IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
CARLA HOHENHOUSE, an individual; and DANIEL JOHANNING , an individual, Plaintiffs, v.GOLF ENTERTAINMENT, INC., an Delaware corporation; THE GENESIS TRUST, an unknown entity; JAMES W. BOLT, an individual; JOHN C. DODGE, an individual; TIMOTHY BROOKER, an individual; and JOHN DOES 1 to 25, unknown individuals, Defendants. Civil No.COMPLAINTJURY TRIAL REQUESTED
Plaintiff Carla Hohenhouse (?Hohenhouse?) appearing by and for herself pro se, and Plaintiff Daniel (?Johanning?) appearing by and for himself pro se (hereinafter Hohenhouse and Johanning collectively as ?Plaintiffs?), and bring their complaint against all defendants as more fully incorporated and set forth herein, and allege as follows:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This Court has jurisdiction over the within claims pursuant to 28 USC § 1332(a)(1), in that the amount of claims exceed $75,000.00, and the parties are citizens of different states, and diversity exists between the defendants.
2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 USC § 1391(a)(1). Defendants engage and carry out their business in this District. In addition, the acts and omissions by Defendants giving rise to Plaintiffs? claims have been carried out in whole or in part in this district.
II. THE PARTIES
3. Plaintiff Hohenhouse is a resident of Richmond Hill, Georgia, and conducts business in and throughout southern Georgia, and throughout the United States.
4. Plaintiff Johanning is a resident of Florida, and conducts business in southern Georgia, and throughout the United States.
5. Upon information and belief, Defendant Golf Entertainment, Inc. (?GECC?), is a revoked Delaware corporation, registered with the State of Georgia to conduct business there, and according to Georgia records Defendent GECC is active but not in compliance or good standing. The last known registered agent of record for GECC is Ronald G. Farrell, 2500 Northwinds Pkwy., Ste.175, Alpharetta, GA 30004. According to the most recent filing by GECC with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (?SEC?) on August 15, 2002, GECC?s business address continues to be in Alpharetta, Georgia, at 2500 Northwinds Pkwy., Ste.175, Alpharetta, GA 30004. According to said SEC filing, GECC?s principal place of business is 1008 S, Clayton St.; Springdale, Arkansas 72762. GECC is not registered or authorized to conduct business in the State of Arkansas, and has no authorized registered agent to accept service in Arkansas.
6. Upon information and belief, Defendant Timothy Brooker (?Brooker?) is a resident of, and conducts business in, Springdale, Arkansas, at the address alleged in 5 above; is a resident and conducts business in Tulsa, Oklahoma; and is a resident and conducts business in Las Vegas, Nevada. Brooker purports to be an officer and director of the revoked corporation, Defendant GECC, and, upon information and belief, is a principal of Defendant GECC.
7. Upon information and belief, Defendant John C. Dodge (?Dodge?) is a resident of Bentonville, Arkansas, and purports to be an officer and director of the revoked corporation, Defendant GECC. Defendant Dodge purports to be an attorney for the revoked corporation, Defendant GECC, and, upon information and belief, is a principal of Defendant GECC.
8. Upon information and belief, Defendant James W. Bolt (?Bolt?) is a resident of Rogers, Arkansas, is a convicted felon, and has an extensive criminal history in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and other venues. Bolt purports to be an officer and director of the revoked corporation Defendant GECC, and, upon information and belief, is a principal of defendant GECC.
9. Upon information and belief, THE GENESIS TRUST (?Genesis?) is either an unknown or a revoked entity, not authorized to conduct business as a corporation or other artificial entity in any state. The principals of Defendant Genesis purport to be operating under the veil of a ?trust?. Defendant Dodge purportedly, acting as attorney, drafted the ?trust? document. Upon information and belief, Genesis? principals are the controlling principals for the revoked corporation Defendant GECC.
10. Upon information and belief, John Doe No. 1 is a resident of Henderson, Nevada, and acted individually and in concert with the other defendants in the actions and conduct alleged herein on the part of all defendants.
11. Upon information and belief, John Doe No. 2 is a resident of Alpharetta, Georgia, and acted individually and in concert with the other defendants in the actions and conduct alleged herein on the part of all defendants.
12. Does 3 through 15 are individual persons whose true identities and/or residence are presently unknown to Plaintiffs. Does 3 through 15 acted individually and in concert with the other defendants in the actions and conduct alleged herein on the part of all defendants.
13. Does 16 through 20 are individual persons whose true identities and residence are presently unknown to Plaintiffs, and were and/or are officers, directors, and owners of the revoked corporation GECC at all material times relating to the actions and conduct of all defendants alleged in this Complaint.
14. Does 21 through 25 are individual persons whose true identities and residence are presently unknown to Plaintiffs, and were and/or are officers, directors, and owners of the unknown and unincorporated entity Genesis at all material times relating to the actions and conduct of all defendants alleged in this Complaint.
15. Defendants Brooker, Dodge, Bolt, GECC, Genesis, and John Does 1 through 25 acted both individually and in concert with the other defendants, and are hereinafter collectively referred to as ?Defendants?.
III. BACKGROUND
16. Plaintiffs conduct business in this District and throughout the United States through their occupations as agents for Meridian-Prime, an entity offering internet services to residents of this District and throughout the United States, as well as other occupations and ventures. Prior to the conduct of Defendants arising to the causes of action alleged herein, Plaintiffs enjoyed a good personal and business and reputation, and the success of their business activities, as well as their personal relationships, rely upon the good personal and business reputations that Plaintiffs enjoyed. Plaintiffs are intelligent business people who exercise reasonable judgment and common sense in their business and personal dealings. Plaintiffs participate in the public market as investors in publicly traded corporations, and frequently voice their personal views and opinions relating to publicly owned and traded corporations in various public forums, including internet chat rooms, discussion groups, and public message boards. Often Plaintiffs will spot publicly reported, tradable securities which reasonable common sense and judgment dictates that said securities are being unlawfully promoted or otherwise engaged in a sham, and are therefore not investment quality.
17. Defendants, collectively and each of them, engaged in a sham operation in which GECC, a revoked shell corporation which at the time possessed no liquid assets, and which was potentially insolvent due to outstanding unpaid taxes to various state agencies, engaged in a spurious scheme to defraud the public market by a coordinated campaign of issuance of false and misleading news releases, ?touting? campaigns, and engaged in a sham stock transfer, for purposes known and unknown to Plaintiffs. This type of touting campaign is often referred to as a ?pump and dump? scheme by the SEC, in which the Defendants obtained excessive shares of common stock of Defendant GECC by way of the sham transaction, and then engaged in a campaign to artificially inflate the value of said stock, for the personal benefit of Defendants individually and collectively.
18. Plaintiffs discovered, uncovered, and reported to the public market their views relating to the sham and pump and dump schemes alleged above, including, but not limited to, opinions posted on the Raging Bull (?Raging Bull?) internet message boards, which are owned and operated by Lycos, Inc., a Virginia corporation. These reports and internet publications made by Plaintiffs constitute fair comment and are privileged under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, because they were reported truthfully and in the public interests.
19. Defendant Bolt, a convicted felon with a lengthy criminal history, also has a lengthy history of filing frivolous lawsuits against government officials and law enforcement officials, and other individuals. Defendant Bolt has a long association with Defendant Dodge. Upon information and belief, Defendant Bolt, during his incarceration in a federal prison while serving time for a felony conviction, was introduced to, and maintained an association with, John Doe No. 3. Plaintiffs believe and thereon allege that Bolt is a leader in the planning and execution of the sham and stock manipulation schemes described above, and has acted and done so with the other Defendants.
20. As part of the sham referenced above and carried out by Defendants and each of them, Defendant Dodge, acting as the attorney for the plaintiff in an Arkansas lawsuit, Defendant Genesis, and also acting as the attorney for the defendant in the same lawsuit for the defendant, the unknown entity Defendant GECC, prepared documents for both plaintiff and defense in which a bundled settlement agreement would be presented to the court hearing the matter, and requesting court authorization of the issuance of free-trading common shares of stock in the revoked corporation, Defendant GECC. Because it is illegal and unethical for an attorney to represent both sides in the same action, the prepared documents were forwarded to a third-party attorney in exchange for an unknown amount of compensation, to formally present the complaint and other documents to the court. The court in that action was not informed of any of the facts that (a) Dodge had unethically acted on behalf of both parties; (b) that Genesis, the plaintiff in that case which purports to be ?organized? under IRS Regulation 501(c)(3) for non-profit organizations, was in fact an unincorporated entity, not authorized to conduct business in Arkansas, and shielding its actors from view of the court; (c) that GECC was a revoked corporation not in good standing and not authorized to conduct business in Arkansas; and (d) that the intended purpose of the sham lawsuit was to unlawfully convince the court by misrepresentation to decree the issuance of shares of common stock under circumstances which normally violate federal securities law and SEC regulations.
21. Plaintiffs likewise publicly reported the facts of this sham as stated in the preceding paragraph.
22. Defendants, and each of them, sought to silence and chill the free speech of Plaintiffs by harassing them and making verbal threats publicly on the internet and in private communications. Among the threats made by Defendants against Plaintiffs was that of litigation, to implement Defendants? plan and intent to chill the free speech of Plaintiffs.
23. Defendant GECC, following a recognizable pattern specific to Defendant Bolt?s past history of filing frivolous lawsuits, filed what it purports to be a civil cause of action in U.S. District Court, District of Western Arkansas, purportedly alleging criminal acts of ?RICO? against Plaintiffs and other persons. No defendant was served process in that case, neither was there any intent by Defendants to serve process. No precise or specific cause of action was alleged in the complaint. Rather, the fact of the filing was used as a rhetorical platform by Defendants to publicly attack, harass, humiliate, and embarrass Plaintiffs by intentionally and maliciously making false and defamatory statements about Plaintiffs and their business and personal activities.
IV. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Slander)
24. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 23 above as though fully incorporated and set forth herein.
25. On or about June 16, 2002, Defendants contacted the Richmond Hill Police Department and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation, falsely and maliciously reporting that Plaintiffs were illegally engaged in criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, illegal drug smuggling and dealing, illegal money laundering, child pornography, securities fraud, extortion, blackmail, and other criminal activities, including ties to organized crime. Defendants additionally reported and purported to make similar false and malicious statements to the Federal Bureau of Investigation at about the same time, or shortly thereafter.
26. The Paragraph 25 statements made by Defendants to law enforcement agencies were known by the Defendants to be false, and were maliciously made for the purpose of bearing false witness to knowingly subject Plaintiffs to criminal investigation and possible criminal charges to subject the Plaintiffs to false arrest or other peril, and to slander Plaintiffs before their peers in the community.
27. The false reports by Defendants to authorities of Paragraph 25 were further used by Defendants as a platform to publicly publish their false accusations on the internet and other public places, to further their scheme to maliciously slander Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs? business dealings and their ability to conduct business in this District and throughout the United States. These publications on the internet were coordinated and executed by Defendants with the communications made to the named law enforcement agencies.
28. As a result of the conduct and actions by Defendants, and each of them, as alleged in Paragraphs 24 through 27 above, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an unknown amount to be proven at trial, but in no case less than $400,000.00.
V. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
A. COUNT ONE
(Libel)
29. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 28 above as though fully incorporated and set forth herein.
30. Beginning in or about May of 2002, Defendants, and each of them, began to publish on the internet a series of false and malicious statements regarding Plaintiffs, including statements which stated that Plaintiffs were engaged criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, illegal drug smuggling and dealing, illegal money laundering, child pornography, securities fraud, extortion, blackmail, and other criminal activities, including ties to organized crime. These statements continue to be published by Defendants to the present time.
31. The statements published by Defendants as alleged in Paragraph 30 are false, are known by the Defendants to be false, and were maliciously made with the intent to destroy the personal and business reputation of Plaintiffs in their community and before their peers.
32. In an effort to conceal their true identities from federal regulators and law enforcement authorities, as well as the Plaintiffs, Defendants posted on Raging Bull the defamatory statements using anonymous aliases, while at the same time failing to disclose their true identity and insider relationships to Defendant GECC and/or Defendant Genesis. The aliases used by Defendants include, but are not limited to, sinister_thoughts0, jmarketer, elvis_aint_ded, oldirisncreme, bitingllama, chris_sabian, tasteslikechicken2, worldlymate, mor_money, uncle_url, Bitingllama, Dockmike60, casinocompadre, nuttshott, bugmeatt, traction0, start-tac, ragingbullwinkle, the_anti_clown, hotpants1970, sunhog, shy2invest, anklebiter, yourbinky, sunhog, pharmman0, villavillars0, and bugstocash. Each of these aliases was used by Defendants to make the false and defamatory statements directed at Plaintiffs on Raging Bull. Plaintiffs are presently unable to identify which of the Defendants used which respective aliases identified herein, however Plaintiffs will amend their Complaint as these Defendants become identified to Plaintiffs.
33. The false statements of Paragraph 30 made by Defendants have damaged Plaintiffs, by injuring Plaintiff?s business and personal reputations, by causing doubt and confusion relating to Plaintiffs? integrity and reliability, and by casting false aspersions on Plaintiffs? reputation for honesty.
34. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants? actions and conduct alleged in Paragraphs 29 through 33 above, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an unspecified amount to be proven at trial, but in no case less than $500,000.00.
B. COUNT TWO
(Libel per se)
35. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 34 above as though fully incorporated and set forth herein.
36. Defendants and each of them, some of whom themselves are convicted felons with extensive criminal backgrounds, stated in the defamatory messages published on Raging Bull and referenced in Paragraph 30 above that Plaintiffs committed crimes and various illegal acts which are repulsive to society and to most reasonable persons.
37. Defendants published further false and defamatory statements regarding Plaintiffs by implying additional crimes, inter alia, by publishing defamatory statements such as ?they [meaning Plaintiffs] will see jail time? and ?about 60 months [jail time] is my guess?.
38. The false and defamatory statements made by Defendants by way of example in Paragraphs 30 and 37 above constitute libel per se, and Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages in addition to general damages.
39. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants? conduct and actions alleged in Paragraphs 35 through 38, Plaintiffs are entitled to an unspecified and unknown damage award in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no case less than $500,000.00.
C. COUNT THREE
(False Light Invasion)
40. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 39 above as though fully incorporated and set forth herein.
41. Defendant GECC, represented by Defendant Dodge, filed a complaint in federal district court falsely alleging ?RICO? acts and conduct on the part of Plaintiffs and others, however no such claim was pleaded in detail in the purported complaint as required in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and in the Local Rules for the District of Western Arkansas. No party was served a summons in that case and its status is unknown to Plaintiffs.
42. After the false and baseless allegations referenced in Paragraph 41 above were filed with the federal court in the District of Western Arkansas, GECC, Dodge, and the remaining Defendants, and each of them, used the fact of the frivolous filing as a platform to publish numerous false and defamatory messages directed at Plaintiffs on the Raging Bull message board, as well as false and defamatory news releases which were published throughout the United States and on the internet, containing statements falsely stating that Plaintiffs were engaged criminal conduct, including, but not limited to, illegal drug smuggling and dealing, illegal money laundering, child pornography, securities fraud, extortion, blackmail, and other criminal activities, including ties to organized crime.
43. These false and defamatory statements published by Defendants were published in conjunction with Defendants? ?press releases? announcing GECC?s filing of the frivolous Arkansas action, in an effort to legitimatize Defendants? false and defamatory statements directed at Plaintiffs.
44. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants? actions and conduct alleged in Paragraphs 40 through 43 above, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in an unknown amount to be proven at trial, but in no case less than $500,000.00.
VI. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Civil Conspiracy)
45. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 44 above as though fully incorporated and set forth herein.
46. The actions and conduct of Defendants as alleged by way of example in Paragraphs 25, 30 and 37 reveal a broad and coordinated conspiracy on the part of all Defendants, and each of them, to carry out their plan to attack and destroy the respective reputations of Plaintiffs, to prevent Plaintiffs from speaking freely in the public interest, and to punish the Plaintiffs for uncovering and exposing the stock manipulation scheme and shams perpetrated by Defendants.
47. Each Defendant was aware, and had knowledge of, the actions and conduct of the other Defendants, in carrying out the scheme to injure Plaintiffs.
48. Each Defendant aided and abetted the other Defendants in carrying out the scheme to injure Plaintiffs.
49. Each Defendant acted as agent for the other Defendants in carrying out the actions and conduct which give rise to Plaintiffs? claims for relief.
50. As a direct and proximate result of the actions of Defendants as alleged in Paragraphs 45 through 50 above, Plaintiffs have been injured in an amount to be proven at trial, but in no case less than $1,000,000.00.
///
VII. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Injunction)
51. Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through 50 above as though fully incorporated and set forth herein.
52. Defendants have demonstrated through their actions as alleged herein, and through their past criminal histories, a flagrant disregard for the laws of the State of Georgia and for the Constitution of the United States of America.
53. Without court intervention Defendants, and each of them, will continue to injure Plaintiffs and will continue to act with reckless disregard for the civil rights of Plaintiffs.
54. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to cause Defendants to cease from the harassment and defamatory actions as alleged herein, which continues to the present.
55. Plaintiffs request that this Court enter a permanent injunctive order against Defendants requiring Defendants to cease harassing Plaintiffs in the manner described here, to cease from publishing all false and defamatory statements relating to Plaintiffs, and to withdraw and retract all false and defamatory statements made by Defendants.
WHEREFORE Plaintiffs pray that this Court grant the following relief:
(a) judgment for compensatory damages in an amount of $2,000,000.00, together with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest thereon, at a legal rate;
(b) judgment for punitive damages in an amount of $4,000,000.00, together with interest thereon at a legal rate;
(c) judgment for costs of suit and attorneys fees (if any) to the extent allowed by law;
(d) a permanent injunctive order preventing Defendants from making further defamatory remarks regarding Plaintiffs and from violating Plaintiffs? civil rights of free speech; and
(e) such other legal and equitable relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
PLAINTIFFS DEMAND A TRIAL BY JURY AS TO ALL CLAIMS SO TRIABLE.
Respectfully submitted and dated this 19th Day of August, 2002.
ragingbull.lycos.com |
