Gecc
Here's a company suing posters for saying the OS went up (it did, 300% in 3 months) and that the CFO Jim Bolt is a criminal (read the deposition below)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS, FAYETTEVILLE DIVISION
GOLF ENTERTAINMENT, INC., )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) No. 02-5133
) COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
JOHN DOE#1, a/k/a "chohenhous," ) 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c)(d)
a/k/a "Carla S. HOHENHOUSE," ) (THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED
JOHN DOE#2, a/k/a "tycoma1," ) AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
JOHN DOE#3, a/k/a "haybail_out," ) ACT)
a/k/a "Captain DJ," )
a/k/a "meridianprime," )
a/k/a "D.J. JOHANNING," )
a/k/a "dack130," )
JOHN DOE#4, a/k/a "sprintcar," )
a/k/a "rocky," )
JOHN DOE#5, a/k/a "YaMoron," )
JOHN DOE#6, a/k/a "LBJ_n_Aruba," )
JOHN DOE#7, a/k/a "bowdrie," )
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff alleges that from on or about the 30th day of March, 1999, through the present, in the Western District of Arkansas, the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida, the Southern District of Georgia and elsewhere, the various Defendants described herein devised and intended to devise a common scheme to cheat, defraud and to extort from the Plaintiff and other like situated publicly owned companies, interfere with interstate commerce and cause economic injury to Plaintiff and like situated companies; the Defendants adopted a common scheme to defraud shareholders of various victim companies; the Defendants utilized an extensive and sophisticated electronic communications system to transmit and disseminate false, fraudulent, misleading or materially untrue statements in furtherance of their schemes to defraud. In furtherance of such schemes as set out below, the Defendants would and did, from time to time, commit criminal violations of 18 USC §§1343, 1951, 1952, 2, and 3. Two or more predicate acts occurring within the ten (10) year period next preceding the filing of this Complaint are alleged below.
COUNT 1
I. VENUE & JURISDICTION
1. The Plaintiff, Golf Entertainment, Inc., (hereafter "GOLF") is a Delaware corporation in the process of domiciling in Arkansas in the Western District, and has had significant or principal business operations within the Western District of Arkansas for at least the six (6) months next preceding the filing of the Complaint.
2. The acts complained of have occurred in the Western District of Arkansas, the Middle and Southern Districts of Florida; the Southern District of Georgia; and elsewhere.
3. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the litigation by way of 18 USC § 1962, 1964, and §§2, 3. This Court is of lawful venue pursuant to 18 USC § 1965(b). The defendants JOHN DOE#1, a/k/a "chohenhous," a/k/a "Carla S. HOHENHOUSE;" JOHN DOE#2, a/k/a "tycoma1," JOHN DOE#3, a/k/a "haybail_out," a/k/a "Captain DJ," a/k/a "meridianprime," a/k/a "D.J. JOHANNING," a/k/a "dack130," JOHN DOE#4, a/k/a "sprintcar," a/k/a "rocky," JOHN DOE#5, a/k/a "YaMoron," JOHN DOE#6, a/k/a "LBJ_n_Aruba," and, JOHN DOE#7, a/k/a "bowdrie," are known to be located in at least two states, the State of Georgia and the State of Florida.
II. THE ENTERPRISE, INTEREST & CONTROL OF THE ENTERPRISE
4. At a date presently unknown to the Plaintiff, RICO Enterprise controllers Defendants JOHN DOE#1, a/k/a "chohenhous," a/k/a "Carla S. HOHENHOUSE;" (hereafter "CHOHENHOUS") and JOHN DOE#3, a/k/a "haybail_out," a/k/a "Captain DJ," a/k/a "meridianprime," a/k/a "D.J. JOHANNING," a/k/a "dack130," (hereafter "JOHANNING") devised and intended to devise a common scheme to interfere with interstate commerce and to commit repeated acts of wire fraud using an avenue of interstate communication operating in interstate commerce. Additionally, Defendant CHOHENHOUS utilized the internet to transmit an extortion demand to Plaintiff. The enterprise, as presently known to the Plaintiff, consists of an affiliation of the Defendants, all persons who are currently operating together in furtherance of a common scheme or criminal enterprise. The nature of the RICO Enterprise is such that in some instances, Enterprise operatives know each other only by computer chat room "aliases" or "handles," thereafter communicating by an instant electronic messaging system commonly referred to as "AIM" or, by electronic e-mail, all of which is transmitted and delivered via a modality of interstate commerce. Additionally, this process has the effect of shielding the RICO Enterprise operatives from detection, apprehension and criminal prosecution.
5. In the RICO Enterprise, which may be generically described as a "stock bashing scheme," (hereafter, "the Enterprise") these defendants are alleged to be criminal operatives who, while operating under numerous and frequently changing "aliases," utilize various means and modalities of interstate commerce to communicate false and misleading information or other information where they conceal material information required to be presented in order to make their other statements not misleading or untrue. These publicly available statements about victim companies, the market for publicly free-trading common stock of the victim companies then generally is driven lower thereby, all of which adversely and unlawfully affects interstate commerce. It is not alleged that these defendants are directly involved in a stock fraud scheme, rather, that they are conducting a RICO Enterprise designed to economically injure victim companies through various acts of extortion and wire fraud.
6. The RICO Enterprise is managed or led by Defendants CHOHENHOUS and JOHANNING, in which all defendants maintain an interest to one extent or another. The Enterprise is distinguished as an activity that operates through a pattern of racketeering activity.
III. PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY
7. At the time of filing, Plaintiff has identified several like-situated companies which have been targeted by and are being operated against by these defendants. The companies bear similarities. They are all publicly held, fully SEC reporting companies; they have an extant base of public shareholders; there is an active market for the trading securities of the targeted companies, including Plaintiff; and the securities of the companies are considered "penny stocks" by SEC definition, and trade in a volatile marketplace where the trade price may easily be affected through dissemination of false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information by the Defendants and each of them.
8. The securities of the Plaintiff trade on the NASD OTC-BB national market under the ticker symbols GECC and GECCP. Other companies currently alleged to have been victimized by the Enterprise are:
a. Universal Express, Inc. (USXP)
b. OMDA Oil & Gas, Inc. (OMOG)
c. WAMEX Holdings, Inc. (WAMX)
d. Universal Communications Systems, Inc. (UCSI)
9. In its operation, the Enterprise makes extensive use of various means and modalities of interstate commerce including use of the internet, use of telephone access devices to gain entry to the internet, all of which operate to the detriment of interstate commerce.
10. This pattern has continued unabated, joined from time to time by persons other than the nominal defendants, the common goal of which is to inflict economic injury to the victim companies, to adversely affect the public market for their securities, to adversely affect their credit worthiness or ratings, to harass, defame or publicly stalk and threaten corporate officers and directors of victim companies.
11. Plaintiff alleges that this pattern of conduct combined with the establishment of an Enterprise describes adequately a "RICO Enterprise" as the term has been applied to like situated criminal operations.
12. The multiplicity of common victims, the patterns of racketeering activity, the Enterprise and the continuity of the Enterprise give rise to the relief sought by Plaintiff under the RICO statutes.
13. The total number of separate predicate acts of wire fraud, 18 USC § 1343 of the entire body of defendants is estimated to be in excess of separate 80,000 criminal events spread against approximately 30 victim companies during the 36 months next preceding the filing hereof.
14. In the commission of their criminal acts, and, in furtherance of the Enterprise, these defendants have utilized a primary internet venue entitled www.ragingbull.com where each of the above named victim companies has an electronic message board maintained by Lycos, Inc., whereon the defendants and each of them have unfettered access to promulgate and perpetrate the predicate federal felony offenses.
IV. PREDICATE OVERT ACTS
14. The following chart depicts at least one overt act on the part of each defendant, the approximate date of the commission and the federal statute violated. In each overt act, the named defendant conspired with other defendants, aided and abetted either before or after the commission of the specified overt act.
TABLE 1
FED. STATUTE
DEFENDANT DATE(S) VIOLATED VENUE OR MODALITY
CHOHENHOUS 15JUN02 18 USC §1951 RagingBull - Post 6429
JOHANNING 16Jun02 18 USC §1343 RagingBull - Post 7507
TYCOMA1 15Jun02 18 USC §1343 RagingBull - Post 6982
HAYBAIL_OUT 16Jun01 18 USC §1343 RagingBull - Post 7734
SPRINTCAR 14Jun02 18 USC §1343 RagingBull - Post 5912
YAMORON 16Jun02 18 USC §1343 RagingBull - Post 7633
LBJ_N_ARUBA 16Jun02 18 USC §1343 RagingBull - Post 7880
BOWDRIE 16Jun02 18 USC §1343 RagingBull - Post 7874
15. As a result of the operation of the RICO Enterprise complained of herein, the Plaintiff has been injured in business and property. Damages are, at time of filing, still being assessed.
16. All of the above violations described are in addition to substantial numbers of additional similar violations occurring against Plaintiff and like situated companies during the existence of and operation of the RICO Enterprise. Each Defendant aided and abetted the other in the above listed violations, incurring liability thereby under 18 USC §2, or 3, or both.
VI. RELIEF SOUGHT
16. Plaintiff demands judgment against the defendants and each of them, jointly and severally; for a preliminary and permanent injunction barring the operation of the RICO Enterprise complained of herein; for actual and for treble damages, to be determined at trial; and for all other relief the Court finds the Plaintiff entitled to. Plaintiff demands trial by jury.
GOLF ENTERTAINMENT, INC., by:
______________________________________
Dr. Tim Brooker, Chief Executive Officer,
Plaintiff Golf Entertainment, Inc.
______________________________________
John C. Dodge, Attorney at Law
Ark. Bar. No. 78041
1008 South Clayton Street
Springdale, Arkansas 72764
479-751-2300
479-751-2273 - Telefax
ragingbull.lycos.com
***********
By: YaMoron
24 Jun 2002, 11:22 PM EDT Msg. 13251 of 13695
(This msg. is a reply to 13250 by dozendivots.)
Excerpts from the Mel Robinson Deposition (John Dodge representing) taken on October 10, 2001 (two months before the sale of assets to GECC) Given at the Offices of Conner & Winters, 100 West Center Street, Fayetteville, Arkansas (501) 582-5711 Fax (501) 587-1426
Mel Robinson, Trustee of the "The Genesis Trust" which acquired tv station assets at auction (December 25, 2001, and turned around and agreed to sell them a few days later to GECC for stock.
*********************
Q. Did Mr. Bolt disclose to you before you made your stock purchase decision that he was convicted felon?
A. No.
Q. Do you now know him to be a convicted felon?
A. Yes
Q. Did you meet Mr. Bolt in prison?
A. I knew Mr. Bolt way before that.
Q. What was - When did you have your felony conviction? Did you have more than one or just one?
A. No, no. Just one . ‘94. ‘93 or ‘94
Q. What was the charge?
A. Conspiracy.
Q. To do what?
A. Conspiracy to commit fraud.
************************
Q. I thought you told me that you and he (Bolt) were not in El Reno at the same time.
A. No. I said — I didn’t say that.
Q. I thought I had asked whether you met him in prison and you told me no.
A. If you did, I misunderstood. No . I did not meet him in prison. I said I knew who he was in prison.
**********************
Ya
ragingbull.lycos.com |
