John’s safety.

 

Later that night, I went to the room of Rick, Lou and John to check if John had returned.  On the glass dining room table, I witnessed several bags of white powder and lots of pills.  I asked “what is this?”  John said he “bought eight grams of cocaine and 100 ecstasy pills to make the trip more fun.”  Shocked by this, I said to John and the other guys: “this is so wrong – first, because you bought drugs, second, because this is Africa and you could go to prison and third, we are on a business trip to help represent our social venture partners and this is not the way to help others in need.”  Laughing off my comments, John asked after he snorted a long line of white powder, “do you guys want to do some coke with us?”  Disgusted and dismayed by John, three of us declined and went back to our own rooms leaving John, Rick, Lou and one of our companions in their room with their newly-acquired drug cache.

 

Back at my room, we all discussed what we had just seen.  I worried most of the night and the rest of the trip.  I did not even want to be in he same vehicle or lodging with these guys.  Thoughts of Rick, Lou and John going to jail in South Africa for illegal drug possession, harming the other members on our business trip, going to the hospital for a drug overdose and other concerns about their conduct plagued me for the rest of the trip.  I was awoken later that same night by sounds outside my third floor balcony so I jumped out of bed and ran to the balcony door.  There was Rick and Lou trying to break into my room by climbing from balcony to balcony some twenty feet or more above the ground. I said, “what in the world are you guys doing?”  In an excited and intoxicated state, they said, “we want the car keys to go get some food and drinks.”  “At two o’clock in the morning?”  I asked.  I told them to “go back to bed because we have a schedule to keep tomorrow morning” and with that the men laughed, took the car keys and left.

 

The next morning we were late for our scheduled activities so three of us went to check on John and the others.  John and a travel companion came out to open the door and we went into the kitchen and sat down – trying to get everyone up and moving.  Scantily clad and with white powder and crusty snot outlining their noses, the travel companion told us that “we stayed up most of the night partying” as this person drank directly out of a two liter bottle of coca cola and burped loudly.  John just seemed groggy and out-of-it.  Needless to say, the three of them and a companion proceeded to party for a week straight, while being late to most of the scheduled meetings.  They stayed up all night and slept most of the day.  Their partying and behavior was so obvious and embarrassing that Bossie Bosman and our local partners asked me to never bring them to the local community projects again. The embarrassment was only heightened when one of the men, apparently too intoxicated to get up, simply went to the bathroom in his bed, which cost us $500 in damages from the lodge owner.  I also received bar bills for thousands of dollars of drinks from the places we stayed from their late night drinking and partying binges that they simply did not pay.

 

Do these seem like the type of people you would want working with you to you help you accomplish your goals and vision?

 

Because the local people are working with us on a trust relationship, I was told that we cannot have Rick, Lou and John representing the social venture partners in front of the local chiefs, the tribal council, the community and the government.  I was shocked and embarrassed and I did not know what to do at that point.  What would you do if you were working with a poor community in Africa who is counting on you and the social venture partners to help them with their most valuable assets and you find out that some of the people on your team were using drugs and acting inappropriately?

 

Furthermore, unbeknownst to me, John and his wife were swingers and near the end of the trip, he said, “I think my wife would like you and your wife, so would you be interested in swapping wives when we get home?”  Stunned by this question, I said to him that my wife and I loved each other and we were not interested in that lifestyle.  However, I was stunned and amazed at this turn of events:  I just left my job to start a new company with these three men and now I am in the middle of a complete mess.  This is one aspect of social ventures that I did not expect to encounter:  cocaine, ecstasy and swingers.

 

Upon our return to the United States, I had to begin making plans to slowly distance myself from my new partners and yet at the same time, we were already setting up a new fund, The Pure Africa Sustainable Development Fund that would be operated by Pure Africa Management with project ownership to be held by Pure Africa Holdings.  John had already invited friends and colleagues to meet for presentations on the Fund on several occasions in late 2005 and early 2006.  One of the first investors into the Fund was a long time friend of John and also a friend of Rick and Lou.  His name was Dr. Allan Stiner of Norfolk, Virginia.  After one of these informal gatherings organized by John, Dr. Stiner told the Fund that he wanted to invest in the social ventures because he had just inherited millions of dollars from his father and had money to invest.  At Dr. Stiner’s request, a Private Placement Memorandum documenting the potential projects and the risks inherent in investing in projects in Africa, a Subscription Agreement and other legal documents were provided to Dr. Stiner for he and his legal counsel to review.

 

Pure Africa Management agreed to allow Dr. Stiner to invest his $250,000 into the Fund in February, 2006.  In February, 2006, in a meeting with Dr. Stiner at his home, he reviewed the legal documents one final time and signed the Subscription Agreement.  However, in making his investment, he had one other request:  he would only invest his money if Rick, Lou and John had no access to it as he was aware of the bad behavior of the group in South Africa the month before.  Dr. Stiner read the substantial Private Placement Memorandum of the Fund and he signed his Subscription Agreement (both legal documents which detail the risks of the project along with background information).  Dr. Stiner then gave me a check written out to me personally as the Fund had not yet set up its bank accounts.  The $250,000 was deposited into the Sunpoints Southern Africa bank account as the Fund had acquired all of the Sunpoints Southern Africa projects in South Africa including its bank account. With these funds, my outstanding invoices were paid for the time and effort I had put into the social venture projects and necessary project and business expenses were paid.

 

Based upon the strange events of The Trip from Hell in January, 2006 and my recent departure from my paying job, I was paid as a consultant pursuant to a written Consulting Agreement with the Fund through its bank account in Sunpoints Southern Africa for a large portion of my 2006 pay because I was feeling very uncertain about my future with Rick, Lou and John.  Furthermore, since I was the only person working full-time, the Fund managers knew that I was relying on my consulting pay to relocate from Washington, DC to the Virginia Beach area.  With my consulting pay and funds loaned to me by my family, I was able to purchase a home in Suffolk, Virginia.  With my two children and the hopes of having additional children and/or adopting children, my wife and I bought a five-bedroom home in a nice neighborhood where my children had many friends and an area that was very safe and close to my children’s school. [6]

 

By mid-2006, the Fund had five investors who invested a total of $545,000, one of whom was John and the others were his friends and colleagues, whom he invited and recruited into the Fund.  Lou prepared financial statements and balance sheets and Rick prepared status reports for the Fund investors.  I provided needed help from the business plan writing and coordinating with South Africa and US legal counsel.  However, the Fund was dysfunctional because of the prior serious actions by John and others and the inherent mistrust caused by their potentially criminal actions.  Furthermore, the drug use, partying and lack of professionalism had ruined their reputation with the social venture partners.  I was forced to adapt and change the projects already underway and restructure midway or have all of us lose everything to financial partners once again.  At my request, we all agreed that the Fund would stop raising money for the foreseeable future, in my mind, to protect other financial partners against any further potential loss or negative actions.

 

Once again, I had just left a high-paying job to work full-time on social venture projects as a consultant for Pure Africa Management and the Fund and now, I was faced with an uncertain future:  a new home and social venture projects that did not have a reliable funding source or a reliable management team.

 

While the events of this story seem outlandish or unbelievable, there were seven witnesses to the cocaine, ecstasy and swinger Trip from Hell (including John, Rick and Lou).  One witness stated, “it was the worst trip I have ever taken in my life.”  Another witness said that, “I was initially excited to see three professional men like Rick, Lou and John getting involved to help the needy in Africa but I was deeply saddened and disturbed when I saw this unethical behavior by three professional men who were husbands and who had families acting in such a reckless manner by taking drugs and partying in an out-of-control way.  While on the trip, I was scared to be anywhere near them because they were carrying such a large amount of drugs and acting so childishly and unprofessional.  Later, I was hurt that these men not only let down the poor people in Africa and potentially ruined the vision of the company because they misrepresented the company, the projects and they gave the people of Africa a negative impression of Americans.  In meeting with government officials, Sotheby’s, the local chiefs and the community, it was embarrassing to have them in meetings because they looked hung over and unprofessional.”

 

If you do not believe me, then perhaps legal counsel will ask them on the witness stand under penalty of perjury to tell the truth.  If they do not do so, then there are four witnesses who can testify to their actions.  Once again, the social venture projects needed a funding partner and a management team and, unfortunately, the next partners were equally as challenging in their behavior and more devastating to the projects than anyone else.

 

Again I will ask, what would you do in a situation like this? Give up your dream? Give up the opportunity to help thousands of people have a better life?  Or, do you pick yourself up and know that you can overcome any challenge (big or small) by restructuring and making some changes so you can ultimately fulfill that dream and vision and protect others from the negative actions of a few.

 

The next article in the series is:  Murder-for-Hire, Aggressive Bad Press Campaign and Other Distasteful Actions:  Social Ventures in Africa?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

---

[1] See Letter from William Brown, Ph.D to Asst. United States Attorney, Stephen Haynie acknowledging my consulting agreement at Earth Conservancy and payment of consulting fees, and personal and business expenses.

[2] See Video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDRhTrs7PyM&feature=channel&list=UL  Social venture partners, Michael van der Merwe and his brother Pieter van der Merwe, take us on a tour of the Honingklip I Diamond Mine and show us the adjacent site of The Farm Rugalatte named Honingklip II.  Funds were sent to Michael van der Merwe in 2005 to secure the mining claim and necessary bonding so that due diligence could be done on the potential mining project.

 

[3] See Video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxE7zjXsgTo&feature=channel&list=UL  Social venture partners Pieter van der Merwe along with the farm manager take us on a tour of the Sunpoints Farms in the Free State Province of South Africa.  As working farms, the goal of these social venture projects were to educate the local people in modern farming methods and to operate profitable farms.  Funds were sent to Michael van der Merwe in 2005 and 2006 to sign contracts to become a social venture partner in this existing farming operation.

 

[4] See Video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OysOjCVKXB0&feature=channel&list=UL After the local leaders and our Xhosa community social venture partners greeted us with traditional dancing, Rick, Lou, John and I were escorted around The Cliffs at Coffee Bay golf course by social venture partner, Bossie Bosman.  The golf course is owned by the local community and they leased it to Earth Conservancy and Pure Africa so that the golf course could be renovated.  World renowned golf architects and other golf experts were flown in to prepare a plan to renovate the golf course in 2006 and 2007.  Ault Clark and other golf experts commented that The Cliffs at Coffee Bay was similar to Pebble Beach with cliffs and sweeping ocean views.

 

[5] See Video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-9E-8qtpW0&feature=channel&list=UL  Social venture partner, Bossie Bosman takes us on a tour of the Hole in the Wall project.  Hole in the Wall is a National Heritage Site for South Africa and it holds significant cultural value for the Xhosa community.  As one of the premier natural tourist sites in South Africa, Hole in the Wall is regarded by Sotheby’s and other professionals as a major tourism lodging site.  Funds were sent to Bossie Bosman in 2005 and continuing to allow for Earth Conservancy and Pure Africa to become social venture partners at the Hole in the Wall project.  With 50 oceanfront lodge sites and a hotel site, the plans at Hole in the Wall would allow for up to $6M of lodge lease income and continuing revenues from the hotel site.  The project is structured with 45% ownership by the local Xhosa community.

[6] When Rick, Lou and John first set up investor presentations in 2005 and early 2006, I was working full-time for Trident Systems, Inc. for $250,000 plus bonuses and I was also working as a consultant for several social venture companies.  In February, 2006, I was hired as a consultant by the Pure Africa Sustainable Development Fund and I was also a consultant for Earth Conservancy and other projects.  My combined consulting contracts were designed to provide me with $350,000 or more of income as and when funding was available.

Chevron Files RICO Case against Lawyers for Extortion and Fraudulent Litigation and PR Campaign

SAN RAMON, Calif., Feb. 1, 2011 – Chevron Corporation (NYSE: CVX) today filed a civil lawsuit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) as well as other federal and state laws against the trial lawyers and consultants leading a fraudulent litigation and PR campaign against the company.  Through the lawsuit, Chevron seeks a court declaration that any judgment against Chevron in the Ecuador lawsuit is the result of fraud and therefore unenforceable.  Chevron is also seeking damages associated with the cost of defending the Ecuador litigation.

Chevron’s RICO claim addresses pervasive misconduct relating to the named defendants’ efforts to extort money from Chevron using the pendency of a lawsuit in Lago Agrio, Ecuador, directed and funded by American trial lawyers and their allies.  Chevron’s suit alleges that the named defendants, and certain non-party co-conspirators, have used the Ecuador lawsuit to threaten Chevron, mislead U.S. government officials, and harass and intimidate Chevron employees, all in order to extort a financial settlement from the company.  Among those named in Chevron’s complaint are New York City-based plaintiffs’ lawyer Steven Donziger; his Ecuadorian colleagues Pablo Fajardo and Luis Yanza; their front organizations, the Amazon Defense Front and Selva Viva; and Stratus Consulting, a Boulder, Colo.-based consulting firm retained by the plaintiffs’ lawyers to secretly prepare a damages report that was then presented as having been written by an allegedly independent, court-appointed expert.

“The Lago Agrio plaintiffs’ lawyers’ aim has been to extort a multi-billion dollar payment from Chevron through fabricated evidence and a campaign to incite public outrage.  Chevron has no intention of giving these plaintiffs’ lawyers the payday they seek.  Rather, we intend to see the RICO defendants held accountable for their misconduct,” stated R. Hewitt Pate, Chevron vice president and general counsel.

Recent U.S. court proceedings initiated by Chevron have produced overwhelming evidence of fraud, collusion, corruption, and other misconduct on the part of those pressing the Lago Agrio plaintiffs’ case.  In the Western District of North Carolina, for instance, the federal court found that “what has blatantly occurred in this matter would in fact be considered fraud by any court.”  The District Court in the District of New Jersey held that the conduct of the plaintiffs’ lawyers in the furtherance of the Lago Agrio lawsuit could not constitute “anything but a fraud on the judicial proceeding.”

Today’s filing before the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York lays out overwhelming evidence demonstrating that the Lago Agrio plaintiffs’ lawyers and consultants have engaged in a sustained pattern of racketeering, including attempted extortion, mail and wire fraud, witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and money laundering.  Proof of misconduct on the part of the named defendants and their associates includes:

• Documents, sworn deposition testimony, and outtakes from the movie Crude showing Donziger and his environmental consultants, including Stratus Consulting, plotting to secretly write the report of the supposedly “neutral” Ecuadorian court expert—Richard Stalin Cabrera Vega—who was appointed at the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ insistence to serve as the Lago Agrio court’s sole, “global damages expert.”  The ghostwritten “Cabrera” report would serve as the basis for the plaintiffs’ lawyers’ demands for more than $27 billion in damages—a figure that later was inflated to more than $113 billion after evidence of the Cabrera fraud emerged.
• Documents and e-mails demonstrating that, after ghostwriting Cabrera’s initial report recommending more than $16 billion in damages, Donziger, Stratus and their co-conspirators pretended to criticize “Cabrera’s” report and demand that the damages be increased.  The conspirators then prepared “Cabrera’s” responses to their own criticisms, increasing the initial damages estimate by more than $10 billion.  The scheme culminated in a fraudulent “peer review” conducted by Stratus staff in which they pretended to perform an “independent” review and validation of the reports that they had ghostwritten for Cabrera’s signature.
• Plaintiffs’ documents, including Donziger’s own detailed notes, as well as outtakes fromCrude revealing a campaign of judicial intimidation by Donziger and his colleagues.  On film, Donziger declared, “the only language that I believe, this judge is gonna understand is one of pressure, intimidation and humiliation.  And that’s what we’re doin’ today.  We’re gonna let him know what time it is . . . .  We’re going to scare the judge, I think today.”  These tactics were employed because, according to Donziger, judges in Ecuador “make decisions based on who they fear the most, not based on what laws should dictate.”  When it was suggested to Donziger that no judge would rule against them because “[h]e’ll be killed,” Donziger replied that, though the judge might not actually be killed, “he thinks he will be…  Which is just as good.”
• Evidence of a concerted effort by the named defendants and others conspiring with them to deceive members of the U.S. Congress, U.S. and state government regulatory agencies, and others into believing that the company faces a multibillion-dollar liability and has sought to mislead investors-all with the aim of forcing Chevron to settle. The campaign has included demands for Securities and Exchange Commission investigations, lobbying of government officials, including the U.S. Department of Justice and New York Attorney General, direct targeting of others with misinformation, and overt threats directed at Chevron’s Board of Directors.
• Correspondence, memos, emails and agreements documenting the financing of the fraudulent scheme and the planned division of the windfall.  The evidence reveals that the real parties standing to gain from the Lago Agrio lawsuit are U.S. law firms and investors, not indigenous rainforest residents.  These U.S lawyers have also schemed to divvy up the proceeds of any recovery they extract from Chevron outside of Ecuador and beyond the reach of Ecuadorian law.

Chevron’s Pate also stated: “It is sad to see American citizens organizing a shakedown of a U.S. company while pretending to be helping Ecuadorians and the environment.  Equally sad is the pattern of fraud and obstruction in multiple U.S. federal courts in a vain attempt to try to keep the truth from coming out. But now, the truth has been revealed.”

Read RICO Filing (1.7 MB)

Chevron is one of the world’s leading integrated energy companies, with subsidiaries that conduct business worldwide. The company’s success is driven by the ingenuity and commitment of its employees and their application of the most innovative technologies in the world. Chevron is involved in virtually every facet of the energy industry. The company explores for, produces and transports crude oil and natural gas; refines, markets and distributes transportation fuels and other energy products; manufactures and sells petrochemical products; generates power and produces geothermal energy; provides energy efficiency solutions; and develops the energy resources of the future, including biofuels. Chevron is based in San Ramon, Calif. More information about Chevron is available at http://www.chevron.com.

Senior Pastor Joseph Umidi on Stiner “intimidation” and negative press campaign

Another Exhibit to the Dinning and Pure Africa v. Allan Stiner et al. civil lawsuit and Civil RICO action in Suffolk, Virginia.

Pastor Joseph Umidi on intimidation by Stiner

Dr. William Brown on “harassment” and “slanderous” statements by Allan Stiner

An Exhibit to the civil lawsuit and Civil RICO action by Dinning and Pure Africa against Defendants Allan Stiner et al.

Dr. William Brown on slander by Stiner

Sedima v. Imrex – pattern of racketeering activity

In Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 500, 105 S.Ct. 3275, 3287, 87 L.Ed.2d 346 (1985), the Supreme Court challenged Congress and the lower federal courts to develop a “meaningful concept” of the quintessential insignia of a violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)–“pattern of racketeering activity.” The Court provided some instruction in its oft-quoted footnote 14. Id. at 496, 106 S.Ct. at 3285. The problem is of serious consequence because a RICO trial often becomes a “megatrial” with large numbers of unrelated defendants–charged with unconnected wrongs–tried together under the rubric of a single conspiracy. A RICO conviction subjects a defendant to a possible 20-year prison term and a fine of $25,000. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1963(a). In two recent cases considered and decided en banc, we accepted the Supreme Court’s challenge. See Beauford v. Helmsley, 865 F.2d 1386 (2d Cir.1989) (en banc); United States v. Indelicato, 865 F.2d 1370 (2d Cir.1989) (en banc ).

2
The present appeal was argued a considerable time ago on September 18, 1987. Decision has been delayed awaiting the resolution of the two above en banc cases that were decided on January 13, 1989. Subsequently, the parties, at our suggestion, rebriefed the instant appeal in March 1989 in light of Beauford and Indelicato.

BACKGROUND

3
The facts alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint relate to the lease and construction of the “Riverview Studio Complex,” a high-tech television and motion picture production facility. In 1983, plaintiff the Procter & Gamble Company (P & G) and its advertising agency D’Arcy Masius Benton & Bowles, Inc. (Benton & Bowles) began looking for new studio space for the production of P & G’s three soap operas. After considering at least eight sites in the New York metropolitan area, their search settled on the Washburn Wire Factory, an abandoned manufacturing plant located in Manhattan between East 116th and 119th Streets and owned by defendant Big Apple Industrial Buildings, Inc. (Big Apple). Defendant Arol Buntzman, president of Big Apple, and his attorney, defendant Martin W. Halbfinger, approached P & G with a plan to convert the factory into a state-of-the-art production complex, misrepresenting Big Apple’s experience and expertise in conducting major renovation projects and exaggerating the completed site’s potential as a tourist attraction.

4
During the course of negotiations beginning in the spring of 1984 Buntzman repeatedly stated that “hard” construction costs would not exceed $18 million and that the total project would cost approximately $25 million. The $18 million figure was supported by a letter Buntzman had received from the proposed general contractor, defendant George A. Fuller Co. (Fuller), estimating actual construction costs at $17,612,000. It later turned out that Fuller made this estimate simply by multiplying costs per square foot of comparable projects by the subject project’s approximate square footage. Fuller did not determine actual construction costs based upon plans and specifications for building the project on this site. Hence, the estimate was unrealistic.

5
In January 1985, plaintiff Riverview Productions, Inc. (Riverview)–a wholly-owned subsidiary of Benton & Bowles formed to act for P & G in the studio project and whose obligations P & G guaranteed–entered into a ten-year lease and lease guaranty with Big Apple. The lease was for the three as yet unbuilt studios–the Riverview Studio Complex–at an annual rental of $1.2 million, plus Big Apple’s annual debt service, including amortization over ten years of a loan for the entire construction cost of the project. As the transaction was originally structured, Big Apple as owner was to obtain a construction loan based on P & G’s lease guaranty, but P & G and Riverview were to have no further role in securing construction financing.

6
Nonetheless, because Big Apple had difficulty obtaining a construction loan, it asked P & G to guarantee the loan. P & G initially refused. Meanwhile, Riverview was pressing Big Apple for more precise cost estimates. Plaintiffs allege that when Fuller conducted a more thorough cost survey and placed “hard” construction costs in the vicinity of $40 million, Big Apple squelched this estimate and hired an outside consultant who–on the basis of inaccurate information–computed “hard” costs at $22.7 million. At that time, Buntzman as head of Big Apple assured P & G and Riverview that their resulting calculation of $30-35 million for the project’s total cost was too high. On the basis of the new $22.7 million “hard” cost figure, P & G eventually agreed to guarantee the construction loan.

7
In a June 6, 1985 “Tri-Party Agreement” between P & G, Riverview, and Big Apple, P & G agreed to guarantee financing up to $25 million to be provided by Citibank N.A. ($22 million in “hard” costs, $3 million in “soft” costs). The $25 million limit was reached in early 1986. Thereafter, P & G extended its guaranty on a requisition-by-requisition basis until April 1986, when the loan totalled $32 million. Throughout the months of financing, Big Apple continued to mislead plaintiffs regarding the Riverview Studio Complex’s actual costs and to conceal the second, more accurate Fuller estimate.

8
On May 2, 1986 plaintiffs P & G and Riverview filed a complaint asserting various state law causes of action for fraud and conversion as well as violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) statute, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1961-1968 (1982 & Supp. IV 1986). The RICO defendants are Big Apple, Halbfinger, Buntzman, and Fuller. Plaintiffs’ claims against Haines Lundberg Waehler, an architectural, engineering, and planning firm, allege essentially architectural malpractice; plaintiffs charge the Arkhon Corporation, a construction manager of building projects, with breach of its management contract and of an implied warranty. Plaintiffs seek treble damages based on the RICO violations and rescission of the Lease, the Lease Guaranty, and the Tri-Party Agreement.

9
In addition to alleging that the RICO defendants fraudulently convinced plaintiffs to lease and guarantee financing for the studio complex, plaintiffs accuse the RICO defendants of repeated illegal siphoning of project funds. Plaintiffs allege that Big Apple improperly and excessively requisitioned millions of dollars over a nine-month period, including $657,000 in fees and disbursements to Halbfinger for 13 months’ legal services, a $625,000 construction manager’s fee to defendant Arkhon Corporation, and other excessive, duplicative, or unauthorized expenditures. Moreover, defendants Big Apple and Halbfinger are claimed to have fraudulently abused escrow accounts by inflating requisitions in order to “cushion” them against the possibility that plaintiffs would detect their fraud. Finally, plaintiffs contend that defendants repeatedly and falsely blamed P & G and Riverview for construction delays so that they could justify charging “interim rent” for unproductive periods.

10
On motions to dismiss the complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6), Judge Leval of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ruled that the alleged racketeering activity was not sufficiently continuous or related to constitute a RICO violation. Because the RICO claim was the only basis for federal jurisdiction, Judge Leval dismissed the complaint without prejudice to permit repleading of the state law claims in an appropriate forum. Procter & Gamble Co. v. Big Apple Indus. Buildings, Inc., 655 F.Supp. 1179 (S.D.N.Y.1987). From the dismissal of their complaint, plaintiffs appeal. We now reverse and reinstate the RICO complaint.

DISCUSSION

11
As part of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, Congress enacted the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, Pub.L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat. 941 (1970) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1961-1968) (RICO or the Act), to combat the infiltration into and corruption of America’s legitimate business community by organized crime. Id. Sec. 1, 84 Stat. at 943 (statement of findings and purpose). The Act’s substantive provisions are contained in Sec. 1962, which outlaws the use of income “derived … from a pattern of racketeering activity” to acquire an interest in, establish, or operate an enterprise engaged in or affecting interstate commerce (subdivision (a)); the acquisition or maintenance of any interest in or control of such an enterprise “through a pattern of racketeering activity” (subdivision (b)); the conduct or participation “in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity” (subdivision (c)); and conspiring to do any of the above (subdivision (d)). 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962. Those activities that Congress sought to prohibit are contained in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1962 set forth in the margin.1 Reading subdivisions (a), (b) and (c) of that section makes it clear that a valid RICO charge must allege the existence of both an enterprise and a pattern of racketeering activity.

12
In their complaint, plaintiffs refer to Sec. 1962(b), (c), and (d). We agree with the district court that the facts alleged relate only to Sec. 1962(c), and possibly to conspiracy under subdivision (d) to violate subdivision (c). See United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576, 584, 101 S.Ct. 2524, 2529, 69 L.Ed.2d 246 (1981) (Sec. 1962(b) addresses organized crime’s infiltration of legitimate business enterprises); United States v. Parness, 503 F.2d 430, 438-39 (2d Cir.1974) (acquiring casino hotel by twice transporting stolen cashier’s checks violates Sec. 1962(b)), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1105, 95 S.Ct. 775, 42 L.Ed.2d 801 (1975).

13
On this appeal, we are asked whether the facts alleged are sufficient as a matter of law to support plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants’ conduct formed such a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of Sec. 1962. Taking all of the allegations of plaintiffs’ complaint as true, we conclude that a RICO claim was sufficiently pleaded and that a reasonable trier of fact could have found a pattern of racketeering activity. See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957) (“[A] complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”). Our reasons follow.

I Elements of a RICO Claim:

14
“Enterprise” and “Pattern of Racketeering Activity”

15
To state a Sec. 1962(c) claim plaintiffs must allege the conduct of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496, 105 S.Ct. at 3285; see Moss v. Morgan Stanley Inc., 719 F.2d 5, 17 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1025, 104 S.Ct. 1280, 79 L.Ed.2d 684 (1984). A pattern of racketeering activity is a series of criminal acts as defined in Sec. 1961(1), and the enterprise is generally a group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct. Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496, 105 S.Ct. at 3285; 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(4) (defining “enterprise” as including “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity”). Evidence of an ongoing organization, the associates of which function as a continuing unit, suffices to prove an enterprise. Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. at 2528.

16
Congress’ definition of the RICO pattern of racketeering activity differs from its other RICO definitions; that is, the statute declares that most of the other terms “mean” something, see, e.g., Sec. 1961(1) & (2), while it also provides that ” ‘pattern of racketeering activity’ requires at least two acts of racketeering activity, … the last of which occurred within ten years … after the commission of a prior act of racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961(5) (emphasis added). This “at least” language in the definition suggests that though two predicate acts must be present at a minimum to constitute a pattern, two acts alone will not always suffice to form a pattern. See Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. at 3285 n. 14 (“The implication is that while two acts are necessary, they may not be sufficient.”); Indelicato, 865 F.2d at 1382 (“The legislative history is … inconsistent with a rule that any two acts of racketeering activity, without more, suffice to establish a RICO pattern.”).

17
In Sedima, the Supreme Court discussed the legislative history of the pattern requirement:

18
As the Senate Report explained: “The target of [RICO] is thus not sporadic activity. The infiltration of legitimate business normally requires more than one ‘racketeering activity’ and the threat of continuing activity to be effective. It is this factor of continuity plus relationship which combines to produce a pattern.” S.Rep. No. 91-617, p. 158 (1969) (emphasis added). Similarly, the sponsor of the Senate bill, after quoting this portion of the Report, pointed out to his colleagues that “[t]he term ‘pattern’ itself requires the showing of a relationship…. So, therefore, proof of two acts of racketeering activity, without more, does not establish a pattern….” 116 Cong.Rec. 18940 (1970) (statement of Sen. McClellan). See also id., at 35193 (statement of Rep. Poff) (RICO “not aimed at the isolated offender”); House Hearings, at 665.

19
473 U.S. at 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. at 3285. The Court later noted the need for lower federal courts “to develop a meaningful concept of ‘pattern.’ ” Id. at 500, 105 S.Ct. at 3287.

20
In sum, when facing a RICO count in an indictment or complaint, a district court must determine whether it independently alleges both an enterprise–a group of persons in an ongoing association–and a pattern of racketeering activity–a series of allegedly criminal acts. Further, for a pattern to exist, the alleged criminal acts should be characterized by their relatedness and continuity. An enterprise may be sufficiently alleged, but if a pleading does not indicate the existence of both components of the pattern of racketeering activity, a RICO claim should be dismissed. See Indelicato, 865 F.2d at 1383 (noting that these concepts are not rigid, and that “[t]he nature of the enterprise may also serve to show the threat of continuing activity”). We turn to an examination of the concepts of continuity and relatedness.

II Continuity and Relatedness

A. Continuity

21
In the wake of Sedima, other courts have interpreted “continuity” in footnote 14 to require plaintiffs to allege multiple schemes in order to establish a pattern of racketeering activity. See H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 829 F.2d 648, 650 (8th Cir.1987) (“A single fraudulent effort or scheme is insufficient.”), cert. granted, — U.S. —-, 108 S.Ct. 1219, 99 L.Ed.2d 420 (1988); International Data Bank, Ltd. v. Zepkin, 812 F.2d 149, 154 (4th Cir.1987) (requiring multiple criminal episodes to demonstrate continuity); Superior Oil Co. v. Fulmer, 785 F.2d 252, 257 (8th Cir.1986) (holding that defendants’ actions in converting liquid petroleum gas failed to show sufficient continuity because they “comprised one continuing scheme to convert gas from Superior Oil’s pipeline”); Northern Trust Bank/O’Hare N.A. v. Inryco, Inc., 615 F.Supp. 828, 832 (N.D.Ill.1985) (“It is difficult to see how the threat of continuing activity … could be established by a single criminal episode.”). But see California Architectural Bldg. Prods. Inc. v. Franciscan Ceramics, Inc., 818 F.2d 1466, 1469 & n. 1 (9th Cir.1987) (rejecting “multiple episode” requirement), cert. denied, — U.S. —-, 108 S.Ct. 699, 98 L.Ed.2d 650 (1988); Bank of America Nat’l Trust & Sav. Ass’n v. Touche Ross & Co., 782 F.2d 966, 971 (11th Cir.1986) (rejecting defendants’ argument that predicate acts must occur in different criminal episodes and holding that nine acts of wire and mail fraud involving the same parties over a three-year period in the course of single scheme satisfy the pattern requirement); R.A.G.S. Couture, Inc. v. Hyatt, 774 F.2d 1350, 1355 (5th Cir.1985) (complaint alleging that defendants twice mailed fraudulent invoices satisfied pattern requirement because the alleged acts were related).

22
We have explicitly eschewed any multiple scheme or episode requirement to demonstrate the continuity of the pattern of racketeering activity. Indelicato, 865 F.2d at 1383. Noting that the statutory definition of racketeering activity was cast in terms of “acts” or “offenses,” without mention of schemes, episodes, or transactions, we concluded that Congress did not mean “to exclude from the reach of RICO multiple acts of racketeering simply because they achieve their objective quickly or because they further but a single scheme.” Id. Thus, continuity may be demonstrated in various ways, such as from the nature of the enterprise, as in Indelicato, or from the sheer number of predicate acts over several years, or from the number of schemes. As we said in Beauford, “[w]hat is required is that the complaint plead a basis from which it could be inferred that the acts … were neither isolated nor sporadic.” 865 F.2d at 1391.

B. Relatedness

23
We next consider the concept of relatedness. In Sedima, the Supreme Court suggested that Congress’ definition of “pattern” in a later provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3575(e) (1982), repealed by Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-473, tit. II, Secs. 212(a)(2) and 235(a)(1), 98 Stat.1987, 2031, might illuminate the meaning of the pattern of racketeering activity requirement of Sec. 1962. See Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. at 3285 n. 14 (citing Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 789, 95 S.Ct. 1284, 1295, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975)). Section 3575(e) appears to be especially helpful in construing the requirement of a “relationship” among racketeering acts: “[C]riminal conduct forms a pattern if it embraces criminal acts that have the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated events.” 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3575(e) (quoted in Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. at 3285 n. 14). In Indelicato we set forth a non-exclusive elaboration of Sec. 3575(e). A pattern may be found, for example, from an examination of the interrelationship between acts including similarity of goals, methods of their accomplishment, repetitiousness, and closeness of temporal proximity. See 865 F.2d at 1382.

24
We have, moreover, used these factors to evaluate an appellant’s claim that there was insufficient evidence to support a jury’s finding that a RICO pattern existed. See United States v. Teitler, 802 F.2d 606 (2d Cir.1986). There, appellants were attorneys accused of defrauding insurance companies by creating false documents and encouraging clients to commit perjury in order to inflate the value of automobile accident claims. Id. at 608-09. Finding “ample evidence” of a pattern of wrongdoing, we affirmed a RICO conviction on two charges of mail fraud, finding that “the evidence showed that both of the acts of racketeering charged against the appellant had a similar purpose, namely, defrauding insurance companies; both shared similar success in defrauding such companies; both shared similar participants and similar victims; and both employed similar methods.” Id. at 612. The question that must always be answered, therefore, is whether a complaint adequately alleges facts from which it may be inferred that the predicate acts are interrelated, using the above factors as indications of relatedness.

C. Summary of Continuity and Relatedness

25
For the purposes of RICO, “continuity” means that separate events occur over time and perhaps threaten to recur, while “relatedness” means–given that different acts of racketeering activity have occurred–that there is a way in which the acts may be viewed as having a common purpose. These concepts are separately compartmentalized for analytic purposes, largely to ensure that the wrongful activity alleged is neither sporadic nor isolated, and that the acts have similar or common purpose and direction. The Supreme Court instructs that “[w]hile the proof used to establish these separate elements [of enterprise and pattern] may in particular cases coalesce, proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.” Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. at 2529. Ordinarily, proof of these concepts of continuity and relatedness in the pattern will vary in each case.

26
Our decisions in Indelicato and Beauford are illustrative. In the former, proof of the purpose and nature of the RICO enterprise, combined with the character of the offenses charged, satisfied the requirement of continuity because it tended to prove a threat of ongoing RICO activity. Indelicato, 865 F.2d at 1383, 1384-85. The predicate acts–three assassinations of rival Cosa Nostra family leaders–occurred with virtual simultaneity. Yet, despite the seemingly finite duration of the predicate acts, the threat of continuity clearly existed in view of the RICO enterprise and its obvious drive for greater wealth and power. Id. at 1384-85; see also United States v. Watchmaker, 761 F.2d 1459 (11th Cir.1985) (virtually simultaneous shootings of three police officers satisfied RICO pattern requirement for member of the Outlaw Motorcycle Club), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1100, 106 S.Ct. 879, 88 L.Ed.2d 917 (1986).

27
In Beauford, “the nature of the enterprise [did] not of itself suggest that the racketeering acts [would] continue.” 865 F.2d at 1391. The continuity or threat of continuity necessary to adequately allege a RICO pattern was found by focusing on factors other than enterprise. Id. Plaintiffs alleged that when seeking to convert a large apartment complex into condominium units, defendants mailed to thousands of tenants and prospective buyers an offering plan that contained material misrepresentations and omissions amounting to fraud. Their allegations of more than 8,000 acts of mail fraud–all directed toward the common goal of inflating profits from the conversion–satisfied the relatedness requirement. Id. at 1392. We found the necessary continuity or threat of continuity in the assertions in plaintiffs’ complaint that a large percentage of apartments were as yet unsold, the offering plans had been amended, and further amendments were likely. The pleadings thus sufficiently alleged the basic requirements of a RICO cause of action. Id.

III Analysis of Instant Complaint

28
We therefore turn to an analysis of the plaintiffs’ complaint in light of the above discussed concepts. The district court characterized the RICO complaint as alleging “a scheme by a contractor to bilk its customer as to a construction project.” 655 F.Supp. 1179, 1182 (S.D.N.Y.1987). It found that the necessary element of continuity was lacking principally because the “single, finite project” was not of a continuing nature, without “continuing criminal objectives”–notwithstanding the allegations in the complaint of five separate fraudulent episodes. Thus, the district court judge focused on the element of enterprise, relying understandably on the now-rejected view expressed in United States v. Ianniello, 808 F.2d 184, 191 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 483 U.S. 1006, 107 S.Ct. 3229, 97 L.Ed.2d 736 (1987). See Indelicato, 865 F.2d at 1382 (discussing Ianniello ). Concluding that defendants were “engaged in a single lawful project of finite scope and duration,” the district judge dismissed the RICO cause of action despite “[a]llegations of numerous instances of fraud.” 655 F.Supp. at 1184.

29
Subsequent to Judge Leval’s ruling, of course, we have held explicitly that “relatedness and continuity are essentially characteristics of [the pattern of racketeering] activity rather than of enterprise.” Indelicato, 865 F.2d at 1382; see also Beauford, 865 F.2d at 1391. Moreover, we have rejected any need to allege multiple schemes. See Beauford, 865 F.2d at 1391. In this Circuit, a RICO claim may be adequately pleaded without an allegation of “an ongoing scheme having no demonstrable ending point.” Id. Again, the complaint must provide allegations sufficient to infer that an enterprise exists, and that the acts of racketeering were neither isolated nor sporadic.

30
Against this standard it is clear that plaintiffs alleged an adequate and colorable cause of action under RICO. Their complaint plainly asserts the existence of a RICO enterprise or “group of persons associated together for a common purpose of engaging in a course of conduct” which functioned then as a “continuing unit.” See Turkette, 452 U.S. at 583, 101 S.Ct. at 3528. A pattern of racketeering activity may be discerned from the facts alleged in plaintiffs’ 77-page complaint. It claims that defendants engaged in at least five separate fraudulent schemes: (1) inducing execution of the ten-year studio lease by fraudulently misstating their experience, expertise, and construction cost estimates; (2) inducing plaintiffs to continue with the project, and inducing P & G to guarantee construction financing by fraudulently misrepresenting and concealing costs; (3) fraudulently diverting construction funds and charging excessive professional and other fees; (4) improperly escrowing construction loan funds to build a “cushion” against discovery of the alleged fraud; and (5) fraudulently scheming to collect “interim rent” for delays primarily caused by defendants.

31
These violations of the Federal Mail Fraud Act, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1341-1343 (1982), resulting from written and oral misrepresentations as to defendants’ expertise, as to construction costs, and from sending false and excessive invoices and certifications over a period of nearly two years, are not isolated or sporadic actions. See Beauford, 865 F.2d at 1391-92. While multiple schemes are not essential for demonstrating continuity or a threat of continuity, here it is alleged that defendants conducted fraudulent business activities on a number of fronts in five separate schemes. Our dissenting colleague’s characterization of this conduct as “isolated”, and his attempt to draw a line that limits civil RICO to those cases where the threat of continuing activity “truly exists” apparently ignores the fact that the instant litigation is only at the pleading stage. Whether defendants’ actions are continuing in nature or isolated or sporadic will be the subject of proof at trial. The accepted-as-true allegations in the complaint refute the view that defendants’ fraudulent actions towards plaintiffs were unrelated or disconnected. Hence, the spectre of continuity of criminal offenses in the pattern of activity is sufficiently pleaded to withstand dismissal at this stage of the litigation. See Sedima, 473 U.S. at 496 n. 14, 105 S.Ct. at 3285 n. 14. Beauford, 865 F.2d at 1391-92.

32
Finally, the complaint sufficiently alleges the relatedness between predicate acts to demonstrate a pattern. The alleged acts had the same purpose, that is, fleecing the same victims–P & G and Riverview–and employing similar unlawful methods of commission–namely, the misrepresentation of Big Apple’s experience, of construction costs and the padding of billings to plaintiffs. See Indelicato, 865 F.2d at 1383. Consequently, the pleading satisfied the basic elements of a RICO cause of action by alleging the conduct of that enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity, and that the pattern was characterized by the relatedness and continuity of the underlying criminal acts.

CONCLUSION

33
The judgment of the district court is accordingly reversed, the complaint reinstated, and the matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings on the merits.

Dinning and Pure Africa versus Attorney Jason Roper et al.

In the Dinning and Pure Africa versus Suspended Attorney Jason Roper et al, the following information is indicated to support the plaintiffs’ claims including the RICO predicate acts:

Attorney Jason C. Roper of Virginia and Pennsylvania, currently with the law firm of Blumling & Gusky of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania and allegedly terminated from his employment at McKenry, Dancigers Dawson & Lake, PC in Virginia Beach, Virginia, was recently suspended from the practice of law in Virginia (and likely in Pennsylvania by reciprocity) as a result of three bar complaints.  One of the three bar complaints to the Virginia State Bar for Jason C. Roper’s “misconduct” was to address his “misconduct” toward Mr. Dinning in the Danny and Debra Murrill case (currently noticed for appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court).  Danny and Debra Murrill and Jason C. Roper are also Defendants in the Dinning and Pure Africa RICO case.

Based upon those three bar complaints for misconduct, Jason C. Roper (the Murrill’s legal counsel) was suspended for three years for misconduct including “candor toward the tribunal” and failure to state “meritorious claims and contentions.”

For a summary of Jason C. Roper’s disciplinary action, visit http://www.vsb.org for the following:

 

“February 28, 2012

 

Jason Christopher Roper, 702 Lakeview Court, Mars, PA 16046

 

VSB Docket Nos. 09-021-080040, 10-021-080199, 10-021-080602

 

On February 17, 2012, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board suspended Jason Christopher Roper’s license to practice law for three years for violating rules governing candor toward the tribunal; fairness to opposing party or counsel; respect for rights of third persons; confidentiality of information; conflict of interest: general rule; conflict of interest: former client; declining or terminating representation; meritorious claims and contentions; communication with persons represented by counsel; bar admission and disciplinary matters; and misconduct.”

Finally, the Virginia State Bar (an agency of the Virginia Supreme Court) notes that: “*On February 28, 2012, the Supreme Court of Virginia denied a stay of the suspension pending the appeal.”  Translated, that means the suspension of Jason C. Roper was upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court and was not delayed by any attempts to appeal the misconduct and disciplinary action against Jason C. Roper.

The plot thickens on this one.  According to the Complaint, attorneys Jason C. Roper and George Bowles are also the legal counsel of some of the various Defendants.  Furthermore, the Complaint alleges that the two attorneys actively interfered with the contractual rights and business interests of Dinning and Pure Africa.

Allegedly the two attorneys practiced together in the past and are friends and that through this relationship, the two attorneys shared private and/or confidential and/or  sealed information between cases including information allegedly under a court protective order or protected under HIPPA or state or federal laws.

One begins to wonder how much money these two attorneys have made from the coordinated representation of the Defendants (or perhaps “misrepresentation” based upon the disciplinary action against Jason C. Roper for “candor toward the tribunal (the court)” and “meritorious claims and contentions”) against Dinning and others.

Granville Batte “Aggressive “bad press” Campaign” against Dinning

This is another Exhibit to the Civil RICO Complaint by Dinning and Pure Africa against Granville Batte et al.  This is a letter from Batte to another Defendant Geller organizing and orchestrating an “Aggressive “bad press” Campaign” against Dinning and the Pure Africa projects.

Having “an ax to grind” perhaps is what caused Batte to launch a campaign of libel, slander, defamation, intentional interference and statutory business conspiracy involving the other named Defendants against Dinning and Pure Africa and also predicate acts supporting the Civil RICO claims according to the Complaint.

Granville Batte Aggressive %22bad press%22 Campaign

Exhibit to Civil RICO Complaint by Brian R. Dinning to Dr. Allan Stiner

An Exhibit to the Civil RICO Complaint by Brian R. Dinning to Dr. Allan Stiner:  A letter to Dr. Allan Stiner related to Dinning’s allegations of predicate acts by Dr. Allan Stiner and others to support the claims in the Complaint.

Al Letter 4172007

Fulbright Scholar Dr. William Brown, Ph.D re: Dr. Allan Stiner

This is a related exhibit to the Civil RICO Complaint of Dinning and Pure Africa against Dr. Allan Stiner et al.  This is a letter by Fulbright Scholar, Dr. William Brown, Ph.D. to the Department of Land Affairs in South Africa related to Dr. Allan Stiner.

in the Exhibits, there appear to be several letters documenting the negative actions potentially amounting to predicate acts to support the Civil RICO in this matter.  Please see:

Bill Brown Letter to Land Affairs Mtata Ltr Oct08 re false information from Bosman Stiner copy

Emergency Protective Order in Virginia against Dr. Allan Stiner

This is an attached exhibit to the Civil RICO Complaint of Brian R. Dinning against Dr. Allan Stiner et al.  This is a copy of an Emergency Protective Order issued by a magistrate in Norfolk, Virginia documenting the alleged threats by Dr. Allan Stiner against Dinning and his family as described in the RICO Complaint.

Click on the attached link below to view the Exhibit:

EPO DINNING VS STINER