UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

                   CASE #  98-14069-CIV-RYSKAMP

                   Filed   Feb. 17,1998

 

      FEDERAL JUDGE --- Kenneth L. Ryskamp

DONALD D. STONE   FEDERAL MAGISTRATE JUDGE --- Frank J. Lynch Jr.

           Plaintiff

 

     v   

ROBERT E. WARFIELD, SR.; CHARLES R.

LONGO; MARK SAPPERSTEIN; GILBERT S.

SAPPERSTEIN; HAL P. GLICK; BRUCE A.

MOORE; CHRISTINE WARD; REGAN JAMES

RENO SMITH; WILLIAMS, HAMMOND,                       JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

SHOCKLEY, MOORE, & HARRISON; JOSEPH HARRISON, JR.; RICHARD COLLINS, EDWARD H. HAMMOND, JR.; JOSEPH E. MOORE; RAYMOND C. SHOCKLEY;

THOMAS C. GROTON, individually; THEODORE R. ESCHENBURG, individually; RICHARD R. BLOXOM, individually; RICHARD H. OUTTEN, individually; JANE POWELL, individually; KEVIN SCHILLER, individually; WORCESTER COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; CHARLES T. MARTIN, individually; TOM JONES, individually; MICHAEL MCDERMOTT, individually; JAMES BOWDEN, individually; MICHAEL KINHART, individually; MARTIN KOERNER, individually; PAUL HASKELL,

individually; JOEL TODD, individually; GARY MUMFORD, individually; REGAN JAMES

RENO SMITH, individually; TOWN OF BERLIN, MARYLAND; REX HAILEY,

individually; ELROY BRITTINGHAM, SR., individually; DEAN J BURELL, individually; PAULA LYNCH, individually; FREDERICK

PARKER, individually; WILLIAM TURNER, individually; WORCESTER COUNTY (MARYLAND); WORCESTER COUNTY (MARYLAND) COMMISSION; JAMES G. BARRETT, individually; GRANVILLE

D. TRIMPER, individually; ROBERT L.

COWGER, JR., individually; JEANNE LYNCH, individually; BERLIN (MARYLAND) POLICE DEPARTMENT; PRENTICE M. LYONS, individually; WORCESTER COUNTY (MARYLAND)

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION; WORCESTER COUNTY (MARYLAND) STATE’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE; JACK O’CONNER; DONALD STONE INDUSTRIES, INC.; CHIEFTAN INVESTORS – MARK SAPPERSTEIN; CHIEFTAN INVESTORS - GILBERT SAPPERSTEIN; LYNN BATTAGLIA, individually; DALE KELBERMAN, individually; GEORGE RUSSELL, III, individually; LORI SIMPSON, individually; SHAPIRO & OLANDER; JOEL I. SHER; TIMOTHY F. MCCORMACK, ANN C. LAWRENCE, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG; MARY F. EBERSOL; ALAN M. GROCHAL; JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., individually; VICKIE GAUL,  individually; ANDREW M. MCDONALD, individually; ROBERT N. MCDONALD, individually; JULIE TEWEY, individually; WILLIAM F. HOWARD, individually; MILES & STOCKBRIDGE;

JEROME T. MIRAGLIA; JAMES EYLER; JOHN B. FRISCH; JAMES R. JOHNSON; CARL F. JOHNSON; GARY BOARDWINE; KATHLEEN R. TERNES; MARYLAND STATE POLICE; DAVID B. MITCHELL,

individually; STEPHEN MOYER, individually; STANFORD FRANKLIN, individually; DALE PETTY, individually; BRUFF J. PROCTER;

MICHELLE PROCTER; GREGORY M. BURGEE;

EARL W. BARTIGIS; DANNY B. O’CONNER;

FIBER TECHNOLOGY, INC.; JOHN L. MILLING; SUSAN M. COHEN; JOHN J. SELLINGER; SHIPPERS’ CHOICE, INC.; SHIPPERS’ CHOICE OF VIRGINIA, INC.; JOHN DOE; and JANE DOE

           Defendants.

 

JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Stone is a resident of the Southern district of Florida and a citizen of the United States of America.  Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C §1331, §1332(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. §3231, §1964(a).

 

VENUE

Venue in the Southern District of Florida is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2) and 18 U.S.C. §1965(a)(b)(c)(d) and §3237(a).  Plaintiff’s claim arose in this district.  All defendants transacted business in, committed a tort in, or had an agent in this district at all times material to this complaint.  In the alternative, the ends of justice require that parties who do not reside in this district be brought before the Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1965(b) since the activities centered in Florida, the acts of all defendants are interrelated, and under the pendant laws of the state of Florida, alleges violations of Florida Law Chapter 772, Civil Remedies for Criminal Activities F.S. 772.103 and F.S. 772.104, 772.102(1), Section 836.05, Chapter 843, Section 914.32, F.S. Chapter 910.01, Chapter 517, Civil Conspiracy, and F.S. 48.181, and 48.193.

 

COMPLAINT FOR MONETARY DAMAGES

VIOLATION OF CIVIL R.I.C.O. 18 U.S.C. §1962 (a), (b), (c), (d)

And CIVIL RIGHTS 42 U.S.C. §1983, §1985, §1986 and DUE PROCESS

THROUGH CONSPIRACY AND FRAUD

 

COMES NOW DONALD D. STONE, pro se, Plaintiff in this action and moves this court for trial by jury against Defendants as follows:

 

SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT

1.          Plaintiff, Donald D. Stone (“Plaintiff”), an inventor, formed the corporation Donald Stone Industries, Inc. (“DSII”) to commercialize a technology Plaintiff had invented. 

2.          Unknown to Plaintiff, DSII’s attorney Gregory M. Burgee (“Burgee”), Secretary/Treasurer Bruff J. Procter (“Procter”), and alleged first investor Charles R. Longo (“Longo”) were engaged in numerous fraudulent interwoven and overlapping schemes, such as money laundering and conspiracies to commit federal bankruptcy fraud, that were perpetrated by Longo, a white-collar criminal who had 2,000 documented victims in Maryland and Virginia.  These bankruptcy fraud schemes were committed by concealing assets from creditors by diverting Longo’s personal assets and the assets of his corporations for which bankruptcy had been filed into legitimate businesses, such as DSII, and real estate investments throughout Maryland.  The schemes perpetrated against Plaintiff and DSII were as follows:

3.          In or about January 1991, Burgee, Procter, and Longo induced Plaintiff to believe that Longo was an accredited investor (an individual with an annual income of not less than $200,000.00 and a net worth of not less than $1,000,000.00) who had invested $15,000 into DSII. 

4.          Plaintiff as inventor, President, and major shareholder of controlling interest of DSII, having successfully introduced and interested numerous major “Fortune 100” and “Fortune 500” corporations in the emerging technology and inventions was unaware of Longo, Procter, Burgee, and the law firm of Miles & Stockbridge’s ongoing criminal activities.

5.          In the Fall of 1993, just as DSII was on the verge of possibly signing two (2) potentially valuable licensing agreements for the technology Plaintiff had invented, Longo and Procter, needing money to support one (1) of their rapidly-collapsing fraudulent securities schemes, conspired with three (3) DSII investors to fraudulently seize control of DSII.  In the first of numerous extortion attempts, Longo, Procter, and the other DSII investors threatened to have Plaintiff arrested on unspecified criminal charges unless Plaintiff capitulated to their demand to turn over DSII corporate documents in his possession.  Plaintiff complied.

6.          After seizing control of DSII, Longo was made President of DSII.  At that point, Longo and Procter had exclusive control of DSII’s checking account.

7.          In furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge induced three (3) investors to invest additional money in DSII.  Longo and Procter then embezzled a portion of this money for their personal enrichment and to finance their sale of fraudulent securities.

8.          On or about January 12, 1994, in order to cover up their embezzlement of DSII funds and to support their rapidly-collapsing fraudulent securities scheme, Longo and Procter devised a scheme to extort Plaintiff’s patent.  In this extortion attempt, Longo, Procter, Hal P. Glick (“Glick”), Bruce A. Moore (“Moore”), Mark Sapperstein (“Sapperstein”), and Gilbert Sapperstein (“G. Sapperstein”) demanded that Plaintiff assign to DSII his patent and pending patent for the technology upon which DSII was based.  Plaintiff refused to capitulate.

9.          By February 1994, Longo, Procter, Moore, Robert E. Warfield (“Warfield”), Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and Burgee, frustrated by their failure to extort from Plaintiff his intellectual properties, and in furtherance of the conspiracy to extort “under color of law,” had their attorneys devise another scheme to defraud Plaintiff by filing a sham lawsuit against Plaintiff in another attempt to force Plaintiff to capitulate to their demand that he relinquish his ownership of the patent and patent pending upon which DSII was based.  This lawsuit, involving malicious prosecution, judicial abuse, and denial of due process, was filed against Plaintiff in a “good old boy” backwater kangaroo court in a district where the two (2) sitting judges were long-time personal acquaintances and political cronies of three (3) of the DSII investors and the investors’ law firm. 

10.          Plaintiff refused to capitulate to the extortion attempts and threats and instead initiated an investigation into Longo’s background. Eventually this investigation mushroomed into a corruption investigation identifying federal and state law enforcement agencies and officials more interested in protecting their personal and political agendas and politically-well-connected Maryland businessmen who were involved in numerous federal racketeering activities and state criminal law violations.

11.          With each of Plaintiff’s refusals to capitulate to the intimidation, threats, and extortion attempts brought about by the Defendants, the more the Defendants were forced to enact multiple fraudulent schemes and cover ups for their criminal activities, each one requiring greater participation by federal and state agencies to provide “under color of law” resources to protect the prominent and politically-well-connected Maryland businessmen to allow them to operate without restriction while committing numerous federal felony offenses.

 

UNDERLYING FACTS

Re:  Longo/National Training Systems/Shippers’ Choice, Inc.

 

1.          On or about October 15, 1993, shortly after Plaintiff received an extortion attempt from Longo, Warfield, Procter, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein, in which they threatened to have Plaintiff arrested on unspecified charges if he did not capitulate to their demand to turn over immediately all DSII corporate documents in his possession, Plaintiff initiated a personally-financed investigation into Longo and Longo’s business associates.  The investigation would not terminate until four (4) years later and would reveal Longo and his business associates’ extensive white-collar criminal activities that included complex numerous interwoven and overlapping fraudulent schemes.  The investigation was conducted in Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., New Jersey, New York, Texas, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, and Alabama.

2.          Longo, through his National Training Systems (“NTS”), which was a professional truck driver training school, had victimized approximately 2,000 (two thousand) students in Maryland and Virginia in a United States Department of Education student loan fraud scheme in the late 1980s.

3.          Longo and NTS are alleged by the Maryland Attorney General’s office to have defrauded NTS students of approximately $8 million in United States Department of Education student loan money.

4.          In or about October 1990, Longo was indicted in Virginia on 46 (forty-six) counts of grand theft, arrested, and jailed for approximately 9 (nine) days in Maryland.   Due to a technicality, the charges were dropped and Longo had records expunged.

5.          By 1993, NTS in Virginia was closed as a result of numerous complaints.

6.          Longo reopened in Virginia in or about 1993 under the name Shippers’ Choice of Virginia.  The company was registered under the name of other individuals to disguise Longo’s ownership.  The opening of Shippers’ Choice of Virginia was financed with money Longo had obtained from an alleged securities fraud scheme.

7.          In or about September 1990, NTS filed bankruptcy in Maryland, with debts of approximately $10,000,000.00 (ten million dollars), to use the protection of the bankruptcy courts against an intensifying investigation by the Maryland Attorney General’s office.  In connection with this bankruptcy, Longo and his associates made numerous fraudulent pre-petition and post-petition transfers of assets to defraud the NTS creditors.  The NTS bankruptcy was dismissed in July 1992.

8.          In or about November 1990, Longo and his wife (Linda) would jointly file personal bankruptcy in Maryland to protect themselves from personal liability with NTS and to use the protection of the bankruptcy courts against the intensifying investigation by the Maryland Attorney General’s office.  Longo made numerous fraudulent pre-petition and post-petition transfers of assets to defraud his personal creditors.  Longo and his wife would later split their case.  Longo’s wife’s case and plan would be confirmed but Longo’s case would still be open in 1997.

9.          By conducting fraudulent transfers to conceal cash and material assets to defraud the creditors of both the NTS bankruptcy and his personal bankruptcy, and then diverting these assets into legitimate businesses and real estate, Longo and his associates were able to finance a new corporation as a vehicle for the furtherance of numerous fraudulent schemes.

10.          Longo’s new corporation, Shippers’ Choice, Inc. (“SCI”), was another alleged “professional truck driving school” which opened in Maryland on or about September 27, 1990.

11.          Beginning in or about 1992, Longo/SCI, with the assistance of Washington Investments (“WI”), a corporation engaged in investment banking, would begin selling student loans in bundled offerings of $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars).  This alleged fraudulent securities scheme would gross Longo/SCI/WI approximately $1,325,000.00 (one million, three hundred twenty-five thousand dollars).  This securities fraud scheme would collapse in late 1993/early 1994.

12.          The money from the student loan offerings was to be used by SCI, a Maryland corporation, but Longo was diverting a portion of the money to finance the start up of Shippers’ Choice of Virginia.

13.          Additionally, Longo is alleged to have been using money from these schemes for his personal enrichment rather than for corporate purposes.

14.          Longo had personally fraudulently represented in writing to investors of these offerings that SCI was not a party to any litigation and that no litigation had been brought against SCI.  At the time Longo was making these statements, SCI was operating against two (2) cease-and-desist orders from the Maryland Higher Education Department and was continually involved in litigation with the state of Maryland.

15.          In or about March 1993, Michael Dennis Beck (“Beck”), an associate of Longo’s involved in the alleged sale of the SCI fraudulent securities offerings, pled guilty to one (1) count of federal felony offense (wire fraud) and was incarcerated for 18 (eighteen) months on a charge unrelated to the alleged SCI securities offerings.

16.          The SEC is alleged to have been unaware of Beck’s activities in the sale of the $500,000.00 (five hundred thousand dollars) fraudulent securities offerings made by Longo/SCI/WI until mid 1996.

17.          In or about December 1994, SCI declared bankruptcy in an effort to evade liability for the fraudulent securities scheme.

18.          Beginning in or about October 1993 and lasting until the present, DSII, the victim or prize corporation, would become a mere continuation of SCI, which was the continuation of NTS.  Namely, all were vehicles through which Longo and his associates engaged in fraudulent activities.  With DSII, Longo and his associates would have absolute control of the potentially valuable technology and patent Plaintiff had invented and of DSII, a legitimate corporation Plaintiff had formed.  Hidden behind this legitimate corporation, Longo and his associates would further their fraudulent and federal felony activities and parlay the money and assets from their previous fraudulent schemes into an ever-expanding collection of legitimate businesses, enterprises, and real estate.

 

BACKGROUND

 

1.          In or about September 1989, Plaintiff, a surfer for over 25 years, envisioned a non-abrasive, non-skid coating for surfboards.  With only a high school education and no formal chemistry background, Plaintiff began independent research and development on a non-abrasive, non-skid coating for surfboards.

2.          In or about October 1990, Plaintiff discovered that a mixture of off-the-shelf components, such as VaselineTM (from the drug store) and PlastidipTM (from the hardware store), could produce certain qualities desirable for non-abrasive and non-skid coatings on water-wet surfaces.  Plaintiff continued his independent research and development through 1991 until he believed he had a working formula to demonstrate. 

1.          In or about September 1991, after several hundred experiments, Plaintiff finally developed a formulation that met all the necessary criteria for a possible surfboard application: non-abrasive, wet traction coating, adhesion to substrate, and easy to clean.

2.          On or about September 20, 1991, Plaintiff demonstrated his invention, which he named Octo-Grip, at the Action Sports Retail Trade Show in Atlantic City, New Jersey.

3.          Shortly thereafter, Procter, a customer of Plaintiff’s fiberglass repair company in Ocean City, Maryland, convinced Plaintiff that he (Procter) could raise the operating capital to finance the cost to patent Plaintiff’s technology and to commercialize it. Plaintiff entered into a verbal agreement with Procter where Procter was to receive shares in the proposed corporation in exchange for his work raising money on behalf of the proposed corporation.

4.          In or about October 1991, Procter introduced Plaintiff to Longo touting Longo as a potential investor in the proposed corporation.

5.          In or about November 1991, Procter and Plaintiff contracted Ken Darnell, a patent agent, to conduct a patent search to determine if the invention Plaintiff had discovered could be patented.  The patent search, concluded in November 1991, showed that Plaintiff’s invention was unique and could be patented.

6.          In or about November 1991, Procter introduced Plaintiff to Burgee, an attorney with the law firm Miles & Stockbridge at the Miles & Stockbridge office in Frederick, Maryland. Procter and Burgee were childhood friends and Burgee was Procter’s personal and business attorney.  Plaintiff and Procter engaged Burgee to form a corporation to be known as Donald Stone Industries, Inc. for the purpose of developing Plaintiff’s invention and to commercialize the resultant technology.

7.          Unknown to Plaintiff at the time he was introduced to Burgee, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge were engaged in numerous fraudulent schemes allegedly involving money laundering and conspiracies to commit federal bankruptcy fraud by diverting Longo’s personal assets, as a debtor in possession, and the assets of the bankrupt NTS, a corporation Longo exclusively controlled, into various legitimate businesses and real estate transactions in Frederick, Maryland and throughout Maryland.

8.          On December 6, 1991, DSII was incorporated as a Maryland corporation with an initial stock distribution of 5,000 (five thousand) shares of Common stock, 3,000 (three thousand) shares of Class A Voting Common stock, and 2,000 (two thousand) shares of Class B Non-voting Common stock.

a)  The Articles of Incorporation were signed in the offices of Miles & Stockbridge in Frederick, Maryland.  The Articles of Incorporation recorded the following as officers of the Corporation:  Donald D. Stone, President and Bruff J. Procter, Secretary/Treasurer. 

b)  On or about December 7, 1991, in the presence of Burgee in the Miles & Stockbridge offices in Frederick, Maryland, Plaintiff and Procter were issued stock in DSII as follows:  Donald D. Stone, President, stock certificate number A-1 for 61% of the Class A Voting stock, which represented controlling interest of DSII; and Bruff Procter, Secretary/Treasurer, stock certificate number A-2 for 39% of the Class A Voting stock. 

c)  Neither Burgee nor Procter explained to Plaintiff that investors in DSII would be sold shares of stock from Plaintiff’s 61%.

9.          On or about December 6, 1991, Burgee advised Plaintiff and Procter that operating capital for DSII could be raised through a private offering to not-more-than 35 (thirty-five) accredited investors (individuals with an annual income or not less than $200,000.00 and a minimum net worth of $1,000,000.00) and that Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge could provide DSII with the necessary documents and questionnaires that investors would have to complete for consideration as accredited investors.

10.          In or about January 1992, Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge prepared a Licensing Agreement by which Plaintiff would license his invention to DSII. 

a)  On or about January 13, 1992, Plaintiff signed the licensing agreement as licenser.  Procter, as receiver for DSII, signed the licensing agreement as licensee.

b)  Burgee never informed Plaintiff that neither he nor Miles & Stockbridge had experience or expertise in drafting patent licensing agreements.

c)  Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge, as corporate attorney for DSII, never filed the license agreement with the U.S. Patent Office.

d)  Burgee was acting under a gross conflict of interest by concurrently representing DSII, Procter, and Plaintiff.

11.          On or about January 7, 1992, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge induced Plaintiff (working in Florida) to believe that Longo was an accredited investor. 

a)  Longo, Procter, and Burgee told Plaintiff that Longo had presented check number 272, drawn on Citizens Bank of Maryland in the amount of $15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars) as an investment in DSII.

b)  In or about May 1995, Plaintiff discovered that the $15,000.00 check presented by Longo as an investment into DSII was made payable to Bruff Procter, an individual, not to DSII. 

c)  Procter refused to open an DSII corporate checking account.  Instead, Procter deposited the $15,000.00 check into the bank account of Fiber Technology in Frederick County National Bank in Frederick, Maryland. 

d)  Further, Plaintiff discovered that the deposit transaction did not occur until January 23, 1992.

e)  Fiber Technology was a checking account exclusively controlled by Procter and his wife Michelle Procter.  Though some of the $15,000.00 investment into DSII was used for DSII expenses, a portion of the investment was used by Procter and his wife for their own personal enrichment. 

12.          Between January 1992 and the spring of 1992, Plaintiff made repeated, unsuccessful requests to Procter for Procter to open a DSII corporate checking account and to deposit the invested funds into that account. 

13.          In the spring of 1992, when Procter had still not opened a DSII corporate checking account or deposited the funds into a DSII account, Plaintiff, who was working in Florida, returned to Maryland and personally collected from Procter $5,507.69 (five thousand, five hundred seven dollars and sixty-nine cents), the amount remaining from the $15,000.00 investment. 

a)  Plaintiff then opened a DSII corporate checking account at Calvin B. Taylor Bank in Ocean City, Maryland, and deposited into the DSII corporate checking account $5,507.69, the amount retrieved from Procter. 

b)  The DSII corporate checking account was structured so that either Plaintiff or Procter could sign checks on the account without requiring a countersignature.

c) Plaintiff used the funds to continue DSII research, development, marketing, and to cover the expenses to obtain a patent on the developing technology.

14.          Also in the spring of 1992, because it appeared that the technology DSII was developing would have a greater number of  possible applications -- and thereby greater financial value -- than was originally envisioned, Procter approached Burgee about how to raise additional operating capital for DSII. 

a) Shortly after Procter’s request to Burgee, Burgee arranged a meeting of Plaintiff, Procter, and Burgee at the downtown Baltimore offices of Miles & Stockbridge with Miles & Stockbridge attorney John B. Frisch (“Frisch”).

b)  Burgee and Frisch led Plaintiff and Procter to believe that additional capital could be raised by making a private offering to Miles & Stockbridge clients Sandy Panitz, Frank Sarro, and others. 

c) Plaintiff requested that additional capital be raised within three (3) months because DSII and Plaintiff were operating under extreme financial hardship. 

15.          In the fall of 1992, DSII terminated its relationship with Miles & Stockbridge because of nonperformance and delays by Miles & Stockbridge.

16.          In or about September 1992, Plaintiff personally borrowed  $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars) from Capital Cash (P.O. Box 9560, Manchester, New Hampshire) at 21.9% interest to keep Plaintiff and DSII solvent because of Procter’s refusal to raise any operating capital for DSII (other than the alleged $15,000.00 Longo, Procter, and Burgee were inducing Plaintiff to believe was an investment into DSII).

17.          In the Fall of 1992, Plaintiff returned to Florida and began working in a cabinet shop to support himself and the research and development efforts for DSII.

18.          In or about December 1992, Procter secured a $30,000.00 (thirty thousand dollars) investment into DSII from Sapperstein of Baltimore, Maryland for which Sapperstein was given 4% of Class A Voting Common stock in DSII.  Plaintiff, working in Florida, traveled to Maryland to meet Sapperstein, to receive the investment, and to deposit the $30,000.00 into the DSII checking account at Calvin B. Taylor Bank in Ocean City, Maryland.

19.          In or about December 1992, DSII paid to Andrew Sherman (“Sherman”), an attorney, the sum of $2,000.00 (two thousand dollars) for Sherman to create a Licensing Memorandum which DSII could use to introduce its technology to potential licensees.  DSII terminated its agreement with Sherman in or about late February 1993, for delay in producing the finished Memorandum.

20.          During the first quarter of 1993, Plaintiff, continuing to work in a cabinet shop in Florida, and Procter engaged in a massive licensing effort. 

a)  The licensing effort consisted of contacting personnel in major corporations throughout the United States that might have applications for DSII’s technology and then faxing them the DSII licensing memorandum. 

b)  From this licensing effort, Plaintiff and DSII met with representatives of Stride Rite shoes in Boston, Massachusetts, one of the largest seller of shoes in the United States, for the possible application of DSII’s technology in their Sperry Top Sider shoe soles.  From this meeting, DSII was introduced to a raw material supplier to Stride Rite.

c)  Also from this licensing effort, DSII entered into a research and development agreement with Golf Pride, a division of Eaton Industries and the largest manufacturer of golf club grips in the world, for the possible application of DSII’s technology in their golf club grips.

d)  Both agreements indicated the enormous possible potential value of DSII’s emerging technology.

21.          During the first quarter of 1993, as Plaintiff was preparing the 1992 K-1 tax forms for investors, Procter informed Plaintiff that the $30,000.00 invested by Sapperstein was actually not made by Sapperstein but rather by his father Gilbert, and that the K-1 form was to be made out to Gilbert Sapperstein.

22.          In or about March 1993, Sapperstein invested an additional $15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars) in DSII for which he was given 2% of DSII’s Class A Voting stock.

23.          All corporate documents and stock certificates would remain in the exclusive control of Burgee, Procter, and Longo in the offices of Miles & Stockbridge until Spring 1993.

24.          During the second quarter of 1993, DSII entered into a research and development agreement with Miles Polymer, a large international chemical conglomerate, for possible application of DSII’s technology in polyurethane shoe soles.  DSII also initiated contacts with Nike and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.  This agreement and these contacts reaffirmed the enormous possible potential value of DSII’s emerging technology and Plaintiff’s invention.

25.          On or about June 17, 1993, Warfield and Glick made a combined investment into DSII of $22,500.00 (twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollars) for which they were given 2.5% of DSII’s Class A Voting stock.

26.          In the fall of 1993, Longo, Procter, John L. Milling (“Milling”), John J. Sellinger (“Sellinger”), James R. Johnson (“J. Johnson”), Carl F. Johnson (“C. Johnson”), and Gary Boardwine (“Boardwine”) realized that their securities fraud scheme, being perpetrated through SCI and WI, was collapsing.  They then focused their attention on DSII as a legitimate enterprise to further their fraudulent schemes and began shifting their accomplices into doing work for DSII.

a)  In the summer of 1993, Longo introduced Plaintiff to Milling, a securities attorney in New Jersey, stating that Milling could help with DSII’s licensing efforts.

b)  Unknown to Plaintiff at the time Milling was introduced to him, Milling was creating the securities documents Longo was using to sell the fraudulent securities through SCI and WI.

c)  Allegedly, under this fraudulent scheme, the student loans were bundled into $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars) packages by Longo/SCI then sold by WI to investors throughout the United States

i)  To insure the investment, Longo’s long-time personal friend and business attorney, Sellinger, was alleged to be acting as the escrow agent between SCI and WI.

ii)  Sellinger was alleged to be maintaining a cushion in the escrow account to make the investors “whole” in the event there was a default on the securities.  However, Longo and Sellinger never maintained this account, thereby defrauding the investors who bought these securities.

iii)  The money from the sale of these fraudulent securities was to be used to operate SCI, but Longo was diverting a portion of the money from the sale of these fraudulent securities through Boardwine and C. Johnson, persons who had been involved with Longo in numerous other fraudulent schemes, to Shippers’ Choice of Virginia.

27.          On or about September 28, 1993, after a DSII corporation meeting in the real estate office of Moore, Warfield, and Glick at 128th Street in Ocean City, Maryland, Longo persuaded Plaintiff that he (Longo) could get the DSII corporate papers in order, would help Plaintiff issue stock certificates to investors, and would obtain additional financing for DSII.  Plaintiff, believing Longo had befriended him -- and at that time unaware of Longo’s propensity to engage in criminal conduct -- gave over to Longo DSII’s corporate documents and the stock certificates issued to Plaintiff (certificate number A-1) and to Procter (certificate number A-2) on December 7, 1991.

28.          In or about mid-October 1993, Plaintiff personally financed his travel and lodging to attend the Licensing Executive Society business convention in San Francisco, California on behalf of DSII to introduce DSII’s emerging technology to major United States corporations. 

a)  At this convention, Plaintiff was able to interest H.B. Fuller, the third largest adhesives and sealant manufacturer in the United States, and Becton Dickinson, one of the largest medical product suppliers in the United States, in the emerging technology Plaintiff had invented.

b)  While at this convention, Longo, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Procter, and Warfield seized control of DSII by calling and holding a fraudulent board meeting.  At this meeting they elected Longo as president of DSII. 

c)  Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and Warfield then threatened Plaintiff via fax that if he did not immediately return all corporate documents then in his possession to the corporate officers that they would have him arrested on unspecified criminal charges. 

29.          Longo -- shortly after seizing control of DSII on or about October 15, 1993, and threatening to have Plaintiff arrested on unspecified criminal charges -- and Milling represented to Dan Dague, the President of GLS Plastics, a potential licensee, that they represented Plaintiff’s personal interest.

30.          After Longo was elected president of DSII, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Moore, Warfield, and Glick changed DSII’s corporate structure and strengthened their control of DSII by denying and concealing the existence of the Class A Voting stock certificate issued to Plaintiff on December 7, 1991, that would invalidate any and all actions taken by Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and Glick against Plaintiff.

a)  Longo and Procter changed the DSII checking account so they had exclusive control of DSII’s funds. 

b)  Longo changed DSII’s address to 8346 Washington Ave. in Jessup, Maryland.  This address was also the corporate address of SCI, a corporation exclusively controlled by Longo, and the address from where Longo was operating his securities fraud schemes and bankruptcy fraud schemes.

31.          On or about October 29, 1993, Longo; Procter; Sapperstein; G. Sapperstein; Burgee; Glick; Moore; Warfield; Miles & Stockbridge;  Joseph Harrison, Jr. (“Harrison”); and the law firm of Williams, Hammond, Shockley, Moore, and Harrison, Jr. (“WHSM&H”), highly confident they could extort from Plaintiff the potentially valuable patent and pending patent upon which DSII was based through the use of threats, extortion, and intimidation, convinced Warfield and Glick to invest additional money in DSII and Moore to invest for the first time in DSII.

a)  Warfield invested an additional $12,500.00 (twelve thousand, five hundred dollars), for which he was given an unknown number of shares of DSII stock.

b)  Glick invested an additional $17,500.00 (seventeen thousand, five hundred dollars), for which he was given an unknown number of shares of DSII stock.

c)  Moore invested $22,500.00 (twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollars) for which he was given an unknown number of shares DSII stock.

32.          Longo and Procter then proceeded to embezzle a portion of the funds invested by Warfield, Glick, and Moore into DSII to finance Longo’s/SCI’s securities fraud schemes and for their personal enrichment.

a)  On or about October 29, 1993, Procter wrote check number 101 in the amount of $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars) on DSII’s checking account to American Credit Company.  American Credit Company was a trade name used by SCI’s for a “paper company” under Longo’s control that was used to conceal and divert money into and between Longo’s numerous fraudulent schemes. 

b)  On or about November 11, 1993, Longo wrote check number 118 in the amount of $20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars) on the DSII’s checking account to Cash.  Allegedly, Boardwine took this check to the bank, cashed it, then delivered the $20,000.00 of cash to Longo.

c)  On or about November 29, 1993, Longo wrote check number 130 in the amount of $4,475.50 (four thousand, four hundred seventy-five dollars and fifty cents) on DSII’s checking account to Taze and Hewitt for a heat pump unit to be delivered to Longo’s personal residence at 624 Harbor Drive in Annapolis, Maryland.

33.          Longo, Procter, Sellinger, Burgee, Boardwine, C. Johnson, J. Johnson, Milling, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein devised numerous, simultaneously-enacted schemes to defraud Plaintiff, DSII, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Harrison, and WHSM&H.

a)  On or about November 15, 1993, Golf Pride was to advise DSII if they would be executing a licensing agreement with DSII.  This licensing agreement would be the result of a research and development agreement initiated by Plaintiff in early June 1993.

b)  Longo, Procter, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Boardwine, Sellinger, and C. Johnson were after the potentially large initial cash payment from this licensing agreement so they could use it to cover up Longo’s embezzlement of DSII funds and for their personal enrichment.

c)  Additionally, Longo, J. Johnson, Procter, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Boardwine, Sellinger, Milling, and C. Johnson were after the initial cash payments and royalties from this licensing agreement so they could divert the cash and royalties to support their rapidly-collapsing fraudulent securities scheme.

34.          At some undetermined date after October 1993, Moore, Warfield, and Glick were allegedly introduced to Rusty Krauss (“Krauss”).  Krauss was a securities broker who was working for WI and helping Longo, Sellinger, Milling, Procter, SCI, and WI sell the fraudulent securities.

35.          In furtherance of the conspiracy, scheme, and artifice to defraud Plaintiff, Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein would devise a scheme to use WI to raise venture capital for DSII if they could extort from Plaintiff “under color of law” Plaintiff’s intellectual property.  This would allow Longo, Procter, Sellinger, Milling, WI, and WI’s officer J. Johnson to make a smooth transition from the sale of the fraudulent SCI/WI securities into fraudulent securities offerings on DSII based on Plaintiff’s potentially valuable patent and pending patent and the potential for possible patent licensing agreements on a domestic and international basis.

36.          Between November 1993 and February 1994, Longo; Procter; Moore; Glick; Warfield; Sapperstein; G. Sapperstein; Sellinger; Boardwine; C. Johnson; J. Johnson; Millings; Burgee; Miles & Stockbridge; Melvin Blecher (“Blecher”), from the law firm of Foley and Lardner; Harrison; Regan James Reno Smith (“Smith”); Richard Collins (“Collins”); and Edward H. Hammond, Jr. (“Hammond”) (from the law firm of WHSM&H); and WHSM&H began to devise another scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff and wrest from him control of DSII and his potentially valuable patent by resorting to extortion “under color of law.”

a)  This scheme was initiated because neither Golf Pride nor GLS purchased a licensing agreement from DSII.

b)  Longo, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, and Procter convinced Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein that they could extort from Plaintiff his patent and the pending patent(s) thereby making them (Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein) owners of Plaintiff’s potentially valuable intellectual properties, personal property, and assets.

c)  Unknown to Moore, Warfield, and Glick, this scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff would enable Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Boardwine, Sellinger, and C. Johnson to cover up their embezzlement of the investments Moore, Warfield, and Glick had made into DSII.

37.          James Eyler (“Eyler”), Attorney-in-Charge of the Miles & Stockbridge offices in Baltimore, Maryland, and Burgee continued to knowingly and fraudulently conspire to provide legal assistance to Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H in furtherance of the scheme.

a)  Miles & Stockbridge continued their involvement with Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H to cover up the earlier criminal conduct of Burgee, Procter, and Longo that was committed in the Miles & Stockbridge offices in Frederick, Maryland, against Plaintiff and DSII.

b)  Miles & Stockbridge also continued their involvement with Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H so they could continue to fraudulently divert and/or protect Longo’s and Procter’s assets from the creditors for Longo’s personal bankruptcy, the bankruptcy of Longo’s NTS, and eventually the SCI bankruptcy.

38.          Unknown to Black and Decker, one of the largest manufacturers of hand tools in the United States, located in Townsend, Maryland, and a primary client of the politically-powerful and prestigious Baltimore law firm Miles & Stockbridge, Miles & Stockbridge attorneys Eyler, Frisch, and Jerome T. Miraglia (“Miraglia”) were conspiring with Burgee, Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H to devise a fraudulent scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff by conspiring to extort “under color of law” from Plaintiff his patent and intellectual properties. 

a)  This was done in the event that if Miles and Stockbridge’s client, Black and Decker, might have a possible application for the emerging technology and inventions of Plaintiff, Miles & Stockbridge would be able to obtain preferential licensing deals if Longo and Procter controlled the inventions and technology.

39.          On or about November 15, 1993, Plaintiff -- unaware of Longo’s propensity to engage in fraudulent schemes -- began to conduct a personally-financed investigation into Longo’s background.

a)  Plaintiff started his investigation by filing a complaint with Julie Tewey (“Tewey”), Assistant Attorney General of the Securities Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s office about Longo’s continued and repeated refusal to return to Plaintiff the stock certificate (number A-1) issued to him on December 7, 1991. 

b)  In or about January 1994, Plaintiff contacted Burgee in the Miles & Stockbridge law offices in Frederick, Maryland to have him speak with Tewey.  Burgee agreed to talk to Tewey if she would contact him.  However Tewey, not wanting to become involved in a possible securities fraud investigation that involved the prestigious and politically-powerful Maryland law firm of Miles & Stockbridge or the personal and politically-powerful friend of her boss, Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran, Jr. (“Curran”), refused to contact Burgee stating attorney/client privilege, even though no attorney/client privilege can exist for a corporation.

c)  Despite numerous telephone calls and letters by Plaintiff between November 1993 and June 1994, the Maryland Attorney General’s office closed its files on Plaintiff’s complaint.

d)  Tewey never disclosed to Plaintiff that Longo, SCI, and NTS had been under investigation by the Maryland Attorney General’s office for approximately four (4) years.

e)  Tewey also never disclosed to Plaintiff that the Maryland Attorney General’s office was pursuing a class action lawsuit against Longo on behalf of approximately 2,000 victims of Longo’s NTS scheme.

f)  Tewey also never disclosed to Plaintiff that the Maryland Attorney General’s office had been instrumental in forcing Longo and NTS into bankruptcy.

40.          On or about January 12, 1994, Longo, as President of DSII, sent a letter to Plaintiff at Plaintiff’s Florida residence in an extortion attempt demanding that Plaintiff assign to DSII the pending patent and the patent awarded to Plaintiff.  The letter further stated that if Plaintiff did not assign the patent and pending patent(s) to DSII, that the investors would take whatever actions were necessary to force Plaintiff to assign the patent and pending patent(s).  Plaintiff refused to capitulate.

41.          On or about February 14, 1994 -- after Plaintiff refused to capitulate to the second extortion attempt made by Longo -- Procter, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Warfield, Glick, Moore, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H devised a fraudulent scheme to extort from Plaintiff his intellectual properties “under color of law.”  In this scheme, they had WHSM&H file a sham lawsuit against Plaintiff in the Circuit Court for Worcester County in Snow Hill, Maryland alleging breach of fiduciary responsibility.

a)  Longo, Procter, Warfield, Glick, Moore, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein had no grounds for this suit since Longo, Procter, and Burgee had knowingly and willfully, as part of their money laundering and bankruptcy fraud schemes, conspired to defraud and misrepresent to Plaintiff and DSII that Longo was an accredited investor.

b)  The suit was filed in Worcester County, Maryland despite the fact that Longo was operating DSII at the SCI location in Jessup, Maryland, approximately 100 miles away.

c)  The suit was filed in Worcester County because the two (2) judges sitting in Worcester County, Judge Theodore R. Eschenburg (“Judge Eschenburg”) and Judge Thomas C. Groton (“Judge Groton”), were long-time personal acquaintances and political cronies of Moore, Warfield, Glick, Harrison, and WHSM&H.

42.          On or about March 10, 1994, Plaintiff was served in Jensen Beach, Florida with the complaint (Case Number 94CV0182, Docket Number SP 59/117) for the sham lawsuit initiated on February 14, 1994.

43.          The trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone was scheduled for December 19, 1994 so that Plaintiff would be forced to drive the 2,000 mile round trip to Maryland during the Christmas holiday season to defend himself from the sham lawsuit.

44.          In or about March 1994, Plaintiff would discover that certain individuals in the Ocean City/Worcester County, Maryland area were bragging to personal acquaintances about how they were going to steal Plaintiff’s intellectual properties from him.

45.          On or about March 14, 1994, in furtherance of the conspiracy to extort Plaintiff’s inventions, Blecher knowingly, willfully, and  with intent to defraud, sent a letter to Plaintiff with an opinion that the technology for which Plaintiff was awarded a patent and for which another patent was pending had been developed while Plaintiff was employed by DSII.  At the time this letter was written, Blecher had in his possession documents that proved Plaintiff’s original invention was invented prior to the formation of DSII.

46.          In or about March 1994, Longo’s/SCI’s fraudulent securities scheme had collapsed and Longo had failed to extort Plaintiff’s patent and technology.

47.          In or about May 1994, Plaintiff filed his response with the Court.  The trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone was set for December 19, 1994.

48.          In or about June 1994, having discovered Longo’s penchant for fraud from newspaper articles about Longo and NTS, Plaintiff contacted Maryland Assistant Attorney General William F. Howard (“Howard”) in an effort to learn more about Longo’s numerous fraudulent schemes.  Howard, on behalf of the Maryland Higher Education Commission, was at that time in charge of a four-year, on-going investigation and litigation against Longo, Longo’s (bankrupt) NTS, and Longo’s (current) SCI.

49.          In or about August 1994, a DSII check was made out to Chieftan Investors for airfare to an alleged meeting with Goodyear Tire and Rubber in Akron, Ohio.  Chieftan Investors, Inc. is a Maryland corporation of which Sapperstein and G. Sapperstein are directors.  Sapperstein and G. Sapperstein are alleged to have used the Chieftan Investors’ corporate plane to fly Longo to the meeting with Goodyear Tire and Rubber.  When Longo arrived, Goodyear aborted this meeting and refused to talk to Longo.

50.          Unknown to Goodyear Tire and Rubber, by refusing to talk to white-collar criminals Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Harrison, and WHSM&H, they helped to temporarily foil the fraudulent schemes of the defendants.

51.          By late 1994, Longo, Sellinger, Milling, Procter, Boardwine, and C. Johnson -- unable to extort from Plaintiff his intellectual property, unable to obtain clear title to the patents, unable to obtain any financing from license agreements based on the patents, with the SCI/WI securities fraud scheme in a total state of collapse, facing the pending trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone scheduled for December 19, 1994, and faced with the December 12, 1994 trial of SCI against the State of Maryland --  began making preparations for taking SCI into bankruptcy.

52.          On or about December 10 and 11, 1994, Plaintiff drove from Florida to Maryland to defend himself in the sham lawsuit.

53.          On or about December 12, 1994, Plaintiff was present in the Annapolis, Maryland courthouse when the Maryland Attorney General’s office forced Longo’s SCI into bankruptcy. 

a)  This was the third time in four (4) years that a corporation controlled by Longo and Longo had been forced into federal bankruptcy.

b)  Longo chose to file bankruptcy for SCI to avoid a trial being pursued by the Maryland Attorney General’s office against SCI.

54.          On or about December 16, 1994 -- as part of the conspiracy to extort and defraud Plaintiff “under color of law” and on behalf of Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Eyler, Frisch, and Miraglia -- Harrison and Smith made “a fix” with Judge Eschenburg to postpone the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.  Plaintiff was advised by Paul Haskell (“Haskell”), the Law Clerk, of the postponement and that the trial was rescheduled for June 19, 1995.

a)  Harrison, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein were alleged to have recently discovered that Longo and Procter had been embezzling money from DSII.

b)  Harrison arranged the ex parte meeting with Judge Eschenburg and Smith because Harrison could not make Longo appear in a Worcester County Circuit Court trial.

c)  Smith, a part-time Worcester County Assistant State’s Attorney and an employee of WHSM&H, conspired with Judge Eschenburg to cancel the trial that had been scheduled for December 19, 1994.

d)  Judge Eschenburg, Harrison, and Smith, in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff, denied Plaintiff a trial by jury.

55.          In December 1994, Harrison asked Plaintiff for an out-of-court settlement proposal.  Harrison refused the proposal put forth by Plaintiff.

56.          In early 1995, Longo testified under oath in a federal bankruptcy court proceeding for the bankruptcy for SCI that DSII had never invested money into SCI.  Present at this proceeding was Alan Grochal (“Grochal”), attorney for SCI and Longo.

57.          On February 22, 1995, Plaintiff received a telephone call from Sapperstein.  During this telephone conversation, Sapperstein stated that they (Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Moore, Warfield, and Glick) realized they had made a terrible mistake when they seized control of DSII and that they realized Longo was a thief.  Sapperstein further stated that they would help Plaintiff put Longo in jail and that putting Longo in jail wouldn’t be an easy task.  Sapperstein then asked Plaintiff for a settlement proposal.  Plaintiff referred Sapperstein to the settlement proposal in the possession of Harrison in Ocean City, Maryland.

58.          Unknown to Plaintiff, shortly after SCI declared bankruptcy in early 1995, Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Harrison, WHSM&H, Grochal, Mary F. Ebersol (“Ebersol”), Tydings & Rosenberg, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge devised a scheme and artifice to simultaneously defraud the creditors of SCI and Plaintiff.

a)  The scheme consisted of diverting the cash assets of SCI into and through the DSII checking account, a refinement of what Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge had so successfully done for Longo’s personal bankruptcy and for the bankruptcy of Longo’s NTS.

b)  The scheme would enable Longo and Procter to begin restitution of the money they had been embezzling from DSII and also to defraud the creditors of SCI.

c)  Grochal, Ebersol, and Tydings & Rosenberg knew that if they conspired to defraud Plaintiff and the creditors of SCI, and if they helped Longo, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Burgee, Procter, Miles & Stockbridge, and WHSM&H extort from Plaintiff “under color of law” his intellectual property, they would be assured of collecting their on-going legal fees from Longo’s bankruptcy and the SCI bankruptcy.

59.          On or about February 28, 1995, one (or more) unknown Defendant(s) placed a mailing block on the DSII monthly bank statements.  This block kept the DSII monthly statements from being mailed to the corporate address (also the address for SCI) so the DSII banking records showing the co-mingling of the DSII assets with the bankrupt SCI would be concealed from Joel I. Sher (“Sher”), the bankruptcy trustee for the SCI bankruptcy, who was now receiving the SCI mail.

60.          In or about late May/early June 1995, Plaintiff secured the services of Daniel Bowler (“Bowler”), a process server, to serve a subpoena deuce tecum on the Records Custodian at the law offices of Miles & Stockbridge at 10 Light Street in Baltimore, Maryland to secure documents Plaintiff needed for his defense in the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone to take place on June 19, 1995. 

a)  Bowler was alleged to have been told by a Miles & Stockbridge secretary that Miles & Stockbridge did not have a records custodian.

b)  Bowler was further alleged to have been told by the same Miles & Stockbridge secretary that Miles & Stockbridge did not have any papers pertaining to Plaintiff or DSII.

c)  Plaintiff knew these alleged statements were an attempt to block his access to important documents he needed for his defense because he had in his possession, at the time the subpoena was served, documents that were drafted and signed by Frisch and Miraglia, attorneys at Miles & Stockbridge working at the Miles & Stockbridge offices at 10 Light Street in Baltimore, Maryland.

61.          In late May/early June 1995, Plaintiff had a subpoena duece tecum served on the United States Attorney for Maryland, Lynne Battaglia (“Battaglia”), to appear in court on June 19, 1995 on his behalf in the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone. 

a)  Plaintiff was contacted by Assistant United States Attorney George Russell, III (“Russell”) on behalf of Battaglia alleging that Battaglia had no personal knowledge or documents regarding the matter between Longo and Plaintiff and that Plaintiff was involved only in a business dispute with Longo.

b) Battaglia enacted this ruse to defraud Plaintiff, knowing that if Plaintiff were allowed to speak with Assistant United States Attorney Dale Kelberman (“Kelberman”) -- the person who had extensive personal knowledge of the matters concerning Longo, SCI, and DSII -- that Kelberman would be required to make disclosures.

c)  Battaglia knew the disclosures Keblerman could make would be damaging to her personal and political agenda, and to her personal and political relationship with Curran.

d)  Battaglia also knew the disclosures Keblerman could make would be damaging to the Maryland Attorney General Curran, and to Curran’s agenda to protect the Maryland political machine from criminal investigation.

e) Battaglia further knew the disclosures Keblerman could make would open a Pandora’s box of corruption involving various levels of the Maryland state government, prominent businessmen, and the politically powerful and prestigious law firm of Miles & Stockbridge.

f)  Battaglia additionally realized that any federal investigation into Longo would lead to an investigation into politically-powerful Miles & Stockbridge, which would be detrimental to Battaglia’s personal agenda in the future when she would be seeking lucrative employment in the private legal sector.

62.          Also in or about late May/early June 1995, Plaintiff had Howard served with a subpoena duece tecum for Howard to appear in court to testify against Longo and Curran’s personal acquaintances concerning the Maryland Attorney General’s four-year investigation against Longo, NTS, and SCI.

a)  Howard, as Assistant Attorney General, had been Longo’s nemesis for the previous four (4) years.

b)  Howard’s investigation into Longo’s schemes forced Longo into personal bankruptcy and into filing bankruptcy for NTS.

c)  Howard disclosed to Plaintiff during a telephone call after the subpoena was served, that Sapperstein and G. Sapperstein were well known to the Maryland Attorney General’s office, stating specifically that the Sappersteins had “numerous friends at the Maryland Attorney General’s office.”  Howard would later deny making these statements.

63.          On or about June 5, 1995, on behalf of Curran and Howard, Maryland Assistant Attorney General Andrew N. McDonald (“A. McDonald”) filed a motion to quash the subpoena duece tecum served on Howard. 

a)  The motion stated that Howard had no personal knowledge of the matter between Longo and Plaintiff, that Plaintiff was harassing Howard, and that Plaintiff was wasting the State’s resources. 

b)  Judge Groton approved the motion. 

c)  Howard had the subpoena quashed to discredit Plaintiff and to block Plaintiff’s access to documents, exculpatory evidence, and testimony that would be devastating and damaging to Curran’s personal acquaintances and political cronies Sapperstein and G. Sapperstein.

d)  In or about early 1996, Plaintiff would obtain legal tape recordings revealing that both Howard and McDonald knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent made false statements against Plaintiff in the motion to quash the subpoena duece tecum.

64.          In or about June 1995, Plaintiff had subpoenas duece tecum to appear and testify on his behalf served on Smith and Gary Mumford (”Mumford”), an investigator for the Worcester County State Attorney’s office. 

a)  Smith and Mumford entered a motion to quash the subpoenas they had been served stating they had no personal knowledge of DSII or of the pending litigation. 

b)  Judge Groton, knowing Smith was employed by the law firm Longo used (WHSM&H), quickly approved the motion.

c)  Plaintiff knew the statements made by Smith in his motion to quash the subpoena were false because Smith had extensive personal knowledge of the litigation of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone and is alleged to have discussed this litigation with his personal acquaintances.

d)  Plaintiff also knew the statements made by Smith in his motion to quash the subpoena were false because Smith had conspired in an ex parte meeting with Judge Eschenburg to cancel the trial scheduled for December 19, 1994 and to deny Plaintiff a trial by jury.

e)  Plaintiff knew the statements made by Mumford in his motion to quash the subpoena were false because Plaintiff had spoken with Mumford in the Worcester County States Attorney’s office in or about December 1994 about both Longo and Harrison being involved in a securities fraud.

65.          In or about June 1995, Plaintiff again secured the services of Bowler to serve a subpoena duece tecum to appear and testify on Plaintiff’s behalf to United States bankruptcy trustee Lori Simpson (“Simpson”). 

a)  Bowler attempted to serve this subpoena on several occasions -- even when Simpson was known to be in her office -- without success.

b)  In or about early 1997, Plaintiff would discover that Simpson had personal knowledge and documents concerning DSII and Longo that were critical to Plaintiff’s defense in the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

66.          On June 19, 1995, prior to the start of the trial, Harrison engaged in an ex parte meeting with his long-time personal acquaintance Judge Groton.

67.          On June 19, 1995, during the opening of the trial of  DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone, Judge Groton made derogatory remarks in open court about Plaintiff acting as his own attorney (pro se).  Judge Groton further stated that he was in a hurry to get the trial over with because he had a busy schedule.

68.          On June 19, 1995, during the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone, Longo testified that he had not been an accredited investor at the time he made his alleged $15,000.00 investment into DSII.

a)  This testimony voided Longo’s grounds to sue Plaintiff.

b)  Further, this testimony confirmed to Plaintiff that Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge had devised a fraudulent scheme to defraud Plaintiff and DSII, to embezzle DSII assets, to hide Longo’s assets from bankruptcy creditors, and to provide a base from which Longo, Procter, and Burgee could perpetrate additional fraudulent schemes.

69.          On June 19, 1995, during the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone, Plaintiff introduced a document from the State of Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation dated June 12, 1995, that DSII was not a corporation in good standing for nonpayment of its corporate personal property taxes.

a)  Longo, under the advice of his attorney (Harrison) testified that he had revived the DSII corporate charter at some time during the period between June 12 and June 19, 1995. 

b)  Longo’s statement was proved false when, on or about October 5, 1995, DSII forfeited its charter to do business in Maryland because of non-payment of its corporate personal property taxes.

c)  Since DSII did not exist as a legitimate corporate entity at the time of the trial (June 19, 1995), there were no legal grounds for the suit, thereby voiding all legal action connected with the suit.

70.          On June 19, 1995, during the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone, Burgee failed to disclose that Longo was not an accredited investor at the time of Longo’s alleged $15,000.00 investment into DSII.  Even though required by law and the Code of Professional Ethics, Burgee withheld exculpatory evidence that Longo was not an accredited investor in an effort to cover up the earlier criminal conduct Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge had committed when they induced Plaintiff to believe that Longo was an accredited investor.

71.          On or about June 20, 1995, Plaintiff realized that it was futile to obtain a fair trial before judges that were long-time personal acquaintances and political cronies of three (3) of the plaintiffs and their law firm, and unable to seek the court’s protection against Judge Eschenburg’s and Judge Groton’s personal and political cronies and fraudulent schemes, Plaintiff capitulated.  The result of the trial was the following settlement: 

a)  The license agreement Plaintiff signed on January 13, 1992, with DSII pertaining to U.S. patent number 5,314,940, would remain valid.

b)  The following patents, issued and pending, would be world-wide assignments by Plaintiff to DSII:

                   Patent No. 5,314,940, issued May 24, 1994

                   Patent pending 08/021,131, filed February 23, 1993

                   Patent pending 08/145,189, filed November 3, 1993

c)  Plaintiff was to receive $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars).

d)  Plaintiff was to receive a stock certificate for 49% of DSII’s Class A stock. 

e)  Plaintiff’s voting rights were forfeited and were to be voted by proxy by Longo, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Procter, G. Sapperstein, and Sapperstein.

72.          On or about October 5, 1995, DSII forfeited its charter to do business in the state of Maryland because of non-payment of its corporate personal property taxes.

73.          In November 1995, Plaintiff filed a complaint with Joel Todd (“Todd”) of the Worcester County State’s Attorneys’ office accusing Longo of embezzling money from DSII during the time Longo was president of DSII. 

a)  Todd referred the complaint to the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation. 

b)  The complaint was investigated by Michael McDermott (“McDermott”) of the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation. 

c)  McDermott interviewed Longo, Procter, and Sapperstein.

d)  According to the investigation report, Sapperstein denied calling Longo a thief during his telephone conversation with Plaintiff on or about February 22, 1995. 

e)  According to the investigation report, Longo told McDermott that he had invested DSII funds into SCI.  As evidence of this transaction, Longo presented McDermott with copies of a promissory note between DSII and SCI, DSII ledger sheets, a 1099 form to DSII from Shippers’ Choice of Virginia, canceled checks from the DSII checking account, and other documents. 

f)  McDermott reported to his superior officer, Maryland State Police Sergeant Michael Kinhart (“Kinhart”), the head of the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation, that Plaintiff’s complaint was unfounded.  Kinhart signed off on the investigation.

g)  Kinhart signed off on the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation in order to protect Judge Eschenburg’s and Judge Groton’s personal acquaintances and political cronies -- specifically Moore, Warfield, Glick, and WHSM&H -- from a criminal investigation.

h)  Plaintiff knew Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Harrison, and WHSM&H had devised this fraudulent scheme to cover up Longo and Procter’s embezzlement of DSII assets.

i)  Plaintiff knew the investigation was a sham designed to protect Moore, Warfield, Glick, Harrison, and WHSM&H from criminal liability and to preserve the unconsummated court order of June 20, 1995 from the sham judicial preceding by Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton that would give them control of Plaintiff’s potentially valuable patent and pending patents.

j)  Plaintiff knew Moore, Warfield, Glick, Harrison, and WHSM&H wielded enough political clout in Worcester County to have any allegations about Longo’s activities declared unfounded.

k)  Todd and officers McDermott, Kinhart, and James Bowden (“Bowden”) knew that a legitimate investigation would implicate Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton because the court-ordered settlement from the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone had not yet been enacted.

74.          In or about January 1996, Plaintiff sent a written inquiry to Judge Eschenburg questioning whether Judge Eschenburg’s relationship with Moore, Warfield, and Glick was a possible conflict of interest and asking why Plaintiff’s request for a jury trial was denied. 

a)  Judge Eschenburg denied any conflict of interest.

b)  Judge Eschenburg evaded Plaintiff’s request for an explanation of why his request for a jury trial had been denied by claiming the issue was moot.

c)  Judge Eschenburg postponed the trial and denied Plaintiff’s request for a jury trial to protect his personal and political cronies from public scrutiny.

75.          In or about January 1996, Plaintiff sent a written inquiry to Judge Groton questioning whether his relationship with Moore, Warfield, and Glick was a possible conflict of interest and asking why Plaintiff had been denied a jury trial.

a)  Judge Groton refused to respond personally to Plaintiff’s inquiry and instead had Haskell, his law clerk, respond that he (Judge Groton) had no conflict of interest.

b)  Judge Groton did not respond to Plaintiff’s request for an explanation of why his request for a jury trial had been denied.

c)  Judge Groton denied Plaintiff’s request for a jury trial to protect his personal and political cronies from investigation and public scrutiny.

76.          In or about February 1996, Plaintiff paid $600.00 (six hundred dollars) to court reporter Kevin Schiller for a copy of the transcripts of the June 19-20, 1995 trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone. 

77.          In November 1996, Plaintiff made a written request for information under the Maryland Public Information Act to Todd to obtain the evidence that had been given to McDermott by Longo during the November 1995 investigation conducted by the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation. 

a)  Plaintiff made his request to Todd even though Plaintiff knew Todd employed Smith as a part-time States Attorney and that Smith was also an attorney for the law firm Longo used (WHSM&H).

b)  Todd claimed he had no record of Plaintiff’s complaint. 

c)  Todd further claimed he had no information about who would have custody of the evidence collected during the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation’s investigation or of the final report of the investigation.

d)  Todd referred Plaintiff to the city of Berlin (Maryland) Police Chief, Prentice M. Lyons (“Lyons”).

e)  Todd tried to block Plaintiff’s access to the investigation report and documents because Todd knew they would provide Plaintiff with clear and convincing evidence that Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Harrison, and WHSM&H had given McDermott fraudulent DSII ledger sheets.

f)  Todd tried to block Plaintiff’s access to the investigation report and documents because Todd knew that McDermott and Kinhart had falsified the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation report.

78.          In furtherance of the scheme to defraud Plaintiff and to punish Plaintiff for his request for an investigation into DSII assets, in or about March 1996, Harrison filed a motion to enforce the court order issued on June 20, 1995, which Judge Groton allowed.  The motion allowed Harrison to deduct $600.00 (six hundred dollars) from the $10,000.00 escrow account containing the money payable to Plaintiff under the court-ordered settlement.

79.          On June 16, 1996, Plaintiff -- under threat of being held in contempt of court by Judge Groton -- capitulated to the court-ordered settlement. 

a)  G. Sapperstein refused to sign the court-ordered proxy statement in an effort to sever his relationship with the criminal activities of Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Harrison, and WHSM&H.

80.          On or about June 16, 1996, Plaintiff received stock certificate number 48 for 490 shares of Class A non-voting stock, representing 49% of DSII stock.  Since the trial and resulting court order under which this certificate was issued was a sham because DSII had forfeited its Maryland corporate charter on October 5, 1995, the certificate was fraudulent.

81.          Needing confirmation of federal bankruptcy fraud in order to petition the U.S. Attorney to initiate a grand jury investigation against Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Procter, Longo, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge in or about November 1996, Plaintiff made a request for information under the Maryland Public Information Act to Kinhart.

a)  Plaintiff’s request put Kinhart between “a rock and a hard place.”  Kinhart knew he had to respond to Plaintiff’s request but he didn’t want to further his involvement in the cover-up conspiracy.

b)  In or about December 1996, in response to Plaintiff’s request, Kinhart sent to Plaintiff a packet of documents and evidence that were alleged to be those collected during the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation’s investigation and the Bureau’s final report. 

c)  The documents provided clear and convincing evidence that the investigation had been a sham.

d)  The packet of information was accompanied by a note that Kinhart had hand-printed on plain paper, thereby making the information available to Plaintiff without formally continuing the Bureau’s involvement with the Longo-et. al. cover-up conspiracy.

82.          Fearing more fraud and cover up, on or about November 17, 1996, Plaintiff filed a request with Officer Stephen Moyer of the Maryland State Police Internal Affairs department asking that the Maryland State Police provide written confirmation, on official Maryland State Police stationery, that the documents and evidence sent to Plaintiff by Kinhart were indeed the true and correct evidence given to McDermott by Longo and the true final investigation report.

a)  Plaintiff’s request was forwarded to Major Stanford Franklin (“Franklin”) of the Maryland State Police.

b)  Franklin told Plaintiff he had reviewed the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation report and the evidence and found that Plaintiff’s request for verification of the evidence and report was trivial.

c)  Franklin led Plaintiff to believe that there was no evidence of fraud and that he didn’t have the resources to conduct the type of investigation Plaintiff’s request required.

d)  Plaintiff then called the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) office in Baltimore, Maryland.  The FBI agreed to offer assistance to the Maryland State Police to conduct the type of investigation Plaintiff’s request required.  The FBI also told Plaintiff that they thought the Maryland State Police or Maryland Attorney General’s office maintained an agency at the Maryland Attorney General’s office that assisted Maryland State Police with financial investigations.

e)  Plaintiff also called the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation Division.  They also agreed to offer assistance to the Maryland State Police to conduct the type of investigation Plaintiff’s request required.

f)  Plaintiff relayed these offers of assistance to Franklin.

83.          On or about February 21, 1997, Kinhart told Plaintiff that Captain Tom Jones (“Jones”) of the Worcester County Sheriff’s Department might have the evidence and the final report from the November 1995 embezzlement complaint filed by Plaintiff.

84.          Between January and March 1997, Franklin reopened the November 1995 embezzlement complaint Plaintiff filed and assigned the case to Officer Dale Petty (“Petty”).  Petty and Franklin closed the case on the basis that the State Police did not have the probable cause needed to obtain subpoenas for bank records and other documents related to DSII and Longo.

85.          On or about February 27, 1997, Jones told Plaintiff that he (Jones) had no record of the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation final report.  Jones further stated that he thought the evidence collected in the investigation had been returned to the victims.

86.          In or about February 1997, Plaintiff filed a request for information under the Maryland Public Information Act with Tewey to secure documents that would confirm the statements Howard had made that the Sappersteins were well known to the Maryland Attorney Generals’ office and that the Sappersteins had “numerous friends at the Maryland Attorney Generals’ office,” and for documents pertaining to Plaintiff’s complaint to the Maryland Attorney General’s office about Longo’s securities fraud.

87.          In or about February 1997, Tewey replied to Plaintiff’s request for information.  Her reply stated that Howard denied making the statement about the Sappersteins.

88.          In or about February 1997, Plaintiff obtained documents through a Freedom of Information Act request that indicated a meeting took place in or about September 1994, between Howard, Kelberman, Simpson, and Michael Beck (from the Maryland Higher Education Commission) during which they discussed numerous activities of SCI and NTS (both corporations under Longo’s exclusive control) including alleged multiple federal felony offenses involving possible securities fraud and/or mail fraud occurring during the time DSII was under the exclusive control of Longo.

a)  The Maryland Attorney General’s office and Curran had conspired to unlawfully withhold and conceal these documents because they knew that disclosure of these documents would have a devastatingly negative affect on the outcome of the suit brought by DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

b)  Curran did not want Plaintiff to have access to any evidence that would negatively impact Curran’s personal acquaintances and/or political cronies, such as Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and Longo’s business associates.

c)  Curran did not want Plaintiff to have access to this evidence even though the Maryland Attorney General’s office had, over the past four (4) years, spent a large amount of federal and state tax dollars investigating Longo and his numerous fraudulent schemes and was currently pursuing an $8,000,000.00 (eight million dollars) class action law suit against Longo on behalf of 2,000 documented victims in the states of Maryland and Virginia.

89.          On or about March 2, 1997, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Richard Outten (“Outten”), Clerk of the Court for Worcester County Circuit Court in Snow Hill, Maryland to obtain exemplified copies of certain documents from the trial proceeding of June 19 and 20, 1995 of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.  Plaintiff was contacted by Mrs. Jane Powell (“Powell”), Court Records Supervisor of Worcester County Circuit Court.  Powell sent Plaintiff a court docket upon which he was to mark the documents he wanted.  He returned the marked docket to Powell -- with specific instructions to have either Judge Eschenburg or Judge Groton exemplify the requested documents -- and his check for payment of these exemplified documents.  Unknown to Plaintiff, Judge Eschenburg, Judge Groton, Outten, Powell, and Judge Richard R. Bloxom (“Judge Bloxom”) of the Worcester County District Court conspired to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff. In furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff “under color of law,” Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton refused to exemplify the court documents.  Outten and Powell, because they had received payment for and therefore had to produce exemplified documents, had Judge Bloxom exemplify the documents.

a)  Plaintiff returned the documents to the Worcester County Circuit Court several times demanding the documents be exemplified by either Judge Eschenburg or Judge Groton as requested.

b)  Eventually, Plaintiff advised Judge Bloxom, Judge Groton, and Judge Eschenburg to keep the exemplified documents that Judge Groton and Judge Eschenburg refused to exemplify and that Plaintiff would obtain a writ of mandamus from a federal court commanding Judge Groton and Judge Eschenburg to exemplify the court documents as Plaintiff had requested.

c)  Judge Groton, knowing the entire proceeding was a sham and that his cronies now had control of Plaintiff’s patent and pending patents, refused to exemplify the documents in an attempt to sever the paper trail to the judicial fraud to extort from Plaintiff his intellectual property that Judge Groton had helped perpetrate on Plaintiff.

90.          In or about May 1997, Plaintiff -- as a party of interest -- filed a Motion 2004 (Examination of the Debtor) with the United States Bankruptcy Court in the bankruptcy filed by SCI to obtain the documents of the alleged investments of DSII money into SCI.

91.          In order to quash Plaintiff’s 2004 Motion, on or about May 27, 1997, Grochal, the attorney for the debtor corporation SCI and Longo, claimed before the United States Bankruptcy Court that Plaintiff’s motion was made to harass Longo and SCI, that the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation report showed that Plaintiff’s allegations of Longo embezzling money from DSII were unfounded, and that the allegedly-embezzled money was an investment made by DSII in SCI.

92.          In or about early January 1995 -- after filing the SCI bankruptcy papers, during the time the honorable Judge E. Stephen Derby (“Judge Derby”) (the federal bankruptcy judge) was presiding over the SCI bankruptcy and Longo’s personal bankruptcy), and continuing until the present -- Longo, Tydings & Rosenberg (the law firm representing SCI and Longo for the bankruptcy), and Tydings & Rosenberg attorneys Grochal and Ebersol (a former law clerk for Judge Derby), Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Harrison, Sellinger, Boardwine, Milling, C. Johnson, J. Johnson, and WHSM&H refined the numerous schemes and artifices to defraud the legitimate creditors of both Longo’s personal and the SCI bankruptcies and Plaintiff by concealing the whereabouts of the assets of SCI through false and fraudulent statements.

93.          On or about June 26, 1997, Plaintiff made a request through the Maryland Public Information Act to the Worcester County Sheriff Charles Martin (“Martin”) to provide Plaintiff with copies of the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation’s report concerning the embezzlement of DSII assets by Longo and of the tape recording of the conversation between Plaintiff and Jones on or about February 27, 1997.  Martin refused to comply with Plaintiff’s request by never responding.

94.          In or about August 1997, Plaintiff had to terminate his privately-financed investigation because he was unable to obtain protection from state and federal law enforcement agencies that were allowing Plaintiff to be victimized by Longo and his white-collar crime syndicate.

 


COUNTS 1-6

CIVIL R.I.C.O.

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962 (a) (b) (c) (d)

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, for the purposes of executing such schemes and artifices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962 (a) (b) (c) (d) and attempting to do so:

 

COUNT 1    Beginning in or about December 1991 and continuing until the present, Defendants Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Procter, M. Procter, Burgee, Eyler, Frische, Miraglia, Longo, Harrison, Collins, Smith, Judge Groton, Judge Eschenburg, Sellinger, Boardwine, Milling, Grochal, Ebersol, Hammond, Miles & Stockbridge, WHSM&H, and known and unknown co-conspirators have engaged in racketeering activity as described in 18 U.S.C. §1961 (1) involving violations of 18 U.S.C. §1962 (a) (b) (c) (d), §152, §1951, §1503, §1512, §1956, §1957, §1341, §1343, §2315, §1952, and 15 U.S.C. 77(g) and acquired and maintained directly and indirectly in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962 as defined in U.S.C. §1961 an interest in and ultimately absolute control of DSII.

COUNT 2    In violation of 18 U.S.C. §1961 (5), the pattern of activities as set forth in the proceeding allegations and the counts below began on or about December 1991 and continue through the present, defining a continuous on-going pattern of numerous predicate R.I.C.O. violations within ten (10) years of each other.

COUNT 3    In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (4), the enterprise (victim or prize) was DSII.

COUNT 4    Defendants Longo, Procter, Burgee, Moore, Warfield, Glick Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Miles & Stockbridge, and WHSM&H are “persons” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1961 (3).

COUNT 5    DSII is an “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1961 (4) and is engaged in, and its activities affect, interstate commerce.

COUNT 6    From in or about November 1991 and continuing to the present, Defendants Longo, Procter, M. Procter, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, co-conspirators known and unknown, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Ward, Sellinger, Grochal, Ebersol, Milling, WHSM&H, Boardwine, and Ternes received income, derived directly and indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity, as defined in 18 U.S.C. §1961 (1) and as set forth in paragraphs below, and used and invested, directly and indirectly, part of such income and the proceeds thereof in the acquisition of an interest in and in the operation of DSII in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962 (a) (b) (c) (d), ultimately seizing absolute control of DSII and the potentially valuable intellectual property of Plaintiff.

 


COUNTS 7 - 14

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FEDERAL BANKRUPTCY FRAUD

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §152

 

Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, for the purposes of executing such schemes and artifices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §152 and attempting to do so:

 

COUNT 7    On or about January 1992, Longo, Procter, M. Procter, and Burgee conspired knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent devised a scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff through misrepresentation that Longo was an accredited investor and that the $15,000.00 check Longo gave to Procter, in the presence of Burgee in the Miles & Stockbridge office in Frederick, Maryland, was an investment in DSII.  On or about December 1994, Plaintiff would obtain copies of Longo’s personal bankruptcy documents from case #90-5-4907-SD, including Longo’s Monthly Operating Report Income Statement for the period January 1, 1992 through January 31, 1992, which showed that Longo did not list the $15,000.00 as an investment in DSII but under Real Estate as an overpayment refund.  Further investigation by Plaintiff also revealed that Longo made no disclosure of the $15,000.00 as an investment in DSII on either his personal bankruptcy filings or the bankruptcy filings of NTS, of which Longo was president.  The $15,000.00 was money that Longo, Procter, and Burgee conspired to conceal from the creditors of these two (2) bankruptcies.

COUNT 8    On or about February 1995, Longo, Procter, Burgee, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Christine Ward (“Ward”), Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, WHSM&H, Grochal, Ebersol, Tydings & Rosenberg, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge devised a scheme and artifice to defraud the legitimate creditors of SCI -- a bankrupt corporation under the exclusive control of Longo.  Beginning on October 15, 1993 and continuing until the present, Longo had been co-mingling the assets of DSII and SCI by diverting cash assets of SCI to the law firm of WHSM&H: 1) to pay partial restitution to Moore, Warfield, and Glick for money they had invested in DSII which Longo and Procter had embezzled from DSII, 2) to pay for the sham lawsuit that Longo, Moore, Warfield, Procter, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and 3) WHSM&H had filed against Plaintiff to fraudulently wrest from him control of DSII and the potentially valuable patents and technology Plaintiff had invented,  for the concealment of an alleged amount of approximately $53,622.35 (fifty-three thousand, six hunred twenty-two dollars and thirty-five cents) from the creditors of SCI.

COUNT 9    In furtherance of this conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, Longo and Procter were commingling money embezzled from DSII with money obtained from a securities fraud scheme that Longo/SCI was involved in between 1992 and 1993.  In or about November 1995, in response to a complaint by Plaintiff alleging embezzlement of DSII funds by Longo and Procter, Longo -- in an effort to conceal the embezzlement of DSII assets -- told Worcester County Bureau of Investigation Office Michael McDermott that money Plaintiff had accused Longo of embezzling from DSII was an investment into SCI by DSII.  Approximately ten (10) months earlier, Longo had testified under oath in the presence of his attorney (Grochal) and affirmed that DSII had never invested money into SCI.  Further, there is no record in the bankruptcy documents of SCI disclosing any investment made by DSII into SCI.

COUNT 10   Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton, in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud and extort from Plaintiff his intellectual prooerty “under color of law,” would simultaneously commit federal bankruptcy fraud by enabling Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Longo, Procter, WHSM&H, and Miles & Stockbridge to continue the conspiracy to commit federal bankruptcy fraud involving the concealment of assets of Longos’ personal bankruptcy, the NTS bankruptcy, and the SCI bankruptcy.

COUNT 11   Martin, McDermott, Bowden,  Martin Koerner (“Koerner”), Jones, Franklin, Petty, Moyer, Mitchel, Todd, and Prentice, by conspiring to defraud Plaintiff “under color of law,” falsifying Worcester County Bureau of Investigation police report (contents and whereabouts), failing to locate missing documents, and frustrating Plaintiff’s efforts to obtain verified copies of documents, simultaneously furthered the conspiracy scheme and artifice of Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Burgee, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Miles & Stockbridge, and WHSM&H in their conspiracy to commit federal bankruptcy fraud on the legitimate creditors of SCI.

COUNT 12   In furtherance of the conspiracy to commit federal bankruptcy fraud, Longo, as a debtor in possession, made false entries under oath on the filing of his Monthly Operating Statement for January 1992 in bankruptcy case number 90-5-4907-SD.

COUNT 13   The ongoing concealment of assets from Longo’s personal bankruptcy, NTS bankruptcy, and SCI bankruptcy by Miles & Stockbridge, Burgee, Procter, M. Procter, Jack O’Conner (“O’Conner”), Longo, Sellinger, Milling, and WHSM&H was done to defraud Plaintiff and creditors of the three (3) bankruptcies: Longo’s personal, NTS, and SCI.

COUNT 14   Beginning in or about January 1995 and continuing until the present, false statements and concealment of assets of debtor corporation SCI by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Grochal, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Longo, Procter, M. Procter, Tydings & Rosenberg, Smith, Harrison, Hammond, WHSM&H, Eyler, Burgee, Frisch, Miraglia, and Miles & Stockbridge was done to defraud Plaintiff and the creditors of SCI.

 

 

COUNTS 15 - 18

CONSPIRACY TO EXTORT

in violation of U.S.C. 18 §1951

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, for the purposes of executing such schemes and artifices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1951 and attempting to do so:

 

COUNT 15   On or about October 15, 1993 written threats were made by Longo, Procter, Warfield, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein to have Plaintiff arrested on unspecified criminal charges if he did not capitulate to their demands.  These extortion threats were sent to Plaintiff via fax from the SCI/DSII offices at 8634 Washington Blvd., Jessup, Maryland across interstate lines to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.

COUNT 16   On or about January 12, 1994, in furtherance of their extortion attempts, Longo, Procter, Warfield, Moore, Glick, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein demanded Plaintiff assign the patent and pending patents for the technology he had invented to DSII and thereby placing them under the exclusive control of Longo, Procter, Warfield, Glick, Moore, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, and WHSM&H.  This extortion attempt was an endeavor by Longo and Procter to facilitate the licensing of DSII’s technology so that they could cover up their embezzlement of an alleged $30,000.00 (thirty thousand dollars) from DSII between October 29, 1993 (when Moore, Warfield, and Glick had invested $52,500.00 [fifty-two thousand, five hundred dollars] into DSII) and January 1, 1994.  This extortion attempt was sent via the United States Postal Service from the SCI/DSII offices at 8634 Washington Blvd., Jessup Maryland across interstate lines to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.

COUNT 17   On or about February 22, 1994, in furtherance of the conspiracy to extort from Plaintiff “under color of law” through a scheme and artifice to defraud, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H filed a sham lawsuit against Plaintiff in the Worcester County Circuit Courthouse.  The suit was filed in the Worcester County Circuit Courthouse fraudulently and with malicious intent knowing that Plaintiff would not receive a fair trial as a Defendant against Moore, Warfield, and Glick before the two (2) sitting judges of the Circuit (Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton) because the judges were long-time personal acquaintances and political cronies of Moore, Warfield, and Glick.

COUNT 18   On or about June 6, 1996, in furtherance of the conspiracy by Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Harrison, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Judge Groton, and Judge Eschenburg to extort “under color of law,” had Harrison, in a final extortion attempt, call from Maryland and leave a message on Plaintiff’s answering machine threatening to have Plaintiff charged with contempt of court if Plaintiff did not assign his patent and pending patents to DSII.

(a) Harrison and Judge Groton knew the entire judicial proceeding was a sham because both the sitting judges in the Circuit were the long-time personal acquaintances and political cronies of Moore, Warfield, Glick, Harrison, and WHSM&H who would further the conspiracy to extort “under color of law.”

(b) Harrison also knew that as of June 19, 1995, Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton were acting “without jurisdiction” over Plaintiff so that any court orders issued by them were void.  Jurisdiction was forfeited because of the fraud Longo and Harrison knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent perpetrated on the court by having Longo fraudulently testify on June 19, 1995 that he had revived the DSII corporate charter.  This testimony was made in response to evidence that Plaintiff had submitted showing that DSII had not been a corporation in good standing as of June 12, 1995. This testimony was further proved false when on or about October 5, 1995 (approximately three (3) months after Longo’s testimony), DSII would forfeit its corporate charter to transact business in the state of Maryland for nonpayment of its personal property taxes.

 

 

COUNTS 19 - 25

CONSPIRACY

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962 (d)

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, for the purposes of executing such schemes and artifices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962 (d) and attempting to do so:

 

All Defendants conspired to defraud Plaintiff through numerous interwoven and overlapping fraudulent schemes and artifices with the ultimate common goal of wresting control of Plaintiff’s potentially valuable patent and pending patents for the technology he invented for their personal enrichment and the enrichment of their personal acquaintances and political cronies.

 

COUNT 19   In or about January 1992, Defendants Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge laid the original ground work which would eventually give Longo and Procter exclusive control of DSII and Plaintiff’s patent and pending patents for the technology he invented through the fraudulent scheme and artifice of misrepresentation to Plaintiff that Longo was an accredited investor and that the $15,000.00 Longo gave to Procter was an investment into DSII.

COUNT 20   Plaintiff, as president of DSII, terminated the relationship between DSII and Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge in the fall of 1992.  In furtherance of the conspiracy, Miles & Stockbridge and Burgee, in or about October 1993 and continuing until the present, would act as co-conspirators to Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Ward, and WHSM&H in how to fraudulently wrest absolute control of Plaintiff’s patent and pending patents and to cover up the earlier fraudulent schemes perpetrated on Plaintiff and DSII by Burgee, Longo, Procter, and Miles & Stockbridge.

COUNT 21   In or about late May/early June 1995, Plaintiff attempted the service of a subpoena duece tecum on the Miles & Stockbridge office at 10 Light Street in downtown Baltimore, Maryland to prepare for the June 19, 1995, trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.  The process server was alleged to have been told that there was no records custodian upon which to serve the subpoena nor were there any records pertaining to DSII at that office.  The statements to the process server were made in furtherance of the conspiracy scheme and artifice by Eyler, Miraglia, Burgee, and Frische in furtherance of the Miles & Stockbridge office to defraud Plaintiff.

COUNT 22   In furtherance of the conspiracy, between November 1993 and early 1997, the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, in order to protect the personal and political agendas of the Maryland Attorney General (Joseph Curran, Jr.) and the Maryland political machine, engaged in numerous schemes and artifices to defraud, discredit, and discourage Plaintiff from obtaining documents and information that would be detrimental to Curran and the Maryland political machine.  Employees of the Maryland Attorney General’s Office -- specifically: Robert N. McDonald, Andrew M. McDonald, Julie Tewey, William F. Howard, Vickie Gaul (“Gaul”), and unknown co-conspirators -- would further this conspiracy through the dissemination of false and misleading statements made to Plaintiff and through fraud by omission by not disclosing exculpatory evidence and facts that would have prevented the victimization of Plaintiff by Longo’s fraudulent schemes.

COUNT 23   Adding to the conspiracy was the use of the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation, the use of a Maryland State Police task force, and the use of officers Micheal McDermott and James Bowden to conduct a sham investigation into Plaintiff’s allegations that Longo was embezzling money from DSII.  As the outcome of the sham investigation, McDermott and Bowden then knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent falsified the police report despite the presence of clear and convincing evidence of fraud to protect the personal and political cronies of Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton; Worcester County State’s Attorney, Joel Todd; Worcester County Attorney, Ed Hammond; Hammond’s law firm of WHSM&H; and the law firm’s clients Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein from criminal investigation and criminal liability.

COUNT 24   Maryland State Police officers from outside Worcester County joined the conspiracy beginning in or about November 1996 when Col. David B. Mitchell, Lt. Stephen Moyer, Mjr. Standford Franklin, Martin Koerner, and Lt. Dale Petty began trying to cover up for the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation by disseminating conflicting statements to Plaintiff, claiming Plaintiff was not a victim in this matter, and refusing to provide Plaintiff with verified police reports and evidence collected by the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation from Plaintiff’s allegation that Longo was embezzling funds from DSII.

COUNT 25   Battaglia, Russell, and Kelberman joined the conspiracy in late May/early June 1995 by engaging in efforts to disseminate false and confusing statements to Plaintiff and by fraud through omission and concealment to deceive Plaintiff and frustrate his efforts to obtain exculpatory evidence then in the possession of the U.S. Attorney General’s office that would be detrimental to Battaglia’s personal and/or political agendas in the state of Maryland and beneficial to Plaintiff’s defense at the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone on June 19/20, 1995.

 

 

COUNTS 26 - 54

CONSPIRACY TO OBSTRUCT JUSTICE

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1503

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, for the purposes of executing such schemes and artifices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1503 and attempting to do so:

 

COUNT 26   On or about February 14, 1994, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Longo, Procter, Ward, Harrison, Hammond, Collins, Smith, WHSM&H, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent endeavor to corruptly obstruct the due administration of justice by filing a sham lawsuit (case number 94CV0182, document number SP59/117) with the Circuit Court for Worcester County in Snow Hill, Maryland containing numerous false and fraudulent statements in furtherance of the scheme and artifice to extort from Plaintiff “under color of law” Plaintiff’s valuable intellectual properties for their personal enrichment.

COUNT 27   On or about December 16, 1994, arrangements were made by Joseph Harrison, Jr. and the firm of WHSM&H on behalf of Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge inside the Worcester County Circuit Court House by Regan Smith, a part-time Worcester County Assistant State’s Attorney and employee of WHSM&H, through the Worcester County State’s Attorney’s Office to block Plaintiff’s access to trial in the suit DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone that was scheduled for Monday, December 19, 1994.  Harrison, Smith, and Judge Eschenburg devised this scheme and artifice to defraud and conspired to endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by arranging an ex parte meeting with their personal friend and political crony Judge Eschenburg to postpone the trial scheduled for Monday, December 19, 1994, and to deny Plaintiff the trial by jury that Plaintiff had requested.

(a)  Sometime prior to December 16, 1994, Harrison, Warfield, Glick, Moore, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein had discovered that Longo and Procter had been embezzling money from DSII.

(b)  Harrison, Warfield, Glick, Moore, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein were unable to make Longo appear in court on December 19, 1994.

(c)  Harrison, unable to make the primary plaintiff, Longo, appear in court against Plaintiff on December 19, 1994 and unprepared for a trial proceeding, conspired to arrange an ex parte meeting between Smith and Judge Eschenburg.

(d)  Without this obstruction of justice by Harrison, Smith, and Judge Eschenburg, Plaintiff would have prevailed against Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein with a default judgment valued at $30,000,000.00 (thirty million dollars) against Longo, G. Sapperstein, Sapperstein, and Procter, and against Moore, Warfield, Glick (the personal acquaintances and political cronies of the two (2) sitting judges, Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton).

COUNT 28   In or about June 1995, Regan Smith -- in his duties as Worcester County Assistant State’s Attorney -- and Gary Mumford -- as investigator for the Worcester County State Attorney’s Office -- did endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making false statements and representations on a motion to quash a subpoena that Plaintiff had served on them to appear as witnesses at the June 19, 1995, trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

COUNT 29   On or about June 2, 1995, in furtherance of the conspiracy did endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice, Curran, Howard, and A. McDonald did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent make false and fraudulent statements on a motion to quash a subpoena that was filed with the Worcester County Circuit Courthouse on behalf of Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Miles & Stockbridge, and WHSM$H, and to protect the personal and political cronies of Curran.

COUNT 30   On or about June 19, 1995, Harrison, Ward, and WHSM&H did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making false statements and concealing material facts and exculpatory evidence from the Court and Plaintiff during the trial proceeding of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

COUNT 31   On or about June 19, 1995, Longo, Harrison, and WHSM&H did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making false statements and concealing material facts and exculpatory evidence from the Court and Plaintiff during the trial proceeding of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

COUNT 32   On or about June 19, 1995, Warfield, Harrison, and WSHM&H under oath did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making false statements and concealing material facts and exculpatory evidence from the Court and Plaintiff during the trial proceeding of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

COUNT 33   On or about June 19, 1995, Moore, Harrison, WHSM&H under oath did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making false statements and concealing material facts and exculpatory evidence from the Court and Plaintiff during the trial proceeding of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

COUNT 34   On or about June 19, 1995, Glick, Harrison, WHSM&H under oath did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making false statements and concealing material facts and exculpatory evidence from the Court and Plaintiff during the trial proceeding of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

COUNT 35   On or about June 19, 1995, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Harrison, and WHSM&H under oath did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making false statements and concealing material facts and exculpatory evidence from the Court and Plaintiff during the trial proceeding of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

COUNT 36   On or about June 19, 1995, Longo, Harrison, and WHSM&H under oath did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making false statements and concealing material facts and exculpatory evidence from the Court and Plaintiff during the trial proceeding of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

COUNT 37   On or about June 19, 1995, Procter, Harrison, and WHSM&H under oath did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making false statements and concealing material facts and exculpatory evidence from the Court and Plaintiff during the trial proceeding of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

COUNT 38   On or about June 19 and 20, 1995, Judge Groton did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent conspire and endeavor to corruptly obstruct the due administration of justice by presiding over a non-jury trial involving plaintiffs and their attorneys and law firms that were his long-time personal acquaintances and political cronies, Warfield, Moore, Glick, Harrison, and WHSM&H.

COUNT 39   In or about May/June 1995, Battaglia and two (2) assistant U.S. attorneys (Kelberman and Russell) did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent conspire and endeavor to corruptly obstruct the due administration of justice by concealing from Plaintiff exculpatory evidence which he needed for his defense in DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

COUNT 40   On or about April 17, 1996, Plaintiff paid court reporter Kevin Schiller (“Schiller”) $600.00 (six hundred dollars) for a transcript of the trial proceedings of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone that took place on June 19/20, 1995.  Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff received from Schiller a transcript that had been altered and/or censored to protect Judge Groton from evidence of his judicial misconduct. 

(a)  Even though the proceeding was a trial, Schiller had titled it as a hearing in an effort to protect Judge Groton against claims by Plaintiff that his Constitutional rights to a jury trial had been denied by Judge Groton and Judge Eschenburg.

(b)  Derogatory remarks made by Judge Groton directed at Plaintiff as a pro se litigant were either deleted from or were never made part of the transcript.

(c)  Schiller and Judge Groton did conspire and endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by altering, censoring, and/or not recording certain statements made during the trial proceedings.

COUNT 41   On or about March 5, 1996, Paul T. Haskell, the law clerk for Judge Groton, responded to a written inquiry made by Plaintiff on or about January 1, 1996, concerning a possible conflict of interest involving Judge Groton and his relationship with Moore, Warfield, Glick, and WHSM&H.  Haskell and Judge Groton did conspire and endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making a fraudulent and false representation on Judge Groton’s behalf stating that Judge Groton had no reason, either personal or business, to recuse himself from the case of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

COUNT 42   On or about June 19, 1995, inside the Worcester County Circuit Courthouse, immediately prior to the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone, Judge Groton and Harrison, long-time personal friends and political cronies, did conspire and endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by engaging in an ex parte meeting with each other.

COUNT 43   On or about November 1, 1995, Sapperstein did conspire and endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making false statements to Worcester County Bureau of Investigation officer Michael McDermott by claiming he was unaware of any embezzlement of DSII funds by Longo, thereby concealing the fact that he (Sapperstein) had personal knowledge that Longo was embezzling money from DSII.

COUNT 44   On or about November 2, 1995, Procter did conspire and endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making numerous false statements to McDermott to cover up his (Procter’s) and Longo’s embezzlement of money from DSII to finance their scheme to sell fraudulent securities and for their personal enrichment.

COUNT 45   On or about November 3, 1995, Longo did conspire and endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice on behalf of Moore, Warfield, Glick, Procter, Miles & Stockbridge, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Burgee, and WHSM&H by giving McDermott fraudulent and falsified ledger sheets from DSII.

(a)  The ledger sheets did not show the $20,000.00 check or the $10,000.00 check that Plaintiff had accused Longo of embezzling from DSII.

(b)  Longo stated that the money Plaintiff had accused him (Longo) of embezzling was an investment DSII had made into SCI.   However, when SCI declared bankruptcy in late 1994, there was no disclosure of any investment made by DSII into SCI to the bankruptcy court.

(c)  This conspiracy and endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by Longo was necessary to further the fraudulent schemes and artifices created by Longo, Procter, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H to wrest control of DSII and the potentially valuable patent and pending patents from Plaintiff because the court settlement from the June 20, 1995 trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone had not yet been consummated.  A disclosure of the embezzlement of DSII funds by Longo and Procter would have a serious negative impact on the assignment of the patents by Plaintiff to DSII.  With such a disclosure, not even the kangaroo-court “justice” wielded by the personal acquaintances and political cronies of the plaintiffs -- Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton -- could overcome such fraud.

COUNT 46   On or about November 15, 1995, McDermott and Bowden did conspire and endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by fraud in the omission, concealment, and falsifying of the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation report (CBI control number 9500106 and Agency control number 95004662) and by stating that Plaintiff’s allegations against Longo were unfounded.

(a)  Even though Longo had given McDermott falsified DSII ledger sheets that did not show the $10,000.00 and $20,000.00 checks that were the basis of Plaintiff’s embezzlement allegation against Longo, McDermott makes no mention in his report that the ledger sheets do not show the checks in question.

(b)  McDermott made no effort to question the nearby “good old boys” prominent and politically-well-connected Worcester County residents, Moore, Warfield, and Glick, even though Warfield, Glick, and WHSM&H were alleged to be controlling DSII at the time.

(c)  This obstruction of justice by McDermott and Bowden was done willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent to protect Moore, Warfield, Glick, and WHSM&H from criminal investigation and to protect them from having to make false statements.

COUNT 47   In or about January 1995, Longo, Grochal, and Tydings & Rosenberg did conspire and endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by falsely testifying under oath in a federal court proceeding and in the presence of Longo’s attorney (Grochal) that DSII had never invested money into the now-bankrupt corporation SCI.

COUNT 48   On or about May 27, 1997, Grochal (attorney for Longo and the now-bankrupt corporation SCI) and Tydings & Rosenberg conspired and endeavored to corruptly obstruct justice by trying to block a motion by Plaintiff for a Rule 2004 Examination of Debtor and principal Longo by claiming Plaintiff was harassing SCI and Longo.  This claim was made even though Grochal was present when Longo testified in January 1995, that DSII had never made an investment into SCI and in November 1995, when Longo was claiming money that Plaintiff had alleged his (Longo) was embezzling from DSII was an investment in SCI.

COUNT 49   Between March 2 and July 10, 1997, Outten, Powell, Judge Eschenburg, Judge Groton, and Judge Bloxom did conspire and endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by taking money from Plaintiff and exemplifying court documents that they knew were the product of a sham judicial proceeding.

COUNT 50   On or about July 7, 1997, Worcester County Sheriff Martin and officer Jones did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by refusing to provide Plaintiff (a party of interest in the SCI bankruptcy proceeding) with a response to a Maryland Public Information Request concerning documents and tape recordings of conversations between Plaintiff and Jones that would implicate the whereabouts and concealment of documentary evidence of alleged federal bankruptcy fraud implicating prominent Worcester County residents Moore, Warfield, Glick, Harrison, and WHSM&H.

COUNT 51   On or about June 5, 1995, attorneys O’Conner, Bartgis, and Burgee of Miles & Stockbridge did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent conspire and endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by filing a motion with the Worcester County Circuit Court (case number 94-CV-0182, docket number SP59/117) in the case of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone containing false and fraudulent statements to conceal from the court the criminal conduct of attorney Burgee, Longo, and Procter involving the numerous money laundering and bankruptcy fraud schemes Burgee, Longo, and Procter were conducting through the Frederick, Maryland office of Miles & Stockbridge and to conceal exculpatory evidence from Plaintiff that would disclose the participation by attorney Burgee in the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of his intellectual property.  Additionally, Burgee would be required to produce the evidence of the DSII stock certificate (numbered A-1) from Class A Voting Common stock that was issued to Plaintiff on December 7, 1991, in the Miles & Stockbridge office in Frederick, Maryland which would implicate Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Procter, Longo, Moore, Warfield, Glick, G. Sapperstein, Sapperstein, and WHSM&H in a criminal conspiracy against Plaintiff and void any litigation by Longo, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Procter, and WHSM&H.

COUNT 52   On or about February 13, 1995, Ebersol (bankruptcy court Judge E. Stephen Derby’s former law clerk) of the firm Tydings & Rosenberg, representing SCI in a 341 creditors’ meeting, did endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making false and misleading statements to the bankruptcy trustee, Sher.

COUNT 53   On or about October 31, 1994, Procter did endeavor to corruptly obstruct justice by making false statements under oath during a deposition taken by Maryland Assistant Attroney Howard in an effort by Howard to locate the whereabouts of assets for Longo’s personal bankruptcy and for the NTS bankruptcy that are alleged to have been concealed from creditors of these bankruptcies and used to form SCI.

COUNT 54   Beginning in or about May 1997 and continuing until the present, Judge Groton did corruptly endeavor to obstruct the due administration of justice by continuing to refuse to exemplify court documents of court proceedings in which he was personally involved.  This was done by Judge Groton in an effort to sever his relationship with the conspiracy and sham lawsuit to extort from Plaintiff his valuable intellectual property for the personal enrichment of his personal acquaintances and political cronies Moore, Warfield, Glick and WHSM&H.

 

 

COUNTS 55 - 62

CONSPIRACY TO TAMPER WITH VICTIM

In violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, for the purposes of executing such schemes and artifices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512 and attempting to do so:

 

COUNT 55   In or about November 1995, Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Ward, and WHSM&H did conspire to devise a fraudulent scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff, a victim, through a conspiracy to simultaneously defraud the creditors of SCI and Plaintiff by making false statements against Plaintiff, by providing false documents, and by concealing the fact that Longo and Procter were embezzling funds from DSII to the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation, as reported in report number 95-00106.  This conspiracy kept from Plaintiff the documents he needed as evidence for the U.S. bankruptcy trustee to verify alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §152 Federal Bankruptcy Fraud by Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, and WHSM&H.

COUNT 56   In or about June 1995, Plaintiff, a victim, paid Daniel Bowler, a process server, to deliver a subpoena duece tecum on the records custodian of the law firm of Miles & Stockbridge at 10 Light Street in Baltimore, Maryland.  Attorneys Eyler, Frisch, and Miraglia did devise a fraudulent scheme and artifice to engage in misleading conduct to conceal and withhold exculpatory evidence from Plaintiff that would implicate Miles & Stockbridge in alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. §152 (conspiracy to commit federal bankruptcy fraud) by allegedly having a secretary make false statements to Bowler that Miles & Stockbridge did not have a records custodian and that Miles & Stockbridge had no records or documents pertaining to the subpoena involving litigation between DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

COUNT 57   In or about November 1995, Worcester County Bureau of Investigation officers McDermott and Bowden did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent prevent and hinder Plaintiff from obtaining documents alleged to be in their possession that implicated prominent Worcester County residents Moore, Warfield, Glick, and WHSM&H in a conspiracy to commit federal bankruptcy fraud by diverting and concealing the assets of SCI.  Plaintiff had requested these documents, that were the product of a Worcester County Bureau of Investigation, so that Plaintiff could provide them to the U.S. Attorney’s Office as evidence of bankruptcy fraud involving the bankrupt corporation SCI.

COUNT 58   From on or about September 4, 1996, through on or about December 26, 1996, Todd did willfully, knowingly, and with malicious intent frustrate Plaintiff’s access to information and repeatedly try to conceal the whereabouts of information and evidence from Plaintiff.  Plaintiff tried to locate the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation report and the evidence collected in the investigation of Plaintiff’s complaint (filed in or about November 1995 alleging Longo was embezzling money from DSII) by sending letters to Worcester County State’s Attorney Joel Todd. Todd repeatedly tried to conceal the location of this information from Plaintiff.  Plaintiff needed this documentary evidence as a party of interest in the SCI bankruptcy proceeding to petition under 18 U.S.C. §3057 the Honorable E. Stephen Derby, federal bankruptcy judge presiding over Longo’s personal bankruptcy and the SCI bankruptcy, and to petition the U.S. Attorney for Maryland for a federal Grand Jury investigation into the concealment of assets of the debtor corporation SCI by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Ward, Longo, Procter, M. Procter, Sellinger, Harrison, Collins, Smith, Hammond, WHSM&H, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge.

COUNT 59   On or about November 17, 1996, and continuing until on or about March 26, 1997, Plaintiff, a victim of Longo’s and his co-conspirators’ numerous fraudulent schemes to extort Plaintiff’s personal property “under color of law” and other fraudulent activities, tried to obtain confirmation and verification that the documents and evidence (CBI control number 9500106) given to Plaintiff on or about October 30, 1996, by Maryland State Police Officer M. Kinhart were the actual report and evidence filed for the investigation by writing to Stephen Moyers of the Maryland State Police Internal Affairs department.  As of March 24, 1996, Moyer and Maryland State Police Officer Franklin would never comply fully with this request.  Plaintiff needed these documents as evidence to provide a federal bankruptcy judge as proof of violations of 18 U.S.C. §152 of the federal bankruptcy laws by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Longo, Procter, WHSM&H, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge.

COUNT 60   In or about June 1995, in the offices of Shapiro and Olander (the offices of Joel Sher, the trustee for the bankruptcy for SCI) at 36 South Charles Street, 20th Floor, in Baltimore, Maryland, Plaintiff made a verbal request to Ms. Ann Lawrence, the trustee’s paralegal, to inspect the documents the trustee had collected from the SCI bankruptcy.  Lawrence falsely told Plaintiff that Sher had no documents pertaining to the SCI bankruptcy. In early 1996 and again in early 1997, Plaintiff located evidence that Sher had numerous documents in his possession at the time of Plaintiff’s request that were key pieces of information of proof of a conspiracy to commit federal bankruptcy fraud concerning SCI.

COUNT 61   On or about March 1, 1996, Plaintiff, in an effort to confirm suspicions of bankruptcy fraud concerning SCI, wrote to Sher asking numerous questions about the relationship between DSII and SCI since both corporations had been operating from the same address and Longo had been co-mingling the assets of both corporations since October 15, 1993 (when Longo and his co-conspirators seized control of DSII).  Sher refused to answer this letter until Plaintiff made repeated complaints to the Regional Trustees Office in Charleston, South Carolina.  Approximately one (1) year later, on or about February 20, 1997, Plaintiff received a written response from Sher.  The response from Sher, combined with the other evidence Plaintiff had collected, would provide clear and convincing evidence of violations 18 U.S.C. §152 by Longo, Procter, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Moore, and WHSM&H.

COUNT 62   On or about February 20, 1997, Plaintiff, a victim of Longo and his co-conspirators’ numerous fraudulent racketeering schemes, in an effort to locate who had custody of the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation report and evidence (control number CBI 9500106), called Capt. Tom Jones of the Worcester County Sheriff’s Department.  Plaintiff was referred to Jones as the possible custodian of the report and evidence by Kinhart.  Jones told Plaintiff that he (Jones) had no record or evidence by Kinhart of the Worcester Bureau of Investigation investigation report.  On or about February 27, 1997, Plaintiff again contacted Jones and Jones told Plaintiff that he (Jones) did not know who had custody of Worcester County Bureau of Investigation reports and evidence, that Plaintiff was not a victim in the investigation, and that he (Jones) thought the evidence had been given back to the victims.  Jones would additionally allege that Maryland State Police Officer Koerner, then acting officer in charge of the Worcester Bureau of Investigation, would possibly know the whereabouts of the Worcester Bureau of Investigation report and the evidence Plaintiff was trying to obtain.

 

COUNTS 63 - 85

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT MONEY LAUNDERING

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, for the purposes of executing such schemes and artifices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1956 and attempting to do so:

 

COUNT 63   The alleged $15,000.00 investment Longo made into DSII, which was deposited by Procter into his Fiber Tech checking account instead of into a DSII corporate checking account, is alleged to have belonged to the creditors of Longo’s personal bankruptcy and/or the bankruptcy of NTS, a corporation under Longo’s exclusive control. 

(a)  On Longo’s personal bankruptcy court filings this $15,000.00 was never declared as an investment into any corporation, an investment in any stock, or an investment in any patents.

(b)  Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge knowingly, fraudulently, and with malicious intent led Plaintiff to believe this $15,000.00 was an investment in DSII.  It was this false representation that led Plaintiff to issue DSII stock to Longo.

(c)  Longo fraudulently declared under oath on or about February 14, 1994 in the Worcester County Circuit Court complaint (case number 94CV0182, DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone) that the $15,000.00 was an investment in DSII.

COUNT 64   In or about October 1993, Longo and Procter began embezzling funds from DSII for their personal enrichment and to finance their securities fraud scheme.

COUNT 65   On or about October 29, 1993, Procter wrote a DSII check (number 101) in the amount of $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars) to American Credit Company, a paper company Longo was using for his fraudulent securities scheme.

COUNT 66   On or about November 1, 1993, Longo wrote a DSII check (number 118) in the amount of $20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars) to Cash.  The check was endorsed by Boardwine.  Boardwine is alleged to have cashed the check and given the cash to Longo.

COUNT 67   In or about November 1995, Longo, acting on behalf of himself and his co-conspirators (Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Procter, Boardwine, Milling, Sellinger, C. Johnson, Miles & Stockbridge, and WHSM&H) devised a fraudulent scheme and artifice to cover up the embezzlement by stating that the funds were part of a $53,622.35 (fifty-three thousand, five hundred twenty-two dollars and thirty-five cents) investment DSII had made into SCI.

(a)  The bankruptcy papers filed by SCI do not show any investment for any amount made by DSII into SCI.

(b)  In or about January 1995, Longo testified under oath in a federal bankruptcy proceeding for SCI that DSII had never made an investment into SCI.

COUNT 68   On or about April 12, 1994, Longo, with the assistance of Ternes, a secretary for SCI, moved an unknown amount of money to an unknown destination by Federal Express.  Ternes’ Maryland drivers license number (T-652-461-744-409) appears on DSII check number 146 that was used as payment to Federal Express for delivery.

COUNT 69   On or about March 18, 1996, Longo, Warfield, and Harrison, with the assistance of attorney Collins of WHSM&H, did file a motion to enforce the settlement agreement of the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone with the Worcester County Circuit Court.  With this motion, Harrison petitioned the court to deduct $600.00 (six hundred sixty dollars) from the $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars) that was to be paid to Plaintiff as part of the court settlement.  On or about May 9, 1996, Judge Groton granted this motion allowing his long-time personal acquaintance and political crony Harrison and WHSM&H in furtherance of the conspiracy and scheme to defraud and to simultaneously assist Harrison, Collins, and WHSM&H in diverting and concealing assets belonging to the SCI bankruptcy.

COUNT 70   Longo, Boardwine, and C. Johnson made numerous fraudulent financial transactions between SCI located in Maryland and Shippers’ Choice of Virginia located in Virginia using the DSII corporate checking account and the American Credit Company checking accounts to conceal the source and destiny of the moneys Longo, Sellinger, Milling, Procter, Boardwine, C. Johnson, J. Johnson, and WI had obtained from their various fraudulent schemes, such as the securities fraud scheme, federal bankruptcy fraud schemes, and the money Longo, Procter, and Boardwine were embezzling from DSII between October 1993 and June 1996 in furtherance of the scheme and artifice and conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff.

COUNT 71   On or about December 3, 1996, a Shippers’ Choice of Virginia check in the amount of $4,500.00 (four thousand five hundred dollars) signed by Boardwine was deposited into the DSII checking account.  A financial transaction by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Boardwine, and WHSM&H to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of proceeds.

COUNT 72   On or about December 9, 1993, a Shippers’ Choice of Virginia check in the amount of $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars) signed by Boardwine was deposited into the DSII checking account.  A financial transaction by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Boardwine, and WHSM&H to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of proceeds.

COUNT 73   An unknown amount of payments were made by Longo/SCI to Milling and Cohen for generating the documents in furtherance of the conspiracy and securities fraud scheme.

COUNT 74   An unknown amount of payments were made to Milling by DSII in furtherance of the conspiracy, scheme, and artifice to defraud Plaintiff and wrest from Plaintiff his intellectual property.

COUNT 75   On or about December 21, 1993, an SCI check in the amount of $500.00 (five hundred dollars) signed by Longo was deposited into the DSII checking account.  This was a financial transaction made by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of proceeds.

COUNT 76   On or about December 29, 1993, and SCI check in the amount of $500.00 (five hundred dollars) signed by Longo was deposited into the DSII checking account.  This was a financial transaction made by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WSHM&H to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of proceeds.

COUNT 77   An unknown amount of payments were made by Longo/SCI to Milling and Cohen for generating the documents in furtherance of the conspiracy and securities fraud scheme.

COUNT 78   An unknown amount of payments were made to Milling by DSII in furtherance of the conspiracy, scheme, and artifice to defraud Plaintiff and wrest from Plaintiff his intellectual property.

COUNT 79   On or about December 21, 1993, an SCI check in the amount of $500.00 (five hundred dollars) signed by Longo was deposited into the DSII checking account.  This was a financial transaction made by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of proceeds.

COUNT 80   On or about December 29, 1993, an SCI check in the amount of $500.00 (five hundred dollars) signed by Longo was deposited into the DSII checking account.  This was a financial transaction made by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of proceeds.

COUNT 81   On or about March 29, 1994, an American Credit Company check in the amount of $4,000.00 (four thousand dollars) signed by Longo was deposited into the DSII checking account.  This was a financial transaction made by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of proceeds.

COUNT 82   On or about April 1, 1994, an American Credit Company check in the amount of $1,000.00 (one thousand dollars) signed by Longo was deposited into the DSII checking account.  This was a financial transaction made by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of proceeds.

COUNT 83   On or about November 3, 1994, a Shippers’ Choice of Virginia check in the amount of $2,500.00 (two thousand five hundred dollars) signed by Boardwine was deposited into the DSII checking account.  This was a financial transaction made by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Boardwine, and WHSM&H to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of proceeds.

COUNT 84   On or about January 4, 1995, an American Credit Company check in the amount of $1,000.00 (one thousand dollars) signed by Boardwine was deposited into the DSII checking account.  This was a financial transaction made by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of proceeds.

COUNT 85   On or about May 22, 1995, an American Credit Company check in the amount of $3,100.00 (three thousand one hundred dollars) signed by Longo was deposited into the DSII checking account.  This was a financial transaction made by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H to conceal and disguise the nature, source, ownership, and control of proceeds.

 

 


COUNTS 86 - 89

CONSPIRACY TO ENGAGE IN MONETARY TRANSACTIONS IN PROPERTY

DERIVED FROM SPECIFIED UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1957

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, for the purposes of executing such schemes and artifices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1957 and attempting to do so:

 

COUNT 86   On or about January 7, 1992 -- unknown to Plaintiff -- Longo, Procter, M. Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to defraud and conceal from the creditors of Longo’s personal bankruptcy and the bankruptcy of NTS (a company under the exclusive control of Longo) $15,000.00 that was represented by Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge as an investment into DSII.

COUNT 87   On or about November 1, 1993, Procter and Longo did embezzle $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars) from DSII in the form of a check made out to American Credit Company, a paper company Longo used for his fraudulent securities scheme.  This money was alleged to be an investment into SCI by DSII.  However, this amount was never disclosed in the SCI bankruptcy filings.

COUNT 88   On or about November 29, 1993, Longo and Boardwine did embezzle $20,000.00 (twenty thousand dollars) from DSII in the form of a check (number 118) made out to Cash, signed by Longo, and cashed by his co-conspirator, Boardwine. This money was alleged to be an investment into SCI by DSII.  However, this amount was never disclosed in the SCI bankruptcy filings.

COUNT 89   On or about April 24, 1995, Longo did conceal from the creditors of SCI (a corporation under Longo’s exclusive control) a check for $17,494.00 (seventeen thousand, four hundred ninety-four dollars) in the form of a DSII check (number 160) made out to Joseph Harrison, Jr.  Part of this amount was paid to finance the sham lawsuit WHSM&H had undertaken on behalf of Longo; Procter; Warfield; Glick; Moore; Sapperstein; G. Sapperstein; and WHSM&H against Plaintiff.

 

 

COUNTS 90 - 123

MAIL FRAUD

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, for the purposes of executing such schemes and artifices in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 and attempting to do so:

(a)  Placed and knowingly caused to be delivered through the United States Postal Service letters, documents, and other matters and things in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341

(b)  Took and received from the United States Postal Service letters, documents, and other matters and things in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341.

 

It was part of the scheme and artifice that

 

COUNT 90   On or about January 9, 1992, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge, in furtherance of the conspiracy, scheme, and artiface to defraud Plaintiff, did send from the Miles & Stockbridge office in Frederick, Maryland, by United States Postal Service to Plaintiff in Jensen Beach, Florida, the License Agreement created by Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge licensing the first invention of Plaintiff to DSII shortly after inducing Plaintiff to believe Longo was an accredited investor.

COUNT 91   On or about July 30, 1993, Milling and Cohen, on behalf of Longo, J. Johnson, C. Johnson, Boardwine, SCI, WI, and Shippers’ Choice of Virginia, would use the United States Postal Service in furtherance of a conspiracy, scheme, and artiface to commit securities fraud by sending across interstate lines from North Bergen, New Jersey, a copy of the July 30, 1993 securities registration document to Longo in Jessup, Maryland.

COUNT 92   On or about July 30, 1993, Milling and Cohen, on behalf of Longo, J. Johnson, C. Johnson, Boardwine, SCI, WI, and Shippers’ Choice of Virginia, would use the United States Postal Service in furtherance of a conspiracy, scheme, and artiface to commit securities fraud by sending across interstate lines from North Bergen, New Jersey, a copy of the July 30, 1993 securities registration document to WI located in Washington, D.C.

COUNT 93   On or about December 15, 1993, Longo did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Jessup, Maryland to Baltimore, Maryland to further the fraudulent scheme and artifice devised by Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Procter, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, and WHSM&H to conceal from the Maryland Assistant Attorney General Tewey the certificate (number A-1) that was issued to Donald D. Plaintiff for 510 shares of DSII stock (representing 61% and controlling interest of DSII) on December 7, 1991, in the offices of Miles & Stockbridge in Frederick, Maryland.

COUNT 94   On or about January 12, 1994, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, WHSM&H, Longo, Procter, Moore, Harrison, Collins, Smith, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and Ternes did conspire to use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Jessup, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.  This letter was an extortion attempt to force Plaintiff to assign his patents to DSII.

COUNT 95   Beginning in or about November 1993 and continuing to or about June 1994, Tewey, Curran, and R. McDonald of the Maryland Attorney General’s securities division did use the United States Postal Service to send numerous letters from Balitmore, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.  These letters were responses to complaints made by Plaintiff of alleged securities fraud being committed by Longo.  These letters were in furtherance of a conspiracy to protect Curran’s political cronies, Sapperstein and G. Sapperstein.

COUNT 96   On or about December 12, 1994, Harrison of WHSM&H did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Ocean City, Maryland to the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland in Crownsville, Maryland.  The letter was in response to a complaint Plaintiff had filed with the Commission against Harrison and his law firm WHSM&H in an effort to conceal the conspiracy against Plaintiff.

COUNT 97   On or about October 7, 1996, Tewey, Curran, and R. McDonald did use the United States Postal Service to send a packet from Baltimore, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.  The packet was a partial response to Plaintiff’s request for certain documents under the Maryland Public Information Act.  The packet omitted documents and exculpatory evidence that would reflect negatively on the Securities Division of the Maryland Attorney General’s office.

COUNT 98   On or about January 22, 1996, Tewey, Curran, and R. McDonald did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Baltimore, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.  The letter was in response to an inquiry made by Plaintiff about documents concerning alleged securities fraud being committed by Longo.  The letter contained false and fraudulent information.

COUNT 99   On or about June 2, 1995, Curran, Howard, and McDonald did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.  The letter contained a motion to quash a subpoena served on Howard by Plaintiff.  The motion contained numerous false and fraudulent statements by Howard, McDonald, and Curran in an effort to discredit Plaintiff.

COUNT 100  On or about September 17, 1996, Gaul did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Baltimore, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.  The letter was a response to a request Plaintiff made under the Maryland Public Information Act.  Gaul was concealing documents Plaintiff had requested concerning meetings between the Maryland Attorney General’s office and the United States Attorney for Maryland concerning DSII, Longo, and Longo’s securities fraud scheme.

COUNT 101  On or about May 25, 1995, Worcester County Assistant State’s Attorney Smith and Worcester County State’s Attorney office investigator Mumford did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.  The letter contained a motion to quash a subpoena served on Smith and Mumford by Plaintiff.

COUNT 102  On or about June 13, 1995, Assistant U.S. Attorney for Maryland, Russell, did, on behalf of U.S. Attorney for Maryland Battaglia and Assistant U.S. Attorney Kelberman, use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Baltimore, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.

COUNT 103  On or about June 16, 1995, clerk of the Circuit Court for Worcester County Outten and Judge Groton did use the United States Postal Service to send a packet from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.  The packet contained six (6) motions that were signed by Judge Groton quashing subpoenas and denying motions that Plaintiff needed for his defense against Judge Groton’s personal acquaintances and political cronies Moore, Warfield, Glick, and WHSM&H.  Judge Groton signed these motions knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent in an effort to block Plaintiff’s access to a fair trial and exculpatory evidence Plaintiff could use detrimentally against Moore, Warfield, Glick, and WHSM&H.

COUNT 104  On or about June 6, 1995, in the Miles & Stockbridge office in Frederick, Maryland, Burgee, Danny B. O’Conner (“O’Conner”), and Earl W. Bartigis, Jr. (“Bartigis”) did mail from Frederick, Maryland to Plaintiff in Jensen Beach, Florida, a “Motion for Protection Order” containing false and fraudulent statements to conceal from the court the criminal conduct of Burgee, Procter, and Longo; to conceal the legal malfeasance conspiracy, scheme, and artifice to extort from Plaintiff “under color of law” his intellectual property; and to additionally conceal from Plaintiff exculpatory evidence he needed for his defense in the sham lawsuit.

COUNT 105  On or about June 6, 1995, Burgee, O’Conner, and Bartigis did mail from the Miles & Stockbridge offices in Frederick, Maryland to WHSM&H in Ocean City, Maryland a “Motion for Protective Order” containing false and fraudulent statements to conceal from the court the criminal conduct of Burgee, Procter, and Longo; to conceal the legal malfeasance conspiracy, scheme, and artifice to extort from Plaintiff “under color of law” his intellectual property; and to additionally conceal from Plaintiff exculpatory evidence he needed for his defense in the sham lawsuit.

COUNT 106  On or about June 6, 1995, Burgee, O’Conner, and Bartigis did mail from the Miles & Stockbridge office in Frederick, Maryland to Outten, Clerk of the Court, Worcester County, Snow Hill, Maryland a “Motion for Protective Order” containing false and fraudulent statements to conceal from the court the criminal conduct of Burgee, Procter, and Longo; to conceal the legal malfeasance conspiracy, scheme, and artifice to extort from Plaintiff “under color of law” his intellectual property; and to additionally conceal from Plaintiff exculpatory evidence he needed for his defense in the sham lawsuit.

COUNT 107  On or about September 4, 1996, Worcester County State’s Attorney Todd did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida containing false statements and concealment of documents by Todd.

COUNT 108  On or about November 6, 1996, Worcester County State’s Attorney Todd did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida containing false statements and concealment of documents by Todd.

COUNT 109  On or about December 26, 1996, Worcester County State’s Attorney Todd did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida containing false statements and concealment of documents by Todd.

COUNT 110  On or about January 17, 1996, Judge Eschenburg did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.  The letter falsely stated that he (Judge Eschenburg) could have heard the case (number 94VC0182) of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone and that he (Judge Eschenburg) had no conflict of interest in hearing the case due to any personal or business relationships between himself and Warfield, Glick, Moore, and Harrison.

COUNT 111  On or about July 10, 1997, Judge Eschenburg and Outten did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida that contained falsely-exemplified documents from the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone that Judge Eschenburg knew were fraudulent because the proceeding against Plaintiff was a sham.

COUNT 112  On or about May 5, 1996, Worcester County Circuit Court law clerk Haskell and Judge Groton did, on behalf of Judge Groton, use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida that contained fraudulent statements and false representations about Judge Groton’s relationships with Warfield, Glick, Moore, Harrison, and WHSM&H.

COUNT 113  On or about April 4, 1996, Judge Groton did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.  The letter contained fraudulent and false statements.

COUNT 114  On or about November 6, 1996, Sgt. Kinhart of the Maryland State Police did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from the State Police barracks in Berlin, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida that contained the falsified version of the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation report (CBI control number 9500106).

COUNT 115  On or about November 20, 1996, Lt. Moyer of the Maryland State Police did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Maryland State Police headquarters in Pikesville, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.  The letter was a response to an inquiry Plaintiff had sent to Moyer requesting confirmation on Maryland State Police stationery that the documents sent by Sgt. Kinhart to Plaintiff were authentic and for Moyer to take into protective custody the report and the evidence collected during the investigation.  Moyer never complied with Plaintiff’s requests.

COUNT 116  On or about March 26, 1997, Mjr. Franklin of the Maryland State Police did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Essex, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida that stated that the Maryland State Police did not have enough probable cause to obtain subpoenas for bank records and other documents related to DSII and Longo.

COUNT 117  In or about February 1996, Sher (trustee for SCI bankruptcy [case number 94-5-7899] of the firm Shapiro and Olander) did send to Plaintiff, a party of interest in the SCI bankruptcy, a letter by United States Postal Service from Baltimore, Maryland to Plaintiff in Jensen Beach, Florida containing a false statement concerning the SCI bankruptcy.

COUNT 118  On or about January 24, 1997, attorney Timothy F. McCormick of the firm Sharpiro and Olander, representing his client, Joel Sher (trustee for the SCI bankruptcy) did send by United States Postal Service to Plaintiff, a party of interest in the SCI bankruptcy, a letter from Baltimore, Maryland containing a false statement and representation to Plaintiff in Jensen Beach, Florida concerning the SCI bankruptcy.

COUNT 119  Between March 2 and July 10, 1997, Outten, Powell, Judge Eschenburg, Judge Groton, and Judge Bloxom would knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent defraud Plaintiff by taking Plaintiff’s money and refusing to provide exemplified Worcester County Circuit Court documents as Plaintiff had requested.  Outten, Powell, Judge Eschenburg, Judge Groton, and Judge Bloxom were aware that the court documents were the product of a sham judicial proceeding involving personally Judge Eschenburg, Judge Groton, and their personal acquaintances and political cronies Moore, Warfield, Glick, and WHSM&H in a fraudulent scheme to defraud and extort from Plaintiff his personal property “under color of law.”  Documents were mailed by Defendants from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff in Jensen Beach, Florida.

COUNT 120  On or about May 16, 1997, Judge Eschenburg, Judge Groton, Judge Bloxom, Powell, Outten, Longo, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H did cause to be mailed from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff in Jensen Beach, Florida, the court documents from the sham judicial proceeding that Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton refused to exemplify.  Plaintiff refused the documents and returned them to Outten.

COUNT 121  On or about May 20, 1997, Grochal (from the law firm of Tydings & Rosenberg and representing SCI [a debtor in bankruptcy {case number 94-5-7899-SD}], and its principal [Charles R. Longo]) did use the United States Postal Service to send a letter from Baltimore, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida.  The letter contained a motion in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for Rule 2004 - Examination of Debtor.  Several statements by Grochal in this motion were false and constitute fraud on the bankruptcy court and obstruction of justice by Grochal, Tydings & Rosenberg, Longo, and SCI.

COUNT 122  On or about May 29, 1997, Judge Eschenburg, Judge Groton, Judge Bloxom, Powell, Outten, Longo, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H did cause to be mailed from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff in Jensen Beach, Florida the court documents from the sham judicial proceeding that Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton refused to exemplify.  Plaintiff refused the documents and returned them to Outten.

COUNT 123  On or about July 10, 1997, Judge Eschenburg, Judge Groton, Judge Bloxom, Powell, Outten, Longo, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H did cause to be mailed from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff in Jensen Beach, Florida the court documents from the sham judicial proceeding that Judge Eschenburg finally exemplified and Judge Groton has continued to refuse to exemplify.

 


COUNTS 124 - 139

WIRE FRAUD

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, for the purposes of executing such schemes and artifices and attempting to do so transmitted and caused to be transmitted by means of wire certain telephone communications in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and attempting to do so:

 

COUNT 124  Numerous telephone calls were made on unknown dates by Procter from Frederick, Maryland to Princeton Polymers located in Union, New Jersey in furtherance of the conspiracy, scheme, and artifice to defraud Plaintiff and wrest from Plaintiff his valuable intellectual property.

COUNT 125  Numerous telephone calls were made by Longo from Maryland beginning in or about the summer of 1993 and continuing until an unknown date to Milling, New Jersey in furtherance of the conspiracy, scheme, and artifice to defraud Plaintiff and wrest from Plaintiff his valuable intellectual properties.

COUNT 126  On or about October 13, 1993, Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Ternes, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein did cause to be sent by interstate wire, a fax from Jessup, Maryland of a document (alleged to have been typed by Ternes) to Plaintff in Jensen Beach, Florida in furtherance of the scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff.

COUNT 127  Beginning in or about October 1993 and continuing until the present, numerous telephone calls were made by Longo from Maryland across interstate lines to patent attorney Blecher at the firm of Foley and Lardner in Washington, D.C. in furtherance of the conspiracy, scheme, and artifice to defraud Plaintiff and wrest from Plaintiff his valuable intellectual properties.

COUNT 128  Beginning in or about mid 1993 and continuing until the present, numerous telephone calls were made by Longo in Maryland across interstate lines to Shippers’ Choice of Virginia, C. Johnson, and Boardwine located in Virginia in furtherance of the conspiracy and scheme to defraud Plaintiff and in furtherance of Longo’s securities fraud scheme and money laundering scheme.

COUNT 129  Beginning on or about July 1993, numerous telephone calls were made by Longo in Maryland across interstate lines to WI and J. Johnson located in Washington, D.C. in furtherance of the scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff and in furtherance of Longo’s securities fraud scheme.

COUNT 130  Beginning in or about October 1993 and continuing until the present, numerous telephone calls were made by Harrison from the WHSM&H office in Ocean City, Maryland across interstate lines to patent attorney Blecher at the firm of Foley and Lardner in Washington, D.C. in furtherance of the conspiracy and artifice to extort “under color of law” from Plaintiff his intellectual property.

COUNT 131  On or about October 13, 1993, Longo did fax across interstate lines from Jessup, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida a document.

COUNT 132  On or about October 15, 1993, Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, and Warfield did fax across interstate lines from Jessup, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida an extortion attempt threatening to have Plaintiff arrested on unspecified criminal charges if Plaintiff did not capitulate to their demands.

COUNT 133  On or about June 1, 1994, Procter did place a telephone call across interstate lines from Maryland to Rexene Corporation located in Dallas, Texas to obtain material for Princeton Polymers located in Union, New Jersey to conduct experiments in furtherance of the conspiracy, scheme, and artifice to defraud and wrest from Plaintiff his intellectual properties.

COUNT 134  On or about February 22, 1995, Sapperstein did place a telephone call from the Baltimore, Maryland area to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida in furtherance of the scheme to defraud Plaintiff.

COUNT 135  On or about November 29, 1995, Detective McDermott did fax across interstate lines from the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation offices in Bishopville, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida a document that was part of the sham investigation that was being conducted into Plaintiff’s allegations of Longo’s embezzlement of DSII funds.

COUNT 136  On or about January 17, 1997, Maryland State Police officer Mjr. Franklin did place a telephone call from Essex, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida during which Franklin discussed with Plaintiff DSII and Plaintiff’s allegations about Longo embezzling money from DSII.

COUNT 137  On or about January 28, 1997, Maryland State Police officer Mjr. Franklin did place a telephone call from Essex, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida during which Franklin discussed with Plaintiff DSII and the extent of knowledge Plaintiff had concerning Longo’s embezzlement of DSII assets.  Franklin is alleged to have made a tape recording of this telephone conversation.

COUNT 138  On or about February 27, 1997, Worcester County Sheriffs Deputy Jones did place a telephone call from Snow Hill, Maryland to Plaintiff’s residence in Jensen Beach, Florida during which Jones discussed DSII and the location of the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation report (CBI control number 9500106).  Also during this conversation, Jones alleged that he thought the evidence collected in the investigation was returned to the victims and that Plaintiff was not a victim. Jones is believed to have made a tape recording of this telephone conversation.

COUNT 139  Beginning in or about October 1993 and continuing until some unknown date after Longo, Procter, Warfield, and Sapperstein threatened to have Plaintiff arrested on unspecified criminal charges (October 15, 1993), Longo and Milling placed telephone calls from Maryland and New Jersey to potential licensees of Plaintiff’s technology in Illinois and North Carolina.  During these conversations, Longo and Milling falsely represented that they were acting in the personal interest of Plaintiff.

 

 


COUNTS 140 - 142

INTERSTATE AND FOREIGN TRAVEL IN AID OF RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1952

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises for the purpose of executing such schemes and artifices in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1952 and attempting to do so:

 

COUNT 140  On or about December 9, 1993, a DSII check (number 122) in the amount of $299.00 was made out to Control Aero, a corporation in Frederick, Maryland that rents airplanes.  It is alleged that unknown defendants flew across interstate lines to an unknown destination in furtherance of the scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff.

COUNT 141  On or about December 22, 1993, a corporation was formed by Burgee of the Miles & Stockbridge office in Frederick, Maryland called Chieftan Investors.  The Board of Directors of Chieftan Investors are Sapperstein and G. Sapperstein, with Sapperstein as the registered agent.  Chieftan Investors owns a Piper aircraft, registration mark number N-4078J.  On or about August 3, 1994, DSII did pay Chieftan Investors $700.00 for airplane tickets for an alleged meeting on an unknown date with Goodyear Tire and Rubber company in Akron, Ohio.  Longo testified at the trial on June 19, 1995, that when he and Proctor arrived for the meeting, Goodyear representatives refused to talk to them.  This was interstate travel as part of the conspiracy, scheme, and artifice by Miles & Stockbridge, Burgee, Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Harrison, and to defraud and extort from Plaintiff his intellectual property.

COUNT 142  On an unknown date sometime after September 1993, Moore, Warfield, Glick, and other unknown co-conspirators are alleged by Rusty Krauss (who was selling the fraudulent securities for Longo/SCI/WI) to have traveled across interstate lines from Maryland to Washington, D.C. to be introducted to unknown individuals at WI in Washington, D.C. in furtherance of the scheme, artifice, and conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff and wrest from him his intellectual property.  Allegedly, this meeting was conducted with the understanding that if Defendants Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Longo, Procter, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Harrison, and WHSM&H could extort from Plaintiff his intellectual property “under color of law,” WI would put together a fraudulent stock offering just as they had done for the Longo/SCI fraudulent securities offering.

 

 


COUNT 143

SALE OR RECEIPT OF STOLEN SECURITIES

in violation of 18 U.S.C. §2315

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises for the purpose of executing such schemes and artifices in violation of U.S.C. 18 §2315.

 

COUNT 143  At an unknown date sometime after late September 1993 -- when Longo was given the DSII corporate documents containing Plaintiff’s DSII stock certificate numbered A-1, for class A voting stock valued at approximately $382,500.00 (three hundred eighty-two thousand, five hundred dollars), issued to Plaintiff on December 7, 1991 -- Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein made arrangements to transport this unlawfully taken and converted stock certificate across interstate lines from Maryland to Washington, D.C. to the law offices of Foley & Lardner.  The stock certificate was unlawfully concealed from Plaintiff and the Court by Moore, Warfield, Glick, Longo, Procter, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Harrison, and WHSM&H until it was ultimately destroyed and disposed of by Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Harrison, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H at some unknown date thereafter.

 

 

COUNTS 144 - 148

CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SECURITIES FRAUD

in violation of 15 U.S.C. §77(g)

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise fraudulent schemes and artifices to obtain money and property from Plaintiff by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, for the purposes of executing such schemes and artifices in violation of 15 U.S.C. §77(g) and attempting to do so:

 

COUNT 144  Between October 15, 1993 and June 16, 1996, Longo, Procter, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Moore, and WHSM&H did endeavor to conspire and devise knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent a fraudulent scheme and artifice to conceal, steal, convert, alter, and eventually destroy the certificate (number A-1) issued to Donald D. Stone for 510 shares of DSII stock -- representing 61% and controlling interest of DSII, valued at approximately $382,500 (three hundred eighty-two thousand, five hundred dollars) -- on December 7, 1991, in the offices of Miles & Stockbridge in Frederick, Maryland.

COUNT 145  Between 1992 and early 1994, Longo/SCI and WI did sell approximately $1,320,000.00 (one million, three hundred twenty thousand dollars) in fraudulent securities.

COUNT 146  On or about June 16, 1996, in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit securities fraud, Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Judge Groton, Judge Eschenburg, and WHSM&H did endeavor knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to devise and execute a fraudulent scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff by issuing to Plaintiff a fraudulent stock certificate (number A-8) for 490 shares of DSII, valued at approximately $360,000.00 (three hundred sixty thousand dollars).  As of October 5, 1995, DSII had forfeited its charter to legally conduct business in the state of Maryland.

COUNT 147  The conspiracy to commit securities fraud was furthered by Tewey and R. McDonald (of the Maryland Attorney General’s securities fraud division) by conspiring to conceal from Plaintiff and refusing to subpoena DSII corporate documents.  This concealment was done in furtherance of the securities fraud scheme by Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein in the theft and conversion of the DSII stock certificate (number A-1) Class A Voting common stock issued to Plaintiff on December 7, 1991, and would eventually further the issuance of the fraudulent DSII stock certificate issued to Plaintiff on or about June 6, 1996.

COUNT 148  O or about June 6, 1996, in furtherance of the scheme and conspiracy by Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Burgee, Miles & Stockbridge, and WHSM&H to extort “under color of law” from Plaintiff his intellectual property, Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton simultaneously conspired to commit securities fraud on Plaintiff by enabling Defendants to steal, convert, alter, and eventually destroy the DSII stock certificate (number A-1) Class A voting stock certificate issued to Plaintiff on December 7, 1991 and enabled Defendants to issued to Plaintiff a fraudulent DSII stock certificate (valued at approximately $367,500.00 [three hundred sixty-seven thousand, five hundred dollars) as a result of the sham court order.

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands the following relief:

(a)  An instant injunction to be served on Chairman Dan Burton of the House Government Reform and Oversite Committee prohibiting any payments for legal services involving any U.S. taxpayer money or federal tax money to the Committee’s newly-appointed Chief Counsel, Attorney Richard D. Bennett, or his firm Miles & Stockbridge of Baltimore, Maryland, until Bennett and Miles & Stockbridge make a complete written public disclosure of how Miles & Stockbridge and their attorneys have allegedly received funds and legal fees in a circuitous manner from an $8 million Department of Education student loan fraud scheme victimizing approximately 2,000 documented victims in Maryland and Virginia, perpetrated by Longo and his bankrupt corporation, NTS, that was to be investigated by the Oversite Committee.  Additionally, full disclosure of how Miles & Stockbridge actively participated in assisting Longo in fraudulently diverting and concealing assets of three (3) federal bankruptcy cases.

b)  An instant court order to be served by U.S. Marshals on the Superintendent of the Maryland State Police Mitchell, Maryland Attorney General Curran, and Worcester County Sheriff Martin, prohibiting any possible spoilation of evidence which is the subject of this complaint in its entirety.

c)  The Court’s protection and an instant protective court order prohibiting any and all federal or state law enforcement agencies from threatening, harassing, intimidating, or attempting to seize any type of evidence or documents belonging to Plaintiff concerning the serious allegations made by Plaintiff, as contained herein, against high-ranking federal and state law enforcement officials.

d)  An instant injunction to freeze any and all assets of Longo, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and DSII to prevent any fraudulent transfers of conveyances or burdens of Plaintiff’s intellectual property that was assigned to DSII on or about June 6, 1996.

e)  An instant injunction to prevent any of the Defendants or DSII from declaring bankruptcy.

f)  A court order requiring any Defendant to divest himself of any interest in any enterprise, including real estate.

g)  A permanent injunction against WHSM&H from being legal counsel for Worcester County, Maryland or any agency that receives state and/or federal tax dollars.

h)  A permanent injunction against Sapperstein and G. Sapperstein from being involved in, associated with, or acting as consultant to any enterprise that receives federal or state tax dollars.

i)  A court order requiring Sapperstein and G. Sapperstein and/or any corporation or business enterprise in which they are associates to divest themselves of any and all contracts they may have with cities, municipalities, or any public agencies that receive any type of state or federal tax subsidies.

j)  A preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting all Defendants from taking any acts against Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s intellectual property.

k)  A declaratory judgment that the assignment of Plaintiff’s intellectual properties (U.S. patent serial number 5,314,940 issued May 24, 1994; pending patent serial number 08/145,189 filed November 3, 1993, and pending patent serial number 08/201,131 filed February 23, 1993) to DSII and/or any other party be declared null and void and returned to Plaintiff.

l)  A temporary restraining order against all Defendants to preserve all forfeitable assets until trial is completed and judgement entered.

m)  An instant injunction and stay prohibiting the U.S. Department of Justice or any and all federal and state agencies from initiating any criminal or civil investigation or action pertaining to Plaintiff’s complaint until trial is completed and judgement entered.

n)  With respect to all counts, a judgment against all Defendants for $51,000,000.00 (fifty-one million dollars), which represents approximately threefold the damages sustained by Plaintiff, costs of all suits, interest, and reasonable legal fees.

o)  Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

 

 


COUNTS 149 - 159

VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS

in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, §1985, §1986,

§1988, and Due Process

 

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to violate Plaintiff’s civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983, §1985, §1986, §1988, and due process.

 

COUNT 149  Battaglia, as United States Attorney for Maryland is responsible for outlining lawful policies and procedures for her Assistant United States attorneys to follow in order to avoid violating a citizen’s rights.  Battaglia’s policies and procedures are defective or insufficient to protect a citizen’s rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

a)  After a subpoena duece tecum was served on Battaglia in late May/early June, 1995 by Plaintiff, Battaglia responded by having George Russell, III, an Assistant United States Attorney, contact Plaintiff.

b)  Russell had only been with the United States Attorney’s office for approximately six (6) months and had no personal knowledge of the documents being requested in the subpoena.

c)  Russell made numerous conflicting, confusing, and false statements to block, frustrate, mislead, and confuse Plaintiff.

d)  Russell made no effort to disclose the existence of documents of meetings between the United States Assistant Attorney Dale Kelberman, Maryland Assistant Attorney General, William F. Howard, and United States bankruptcy trustee, Lori Simpson concerning Longo, SCI, or the securities fraud and possible mail fraud being perpetrated by Longo through SCI during the time Longo was controlling and operating DSII at the SCI location.

e)  The documents and records Battaglia were trying to conceal from Plaintiff, through fraud and trickery, would have provided valuable exculpatory evidence for Plaintiff to use in his defense against Longo and his associates in the June 19, 1995 trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone.

f)  A portion of these documents and records were accidently discovered by Plaintiff in early 1997 through a Freedom of Information Act request.

COUNT 150  Battaglia, Russell, and Kelberman conspired knowingly, fraudulently, and with a callous and deliberate indifference to the Constitutional rights of Plaintiff.

a)  Battaglia’s self-serving, personal and political agenda, concerning her relationship with Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran, Jr. was more important that Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights.

b)  Battaglia realized that disclosure of these documents and records would be beneficial to Plaintiff and have a devastating impact on the personal acquaintances and political cronies of Curran and the prestigious and politically powerful law firm of Miles & Stockbridge.

c)  Battaglia, Russell and Kelberman were responsible for advancing the defective and unlawful policies and procedures of the U.S. Attorney’s Office through their conduct that enabled prominent and politically well-connected Maryland businessmen to operate, prosper, and proliferate under the political patronage and protection of the U.S. Attorney’s Office while committing multiple federal felony offenses.

COUNT 151  Joel Todd, States Attorney for Worcester County, is responsible for outlining lawful policies and procedures for the Worcester County Sheriff to follow in order to avoid violating a citizen’s rights.  Todd’s policies and procedures are defective or insufficient to protect citizens’ rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

a)  Todd, Assistant State’s Attorney Smith, and investigator Mumford advanced these deficient policies and procedures by using Worcester County law enforcement agencies and officers to protect prominent and politically well-connected Worcester County residents Smith, Warfield, Glick, Moore, and WHSM&H from criminal investigation and criminal liabilities during the time these citizens and their law firm were involved in violating the federal R.I.C.O. Act and Maryland State criminal laws.

b)  Todd, Assistant State’s Attorney Smith, and investigator Mumford advanced these deficient policies and procedures by using Worcester County law enforcement agencies and officers to protect the prominent and politically well-connected Worcester County law firm of WHSM&H from criminal investigation and criminal liabilities during the time this law firm was involved in violating the federal R.I.C.O. Act and Maryland State criminal laws.

COUNT 152  Curran, Maryland Attorney General, is responsible for outlining lawful policies and procedures for Maryland’s state law enforcement agencies to follow in order to avoid violating a citizen’s rights.  Curran’s policies and procedures are defective or insufficient to protect citizens’ rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

(a)  Curran, Howard, Tewey, Gaul, A. McDonald, R. McDonald, and unknown co-conspirators advanced these deficient policies and procedures by refusing to conduct legitimate, due diligent investigations into the criminal conduct and criminal activities of Curran’s personal and/or political cronies and the prestigious and politically powerful law firm of Miles & Stockbridge.

b)  This failure to conduct legitimate and due diligent investigations was done with deliberate indifference, in a callous, knowingly and willfully malicious manner, and with total disregard to Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights.

c)  This failure to conduct legitimate and due diligent investigations was not done in the interest of justice, but for the protection of Curran’s personal and political cronies from criminal investigations and liabilities.

COUNT 153  The Worcester County Bureau of Investigation, a Maryland State Police task force, was authorized to operate as a multi-agency law enforcement unit on or about August 16, 1995.  Operation of this unit was authorized by agreement between Maryland State Police, Commissioners of Worcester County, and the Mayor and City Council of Berlin, Maryland.  The Bureau was composed of Maryland State Police officers, Worcester County Sheriff’s officers, Town of Berlin Police officers, and investigators from the Worcester County State’s Attorney office.    

     Col. David B. Mitchell, Superintendent for the Maryland State Police is responsible for outlining lawful policies and procedures for his officers to follow in order to avoid violating a citizen’s Constitutional rights.  Mitchell’s policies and procedures are defective or insufficient to protect citizens’ rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

     Worcester County and Worcester County Commissioners are responsible for outlining policies and procedures for county employees to follow in order to avoid violations of citizens’ civil rights.  The Worcester County Commission and Commissioners polices and procedures are defective and insufficient to protect citizens’ rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

     Charles T. Martin, Worcester County Sheriff, is responsible for outlining lawful policies and procedures for his deputies to follow in order to avoid violating a citizen’s Constitutional rights.  Martin’s policies and procedures are defective or insufficient to protect citizens’ rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

     Police Chief Lyons of Berlin, Maryland, is responsible for outlining lawful policies and procedures for his officers to follow in order to avoid violating a citizen’s Constitutional rights.  Lyons’ policies and procedures are defective or insufficient to protect citizens’ rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. 

     The Mayor, Town Council of Berlin (Maryland), and the Town of Berlin (Maryland) are responsible for outlining lawful policies and procedures for Berlin agencies to follow in order to avoid violating a citizen’s Constitutional rights.  The Mayor and City Council of Berlin, Maryland’s policies and procedures are defective or insufficient to protect citizens’ rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

a)  Maryland State Police officers Lt. Stephen Moyer, Sgt. Michael Kinhart, Major Stanford Franklin, Martin Koener, and Lt. Dale Petty advanced these deficient polices and procedures by refusing to conduct legitimate and due diligent investigations into prominent and politically-connected Maryland businessmen who were personal and/or political cronies of Curran.

b)  Worcester County Bureau of Investigation and its officers Kinhart, Bowden, and McDermott advanced these deficient policies and procedures by conducting a sham investigation into Plaintiff’s allegations that Longo and Procter were embezzling funds from DSII.

c)  Officers Kinhart, Bowden, and McDermott advanced these deficient polices and procedures by refusing to question prominent and politically-connected Worcester County residents Warfield, Glick, Moore, and Harrison, and other members of the law firm of WHSM&H. 

d)  Failure to question these individuals was done in a deliberate effort to protect these individuals from a criminal investigation and criminal activities.

e)  Failure to question these individuals was done in a callous, knowingly, and willfully malicious manner with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights.

f)  Officers Kinhart, Bowden, and McDermott advanced these deficient polices and procedures when they knowingly, willfully, and fraudulently conducted a sham investigation to protect Judge Eschenburg’s and Judge Groton’s personal and political cronies from criminal investigation and criminal liabilities.

g)  By conducting a sham investigation, Officers Kinhart, Bowden, and McDermott protected Judge Eschenburg’s and Judge Groton’s personal and political cronies from a default judgment of approximately $30 million in Plaintiff’s favor; the possible result of a pending court settlement since the outcome of the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone had not yet been consummated.

h)  The finding of criminal conduct by Longo and Procter -- namely their embezzling of DSII funds and the sham lawsuit Longo Glick, Moore, Warfield, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H brought against Plaintiff -- would have been so overwhelmingly devastating to the court settlement that not even Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton could protect their personal and political cronies, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Harrison, and WHSM&H.

i)  Officers Kinhart, Bowden, and McDermott advanced these deficient polices and procedures when they knowingly, willfully, and fraudulently falsified a Worcester County Bureau of Investigation report to protect the personal and political cronies of Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton from criminal investigations.

j)  The Worcester County Commission and Commissioners advanced the deficient policies and procedures by using Worcester County employees to coverup and falsify police reports to protect prominent and politically well-connected Worcester County residents Warfield, Glick, and Moore from criminal investigation and criminal liablities during the time these private citizens were involved in violating the federal R.I.C.O. Act and Maryland state criminal laws.

k)  The Worcester County Commission and Commissioners advanced the deficient policies and procedures by using Worcester County employees to coverup and falsify police reports to protect the prominent and politically well-connected law firm of WHSM&H from criminal investigation and criminal liablities during the time this firm was involved in violating the federal R.I.C.O. Act and Maryland state criminal laws.

COUNT 154  Judge Eschenburg willfully, knowingly, and  with malicious intent denied Plaintiff due process when he, Judge Eschenburg, conspired to engage in an ex parte meeting with Smith on behalf of Harrison and his clients on or about December 16, 1994 for the purpoes of postponing the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone set for December 19, 1994 and to deny Plaintiff a trial by jury, as guaranteed by the Maryland Constitution.

COUNT 155  Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent fraudulently claimed that they had no conflict of interest in the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone and therefore were not required to recuse themselves from the proceeding.  Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton are long-time personal acquaintances and/or political cronies of four (4) of the plaintiffs and their attorney in that proceeding: Moore, Warfield, Glick, Harrison, and their law firm WHSM&H.  Their actions were commited with callous, malicious, and deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s Constitutional rights.

COUNT 156  Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton continued to threaten and intimidate Plaintiff, not in the pursuit of justice but “under color of law,” in furtherance of the conspiracy to extort from Plaintiff his potentially valuable intellectural property for the personal enrichment of their long-time personal acquaintances and/or political cronies.

COUNT 157  The U.S. Attorney for Maryland, the Maryland Attorney General’s Office, the Maryland State Police, and the Worcester county law enforcement agencies (sheriffs department, states attorney, Berlin police, and the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation) provide protection and patronage for the proliferation of white collar criminal enterprises “under color of law” in their jurisdictions for an elite group of wealthy and politically well-connected class of individuals in violation of the Constitutional rights of the majority to equal protection under the law.

 

All actions by the Defendants were done knowingly, willfully, fraudulently, and maliciously with a callous and deliberate indifference and disregard for Plaintiff’s civil rights in furtherance and pursuit of the unlawful polices and procedures to protect the personal and political agendas of Battaglia; Judge Groton; Judge Eschenburg; Curran; Mitchell; Todd; Martin; McDermott; Bowden; Lyons; Koerner; Worcester County; the Worcester County Commissioners; the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation; the Police Chief of Berlin, Maryland; the Mayor and City Council of Berlin, Maryland; the Town of Berlin, Maryland; and the Worcester County State Attorney’s Office.

 

Judge Eschenburg and Judge Groton were acting “under color of law,” without jurisdiction over Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s intellectual properties, and their actions and conduct were done knowingly, willfully, fraudulently, maliciously, and with callous indifference to Plaintiff’s civil rights in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud Plaintiff of his intellectual properties for the personal enrichment of Defendents Moore, Warfield, Glick, Ward, Harrison, Collins, Hammond, Smith, and WHSM&H and their co-conspirators Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Burgee, Frisch, Eyler, Miraglia, Miles & Stockbridge, Grochal, Ebersol, and Tydings & Rosenberg

 

As a direct and proximate result Plaintiff has been damaged.

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays to this Honorable Court for judgment and damages, compensatory and punitive, plus interest, costs, and legal fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983, 42 U.S.C. §1985, 42 U.S.C. §1986, and 42 U.S.C. §1988.  

 

Plaintiff additionally prays for a court order to permanently disbar from the Maryland Bar, Defendants Burgee, Todd, Judge Groton, Judge Eschenburg, Eyler, Judge Bloxom, Frisch, Miraglia, O’Conner, Bartigis, Tewey, A. McDonald, Grochal, Ebersol, Harrison, Collins, Hammond, Smith, Sellinger, McCormick, Sher, Gaul, Curran, Battaglia, Kelberman, Smith, and Russell.

 

Plaintiff also prays for a court order permanently removing Judge Groton, Judge Eschenburg, Judge Bloxom, and Eyler from the Maryland Judiciary.

 

 


COUNTS 158 - 174

MALPRACTICE

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

Miles & Stockbridge and WHSM&H and their attorneys have a duty and obligation to Plaintiff and to DSII to act in a reasonable and lawful manner. On or about the dates and locations listed below, Miles & Stockbridge attorneys Burgee, Eyler, Frische, and Miraglia did perform their duties for DSII under false and fraudulent misrepresentation and gross conflict of interest. 

 

COUNT 158  Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge led Plaintiff to believe that Longo was an accredited investor.

COUNT 159  Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge allowed Longo to give Procter the alleged $15,000.00 investment in the form of a check made out to Procter personally and not to DSII.

COUNT 160  Burgee, Eyler, Frische, and Miraglia of Miles & Stockbridge involved DSII and Plaintiff in the fraudulent schemes of Longo and Procter.

COUNT 161  Miles and Stockbridge, Burgee, Eyler, Frische, and Miraglia conspired to involve DSII in their fraudulent schemes to commit bankruptcy fraud and securities fraud on behalf of Longo and Procter.

COUNT 162  Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge did not disclose to Plaintiff or the Worcester County Circuit Court that they were knowingly and willfully involved with Longo and Procter in a fraudulent scheme to defraud Plaintiff of his intellectual properties.

COUNT 163  WHSM&H did not maintain DSII as a corporation in good standing with the State of Maryland.

COUNT 164  Plaintiff, as owner of the controlling interest in DSII, never authorized the sham lawsuit WHSM&H filed against Plaintiff.

 

WHSM&H and their attorneys have a duty to uphold the laws of the United States and the State of Maryland.  In regards to Plaintiff and DSII, WHSM&H  did knowingly, willfully, with malicious intent, and with callous disregard act only with self interest and for the interests of their client, Longo, and for their long-time personal acquaintances and political cronies and did conspire to aid Longo and Procter in the furtherance of Longo and Procter’s multiple fraudulent schemes and did pursue sham litigation to defraud Plaintiff of his intellectual properties and DSII.

 

COUNT 165  WHSM&H knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent issued a fraudulent DSII stock certificate (number A-8) to Plaintiff.

COUNT 166  WHSM&H, Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein committed fraud on the Court to defraud Plaintiff.

COUNT 167  WHSM&H used the Worcester County Bureau of Investigation to protect their long-time personal acquaintances and/or political cronies Moore, Warfield, and Glick from criminal investigations during the time Moore, Warfield, and Glick were involved in the commission of numerous federal felony offenses.

COUNT 168  WHSM&H used the Worcester County State’s Attorney’s office to further their fraudulent schemes against Plaintiff.

COUNT 169  WHSM&H knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent fraudulently altered and falsified DSII corporate records and stock certificates.

COUNT 170  WHSM&H knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent filed a sham lawsuit against Plaintiff in the Worcester County Circuit Court.

COUNT 171  WHSM&H made false and fraudulent statements to the Worcester County Circuit Court in the filing of the sham lawsuit against Plaintiff.

COUNT 172  WHSM&H did commit fraud on the Court by not disclosing to the Worcester County Circuit Court that Longo and Procter were embezzling from DSII for their personal enrichment and the furtherance of their multiple fraudulent schemes, the money that Moore, Warfield, and Glick had invested into DSII.

COUNT 173  WHSM&H perpetrated fraud on the Worcester County Circuit Court by not disclosing that Longo had falsely testified under oath during the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone that Longo had revived the DSII corporate charter between June 12, 1995 and June 19, 1995.

COUNT 174  WHSM&H perpetrated fraud on the Worcester County Circuit Court by making numerous false statements to the Court on June 19, 1995.

 

As a direct and foreseeable and proximate result of the Defendant’s breach of duty, Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, substantial losses of income and other financial benefits, all to his damage, in an amount in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court, the precise amount of which will be proven at trial.

 

Defendants, as members of a group and/or as each of them, committed the acts alleged above maliciously, fraudulently and oppressively in furtherance of a conspiracy with the intention of injuring Plaintiff, with improper and evil motive amounting to malice, and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.  Because the acts taken were carried out in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof.

 

 

COUNTS 175 - 180

WRONGFUL CIVIL PROCEEDING

Malicious Prosecution

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did engage in a wrongful civil proceeding through a malicious proceeding.  The wrongful initiation of the sham, meritless lawsuit filed against Plaintiff in Worcester County Circuit Court was without probable cause and was not for any legitimate purpose to further the ends of justice.

 

COUNT 175  WHSM&H knowingly, willfully, and maliciously filed the sham lawsuit in furtherance of a fraudulent scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff for the sole purpose of conspiring to extort and convert Plaintiff’s potentially valuable patent and pending patents into the exclusive control and personal enrichment of their long-time personal acquaintances, clients, and political cronies Moore, Warfield, and Glick and co-conspirators Longo, Procter, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein.

COUNT 176  WHSM&H filed the sham lawsuit knowing Longo had no standing or grounds to sue because Plaintiff had issued stock to Longo under Burgee’s, Procter’s, and Longo’s fraudulent representation of Longo as an accredited investor.

COUNT 177  WHSM&H filed the sham lawsuit knowing Longo had no standing or ground to sue because they had in their possession the DSII corporate papers and stock record showing Plaintiff as having controlling interest in the corporation.

COUNT 178  WHSM&H filed the sham lawsuit in Worcester County, instead of the county in which DSII operated (Howard) knowing that if Plaintiff did not capitulate to their extortion attempt “under color of law,” that the trial would be heard by either Judge Eschenburg or Judge Groton, both of whom were long-time personal acquaintances and political cronies of three (3) of the plaintiffs, Moore, Warfield, Glick, and of their law firm, WHSM&H.

COUNT 179  In the sham lawsuit filed by WHSM&H, it was alleged that Plaintiff had never disclosed the License Agreement, signed on January 13, 1992, between Plaintiff and DSII to investors.  Harrison knew that his long-time friends Warfield and Glick had been provided with copies of the License Agreement.  In addition, Warfield’s financial advisor (name unknown to Plaintiff) and Glick’s financial advisor (Ward), who signed Warfield and Glick’s accredited investor forms, were aware of the License Agreement.

COUNT 180  Longo and Procter devised this sham lawsuit against Plaintiff with several different motives:

(a)  To expand their ongoing R.I.C.O. violations, namely federal bankruptcy fraud, money laundering, extortion, mail fraud, wire fraud, and securities fraud;

(b)  To take control of Plaintiff’s potentially valuable patents for their personal enrichment and to further their fraudulent schemes;

(c)  To enable them to co-mingle the proceeds from their criminal activities with the legitimate proceeds of DSII.

(d)  To enable them to control the proceeds from the licensing of Plaintiff’s patents to finance Longo’s rapidly-collapsing fraudulent securities scheme.

(e)  To cover up their embezzlement of money from DSII.

 

 

COUNTS 181 - 182

WRONGFUL CIVIL PROCEEDING

Abuse of Process

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to engage in a wrongful civil proceeding through abuse of process.

 

COUNT 181  The filing of any and all documents in the litigation against Plaintiff by WHSM&H for DSII was done in a conspiracy to commit fraud on the Court because at the time of trial (June 19, 1995), DSII was not a corporation in good standing (DSII would forfeit its Maryland corporate charter on October 5, 1995) and was, therefore, not a legitimate corporation in the state of Maryland or any other state.

COUNT 182  During the trial of DSII and Longo v Donald D. Stone, Harrison conspired to commit fraud on the Court by having Longo knowingly, willfully, and fraudulently testify under oath that he, Longo, had revived the corporate charter for DSII between June 12, 1995 and June 19, 1995.

 

The Defendants committed the above described acts and omissions, involving malicious prosecution and abuse of process, to abort, destroy, and frustrate Plaintiff’s opportunity to profit by the product of his intellectual labors -- not to advance the Defendants’ legitimate interest -- but in a predatory fashion with willful intent to injure Plaintiff.

 

By the above described malicious conduct, Defendants have destroyed Plaintiff’s property interest in his patents.  As a direct result of such conduct, Plaintiff has been prevented from receiving salary, royalties, and other remuneration for the reasonably-anticipated sales and licensing of his intellectual properties and patents, all to Plaintiff’s damage in the amount of $500,000.00 per annum per each patent on a world-wide basis for approximately 17 years the life of the two (2) patents, for a total of $17,000,000.00 (seventeen million dollars).

 

 


COUNTS 183 - 189

NEGLIGENCE

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent did negligently perform their duties.

 

COUNT 183  Burgee of Miles & Stockbridge  -- as an attorney for DSII, Procter, and Plaintiff -- acted only in the interest of Procter and Longo when the DSII corporate documents were drafted and when Burgee, Procter, and Longo devised the scheme and artifice to defraud Plaintiff under false and fraudulent pretenses when alleging Longo was an accredited investor in furtherance of their money laundering and bankruptcy fraud schemes.

COUNT 184  Burgee of Miles & Stockbridge -- as attorney for DSII, Procter, and Plaintiff -- acted only in the interest of Procter and Longo in accepting the alleged $15,000.00 investment from Longo into DSII.  Additionally, this enabled Burgee, Longo, and Procter to defraud the legitimate creditors from Longo personal bankruptcy and the bankruptcy of NTS, a company under the exclusive control of Longo.

COUNT 185  Longo, Procter, Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and WHSM&H acted negligently in the handling and recording of the DSII corporate documents and stock certificates that were given to Longo on or about September 20, 1993 in the parking lot of the Miles & Stockbridge offices in Frederick, Maryland by fraudulently stealing, converting, and ultimately destroying the stock certificate (number A-1) issued to Plaintiff on December 7, 1991.

COUNT 186  Moore, Warfield, Glick, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and the law firm WHSM&H, acted negligently in the handling and recording of the DSII corporate documents and stock certificates that were allegedly turned over to them when they took control of DSII on September 28, 1993 by not returning to Plaintiff the stock certificate (number A-1) issued to Plaintiff on December 7, 1991.

COUNT 187  On or about October 15, 1993, Longo -- with the assistance of Moore, Warfield, Glick, Harrison, Procter, and Sapperstein -- were negligent in their duties as officers and shareholders in DSII by holding a fraudulent Board of Directors meeting during which they elected Longo as President of DSII.

COUNT 188  Todd acted negligently by not performing his duties to investigate Plaintiff’s allegations that Harrison of WHSM&H was involved in securities fraud.

COUNT 189  The Worcester County Bureau of Investigation acted negligently by conducting a sham investigation into Plaintiff’s allegations that Longo was embezzling funds from DSII.

 

Defendants -- acting on their own and through co-conspirators, agents, and employees -- engaged in the acts previously described deliberately and intentionally in a predatory fashion in order to cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress.

 

 

COUNTS 190 - 191

DEFAMATION

 

Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs and following paragraphs and counts of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.

 

On or about the dates and locations listed below, the Defendants enumerated as to each account did conspire knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent to defame Plaintiff.

 

COUNT 190  Curran, Howard, and A. McDonald knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent made false statements on court documents filed with the Worcester County Circuit Court to defraud Plaintiff on behalf of Longo, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Moore, Warfield, Procter, and WHSM&H.

COUNT 191  Attorneys Hammond, J. Moore, Shockley, J. Harrison, Collins, Smith, and Cropper of WHSM&H, and Longo, Warfield, Glick, B. Moore, Procter, Sapperstein, and G. Sapperstein knowingly, willfully, and with malicious intent made false and fraudulent statements in the filing of the sham lawsuit against Plaintiff.

 

Defendants, acting on their own and through their co-conspirators engaged in the acts previously described deliberately and intentionally in order to cause Plaintiff severe emotional distress.

 

Defendants, as members of a group and/or as each of them, committed the acts alleged above maliciously, fraudulently, and oppressively with the intention of injuring Plaintiff; with improper and evil motive amounting to malice; and in conscious disregard of Plaintiff’s rights.  Because the acts taken were carried out in a despicable, deliberate, cold, callous, and intentional manner in order to injure and damage Plaintiff, Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages from Defendants in an amount according to proof.

 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests judgments against Defendants as a group and/or each of them as follows:

(a)  For compensatory damages, including lost wages, lost revenue from Plaintiff’s technology, lost revenue from the licensing of the patents awarded to Plaintiff for his technology, mental and emotional distress, and other special and general damages according to proof;

(b)  For an award of punitive damages;

(c)  For an award of interest, including pre-judgement interest, at the legal rate;

(d)  For an award to Plaintiff for costs of suit(s) incurred on all causes of action;

(e)  For a permanent injunction enjoining the Defendants, their co-conspirators, their agents, successors, employees, and those acting in concert with them, from engaging in each of the unlawful practices, policies, usages, and customs set forth in the above counts;

(f)  For a court order declaring the assignment of the patents and pending patents by Plaintiff to DSII or any other party as null and void;


(g)  For an award to Plaintiff of such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

 

 

                              DONALD D. STONE, pro se

                              BY ____________________

                              Donald D. Stone

                              pro se for Plaintiff

                              895 N.E. Dixie Highway, Suite #9

                              Jensen Beach, FL  34957

                              Tel.  (561) 334-5909