Doc. 155 -- Pla Mtn Def Jgmt - Bruce Haglund
-
Upload
r-lance-flores -
Category
Documents
-
view
40 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Doc. 155 -- Pla Mtn Def Jgmt - Bruce Haglund
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
R. Lance Flores,Vicki Clarkson,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Scott Anthony Koster, et al.Defendants.A 9
C I V I L A C T I O N
¹ 3:11-cv-00726-M -BH
Application for DefaultJudgement
APPLICATION FOR CLERK’S ENTRY OF DEFAULT – MEMORANDUM OF LAW &VERIFIED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT AGAINST RICO DEFENDANT
BRUCE H. HAGLUND
Now comes the Plaintiffs, Vicki Clarkson and R. Lance Flores (“Plaintiffs”) in their
individual capacities and in behalf of the Nation’s economic system and public interest as
formally pled,1 and petitions the Clerk pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55
for the entry of default, and moves the Court for default judgement against RICO
Defendant Bruce H. Haglund (“RICO Defendant” or “Defendant”). In support of Plaintiffs’
Application and Motion Plaintiffs rely upon the verified evidence of record in exhibit,
the Court’s findings, memoranda, orders in the Court Record of this case, and further
support and prove-up their damages claims by affidavit, attached; Plaintiffs further
show the following in support:
1 The Congressional Statement of Findings and Purpose underlying RICO explains that, among other
things, RICO was designed to combat activities that “weaken the stability of the Nation’s economic system,harm innocent investors and competing organizations, interfere with free competition, seriously burdeninterstate and foreign commerce, threaten the domestic security, and undermine the general welfare of theNation and its citizens …” Pub. L. No. 91-452, 84 Stat., at 922, 923.
Congress found that "organized" criminal "activity" used "fraud" to "drain" "dollars" from the Americaneconomy [*248] and to "harm innocent investors." Lewis v. United States, 445 U.S. 55, 61 (1980) ("obviousbreadth of the language may well reflect the expansive legislative approach revealed by Congress' expressfindings and declarations.").
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 1
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 1 of 28 PageID 2282
1. Background and Procedural History
1.1 Plaintiffs filed their Original Complaint, petition for injunctive relief and other
equitable relief in this matter on April 8, 2011, and amended their Original Complaint
with their First Amended Complaint on March 19, 2012, in behalf of the Plaintiffs, and
in the national economic and general public.
1.2 Plaintiffs support their claims in conformance with FRCP Rule 9(b), and
seventeen (17) volumes containing two-hundred sixty-one (261) verified exhibits to
evidence their claims.
1.3 Proper service was made upon all Defendants named in the Original
Complaint according to the Rules or by Court’s Order2 and the following First Amended
Complaint.
1.4 Service of Plaintiffs added this action by the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”)
was properly and timely served upon the Defendant on July 10, 2012; an appearance
and answer were due on July 31, 2012.
1.5 RICO Defendant has not timely filed an Answer nor otherwise responded to
the First Amended Complaint.
1.6 Plaintiffs amended their Original Complaint with their First Amended
Complaint on March 19, 2012 petitioning for compensatory damages including a plea of
a damages amount directly related Defendant’s acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962, et
seq., (“RICO” violations) of exceeding not less than Two-hundred Twenty Million Dollars
subject to mandatory treble award,3 notwithstanding other compensatory, exemplary,
and injunctive relief;
2 See Court’s statement: “On February 1, 2012, this Court issued a sealed order permitting alternate
service and extending the time for service.” (Flores, et al. v. Koster, et al., 3:11-cv-00726-M -BH Document 47Filed 03/23/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID 1072).
3 Section 1964(c), title 18, provides that “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a
violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court andshall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees.”18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 2
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 2 of 28 PageID 2283
1.7 Plaintiffs’ FAC pleads RICO Defendant jointly and severally liable for
damages;4
1.8 This matter is brought pursuant to, inter alia, Section 901(a) of the Organized
Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970), and
codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code as 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968;
1.9 Plaintiffs specifically brought the instant action pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1962(a), (c), (d), and other causes of action elucidated in Affidavit attached hereto.
Divens, Wilde, Woods, and Haglund Protracted Thefts, Conversion, and Admission ofParticipation in a Ponzi Scheme, exhibiting a Pattern of Racketeering -
As A Matter of Record
1.10 In the events relevant to this action, attorney Jon Divens, Steven E. Woods, a
4 See, e.g., United States v. Oreto, 37 F.3d 739, 752 (1st Cir. 1994) at 751-53 (finding that Congress intended
to reach all who participated in the conduct of the enterprise, whether they were “generals or foot soldiers”and holding that the “Reves test” (Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993) was satisfied by evidence thatthe defendant collected extortion payments under the direction of leaders of an extortion collectionenterprise); Napoli v. United States, 32 F.3d 31, 36 (2d Cir. 1994) (overwhelming evidence that attorneys,although “of counsel” to the law firm enterprise, were not merely providing peripheral advice, butparticipated in the core activities that constituted the affairs of the firm), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110, reh'ggranted, 45 F.3d 680, 683 (2d Cir.) (upholding convictions of law firm investigators who were “lower-rungparticipants” whose racketeering activities were conducted “under the direction of upper management”), cert.denied, 514 U.S. 1084 (1995); United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754 (3d Cir. 2005) at 769-70 (stating that “the‘operation or management’ test does not limit RICO liability to upper management because ‘an enterprise isoperated not just by upper management but also by lower-rung participants in the enterprise who are underthe direction of upper management’”; and holding that Reves liability encompassed city employees whoperformed plumbing inspections and related work for the city’s Construction Services Department, thealleged enterprise) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); United States v. Delgado, 401 F.3d 290(5th Cir. 2005) at 297-98 (same); First Capital Asset Mgmt. v. Satinwood, Inc., 385 F.3d 159, 176 (2d Cir. 2004)(“‘RICO liability is not limited to those with primary responsibility for the enterprise’s affairs’” (citationomitted)); Baisch v. Gallina, 346 F.3d 366, 376 (2d Cir. 2003) (same and adding that “[o]ne is liable underRICO if he or she has ‘discretionary authority in carrying out the instructions of the [enterprises’] principals’”)(citations omitted); DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d (2d Cir. 2001) at 309 (ruling that RICO liability “is not limitedto those with primary responsibility” or “to those with a formal position in the enterprise,” and finding thatthere was sufficient evidence to satisfy the Reves test where the defendant instructed others to facilitatecommission of racketeering activity) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); United States v.Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832, 857 (5th Cir. 1998) (finding that Reves does not require that the defendant havedecision-making power, only that defendant “take part in” the operation of the enterprise, and holding thatthe defendant was liable under Reves since he bought multi-kilogram amounts of cocaine from the drugenterprise on a regular basis); United States v. To, 144 F.3d 737, 747 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that Reves testwas satisfied by evidence that the defendant planned and carried out a robbery with other members of anAsian crime gang that committed a series of robberies targeting Asian-American business owners andmanagers).
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 3
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 3 of 28 PageID 2284
Francis E. Wilde, and Bruce H. Haglund were involved in the intent to defraud clients
obtaining by false pretense, and with intent to steal or embezzle, convert, and secrete,
the property of their clients of over one-and-a-half Billion dollars worth of negotiable
instruments5 and stole about four-hundred thousand in cash. The credibility of Jon
Divens and the Wilde Mob6 should be held highly suspect as another federal court has
found that Divens had previously absconded with the assets belonging to his clients,
moving them to different accounts at different institutions so they could not be located
and stealing the interest generated from the stolen financial instruments; where the
CISC Court5 found Divens testimony not credible and Divens’ or Wilde’s affidavits either
self-serving or not credible.7 Also, (doc. 36 at 169)
5 “On this record, Divens is personally liable for conversion of the FNMA Series CMO”– Chase Investment
Services Corp. v Law Offices Jon Divens & Assoc., Case 2:09-cv-091S2-SVW-MAN, Findings of Fact & Conclusionsof Law, Doc. 120 Filed 10/14/10 Page 48 of 51.
6 Described in Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (doc. 36), et passim.
7 Also, (“Chase” Court): “JDA [Law Offices of Jon Divens & Associates, LLC] and Divens also submitted a
direct testimony declaration of Frank Wilde; however, Frank Wilde was not called as a witness at trial.The Court sustains Betts and Gambles's hearsay objections to paragraphs 3, 7, and 8 of the Wilde Declaration.The Court also sustains Betts and Gambles's objections to paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 9 on the ground that thestatements in these paragraphs lack foundation. Finally, Wilde's assumptions about the mental state of theowners of the CMOs stated in paragraph 7 lack foundation and are pure speculation. The remainingparagraphs of the Wilde Declaration are not substantively important.” [emphasis added] Chase, supra, Doc.120- Page 5 footnote 2
“II. FACTUAL FINDINGSAs a preliminary matter, the Court notes that resolution of many of the factual disputes between theparties turns in large part on the credibility of the witnesses. In that regard, the Court finds that[Jon] Divens's testimony was wholly incredible. The Court does not believe that Divens had anyagreement with any representative or agent of Betts and Gambles or Amedraa that entitled Divens or JDA tothe interest generated by the Cobalt CMO or the FNMA [FannieMae] Series CMO. Instead, Divens acquiredthe CMOs under the false promise that he would act solely as an escrow agent with regard to the CMOs.Once the CMOs were in Divens's possession, he absconded[†] with the assets, moving them to differentaccounts at different institutions so they could not be located and stealing the interest generated fromthe CMOs for his own personal use. In short, the Court finds that Divens created a scheme to defraudBetts and Gambles and Amedraa and to steal their assets. His testimony is not credible [emphasis ¬ation added].” Id., at 6 [† abscond >v. 1 leave hurriedly and secretly to escape from custody or avoidarrest. Oxford University Press]
“However, Divens also testified that within "a week or a month" of the transfer of the Cobalt CMO to JDA's UBSaccount, Williams told him that, in fact, Betts and Gambles was the owner of the Cobalt CMO and that Williamswas a broker trying (unsuccessfully) to purchase the Cobalt CMO from Betts and Gambles. Thus, even if theCourt credits Divens's testimony that he did not know initially that Betts and Gambles owned the Cobalt CMO,as of March 6, 2009, when Betts and Gambles contacted Divens demanding the return of the Cobalt CMO,
(continued...)
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 4
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 4 of 28 PageID 2285
1.11 Later, attorney Bruce H. Haglund8 would join the Wilde Mob and be
designated the money man who would move the majority of the Mob’s money through
his trust account.9
1.12 This criminal behavior continued and expanded into the nexus events that
evolved the Plaintiffs’ depicted Amenpenofer Syndicate.
1.13 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the entirety of Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint and more specifically the facts and allegations, therein as well as the sworn
evidence in exhibit filed in the Court Record, therein identified as Exhibits 1 thru 261,
all hereby re-averred and re-alleged, for all purposes, and incorporated herein with
the same force and effect as if set forth verbatim herein.
7 (...continued)
Divens knew that Betts and Gambles was the owner of the Cobalt CMO and that up Right Holdings could notgenerate the funds to purchase it.
“Divens testified that after he learned about Betts and Gambles in February or March 2009, Betts andGambles orally agreed on a phone call with Divens that Divens could place the Cobalt CMO into a tradeprogram. The Court does not find this testimony credible. Divens has not presented any evidence,other than his self-serving testimony, that any such agreement existed.
3
Furthermore, Divens's testimony is flatly contradicted by the letters Betts and Gambles sent to Divenson March 6, 2009, March 10, 2009, and April 5, 2009, in which Betts and Gambles's counsel clearly indicatedthat Betts and Gambles "has never given its consent to the investment of its CMO into any such [trade]platform" and demanded return of the Cobalt CMO. The Court finds that Betts and Gambles neverauthorized Divens to take any action other than hold the Cobalt CMO in escrow pending the proposedsale to Up Right Holdings [emphasis added].” Id., at 8
8 | 108. “In answer to ¶ 108, Answering Defendant admits that he wired funds to two "old investors"
using new investor money, but denies that the two wires were sent knowingly to old investors. AnsweringDefendant admits that when asked by the Commission what the practice of paying old investors with newinvestors money was called, he responded that such a practice was called a ‘Ponzi scheme.’Answering Defendant admits that those two wires were sent after having received a subpoena from theCommission in connection with the investigation that led to this Complaint.” United States Securities &Exchange Commission v. Francis E. Wilde, et al., Case 8:11-cv-00315-DOC -AJW, Defendant Bruce H. Haglund’sAnswer to Complaint – Doc. 4 Filed 05/13/11 Page 13 of 16 Page ID #:33
9 “THE RELIEF DEFENDANTS
26 | 17. In answer to ¶ 17, Answering Defendant admits that he wired funds from his27 | trust account to IBALANCE LLC ("IBALANCE"). “ Id. at 3.
“ 2 | 18. In answer to ¶ 18, Answering Defendant admits that he wired funds from his 3 | trust account to the account of Maureen Wilde, the wife of Wilde.” Id. at 4.
“6 | 19. In answer to ¶ 19, Answering Defendant admits that Shillelagh Capital 7 | Corporation ("Shillelagh") is a Nevada corporation, owned and controlled by Wilde, 8 | and that Shillelagh has never had a class of securities registered with the Securities 9 | and Exchange Commission. Answering Defendant admits that he transferred10 | approximately $323,500 of investor funds to Shillelagh.” Id. at 4.
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 5
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 5 of 28 PageID 2286
2. Legal Standard
2.1 If a defendant fails to plead or defend as required by the Rules, the clerk or
judge may enter default upon a plaintiff's request. Rule 55(a); Shepard Claims Service,
Inc. v. William Darrah & Associates, 796 F.2d 190, 194 (6th Cir. 1986) (When a
defendant fails to file a responsive answer, he is in default, and an entry of default may
be made by either the clerk or the judge.) Then, if no hearing is needed to ascertain
damages, judgment by default may be entered. Rule 55(b). United Coin Meter Co., Inc. v.
Seaboard Coastline RR., 705 F.2d 839, 844 (6th Cir. 1983) (citing Meehan v. Snow, 652
F.2d 274 (2nd Cir. 1981).
2.2 When a court determines that a defendant is in default, the factual allegations
of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, will be taken as true.
Geddes v. United Financial Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977); Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(d);
Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d 2688.
2.3 Therefore, after receiving a default, plaintiff must still establish the extent of
damages to which he is entitled. Kelley v. Carr, 567 F. Supp. 831, 841 (W.D. Mich.1983).
However, if the damages sought by the plaintiff are a sum certain or a sum that can be
made certain by computation, judgment will generally be entered for that amount
without an evidentiary hearing. Wright, Miller & Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure:
Civil 2d 2688.
2.4 In assessing damages, the court must review facts of record, requesting more
information if necessary, to fix the amount to which plaintiff is lawfully entitled. Pope v.
United States, 323 U.S. 1, 12 (1944).
2.5 Courts consider the following factors when deciding a plaintiff's motion for
entry of default judgment: (1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff, (2) the merits
of plaintiff's substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4) the sum of
money at stake in the action; (5) the possibility of a dispute concerning material facts;
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 6
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 6 of 28 PageID 2287
(6) whether the default was due to excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy
underlying the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.
2.6 When evaluating the Eitel factors10
and assessing liability, the " ‘factual
allegations of the complaint, except those relating to the amount of damages, [are]
taken as true.' " TeleVideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-18 (9th Cir. 1987)
(quoting Geddes v. United Fin. Group, 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977)). A default
judgment can be entered without a hearing if the "amount claimed is a liquidated sum
or capable of mathematical calculation." Davis v. Fendler, 650 F.2d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir.
1981).
District Court’s Power to Seize Passport and Funds
2.7 The Northern District of Texas Dallas Division have take steps of such
measures before, for example in SEC v. W Financial Group, LLC, et al., 3:08-cv-00499-N,
issuing passport seizure as part of contempt sanctions. (Case 3:08-cv-00499-N doc.
347, 01/22/2010) However, this Court needn't await an act of contempt to force the
surrender of Defendant's passport, when such a proceeding in this case would be far
too late once the flight has been taken.
"… the power to order a party to produce funds includes the power toexercise some minimal control over the party subject to that order—but onlywhen doing so is necessary to protect the court's ability to enforce theunderlying order and prevent the loss of assets. Cf. Herbstein v. Bruetman, 241F.3d 586, 588-89 (7th Cir. 2001) (contempt power includes the power toseize a party's passport);
SEC v. Lauer, 52 F.3d 667, 671 (7th Cir. 1995) (injunction power reaches
10
"Defendant's failure to answer [Plaintiff's] Complaint makes a decision on the merits impractical, if notimpossible. Under FRCP 55(a), termination of a case before hearing the merits is allowed whenever adefendant fails to defend an action." PepsiCo Inc., 238 F. Supp. 2d at 1177. Therefore, the seventh Eitel factordoes not preclude the Court from entering default judgment against Defendants. See id.; see also Philip MorrisUSA, Inc., 219 F.R.D. at 501. “Upon considering all of the Eitel factors, the Court finds that default judgmentshould be entered in this case.” Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986).
A default judgment is appropriate where the defendant “has received actual or constructive notice of the filingof the action and failed to answer.” Direct Mail Specialists, Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Techs., Inc., 840 F.2d 685,690 (9th Cir. 1988).
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 7
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 7 of 28 PageID 2288
orders "essential to prevent the dissipation of assets").
“Whether such controls are necessary will depend upon the circumstances ofthe case, but it will be a rare case where any extraordinary steps are needed”Bank of America, NA v. Veluchamy, 643 F. 3d 185 (CA 7th Cir. 2011)
"The district court found that this was the rare case where such an order wasjustified, and we agree. The bases for findings of necessity and flight riskwere clear and largely uncontested. The district court was faced with debtorswho had previously transferred abroad all of the funds now subject to theorder and were simultaneously hesitant to disclose information that wouldhave revealed those transfers. The district court found that theextra-territorial location of the funds threatened its ability to enforce theproduction order; in other words, it found that the only way it could accessthe funds at issue was through the Veluchamys. The court also found that theVeluchamys had minimal assets in the United States, what appeared to besignificant assets abroad, and a reluctance to disclose those facts, all of whichestablished some flight risk. We see no clear error with those findings, andbelieve they are adequate to support the minimal seizure imposed. Cf. UnitedStates v. Shaheen, 445 F.2d 6, 11-12 (7th Cir. 1971) (suggesting that a districtcourt's seizure of a party's passport is permissible when a judgment has beenentered, when there have been significant transfers abroad, and whendomestic funds would be inadequate to satisfy the judgment). Nor do we seeany fatal flaw in the form those findings took; while a district court shouldenter findings to support an injunction, a lack of findings does not necessitateremand where—as here— there is "a sufficient record from which we can render a decision." Dexia Credit Local v. Rogan, 602 F.3d 879, 885 (7th Cir. 2010)."
"Just as a litigant held in civil contempt has the keys in his own pocket — forhe will be released as soon as he cooperates — so Bruetman can get hispassport back whenever he pleases. All he need do is complete theexamination, fully disclosing all of his assets. Then the proceedings will endand Bruetman will be free to travel (though his assets must stay behind).Bruetman's enduring refusal to cooperate — first by failing to appear forexamination, then by leaving the country, next by concealing his return to theUnited States, and now by using bankruptcy as the excuse for refusing toundergo more questioning — amply justifies restricting his ability to skip thecountry yet again …
"Nonetheless, Bruetman insists, the collection proceeding should bedismissed without taking any further evidence. He gives two reasons: thebankruptcy proceeding and the long duration of the collection proceeding.Neither carries the day. A bankruptcy court does not attempt to enforcejudgments; the court determines creditors' entitlements, but after these havebeen fixed it remains essential to lay hands on the debtor's assets, so there isroom for collection proceedings such as this. Even if the default judgmentwere treated as creating an ordinary unsecured debt subject to discharge,Bruetman still would have to surrender all of his assets (other than those
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 8
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 8 of 28 PageID 2289
covered by an exemption). Bruetman has fought tooth and nail to avoidrevealing his assets; we cannot imagine why an asset-discovery proceedingunder way for eight years should be dismissed and Herbstein forced to startfrom scratch in the bankruptcy — especially when the bankruptcy mightitself be dismissed as filed in bad faith. The collection proceeding hasoutlasted the six-month line in Ill. S.Ct.R. 277(f), but that rule adds: "The courtmay, however, grant extensions beyond the 6 months, as justice mayrequire." Justice requires an extension, so that Bruetman's shenanigans donot defeat his creditor's rights. Herbstein is entitled to six months ofcooperation from Bruetman. See RTC v. Ruggiero, 994 F.2d 1221, 1228 (7thCir. 1993). So far as we can see, however, he has received only one day ofcooperation in an eight-year period. This citation proceeding will continueuntil Herbstein has received his due." Herbstein v. Bruetman, 241 F. 3d 586(CA 7th Cir. 2001)
3. Plaintiffs’ Plea of Damages
3.1 Plaintiffs’ Compensatory Actual Damages result from Defendants' intentional
and willful acts that directly or proximately caused, inter alia, the following damages:
3.2 Direct and Proximate Caused Actual Damages inflicted by the RICO Defendants
exceed an amount greater than $220,000,000 and, in fact, is $357,014,558 as itemized:
Source $ Assets Description & Reference
MC Commodities Trading, Inc.Minh Da Nguyen,President/C.E.O. Non-recoursefunding
$165,000,00066% × $250,000,000 BG = $165,000,000monetized; Exs Vol. 10, Exs 212, 213, 221,222, 231, 232.
Mockingbird Films International2009/2010 Slate production
$170,350,200Net Profits. Ex. Vol. 15 “Slate Summary” pg 4of 54. Does not include 2010/2011 and2011/2012 production slate revenues.
Michigan Film Incentive Rebatefor The Black Messiah Murders
$7,972,149
Ex. Vol. 14, Ex. 258. Usable for slate pre-funding through Fallbrook (Exs. Vol. 13, Ex.252) to purchase MC Commodities Trading,Inc. SBLC.
Texas Film Incentive Grant forAlter Ego
† and Killing Frank
$1,996,345Ex. Vol. 13, Ex. 251; Ex. Vol. 15, Ex. 259 at 33,51 (see also references below)
††
City of San Antonio - Lone StarBrewery (Studio) Incentive Pkg.
Ex. Vol. 13, Ex. 251. Value of benefit packageestimated at $17MM, not calculated.
St. George’s Project Inc.,studio/sound stage facilityfunding
Value of $510MM funding benefit & value offully developed property losses, notcalculated.
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 9
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 9 of 28 PageID 2290
Lone Star Studio Lost Revenues $11,508,864Loss of studios and sound-stage 1 yearrevenues $13,539,840 at 85% use.
Vicki Clarkson $187,000$90,000 funding plus agreed film profitsharing($80,000 BG purchase to Alicorn Capital Mgt )
Damages $357,014,558Actual Direct & Proximately CausedDamages
† Alter Ego (Brennert/Hart, 2009)originally scheduled for Louisiana shoot anticipating 30% taxcredit rebate w/approx. net of 20% tax credit benefit.†† Both Alter Ego and Killing Frank (Holland, 2009) rescheduled for production in Texas
3.3 Consequential Compensatory Damages. Plaintiffs’ plead damages of Three-
million Dollars ($3,000,000) for consequential compensatory damages awarded by
virtue of the losses suffered by the Plaintiffs resulting from the Defendant's intentional
and willful criminal and tortuous acts causing injury to the Plaintiffs’ physical health,
infliction of extreme mental anguish, and harm to Plaintiffs’ professional reputations as
to lower them in the estimation of the community, deterring third persons from
associating or dealing with them throughout the industry, and additionally impugning
their integrity and standing in society.
3.4 Exemplary Damages resulting from Defendants' malice and criminal acts, they
so greatly harmed the Plaintiffs, producers, crews, talent, lost employment in the San
Antonio and Texas communities, revenues to ancillary business, and City of San
Antonio, Texas.
3.5 Pre/Post- Judgment Interest. Plaintiffs also seek pre- and post-judgment
interest on damages and taxable costs of court.
3.6 Attorneys' Fees are not applicable in this instance, but should not be deemed
waived as Plaintiffs anticipate attorneys' fees to be incurred following the summons
and complaint service of the balance of the RICO and Nominal Defendants at which time
Plaintiffs shall hand over the prosecution of this case to their Dallas law firm.
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 10
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 10 of 28 PageID 2291
3.7 Plaintiffs, the Nation’s economic system, the Public, and others were harmed
by the RICO Defendants’ predicate acts, and Plaintiffs, directly and proximately through
the Defendant’s RICO predicate crimes and violations, resulting in actual damages for
which Plaintiff are entitled to mandatory treble damages in the amount of not less than
3 × $220,000,000 plus other compensatory relief, attorneys fees and costs.
3.8 RICO Defendants, each having joint and several criminal and civil liability,
through their various legal enterprises, association-in-fact enterprises, and by their
direct individual and collective racketeering acts and conspiracy, are believed to have
secured $18,000,000,000 or more in negotiable securities (doc. 36 at 168) for which
they appear to be beneficiaries of some portion thereof , other cash assets located in
domestic and foreign banks, and have purchased assets with those funds, e.g., a $90,000
Land Rover purchased by Francis Wilde (doc. 36 at 50); further
3.9 Associated Nominal Defendant Banks/Financial Institutions: Bank of America,
N.A.,11
additional banks and financial institutions are identified in affidavit
APPENDIX A.
3.10 Plaintiffs’ pre-discovery investigation uncovered that RICO Defendants used
the Plaintiffs’ cash assets to acquire at least one of ten or more financial instruments
including bonds, of which one domestically acquired $3 billion bond and a European $5
11
Hon. Steven V. Wilson, U.S. Dist. Judge: “‘Divens further testified that at various points betweenFebruary and October 2009, he transferred the interest earned on the Cobalt CMO out of the varioussecurities accounts where the Cobalt CMO was held and into his business account at Bank of America.5 Divenstestified that he used these interest payments for his ‘personal use.’" Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law – Chase Investment Services Corp. v Law Offices Jon Divens & Assoc., Case2:09-cv-091S2-SVW-MAN Document 120 Filed 10/14/10 Page 2 of 51 [5] “While the Cobalt CMO was in the CISC Account, the incoming interest payments generated by the CMOwere automatically reinvested in a money market mutual fund in the CISC Account. (Divens's Tr. Exh. 28[Declaration of Michele Fanner ¶ 9].) Divens frequently instructed Michele E. Fanner, a Financial Advisor andVice President of Investments at ClSC, to liquidate the money market funds and wire the cash balance toDivens's outside account at Bank of America. (Id.) The last of such wire transfers took place on October 27,2009.” Id. at FN 5
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 11
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 11 of 28 PageID 2292
billion bond12
with total face value equal to or exceeding eight-billion dollars ($8 billion
USD). (doc. 36 at 42)
3.11 A European $5 billion bond referenced (doc. 36 at 168) is directly tied to the
Plaintiffs’ investment funds. The HSBC pre-advise transaction code and the bank
transmission confirmation was presented to the Plaintiffs as proof and verification of
the instrument that was acquired (doc. 1-4 at 21), in part, from their funds in behalf of
the Plaintiffs. Since the purchase the Five-billion Dollar instrument the Plaintiffs have
located its tracking and note that the bond has matured and may be subject to RICO
disgorgement, divestiture and clawback powers of the Court.
3.12 It appears there were, or still are, at approximately nine MTN13
offshore
instruments, that were acquired. The various instruments are either European, Far East
or Pacific Rim financial instruments secured by the Syndicate using investors’ money,
and never paying out their earning or returns.
Prayer
4. Plea for Relief
Wherefore, Plaintiffs, pray for relief pursuant to Section 901(a) of the Organized
Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970)
codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code, 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968;
specifically, 18 U.S.C. § 962 a, c, d, and the Court’s own equitable powers, request that
the Court:
12
Bank of America Corp. and KFW Bank - Financial services Headquarters Frankfurt, Germany.
13
Investopedia explains 'Medium Term Note - MTN'“1. Notes range in maturity from one to 10 years. By knowing that a note is medium term, investors have anidea of what its maturity will be when they compare its price to that of other fixed-income securities. All elsebeing equal, the coupon rate on medium-term notes will be higher than those achieved on short-term notes.
2. This type of debt program is used by a company so it can have constant cash flows coming in from its debtissuance; it allows a company to tailor its debt issuance to meet its financing needs. Medium-term notes allowa company to register with the SEC only once, instead of every time for differing maturities.”
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 12
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 12 of 28 PageID 2293
4.1 Award Plaintiffs such preliminary injunctive and ancillary relief as may be
necessary to avert the likelihood of further injury to Plaintiffs during the pendency of
this action and to preserve the possibility of effective final relief, including but not
limited to, temporary and preliminary injunctions;
4.2 Enter a permanent injunction to prevent future RICO and other violations by
RICO Defendant;
4.3 Award such relief as the Court finds necessary to redress harms and injuries
resulting from Defendant’s violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962 et seq., other criminal activities,
restitution, disgorgement, divestiture and clawback of ill-gotten monies from RICO and
Nominal Defendants; and
4.4 that Plaintiffs have judgment against RICO Defendant, jointly and severally,
and judgement based on the actual damages of not less than two-hundred twenty-
million dollars ($220,000,000 USD) described and pled in Plaintiffs First Amended
Complaint;
4.5 that with regard to all claims arising under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a), (c) and (d), Plaintiffs pray for
compensatory damages in an amount pled, that the amount of said damages be trebled,
and that plaintiff be awarded prejudgment interest, costs, and such other relief as is just
and proper, all pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c);
4.6 that with regard to all claims of common law fraud, Plaintiffs pray for
compensatory damages in an amount adjudged by the Court, and that Plaintiffs be
awarded prejudgment interest, punitive damages, costs, and such other relief as is just
and proper;
4.7 that with regard to all claims of civil conspiracy, Plaintiffs pray for
compensatory damages in an amount adjudged by the Court, and that Plaintiffs be
awarded prejudgment interest, punitive damages, costs, and such other relief as is just
and proper;
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 13
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 13 of 28 PageID 2294
4.8 that with regard to all claims of aiding and abetting fraud, Plaintiffs pray for
compensatory damages in an amount adjudged by the Court, and that Plaintiffs be
awarded prejudgment interest, punitive damages, costs, and such other relief as is just
and proper;
4.9 that with regard to all other claims Plaintiffs pray for compensatory damages
in an amount to be proven at trial, and that Plaintiffs be awarded prejudgment interest,
costs, and such other relief as is just and proper; and
4.10 that Plaintiffs be awarded prejudgment interest, costs, and such other relief
as is just and proper;
4.11 that injunctive relief preventing the sale or disposition of Defendant’s assets
acquired through the diversion of funds from the Plaintiffs;
4.12 that Court order disgorgement, divestiture, and clawback from Nominal
Defendants or other third-parties of tainted monies consumed, spent, or otherwise
disposed of by the Defendant directly or other earnings, profits, or levered acquisition
of any asset related to the use of the tainted monies, from Nominal Defendants or third-
parties including fees paid to attorneys for defense of RICO Defendant;
4.13 that Court issue appropriate turn-over orders when presented with evidence
showing the holding of assets; and that Court order payment of
4.13.1 fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action;
4.13.2 pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by law;
4.13.3 a finding of alter ego status of RICO Defendant, if any;
4.13.4 that an ORDER be immediately issued against destruction or
spoliation of evidence;
Relief Sought In Behalf of the National and Public Interest
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 14
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 14 of 28 PageID 2295
4.14 that, if necessary, a Special Master be appointed unless a proper United
States agency (e.g., CFTC, FTC, SEC, etc.) intervenes in the case to oversee and supervise
injunctive relief, and that
4.14.1 a permanent injunction issue against further abuse upon the United
States, in the national economic interest, and the general public interest, issued
against, RICO Defendant, and any assigns, agents, successors, subsidiaries, holding
companies, related entities, and any other persons or entities under their control
or in concert or participation with RICO Defendant, now or in the future, shall be
permanently enjoined in the United States, and its territories, from participating in
financial trading, sale, promotion, or brokering of financial instruments including
treasury bonds, CMO’s, registered or unregistered securities, mortgage
instruments or any other business related to commercial banking specifically
provided below:
4.14.2 Engaging, assisting, or otherwise participating, directly or indirectly,
commercial instrument trading, brokerage, or sales of any type including,
collateralized mortgage obligation (CMO) trades, collateralization or brokerage of
any sort, mortgage loan origination, mortgage brokerage activity, mortgage
assistance, mortgage relief, principal reductions, mortgage purchases or
negotiations, foreclosure consulting, loan modifications, title services,
underwriting, lending, or loan or forensic audits in any capacity;
4.14.3 Soliciting, advertising, selling, marketing, displaying, offering,
performing, or accepting or receiving payment for, directly or indirectly, services,
including lead generation and product sales, relating to commercial instruments,
private or registered securities, trading related to financial instruments or
products of any sort including mortgage or loan origination, mortgage or other
financial instrument brokerage activity, mortgage or commercial instrument
trading, or assistance, financial consulting, or forensic audits; and
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 15
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 15 of 28 PageID 2296
4.14.4 Publishing, distributing or disseminating any information, including
written, oral, or video, directly or indirectly, in exchange for money or anything of
value, relating to either private or registered securities, loan origination,
commercial instrument or banking brokerage activity of any sort,
Other Terms and Conditions Requested
5. Enforcement and Collection. This Court should retain jurisdiction over this
matter for the purposes of
5.1 enabling the Plaintiffs to apply, at any time, for enforcement of any provision
of the Judgement and for sanctions or other remedies for any violation of the
Judgement, including contempt and enforcement of the judgment;
5.2 enabling any party to the Judgement to apply, upon giving 30 days' written
notice to all other Parties, for such further orders and directions as might be necessary
or appropriate either for the construction or enforcement of the Judgement or for the
modification or termination of one or more injunctive provisions; and
5.3 enabling the Plaintiffs to collect or enforce any judgment rendered pursuant to
the Judgement.
Plaintiffs pray the Court also order that:
Cooperation
6. RICO Defendant cooperate with all investigations and other proceedings that the
Plaintiffs may bring to enforce the terms of the Judgement, including the obligations to:
6.1 Appear at the request of the Plaintiffs for hearings, depositions, and trial and
provide testimony. All such testimony shall be truthful;
6.2 Produce documents, records, electronic records, or any other tangible things
in response to a subpoena or other written request issued by the Plaintiffs; and
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 16
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 16 of 28 PageID 2297
6.3 Accept a subpoena from the Plaintiffs by certified email without need for
service of process, and RICO Defendant shall provide and maintain a reliable email
address for this purpose;.
6.4 RICO Defendant submit to a financial audit of his personal and business
finances from the period of December 1, 2008 until the date of the completion of the
audit, by competent financial audit firm, or certified public accountant (CPA) approved
by the Court, and that costs of audit be taxed against the Defendant;
Duties of Third Parties Holding Defendant’s Assets
7. Any financial institution, business entity, or person maintaining or having custody
or control of any account or other asset of the RICO Defendant, or any corporation,
partnership, or other entity directly or indirectly owned, managed, or controlled by, or
under common control with the RICO Defendant, which is served with a copy of this the
final order of default judgement (the “Order”), or otherwise has actual or constructive
knowledge of the Order, shall hold and retain within his/their/its control and prohibit
the withdrawal, removal, assignment, transfer, pledge, hypothecation, encumbrance,
disbursement, dissipation, conversion, sale, liquidation, or other disposal of any other
assets, funds, documents, or other property held by, or under his/their/its control:
7.1 on behalf of, or for the benefit of, the RICO Defendant or any other party
subject to the above;
7.2 in any account maintained in the name of, or for the benefit of, or subject to
withdrawal by, the RICO Defendant or other party subject to the above; and
7.3 that are subject to access or use by, or under the signatory power of, the
Defendant or other party subject to the above.
7.4 Deny RICO Defendants access to any safe deposit boxes or storage facilities
that are either:
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 17
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 17 of 28 PageID 2298
7.4.1 titled in the name, individually or jointly, of the RICO Defendant, or
other party subject to the above; or
7.4.2 subject to access by the RICO Defendant or other party subject to the
above.
7.5 Provide the Plaintiffs, within five (5) days of the date of service of the Order, a
sworn statement setting forth:
7.5.1 the identification number of each account or asset titled in the name,
individually or jointly, of the Defendant, or held on behalf of, or for the benefit of,
the Defendant or other party subject to Section II above, including all trust
accounts managed on behalf of the Defendant or subject to the Defendant’s
control;
7.5.2 The balance of each such account, or a description of the nature and
value of such asset;
7.5.3 The identification and location of any safe deposit box, commercial mail
box, or storage facility that is either titled in the name, individually or jointly, of
the Defendant, or is otherwise subject to access or control by the Defendant or
other party subject to above, whether in whole or in part; and
7.5.4 if the account, safe deposit box, storage facility, or other asset has been
closed or removed, the date closed or removed and the balance on said date, allow
representatives of Plaintiffs immediate access to inspect and copy, or upon
Plaintiffs’ request, within five (5) business days of said request, provide the
Plaintiffs with copies of all records or other documentation pertaining to each such
account or asset, including, but not limited to, originals or copies of account
applications, account statements, corporate resolutions, signature cards, checks,
drafts, deposit tickets, transfers to and from the accounts, all other debit and credit
instruments or slips, currency transaction reports, 1099 forms, and safe deposit
box logs.
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 18
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 18 of 28 PageID 2299
7.6 This Section shall apply to existing accounts and assets, assets deposited or
accounts opened after the effective date of the Order, and any accounts or assets
maintained, held or controlled two years prior to the effective date of the Order. This
Section shall not prohibit transfers in accordance with any provision of the Order, any
further order of the Court, or by written agreement of the parties.
8. Repatriation of Assets and Documents Located in Foreign Countries
the Court should further order the RICO Defendant:
8.1 Within three (3) business days following service of the Order, take such steps
as are necessary to repatriate to the territory of the United States of America all
Documents and Assets that are located outside such territory and are held by or for the
Defendant or are under Defendant’s direct or indirect control, jointly, severally, or
individually.
8.2 Within three (3) business days following service of the Order, provide
Plaintiffs with a full accounting of all Documents and Assets by email, that service by
email shall be effective only upon confirmation of delivery (either by a return email
confirmation from recipient or a “read receipt” generated by the sender’s email service,
transmitted to the recipient or by certified email or overnight postal service that are
located outside of the territory of the United States of America or that have been
transferred to the territory of the United States of America and are held by or for the
RICO Defendant or are under his direct or indirect control, jointly, severally, or
individually, including the addresses and names of any foreign or domestic financial
institution or other entity holding the Documents and Assets, along with the account
numbers and balances;
8.3 Hold and retain all such Documents and Assets and prevent any transfer,
disposition, or dissipation whatsoever of any such Documents or Assets; and
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 19
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 19 of 28 PageID 2300
8.4 Within three (3) business days following service of the Order, provide
Plaintiffs access to Defendants’ records and Documents held by Financial Institutions or
other entities outside the territory of the United States of America, by signing and
delivering to Plaintiffs or Plaintiffs’ counsel a sworn Consent to Release of Financial
Records of each Financial Institution.
8.5 Defendants shall attach to these completed financial statements copies of all
local, state, provincial, and federal income and property tax returns, with attachments
and schedules, as called for by the instructions to the financial statements.
9. Surrender of Passport and Travel Restriction
Further the Court should order:
9.1 The RICO Defendant, a Judgment Debtor, to temporarily turn over his
passports of any kind and any other documents that would permit international travel
(whether United States-issued or otherwise) to this Court's Courtroom Deputy, by
personal or U.S.P.S. Certified Express Mail. The passport shall remain in the Courtroom
Deputy's possession until the earlier of :
9.1.1 RICO Defendant’s compliance with the provisions of the Order and
completion of Plaintiffs’ discovery,
9.1.2 the RICO Defendant’s debtor’s repatriation of monies or financial
instruments created or transferred outside the United States since December 1,
2008 and deposit thereof into the Plaintiffs per their direction,
9.1.3 the RICO Defendant’s provision of evidence satisfactory to the Court
that the monies were transferred for legitimate reasons other than to remove
assets from the jurisdiction of the Court or hide it from Plaintiffs,
9.1.4 satisfaction of Plaintiffs, or further order or direction of the Court.
9.2 The RICO Defendant may not leave the United States before turning over his
passport and other travel documents or while their passports and other travel
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 20
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 20 of 28 PageID 2301
documents are held by the Court; RICO Defendant is shall be prohibited from leaving
the continental United States under any circumstance or condition until the Court has
returned his passport and other travel documents, if any.
10. Maintenance of Records and Reporting of New Business Activity
It is further requested that the Court order RICO Defendant, and (officers, agents,
servants, employees, and attorneys, and all other persons in active concert or
participation with any of them, who receive actual notice of the Order by personal
service or otherwise, whether acting directly or through any trust, corporation,
subsidiary, division, or other device, or any of them, are hereby restrained and enjoined
from:
10.1 Failing to create and maintain books, records, accounts, bank statements,
current accountants’ reports, general ledgers, general journals, cash receipt ledgers,
cash disbursement ledgers and source documents, documents indicating title to real or
personal property, and any other data which, in reasonable detail, accurately, fairly and
completely reflect the incomes, disbursements, transactions, dispositions, and uses of
the Defendant’s assets;
10.2 Destroying, erasing, mutilating, concealing, altering, transferring, or
otherwise disposing of, in any manner, directly or indirectly, any Documents, including
electronically-stored materials, that relate in any way to the business practices or
business or personal finances of Defendant; to the business practices or finances of
entities directly or indirectly under the control of Defendant; or to the business
practices or finances of entities directly or indirectly under common control with any
other Defendant; and
10.3 Creating, operating, or exercising any control over any new business entity,
whether newly formed or previously inactive, including any partnership, limited
partnership, joint venture, sole proprietorship, or corporation, without first providing
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 21
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 21 of 28 PageID 2302
Plaintiff and Court’s appointed Master or supervising federal agency with a written
statement disclosing:
10.3.1 the name of the business entity;
10.3.2 the address and telephone number of the business entity;
10.3.3 the names of the business entity's officers, directors, principals,
managers, and employees; and
10.3.4 a detailed description of the business entity's intended activities.
11. Expedited Discovery
It is further requested that the Court order that:
11.1 to determine the appropriate total amount of equitable monetary relief in
this matter, and in lieu of the time periods, notice provisions, and other requirements of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26, 30, 33, 34, 36 and 45, the Plaintiffs are granted
leave to conduct discovery at any time after service of the Order; that
11.2 the Plaintiffs may depose witnesses upon notice of three (3) business days;
that
11.3 the Plaintiffs may require that all responses to subpoenas duces tecum be
served within five (5) calendar days of the service of such discovery.
11.4 In addition, and in lieu of the time periods, notice provisions, and other
requirements of Rules 26, 30, 33, 34, 36 and 45, the Defendant shall respond to
interrogatories, requests for production of documents, or requests for admissions,
within ten (10) calendar days after service of the interrogatories or requests.
Deposition transcripts that have not been signed by a witness may be used at any
hearing on equitable monetary relief;
11.5 The limitations and conditions set forth in Rules 30(a)(2)(B) and 31(a)(2)(B)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure regarding subsequent depositions of an
individual shall not apply to depositions taken pursuant to this Section.
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 22
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 22 of 28 PageID 2303
11.6 Any such depositions shall not be counted toward any limit on the number of
depositions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the local rules of procedure
for the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, including those
set forth in Rules 30(a)(2)(A) and 31(a)(2)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Any interrogatories served pursuant to this Section shall not be counted toward any
limit on the number of interrogatories under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the
local rules of procedure for the District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
including that limit set forth in Rule 33(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and
11.7 Service of discovery, including subpoenas pursuant to this Section, may be
accomplished by any of the following means: facsimile transmission, courier service,
electronic mail, that service by email shall be effective only upon confirmation of
delivery either by a return email confirmation from recipient or a “read receipt”
generated by the sender’s email service, transmitted to the recipient or by certified
email or by hand.
And lastly for relief, Plaintiffs’ ask the Court to order:
12. Financial Statements and Accounting
12.1 that, within ten (10) business days following the service of the Order, RICO
Defendant provide Plaintiffs or their counsel:
12.1.1 A completed financial statement accurate as of the date of service of
the Order upon Defendants and serve same upon Plaintiffs by verifiable email, that
service by email shall be effective only upon confirmation of delivery (either by a
return email confirmation from recipient or a “read receipt” generated by the
sender’s email service, transmitted to the recipient or by certified email ;
12.1.2 For all financial products or financial services marketed, promoted,
offered for sale, distributed, or sold by Defendant, a detailed accounting, verified
under oath, of:
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 23
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 23 of 28 PageID 2304
12.1.3 All gross revenues obtained from the sale of each such product or
service (broken down by month) from inception of sales through the date of the
issuance of the Order;
12.1.4 The total amount of each such product or service sold; and
12.1.5 The full names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all clients, or
purchasers of each such product or service; and
12.1.6 A completed and signed Consent To Release Financial Records,
permitting Defendant’s banks and financial institutions to make records available
to Plaintiff upon request. The release shall be returned to Plaintiff within three (3)
business days after service of the Order by email, that service by email shall be
effective only upon confirmation of delivery either by a return email confirmation
from recipient or a “read receipt” generated by the sender’s email service,
transmitted to the recipient or by certified email or by overnight courier service or
U.S. Postal Service overnight mail.
WHEREFORE he Plaintiffs pray an appropriate Order will issue from this Court in
accord with the foregoing and for any other relief the Court deems just and equitable.
Respectfully Submitted on Wednesday, August 8, 2012.
s/
R. LANCE FLORESLead Attorney
3314 Pleasant DriveDallas, Texas 75227 USATel. (Dallas): +1 (214) 272-0349Tel. (Fax): +1 (210) 519-6528ECF & Case Management E-mail:[email protected]
Attorney for the Plaintiff
s/
VICKI CLARKSON
2416 - 36 Street SWCalgary, AB T3E 2Z5
Tel. (Calgary): +1 403-244-9980Tel. (Fax:) +1 (403) 246-3331ECF & Case Management E-mail:[email protected]
Attorney for the Plaintiff
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page 24
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 24 of 28 PageID 2305
AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT ANDREQUEST FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT
VERIFICATION OF CLARKSON
I, Vicki Clarkson hereby declare, verify and certify under penalty of perjury as
provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that I am a Plaintiff in the above-styled and -numbered
cause of action, that I have read the foregoing APPLICATION FOR CLERK’S ENTRY OF
DEFAULT – MEMORANDUM OF LAW & VERIFIED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT
AGAINST RICO DEFENDANT BRUCE H. HAGLUND, that I am familiar with the contents
therein, and that the matters contained in the motions are true and correct to my own
knowledge, except those matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief
and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct.
SUBSCRIBED AND EXECUTED on Wednesday, August 8, 2012 pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1746:
s/
VICKI CLARKSON
VERIFICATION OF FLORES
I, R. Lance Flores hereby declare, verify and certify under penalty of perjury as
provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that I am a Plaintiff in the above-styled and -numbered
cause of action, that I have read the foregoing APPLICATION FOR CLERK’S ENTRY OF
DEFAULT – MEMORANDUM OF LAW & VERIFIED MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGEMENT
AGAINST RICO DEFENDANT BRUCE H. HAGLUND, that I am familiar with the contents
therein, and that the matters contained in the motions are true and correct to my own
knowledge, except those matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief
and, as to those matters, I believe them to be true and correct.
SUBSCRIBED AND EXECUTED on Wednesday, August 8, 2012 pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1746:
s/
R. LANCE FLORES
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page i
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 25 of 28 PageID 2306
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On Wednesday, August 8, 2012, I electronically submitted the foregoing document
with the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the
electronic case filing system (CM/ECF) of the Court. I hereby certify that I have served
all counsel and/or pro se parties of record electronically or by another manner
authorized by Federal rule of Civil Procedure 5 (b)(2).
For the Plaintiffs:
s/
R. LANCE FLORES
CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Local Rule 7.1 does not require conference on actions for judgment as a matter of
law.
For the Plaintiffs:
s/
R. LANCE FLORES
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page ii
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 26 of 28 PageID 2307
APPENDIX A
Account Holder, Signatory or
Beneficiary
Bank SWIFT or
Routing
Account Number Transaction
Code
SIN/CUSIP
Bruce Haglund Wells Fargo Bank 121000248 2301
Bruce Haglund Wells Fargo Bank 121000248 UZW1
Trask Corporation Limited or
AssignsDeutsche Bank DEUTCNSHPBC 0711
Dale Briggs & Associates
IOLTAWells Fargo Bank WFBIUS6S 8259
Steven WoodsWachovia Bank
(LA, California)
Steven Woods Ozark Mountain Bank 81518375 5676
Hing Teik Choon / New
Eurasia Impex LimitedBank of America Corp. ISIN:
Jon Divens Bank of America N.A.
James Linder Bank of America N.A. 26009593 0191
Maureen Wilde Bank of America N.A. 26009593 488003428395
Falcon International Holdings Citizen's Bank 21313103 4004253194
MM5 LLC M&T Bank 52000113 9851026352
O'Melveny & Myers Citibank 21000089 40780224
James Wan & Company OCBC Bank OCBCSGSG 501041941301
Hing Teik Choon / BMWT /
Falcon InternationalHSBC HSBCHKHHHKH 611-273657-888
Baker McKenzie LLP Barclays Bank 26002574
Hing Teik Choon Unicredit Bank DEKRUA22
Lufti Abdulhaq WakidCitibank International
Banking PLCCITI059AUS W.99/VN677
Hing Teik Choon JP Morgan Chase Bank CHASUS33 CUSIP: 871966AA5
Matrix/BMW/Hing Teik
Choon/New Eurasia Impex
Limited
KFW BankM0
ISIN: US500769CN27
Altofin Bancorp LtdVolksbank Hungary Private
LtdMAVOHUHB
HU79 M
Altofin Bancorp LtdVolksbank Hungary Private
LtdMAVOHUHB
HU75 M
Deutsche Bank ISIN: XS0203185037
Deutsche Bank ISIN: XS0204481724
Deutsche Bank ISIN: XS0204611957
Deutsche Bank ISIN: XS0205142481
Deutsche Bank ISIN: XS0205174179
Deutsche Bank ISIN: XS0205433294
Deutsche Bank ISIN: XS0205433377
Deutsche Bank ISIN: XS0205434771
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page iii
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 27 of 28 PageID 2308
Deutsche Bank ISIN: XS0205622003
CW Capital CUSIP: 19075DAG6
JP Morgan Chase Bank CUSIP: 46630VAG7
FannieMae CUSIP: 31393UA86
Francis Wilde or Assigns Falcon Bank (Switzerland) 114915803
Francis Wilde or Assigns Wegelin Bank (Switzerland) WEGECH2GXXX Swiss
Francis Wilde or AssignsRosbank
(Moscow, Russia)UNEICHGGXXX
Swiss
Scott Anthony Koster TCF Bank 3439447813
Kerim S. Emre US Bank 153462847523
John Childs Citibank 40048141911
Winston J Cook Sun Trust 1000097242100
20120801210948 Mtn Def Jgmt - BRUCE H HAGLUND.wpd Page iv
Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 155 Filed 08/08/12 Page 28 of 28 PageID 2309