Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 1 of 105

Desc Main

DAVID W. SCOFIELD - 4140 PETERS š SCOFIELD
A Professional Corporation

7430 Creek Road, Suite 303 Sandy, Utah 84093-6160 Telephone: (801) 322-2002 Facsimile: (801) 912-0320 E-mail: dws@psplawyers.com Attorneys for Brian Bagley and L. Carol Bee, Creditors IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH In re: BARRY DON HUNTER; and KIMBERLY CHAMPLIN HUNTER, Debtors. ________________________________ BRIAN BAGLEY AND L. CAROL BEE, Plaintiffs, -vsBARRY D. HUNTER; KIMBERLY CHAMPLIN HUNTER; PORTFOLIO MANAGER INTERNATIONAL L.L.C.; ONEIROS TECHNOLOGIES L.C.; MICHAEL J. WRIGHT; CYNTHIA L. WRIGHT; GREGORY B. MADSEN; LUCIDITY MANAGEMENT, LLC; VOLITION TRADING COMPANY, LLC; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF UTAH; CYNTHIA L. WRIGHT; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF SALT LAKE CITY; CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL; TOM BURTON; JAMES D'AREZZO; ALAN S. FARR; GEORGE HITES; GREG KINGDON; DAVID PETERSEN; ROBBY J. STOWE; SANDOR SZANISZLO, Defendants. FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TO DENY DISCHARGE UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 727, TO DETERMINE NON-DISCHARGEABILITY PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 523 AND FURTHER RELIEF Bankruptcy Case No. 12-26860WTT (Chapter 7)

Adv. Proc. No. 12-02544 Honorable William T. Thurman

[FILED ELECTRONICALLY] JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 2 of 105

Desc Main

Plaintiffs Brian Bagley (“Bagley”) and L. Carol Bee (“Bee”), for their claims against defendants Barry D. Hunter (“Hunter”); Kimberly Champlin Hunter (“Kimberly”); Portfolio Manager International L.L.C. (“PMI”); Oneiros Technologies L.C. (“Oneiros”); Michael J. Wright (“Wright”); Cynthia Wright (“Cynthia”); Gregory B. Madsen (“Madsen”); Lucidity Management, LLC (“Lucidity”); Volition Trading Company, LLC (“Volition”); Church of Scientology of Utah (“Utah Church”); Cynthia L. Wright (“Cynthia”); Church of Scientology Mission of Salt Lake City (“Utah Mission”); Church of Scientology International (“Church”); Tom Burton (“Burton”); James D’Arezzo (“D’Arezzo”); Alan S. Farr (“Farr”); George Hites (“Hites”); Greg Kingdon (“Kingdon”); David Petersen (“Petersen”); Robby J. Stowe (“Stowe”); Sandor Szaniszlo; (“Szaniszlo”), allege as follows: PARTIES 1. 2. 3. Bagley is an individual residing in the State of Utah. Bee is an individual residing in the State of Utah. Hunter is an individual residing in the State of Utah who, at all times

through the dissolution of PMI in October, 2011 was its sole or majority owner. Upon the dissolution and winding up of PMI, the assets of PMI were required to be treated in accordance with UTAH CODE ANN. § 48-2c-1308, which provides: (1) After dissolution, and during winding up, the assets of the company shall be applied to pay or satisfy: (a) first, the liabilities to creditors other than members, in the order of priority as provided by law; (b) second, the liabilities to members in their capacities as creditors, in the order of priority as provided by law; and (c) third, the expenses and cost of winding up. (2) Company assets remaining after application under Subsection (1) shall be allocated and

2

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 3 of 105

Desc Main

distributed to the members as provided in the articles of organization or operating agreement, or if not so provided, in accordance with the members' final capital account balances after allocation of all profits and losses including profits and losses accrued or incurred during winding up.” In all his acts alleged, Hunter acted as an agent for each of the conspiracy, the Church, the Utah Church, the Utah Mission, Wright, Oneiros and PMI, and he acted within the course and scope of that agency. 4. Kimberly is an individual residing in the State of Utah, is a Co-Debtor in

the main bankruptcy case, having filed a joint voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 of Title 11 of the UNITED STATES CODE on May 25, 2012. At material times hereto, Kimberly was a member of the Board of Directors of the Utah Mission and controlled its operations under the oversight of the Utah Church and the Church. At all times, Kimberly acted as an agent for the Church, the Utah Church and the Utah Mission and she acted within the course and scope of that agency. 5. PMI is a Utah limited liability company that was formed on June 21, 2005

and which expired on October 4, 2011. At all material times in its existence, PMI held an exclusive license from Oneiros to allegedly valuable software technology invented by Wright and owned by Oneiros. PMI at all times was an alter ego of Wright, Oneiros, the Church, the Utah Church and the Utah Mission and an agent of the conspiracy which acted within the course and scope of that agency. 6. Wright is an individual residing in the State of Utah who created a Utah

limited liability company named Portfolio Manager, L.C., in 2002. At times material to this adversary proceeding Wright was the President of the Utah Church, in charge of all of its operations and the oversight of the Utah Mission under the direction of the Church.

3

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 4 of 105

Desc Main

Wright also owns, with Cynthia, the building from which the Utah Church, the Utah Mission, PMI and Oneiros operated. In all his acts alleged, Wright acted as an agent for each of the Church, the Utah Church, the Utah Mission, Hunter, Oneiros and the conspiracy, and he acted within the course and scope of that agency. 7. Madsen is an individual residing in the State of Utah who created a Utah

limited liability company named Portfolio Manager, L.C., in 2002. Madsen was responsible, along with Wright, for the design and programming of Oneiros’ purported investment software by which the co-conspirators sought to solicit investment in PMI as part of their high-yield investment scheme. Madsen was also involved in discussions as early as 2004 with the co-conspirators to establish PMI as a source of soliciting investment funds. 8. Oneiros is a Utah limited liability company that was formed on April 23,

2002 under the name Portfolio Manager, L.C., with Wright and Madsen as its members. On March 21, 2006, Madsen executed Articles of Amendment changing the company’s name to Oneiros Technologies L.C. Oneiros thereafter expired on or about July 31, 2007. Oneiros remained expired at least through January 26, 2010, thereby subjecting both Wright and Madsen to personal liability for all conduct of Oneiros between at least those dates. By May 2, 2011, Oneiros had been brought current and on that date Articles of Amendment were filed to allow Oneiros to engage in FOREX trading activities involving the trading of foreign currencies in futures markets. That same date, Oneiros filed its Annual Report, changing the principal address of Oneiros to the former principal business address of PMI, 353 East 400 South, Suite 302, Salt Lake City, Utah and changing the registered agent from Madsen to Wright. On information and belief,

4

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 5 of 105

Desc Main

PMI had spent approximately $1 million purportedly building out those premises, when it occupied them. Oneiros at all times was an alter ego of Hunter, Wright, PMI, the Church, the Utah Church and the Utah Mission. 9. Lucidity is a Utah limited liability company created on May 19, 2008, by

Christopher David Hales (“Hales”), a convicted felon now serving time in a federal penitentiary, Benjamin J. Davis (“Davis”) and Daniel Mark Burbank (“Burbank”). One purpose for the formation of Lucidity was for it to operate as a source of solicitation and procurement of investor funds directly for PMI and to funnel other funds obtained illicitly to PMI and others. Lucidity dissolved on September 1, 2009. For all intents and purposes, Lucidity was and is the alter ego of Wright, Oneiros, PMI and Hunter. Lucidity at all times was an alter ego of or agent acting for and within the scope of the agency granted by Hunter, Wright, PMI, Oneiros, the Church, the Utah Church and the Utah Mission. 10. Volition Trading Company, LLC is a Utah limited liability company created

on June 3, 2010 by convicted felon Hales and a putative Nevada corporation named Epicenter Trading, Inc. One purpose for the formation of Volition was for it to operate as a source of solicitation and procurement of investor funds directly for PMI and to funnel other funds obtained illicitly to PMI and others. Volition dissolved on October 4, 2011, the same day that PMI expired. For all intents and purposes, Volition was and is the alter ego of Wright, Oneiros, PMI and Hunter. Epicenter Trading, Inc.’s principals include Kevin W. Jones and Matthew E. Poll, who, together with Epicenter Trading, Inc., are also the principals of a company known as Freedom Wealth Group, LLC (FWG). FWG, not coincidentally, offers to teach investors how to FOREX trade and uses an

5

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 6 of 105

Desc Main

advertisement that claims to reduce the amount of risk in FOREX trading just as PMI claimed to eliminate the risk in stock trading. FOREX trading, as stated above, is the new business of Oneiros. Two FWG marketing agents are currently under an administrative order to show cause from the Division of Securities of the Department of Commerce of the State of Utah why they should not be, among other things, ordered to cease and desist their commission of securities fraud.1 Volition at all times was an alter ego of or agent acting for and within the scope of the agency granted by Hunter, Wright, PMI, Oneiros, the Church, the Utah Church and the Utah Mission. 11. Utah Church is a Utah corporation organized on March 14, 1969. Co-

schemer Wright was the President of the Utah Church during the time that solicitations were made from the plaintiffs. Utah Church maintained its office in the same location as PMI and Oneiros during that time. 12. Utah Mission is a Utah corporation organized on August 27, 2004. Utah

Mission is responsible for the lower-level “auditing” courses in Scientology and enjoys a tax exempt status under section 501(c)(3) as part of a “group exemption ruling” with the Church. The Utah Mission, like all Scientology missions, operates the “front lines dissemination activity for Scientology” with the purpose of “actively sending a large flow of new public members to its local organization.”2 Utah Mission is required by the Church to pay ten percent (10%) of its gross income to the Church. 13. Cynthia L. Wright was at all material times a member of the Board of

Directors of the Utah Mission and controlled its operations under the oversight of the

1

In re Daly, Case No. SD 12-0017 & In re Johnson, Case No. SD 12-0018. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology_Missions_International

2

6

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 7 of 105

Desc Main

Utah Church and the Church. Cynthia also owns, with Wright, the building from which the Utah Church, the Utah Mission, PMI and Oneiros operated. 14. The Church, a California corporation, within the worldwide network of

Scientology corporations and entities, is officially referred to as the “mother church” of the Church of Scientology. According to the official website of the Church of Scientology, the Church “provides overall direction, planning and guidance for the network of churches, missions, field auditors and volunteer ministers which comprise the Scientology hierarchy it spans, and ensures these various organizations are all working effectively together.” The Church “broadly plans and coordinates Scientology expansion. This planning is then carried out by the individual networks of organizations which comprise ecclesiastical management at the continental echelon. Through CSI’s ecclesiastical management activities, Scientology churches receive guidance in applying the scriptures both technically and administratively.” The Church “addition[ally] guid[es] the growing Scientology hierarchy . . ..” 15. Burton is an individual and resident of the state of California. Burton was

ostensibly an original managing member of PMI but was purportedly removed from that position as of December 31, 2007. At various times, including at the time of PMI’s dissolution, it has been represented that Burton is a member of PMI. At other times, he has been represented to be a creditor, having purported to loan PMI $44,500.00. Burton entered into an agreement with PMI to function as the “establishment officer” (a Scientology term) to oversee all of the activities required to put the organization in place, including infrastructure, processes, technology and the like, to facilitate PMI’s operations. In exchange for this agreement, Burton ostensibly received $40 per hour

7

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 8 of 105

Desc Main

plus investment opportunities and “special perks” under this agreement. Burton is a control person of PMI, having been represented to be on its board of “advisers.” 16. D’Arezzo is an individual and resident of the state of California. D’Arezzo

is represented to be, as of the time of PMI’s dissolution, a member of PMI. At other times, he has been represented to be a creditor, having purported to loan PMI $100,000.00. D’Arezzo is a control person of PMI, having been represented to be on its board of “advisers” according to a Hunter email dated February 19, 2009. D’Arezzo specifically advised PMI concerning its dealings with convicted felon co-schemer Hales. 17. Farr is an individual and resident of the state of Utah. Farr was at material

times a member of the Board of Directors of the Utah Mission. Farr is represented to be, at the time of the dissolution of PMI, one of its members. At other times, he has been represented to be a creditor, having purported to loan PMI $100,000.00. Farr’s wife, Carol Farr, purports to have loaned PMI another $50,000.00. Farr is a control person of PMI, having been represented to be on its board of “advisers.” 18. Hites is an individual and resident of the state of California. Hites is

represented to be a member of PMI as of the time of its dissolution. At other times, he has been represented to be a creditor, having purported to loan PMI $85,000.00. Hites purportedly entered a subscription agreement with PMI through his independent entity Infinity Catamaran located in the Carribean on January 7, 2008. Hites is a control person of PMI, having been represented to be on its board of “advisers.” 19. Kingdon is an individual and resident of the state of Utah. Kingdon is

represented to be, at the time of the dissolution of PMI, one of its members. At other times, he has been represented to be a creditor, having purported to loan PMI

8

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 9 of 105

Desc Main

$100,000.00. Kingdon is responsible for bringing Michael Baybak (“Baybak”) into PMI to invest. Baybak is a major contributor to the Church and a variety of its entities. At least one co-schemer has represented that Baybak contributed over $20 million to the International Association of Scientologists (IAS). Kingdon solicited additional highwealth investors in PMI. Kingdon is also a control person of PMI. 20. Petersen is an individual and resident of the state of Utah. Petersen was

at material times a member of the Board of Directors of the Utah Mission. Petersen is represented to be, at the time of the dissolution of PMI, one of its members, ostensibly having invested $150,000.00 in PMI. At other times, he has been represented to be a creditor, having purported to loan PMI $300,500.00. Hunter solicited Petersen to become a managing member of PMI. Hunter also offered to give up a portion of Hunter’s ownership of PMI, from the 100% Hunter represented he owned, such that Hunter would keep somewhere between 70% to 90% of PMI. Petersen is a control person of PMI, having been represented to be on its board of “advisers.” 21. Stowe is an individual and resident of the state of Utah. Stowe is

represented to be, at the time of the purported dissolution of PMI, one of its members. 22. Szaniszlo is an individual and resident of the state of California. Szaniszlo

is represented to be, at the time of the dissolution of PMI, one of its members and was present during discussions in 2004 between the co-conspirators regarding the organization and establishment of PMI for the purpose of soliciting investment funds to trade using Oneiros’ software. Szaniszlo is a control person of PMI, having been represented to be on its board of “advisers.”

9

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 10 of 105

Desc Main

JURISDICTION 23. Hunter is a Co-Debtor in the main bankruptcy case, Case No. 12-26860

WTT, having filed a joint voluntary petition for relief under chapter 7 of Title 11 of the United States Code on May 25, 2012 with his wife, Co-Debtor Kimberly. 24. The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a)

and (b) and 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), (b) and (c). The present adversary proceeding is brought pursuant to Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 7001(1)-(2), (6)-(7), (9) and includes core proceedings as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (F), (H)-(K) and (O). This Court has jurisdiction over the non-core claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) and may hear them pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c) as “otherwise related” proceedings. The core proceedings require that the Court assess such matters as the disregard of corporate formalities in operating PMI and other entities, the use of PMI and other entities as Hunter’s own pocket book, the use of PMI and other entities by Hunter and others for an illegal and fraudulent purpose, viz., to operate High Yield Investment Programs and a Ponzi scheme, that Hunter transferred money freely and without rhyme or reason between PMI and himself and related persons and entities, that Hunter used other persons and entities in an effort to evade the securities laws of the United States, ans that Hunter violated the analogous securities laws of Utah as well as participating in conspiracies to violate securities laws, claims arising under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq., and other intentional torts and crimes. In the course of committing those violations, monies were procured, used and transferred in such a fashion that all or a substantial part of such funds should be recovered by the Debtors’ estate and used to pay plaintiffs and possibly other

10

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 11 of 105

Desc Main

creditors who have not been named.3 The resolution of those other claims necessarily relates to the determination of the objection to discharge generally and to the dischargeability of the alleged debt in the core proceeding. The Court also has original jurisdiction over the claims asserted under 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that they arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Finally, because all other claims are so related to claims in the action within the original jurisdiction of the district court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1334(a) that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution, this court has jurisdiction over those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 25. 26860-WTT. 26. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a), 28 U.S.C. This proceeding arises in and is related to Bankruptcy Case No. 12-

§§ 1331, 1391, 1409(a). STATE COURT ACTION 27. On August 20, 2010, plaintiffs in this action filed a complaint against

Hunter, some of the other defendants in this adversary proceeding, and some other coschemers who, although not named in this adversary proceeding as parties, will be identified for their roles in the overall criminal schemes, in the Third District Court, Salt Lake County, State of Utah, Case No. 100915648 MI (the “State Court Action”). A genuine copy of the Complaint in the State Court Action is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and its allegations are incorporated herein by this reference.

In addition to the powers of this court in proceedings under Title 11 to recoup assets of the debtor, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(a) explicitly authorizes equitable relief involving divestiture, dissolution and reorganization as remedies for violations of section 1962.

3

11

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 12 of 105

Desc Main

28.

On September 20, 2010, Hunter, along with co-schemers Wright, Oneiros

and PMI, through their counsel of record in the State Court Action, Richard F. Ensor (“Mr. Ensor”), filed his answer in the State Court Action. 29. As of on May 25, 2012, when Hunter, as a Co-Debtor with his wife,

Kimberly, filed their petition for relief in the main bankruptcy, Case No. 12-26860 WTT, Hunter had been litigating in the State Court Action with the same plaintiffs as in this adversary proceeding, for twenty (20) months, during all of which Mr. Ensor was Hunter’s attorney. 30. When plaintiffs received notice, for the very first time, on July 24, 2012,

that Hunter and Kimberly had filed bankruptcy, plaintiffs notified Mr. Ensor that his client had been in bankruptcy for two months. Mr. Ensor was as unknowledgeable as plaintiffs had been. 31. Plaintiffs immediately withdrew written discovery which had just recently

been propounded in the State Court Action. 32. Much of the State Court Action involved attempts to pry loose from Hunter,

Wright, PMI and Oneiros documents that would reveal in more detail the scope and breadth of the Ponzi schemes they operated and were operating, the identities and roles of the participants and the source and trail of the monies and assets transported through the persons and entities involved. HUNTER’S PARTICIPATION IN AND THE OPERATIONS OF HIGH YIELD INVESTMENT PROGRAMS AND PONZI SCHEMES FOLLOWED THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ORGANIZATION HE WORKED FOR– THE CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY 33. Scientology is an organization founded by science-fiction author L. Ron

Hubbard that focuses on the practice of Dianetics, or proclaimed spiritual healing 12

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 13 of 105

Desc Main

“technology” by which “ailments such as unwanted sensations and emotions, irrational fears and psychosomatic illnesses” can be alleviated.4 34. Scientologists receive counseling, or “auditing,” from an “auditor” who is

“trained and expert in the exact techniques of Dianetics and Scientology.”5 35. “Auditing is done in a gradient series of steps, which improve the

individual’s ability to confront and handle more and more parts of his existence and achieve higher levels of spiritual awareness and well-being.”6 36. Scientologists claim that “[t]he goal and end result of Dianetics is the state

of Clear, attained through many hours of Dianetic auditing.”7 37. However, the “gradient series of steps” includes over 46 separate levels of

auditing, 12 steps beyond one’s achieving the state of “Clear,” and at least 16 steps are remedial sessions for those who do not achieve “Clear” upon the first or subsequent attempts.8 38. The Church of Scientology was founded in 1954, and has grown to include

more than 9,000 Scientology Churches, Missions, and affiliated groups in 165 nations.9 39. One factor of Scientology’s growth is the so-called “Birthday Game,”

celebrated in honor of the birthday of L. Ron Hubbard (“Hubbard”), the founder of the religion.
4

http://faq.scientology.org/page02a.htm http://faq.scientology.org/page02b.htm http://faq.scientology.org/page02b.htm http://faq.scientology.org/page04a.htm http://www.whatisscientology.org/html/Part02/Chp06/pg01811.html http://www.scientologynews.org/quick-facts/scientology.html

5

6

7

8

9

13

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 14 of 105

Desc Main

40.

Upon inquiry by a parishioner in 1974 as to what he wanted for his

birthday, Hubbard responded, “5x the stats,” which incited a yearly game to determine the largest expansion, determined by such things as affluence and power, among the local missions and Scientology organizations worldwide.10 41. Each year, near the date of Mr. Hubbard’s birthday, the Church of

Scientology holds an awards ceremony, at which the grand prize for the greatest expansion worldwide is honored with a large horse-racing trophy, a jockey shirt, and a kiss on each cheek from a pair of Scientology “virgins.”11 42. 43. This is one way that Scientology pushes to increase its membership. It is no surprise that Scientology places preeminent emphasis on

increasing membership, because each member must incur a minimum expenditure of over $100,000.00 to reach the level of “Clear,” and multiple hundreds of thousands of dollars to reach Operating Thetan XII, the highest level of training in Scientology.12 44. Auditing sessions cost as much as $1,000 an hour, or $12,500 for a 12 ½

hour intensive.13 45. New followers may earn commissions by recruiting in order to pay their

auditing fees, become auditors themselves, or enter into an agreement to receive free counseling in exchange for a “billion years” of labor.14

10

http://www.smi.org/features/glossary/index.htm http://johnmm.bol.ucla.edu/lrh.pdf http://www.bible.ca/scientology-price-list.htm http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html

11

12

13

14

14

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 15 of 105

Desc Main

46.

In order to obtain and maintain non-profit status with the Internal Revenue

Service (“IRS”), the Church refers to these costs as donations; however, the United States Supreme Court has held that these so-called donations are not tax-deductible for parishioners, since “benefits” are received for the contributions “as part of a quintessential quid pro quo exchange.”15 47. Former parishioners contend the Church in recent years pressures its

members to give more than they can reasonably afford.16 48. Despite the exorbitant expense to become “Clear,” Scientology claims that

becoming a member does not require high cost, but that “[a] person who donates for auditing receives one-to-one personal and effective assistance to solve problems in life, to communicate more freely with others and to handle the upsets of life preventing his true and spiritual freedom. Having achieved these lower levels a parishioner moves on to more advanced levels on which he is literally seeking immortality, which is priceless.”17 49. Even upon achieving a state of “Clear,” followers are warned that grave

spiritual dangers are eminent unless they continue on to the higher and more expensive levels.18

Hernandez v. Comm'r, 490 U.S. 680, 691 (1989). “The legislative history of the ‘contribution or gift’ limitation, though sparse, reveals that Congress intended to differentiate between unrequited payments to qualified recipients and payments made to such recipients in return for goods or services. Only the former were deemed deductible.” Id. at 690. http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/scientology-benefits-when-miami-dentist-runs-up-pa tient-bills/1135436
17 16

15

http://faq.scientology.org/cost.htm http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html

18

15

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 16 of 105

Desc Main

50.

Each mission is required to pay 10% of its gross income to the larger

organization, a requirement exactingly enforced by the Church’s current leadership.19 51. Hubbard’s goal for the church was to “Make money. Make more money.

Make others produce so as to make money...However you get them in or why, just do it.”20 52. Hubbard’s proclamation has been taken most literally, resulting in the

Church’s effort to gain influence and affluence by resorting to financial scams which act as a front for recruitment and/or income for the Church. 53. The following are only some of the entities known to have been either

created by, or for direct benefit of, the Church of Scientology through its parishioners for this purpose: ABLECHILD.ORG, Able Inc., Akademie Fur Management Und Kommunikation, ALERT International Inc., AMC Publishing, Bigotwatch, Bigotwatch.net, Applied Scholastics Association for Better Living and Education, Author Services Inc., Bancorp Development Inc., Better Family Relations Association, Beverly Hills Playhouse, Bridge Publications, Business Success Sales and Management Training, California Ranch School, Calicchio & CO. Spa, Casa Dolce Casa, Celebrity Center Kids on Stage for a Better World, Citizens Commission on Human Rights, Child Guidance Centers, Center for Digital Government, Church of Spiritual Technology, Citizens for an Alternative Tax System, Community Service Guild, Computer Ethics Institute, Concerned Businessmen’s Association of America, CRIMINON, Citizens for Social Reform, Cry Out, Delphian School, Distribution Video, Drug Free Marshals Program,
19

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/la-scientologysideb062490,1,7772622.story?col http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html

20

16

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 17 of 105

Desc Main

East Hollywood People Against Crime, Education Alive, effectivebusinesstools.com, Effective Management Centers, Environmental Task Force, eRepublic, Federation of Clubs of Professionals and Business Women, Foundation for the Advancement in Science and Education, Foundation for Religious Tolerance, Freedom For Religion for Everyone Everywhere (or F.R.E.E.), Freedom Magazine, Free Speech & Religious Freedom Committee, Galaxy Press, Golden Era Productions, HappyHouse.org, HealthMed, Helsinki Group, Hollander Consultants Inc, Hubbard Colleges of Administration, Hubbard Organization of Women, I HELP (International Hubbard Ecclesiastical League of Pastors), International Academy of Detoxification Specialists, International Association of Scientologists, International Academy of Detoxification Specialists, International Executive Technology Inc., Irons Marcus & Valko (formerly David Singer Enterprises and Singer Consultants), Lead the Way to a Drug Free USA, Library Donation Service, London Financial, Mad Hatter Studios, Meridian Consultants, MIWA Environmental, Mojave Academy, Moxon & Bartilson (Law Firm in CA), NARCODEX, NARCONON, stopaddiction.com, cocaineaddiction.com, ecstacyaddiction.com, methamphetamineaddiction.com, alternative-sentencing.com, addiction2.com, narcononcenter.com, narconon.org, National Association of Rights Protection and Advocacy, National Coalition of IRS Whistleblowers, National Computer Ethics & Responsibilities Campaigning, National Commission on Law Enforcement and Social Justice, National Parents Association, Nations Foundation of Women Legislators, Natural Health Food Associates, No-Treason.com, No-Hate.org, Office of Ethnic and Cultural Affairs, Power Management Consultants, Progressive Academy Education Society of Alberta, Prosperity Magazine, Psychiatric Institutes of America Survivors

17

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 18 of 105

Desc Main

Support Group, Realworld Corp., The Religious Freedom Crusade, Religious Technology Center, Set A Good Example (SAGE), Scientology Missions International, Second Chance, Silhouet Holland, Silhouet Profil Analysis, Silkin Management Group, Singer Consultants, Social Coordination Committee, Social Betterment Properties International, Social Betterment Development Company, Stellar Management, Sterling Management Systems, Stop Torture of Mental Patients (STOMP), Stryker Systems Inc., Truth Seeker, U-Man Belgium, Uptrends, Volunteer Ministers Association, The Way to Happiness Foundation, World Institute of Scientology Enterprises (“WISE”), Writers of the Future, World Literacy Crusade, Youth for Human Rights International.21 Many of these organizations are independently chartered and often do not publicize their affiliation with Scientology despite being staffed by Scientologists and paying license fees for use of Scientology technology and trademarks.22 54. WISE is a direct appendage of the Church of Scientology International that

“provides a service to help create, produce and distribute materials and products which quote from the works of L. Ron Hubbard or use related trademarks.”23 WISE injects Hubbard’s high-pressure sales and management techniques, or the “tech,” which is also considered part of Scientology scripture, into the business world.

21

http://www.lermanet.com/frontgroups.html

"Unwitting highschoolers lured to forum by Scientologists" (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/unwitting-highschoolers-lured-to-forum-run-byscientologists/ 2007/03/27/1174761471748.html) . The Sydney Morning Herald. 2007-03-27. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/unwitting-highschoolers-lured-to-forum-run-byscientologists/ 2007/03/27/1174761471748.html. Retrieved 2007-07-17. McEwen, Alan (2004-03-18). "Scientology-link group is banned" (http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=314912004) . Edinburgh Evening News. http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=314912004. Retrieved 2007-07-17.
23

22

http://www.wise.org/en_US/membership/benefits/pg011.html

18

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 19 of 105

Desc Main

55.

Although claiming its independence from the Church, WISE is completely

staffed by Church workers who boast bringing numerous business people into Scientology.24 The Church and its large network of corporations, non-profits, and other legal entities bring in nearly $500 million annually.25 56. WISE promotes Hubbard’s “hard sell” mandate devised in 1961 for Church

members who sell Scientology auditing. 57. In a policy letter directed to the Church, Hubbard wrote, “[o]ne must

discover what is best for the applicant and then control him into obtaining it” and “[i]t’s against a person’s interests to let him decide for himself whether he wants the service.”26 58. Known management training companies which espouse Hubbard’s

business principles include Concerned Businessmen’s Association of America, Effective Management Centers, eRepublic, Hollander Consultants, Irons Marcus & Valko and its predecessors David Singer Enterprises and Singer Consulting, Meridian Consultants, Power Management Consultants, Silkin Management Group, Stellar Management, Sterling Management Systems, and Uptrends. These entities purportedly offer practice management seminars and training to accounting, medical, dental, and other private

http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/scientology-benefits-when-miami-dentist-runs-up-pa tient-bills/1135436 Smith, L. Christopher (December 2008). "Scientology's Money Trail: Celebrities! Tax shelters! Bart Simpson! A glimpse into the finances of the secretive church" (http://www.portfolio.com/newsmarkets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/19/Monetary-Value-of-Scientology) . Condé Nast Portfolio (2008 Condé Nast Inc). http://www.portfolio.com/news-markets/national-news/portfolio/2008/11/19/MonetaryValue-of-Scientology. Retrieved 2008-11-19.
26 http://www.tampabay.com/news/scientology/scientology-benefits-when-miami-dentist-runs-up-pa tient-bills/1135436 25

24

19

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 20 of 105

Desc Main

practice professionals, but are a front for recruitment of individuals who are better situated to bring significant capital to the Church. 59. Hubbard exclaimed “[d]ishonest conduct is non-survival. Anything is

unreasonable or evil which brings out the destruction of individuals, groups, or inhibits the future of the race.”27 However, Hubbard’s ideal of honesty is inconsistent with his wife’s and ten other high-ranking Scientologists’ infiltration, burglarization, and wire tapping of over 100 private and government agencies in an attempt to impede their investigations of Scientology in the 1980s, the Church’s false claims on brochures that Hubbard was a World War II hero who was crippled and blinded in action, twice pronounced dead and miraculously cured through Scientology, or his representation that his fake mail-order doctorate degree from Sequoia University was legitimate.28 In fact, a California judge once concluded that Hubbard himself was a pathological liar.29 Hubbard once said that “goodness and badness...are...considerations, and have no other basis than opinion.”30 60. Scientology not only condones but also mandates dishonesty through its

“Fair Game” policy, stating that “Suppressives” or “SPs” (critics, ex-members, or anyone taking a position contrary to the Church) may be “sued, tricked, lied to, or destroyed.”31

27

http://www.scientology.org/faq/scientology-attitudes-and-practices/scientology-system-of-ethics.h

tml
28

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html Phoenix Lectures, p.180, Scientology Axiom 31. http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f08.html

29

30

31

20

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 21 of 105

Desc Main

61.

Although the use of the term “Fair Game” was effectively discontinued in

1968, the letter and spirit of the policy are still accepted practice.32 Thus, Scientologists will protect the Church and its tenets (and assets) regardless of any outside influence to the extremes of lying, bankrupting its perceived enemies through lawsuits, and even committing murder and suicide (termed in the Church as EOC, or end of cycle).33 62. Based on L. Ron Hubbard’s philosophy that “the ‘power’ of the ‘society”

and ‘state’ is pretended and is made from an effort to be powerful where they actually lack power,” Scientologists are strongly discouraged, if not completely prohibited, from settling legal disputes with other Scientologists within the confines of the “Chaplain’s Court,” the Church’s self-implemented method of conducting civil proceedings.34 As Hubbard explained, “[w]hen we grant [society and state] too much beingness to their ‘power,’ we are granting validity to a falsehood and so it recoils on us.”35 63. Utah. 64. Co-schemer Wright is or was a Director of the Church of Scientology Kimberly Hunter is a registered principal of the Church of Scientology of

Mission of Salt Lake City. 65. Co-schemer Wright’s wife, Cynthia, is a Director and Registered Agent for

the Church of Scientology Mission of Salt Lake City.

32

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/f08.html http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html L. RON HUBBARD, INTRODUCTION TO SCIENTOLOGY ETHICS 295, 334-35 (Bridge Pub. Inc. 2007)

33

34

(1968).
35

Id. at 295.

21

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 22 of 105

Desc Main

66.

During Plaintiffs’ interactions with Hunter’s co-schemer, Wright, Wright

represented that he was the president of the local Church of Scientology. 67. Hunter’s co-schemer Wright also represented that Wright had been

instrumental in Hunter’s recruitment from the LDS faith to become a member of Scientology. 68. 69. Each of the members of PMI are also Scientologists. Scientology has a reported long history of using Ponzi schemes and

HYIPs not only to generate funds for the various Scientology organizations but also to use as recruitment tools for co-schemers.36 It also has a reported history of obstructing efforts to uncover such schemes.37 70. In a letter dated October 23, 2006, Wright admitted to Burton that “[t]he

legal structure we have outlined in the past has only served to create some legal insulation between the entities. This is completely arbitrary since everything we do could just as well be contained within a single company.” Later in the letter, Wright wrote “[y]ou all know our church needs our help and I do not know about you but I personally see no other group of individuals than ourselves that have an actual workable plan underway,” conceding that the co-conspirators’ scheme was simply a plan to funnel money to the Utah Church and Mission.

See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Slatkin; United States v. Slatkin, Case No. 2:02-cr-00313-MMM-1, United States District Court for the Central District of California; http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Why_the_United_States_must_investigate_the_crimes,_abuses_and_frauds_ of_the_Scientology_enterprise; United States v. Fishman, Case Nos. 3:1988-cr-00616-DLJ-1 & 3:1990-cr-00357-DLJ-1, United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
37 See, e.g., http://www.justice.gov/usao/cac/Pressroom/pr2005/081.html; United States v. Janu, Case No. 2:03-cr-01222-MMM-1, United States District Court for the Central District of California.

36

22

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 23 of 105

Desc Main

71.

In early 2008, co-schemer Hunter sent a letter to co-schemer Petersen in

which he highlighted the purpose of PMI: “PMI is just a mechanism to fund the foundation so we’re not expecting some grand windfall of profits from PMI.” 72. Co-schemer Hunter, together with co-schemer Wright, persistently

recruited co-schemer felon Hales and co-schemer Markus Trinity Williams (“Williams”)38 to become members of the Church of Scientology. 73. Co-schemer convicted felon Hales represented that he went through all

but two days of “purification” but could not complete the training. 74. Co-schemer Williams represented to Bee that Hales was “sick and

emotional” and that co-schemer Wright had convinced Hales to submit to the 8-hour-aday “purification” to help him overcome his infirmities. 75. Up until the time the State Court Action was filed, the Utah Church used

the building located at 353 East 400 South, Salt Lake City, Utah, a commercial property owned by Wright and his wife, Cynthia, as its base of operations. 76. Not coincidentally, that building was the diabolical core of operations for

the High Yield Investment Programs and Ponzi scheme as the building was also the office of PMI and Oneiros. 77. Just ten (10) days after co-schemer Wright filed his answer to the State

Court Action on September 20, 2010, Wright and Cynthia, on September 30, 2010, executed a promissory note secured by a trust deed on that building to effectively transfer control of its remaining equity to Herman L. Franks, Jr., Cynthia’s brother.

38 Co-schemers Hales and Williams at all times were agents acting for and within the scope of the agency granted by Hunter, Wright, PMI and Oneiros.

23

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 24 of 105

Desc Main

78.

The Church then moved its operations to a new location at 1921 South

1100 East in Salt Lake City. 79. Co-schemer Hunter has admitted to having paid the Church of Scientology

Mission of Salt Lake City for religious services, and that the Mission receives payment for the services it provides. NATURE OF A HIGH YIELD INVESTMENT PROGRAM 80. A "High Yield Investment Program" ("HYIP") is a general term given to

fraud schemes that are known by various specific names, including without limitation "Medium Term Note Programs" and "Roll Programs." 81. 82. Such programs do not exist as legitimate investment vehicles. In these schemes, the fraud perpetrator claims to have privileged access

to secret financial trading programs, which are falsely represented to be sanctioned by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the National Futures Association, state securities regulatory agencies, major brokerage houses and/or major financial institutions, often but not always international in nature. 83. Scientology has a reported long history of using Ponzi schemes and

HYIPs not only to generate funds for the various Scientology organizations but also to

[Intentionally Blank]

24

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 25 of 105

Desc Main

use as recruitment tools for co-schemers.39 It also has a reported history of obstructing efforts to uncover such schemes.40 84. Scheme operators typically make claims that a privileged few are invited

to participate in the trading program and/or notes, stocks, commodities or debentures, which can be bought at a discount and sold at a premium. 85. It is often claimed that there are only a few “traders” or “commitment

holders” in the world who are authorized to resell these bank securities between the top 25 or 50 banks in the world, often falsely referred to as “Prime Banks.” 86. By conducting multiple “trades” in rapid succession, they claim to be able

to produce extraordinary rates of returns, far beyond any normal investment. 87. It is often further claimed that one of the primary reasons these proprietary

trading programs exist is to generate funds for humanitarian purposes and that a portion of the investor’s profits must be used to provide humanitarian relief and aid somewhere. 88. Perpetrators of HYIPs claim that a high degree of secrecy is required of

the unsuspecting investor in order to participate in the program, and require the execution of various documents which have no meaning in legitimate financial transactions. 89. Typically, the investor first is directed to provide a “Letter of Intent,” a

“Non-Solicitation Agreement,” a “Confidentiality Agreement,” a “Non-Circumvention
See, e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Slatkin; United States v. Slatkin, Case No. 2:02-cr-00313-MMM-1, United States District Court for the Central District of California; http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Why_the_United_States_must_investigate_the_crimes,_abuses_and_frauds_ of_the_Scientology_enterprise; United States v. Fishman, Case Nos. 3:1988-cr-00616-DLJ-1 & 3:1990-cr-00357-DLJ-1, United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See, e.g., http://www.justice.gov/usao/cac/Pressroom/pr2005/081.html; United States v. Janu, Case No. 2:03-cr-01222-MMM-1, United States District Court for the Central District of California.
40 39

25

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 26 of 105

Desc Main

Letter,” a “Bank Proof of Funds,” a “Client Information Summary,” and often a copy of the investor’s passport. 90. The investor is typically told that he or she must go through “compliance,”

which will purportedly be done by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Federal Reserve Bank (Fed) or some other government “compliance officer.” 91. The investor is also told that his or her funds must be verified on a “bank

to bank” basis to make sure that they do exist and that the funds must be “good, clean, clear funds of non-criminal origin.” 92. The investor typically is assured that his funds are absolutely safe and

never at risk in any way. 93. The scheme is designed to gradually progress to its ultimate goal, which is

for the co-schemers to gain control of all or a portion of the investor’s funds which are then stolen by the fraud perpetrators. CO-SCHEMER WRIGHT’S HANDWRITTEN FRAUD ORGANIZATION CHART 94. In the very first meeting between co-schemers Wright and Hunter with Bee

and Bagley, Wright drew out a handwritten organizational chart and gave it to Bee. A genuine copy of that chart is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 95. According to the chart that co-schemer Wright drew, and as he explained

it to Bee and Bagley, Oneiros, which was owned by Wright, was at the top of the organization. 96. Exactly consistent with the model for HYIPs generally and as previously

were used, plaintiffs are informed and believe, to pump millions into the Church, co-

26

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 27 of 105

Desc Main

schemer Wright represented that he had developed a secret and proprietary stock trading program which would read stock market activity and make investments in stocks according to parameters established by Wright. 97. Wright represented that he had transferred ownership of that secret

trading program to Oneiros, the organization at the top of the chart. 98. Wright represented that Oneiros, in turn, had granted an exclusive license

to PMI, owned by his co-schemer Hunter. 99. Wright then placed PMI on the chart directly under Oneiros and drew a

line between the two companies to represent their relationship by virtue of the secret trading program license. 100. Wright represented to Bee and Bagley details about his co-schemer

Hunter’s future business plans for PMI, which Wright said was for PMI to trade in the range of $5 million for its customers through the Oneiros-licensed PMI stock trading program. 101. Co-schemers Wright and Hunter both represented that PMI needed

extensive capital in order to commence its operations and needed to procure investors directly in PMI, so that it could acquire the needed hard assets to exploit the secret and proprietary trading program, and to solicit wealthy individuals to use the secret trading program, through which PMI would generate profits for itself. 102. Wright continued drawing the organizational chart, drawing another single

line downward from PMI to two other companies, “Volition” and “Lucidity.” Wright represented that those entities were supposed to be “feeder funds” to facilitate trading.

27

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 28 of 105

Desc Main

Underneath Volition and Lucidity, Wright drew a line directly to “Bentley Equities.”41 Bentley Equities was to be used to recruit investors in PMI for capital investment and for trading through the feeder funds. To the right of Bentley Equities, Wright drew in “RPM Investment Co.,” with reporting lines back to both Bentley Equities and the Volition and Lucidity levels. 103. These were explained in substance as differing levels of the primary

funding sources for PMI’s operations, all under the control of, and reporting to Hunter, who in turn reported to Wright. 104. The United States government, starting at the lower levels of the fraud

organization chart, has already taken action against those levels. Co-schemer Hales, who along with co-schemers Williams and former mayor of the City of Cedar Hills, Eric Richardson (“Richardson”),42 operated the Bentley Equities level, was convicted of bank fraud. In co-schemer Hales’ Statement by Defendant in Advance of Plea of Guilt, genuine copy attached as Exhibit C, Hales’ agreement with the United States included this admission: The United States agrees as follows: Waive on behalf of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Utah any other criminal prosecution of the defendant for offenses regarding the defendant's conduct now under investigation, all of which were discussed during a recorded interview with the defendant on February 22 and 23, 2011, though this conduct provides a basis for the Court to accept the plea agreement and for determining restitution:
There were several “Bentley” entities created by Hales and Williams, including without limitation, Bentley Equities, LLC, Bentley Holdings & Investments, LLC and Bentley Holdings, LLC. For the purposes of this Complaint the name “Bentley Equities” or “Bentley Co-Schemers” will be used. The Bentley CoSchemers at all times were alter egos of or agents acting for and within the scope of the agency granted by Hunter, Wright, PMI, Oneiros, Volition, Lucidity, the Church, the Utah Church and the Utah Mission. Richardson at all times was an alter ego of or agent acting for and within the scope of the agency granted by Hunter, Wright, PMI, Oneiros, Lucidity, Volition, the Church, the Utah Church and the Utah Mission.
42 41

28

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 29 of 105

Desc Main

• Investment schemes involving Bentley Equities, LLC . . .. 105. Co-schemer Richardson has also pleaded guilty to bank fraud. Richardson

was just sentenced to one year and one day. See Judgment in Criminal Case, genuine copy attached as Exhibit D. 106. The United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) filed

suit against co-schemers Hales, Richardson and Bentley Equities, alleging that they, along with their related entity Freedom Wealth Group, committed fraud. Freedom Wealth Group’s principals include Epicenter Trading, Inc., one of the founders of Volition. Co-schemer Hales is also a founder of PMI’s underling, Lucidity. A genuine copy of the CFTC’s complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit E. JUST LIKE IN ALL HYIPs, PMI HAS A SECRET TRADING PLAN 107. PMI is a Utah limited liability company, organized on June 21, 2005, which

purports to be engaged in the business of exploiting technology developed by Oneiros for the purpose of making investments on behalf of investors using a proprietary “trading plan.” 108. Sometime in 2004, co-schemer Wright introduced co-schemer Hunter to

co-schemer Madsen and showed Hunter the results of the trading software Oneiros was developing before PMI was established. Wright represented to Hunter that Wright and Madsen had developed the software owned by Oneiros. Co-schemer Wright discussed with Hunter the idea creating a PMI-type entity to utilize Oneiros’ purported trading software, and sparked Hunter’s interest in running PMI as Wright described it. 109. Also in 2004, co-schemers Wright, Hunter, Madsen, Szaniszlo, and

Burton and another individual, Steve Nemeth, met in Salt Lake City and discussed

29

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 30 of 105

Desc Main

creating a PMI-like entity which would solicit investment funds for Wright’s Oneiros LLC entity and to be traded through purported software being developed by Oneiros. During the meeting, Wright's vision to fund philanthropic foundation and helping Scientology was discussed and incorporated in establishing the new PMI entity’s purpose. 110. PMI raised funds and simply transferred the money to Oneiros to

purchase servers and equipment without receiving anything of value from Oneiros in return. WRIGHT AND HUNTER SOLICIT SCIENTOLOGISTS AS MEMBERS OF PMI TO PREVENT LEGAL CLAIMS 111. Defendants Michael Wright and Barry Don Hunter, relying on Defendant

Wright’s position as President of the Church of Scientology of Salt Lake, solicited Defendants Burton, D’Arezzo, Farr, Kingdon, Petersen, Stowe and Szaniszlo (“Scientologist Defendants”), each being a member and subscriber to the tenets of Scientology, to invest in PMI by making loans to the company. The following transactions are believed to have occurred: a. On January 23, 2007, Barry Hunter sent an email to James

D’Arezzo and identified $346,000.00 in loans to PMI from Greg Kingdon, Michael Wright and Barry Hunter and also references loans to PMI from David Peterson, Alan Farr, Tom Burton and Sandor Szaniszlo. Each agreement equals a $100,000.00 equity investment in PMI and offers a position to each investor as a non-managing member of PMI. b. On or about October 12, 2007, PMI and David Petersen entered a

Design Build Services and Earnest Money Agreement for $15,000.00 to be tendered at time of signing and another $15,000.00 due on November 15, 2007. 30

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 31 of 105

Desc Main

In consideration of the up front costs to purchase equipment and labor costs, Mr. Petersen agreed that $25,000.00 of the $30,000.00 investment is considered a non-refundable fee. c. On or about January 1, 2008, PMI and Infinity Catamaran Ltd., an

investment fund located in Road Town Tortola British Virgin Islands and owned by George Hites, entered a Subscription Agreement in the amount of $250,000.00. d. On or about January 29, 2008, Barry Hunter communicated to Jim

D’Arezzo that PMI was managing $550,000.00 at that time. e. On or about February 21, 2008, Alan Farr transferred $50,000.00 to

PMI, secured with a Promissory Note. f. On or about March 5, 2008, Carol K. Farr, presumably Alan Farr’s

spouse or close relative of Alan Farr, transferred $50,000.00 to PMI, secured with a Promissory Note. g. On February 17, 2009, via an email communication with Barry

Hunter, Greg Kingdon committed to PMI an additional $23,611.95. h. On or about March 3, 2009, Barry Hunter emailed David Petersen

with a spreadsheet attached showing payment from David Petersen to PMI in the amount of $330,500.00. i. On or about March 18, 2009, Barry Hunter and David Petersen

communicated via email regarding ownership interest in PMI and identifying Barry Hunter initially as 100% owner of PMI and making reference to Barry

31

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 32 of 105

Desc Main

Hunter’s CPA’s advice to include another managing member with at least 10% ownership. 112. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that each of these Scientologist

defendants were assured by Wright and Hunter that both PMI and Oneiros were established for the purpose of providing financially for the local Church. 113. Wright’s and Hunter’s plan to use PMI as a source of funding for the local

Church thereby provided the Scientologist Defendants with the understanding that their investment in PMI would benefit the Church of Scientology International on the basis of mandatory contribution from the local Church to the Church of Scientology International and other associated Scientology entities. 114. Wright and Hunter represented to the Scientology Defendants that

accumulated excess funds from PMI would be used as “donations” to Church foundation projects. THE CONSPIRACY 115. In this particular case, it was the purpose of a conspiracy among the

defendants that the defendants would unjustly enrich themselves, and particularly the Church entities, through the promotion of a fraudulent high yield investment program by promising extremely high returns at little or no risk to principal. 116. The manner and means through which the purpose of the conspiracy was

to be accomplished in substance were as follows: a. It was a part of the conspiracy that Wright, in order to develop

credibility and trust, would and did falsely claim to be an investing genius who had developed a special and secret software program over many years. The

32

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 33 of 105

Desc Main

results of the tests on the development of such software were falsely represented in PMI investor materials to be that "[e]arly on in our development we noticed something interesting; the widely accepted idea that it takes more risk to generate higher returns wasn't proving to be necessarily so." Further, "[i]n years of running real-time test cycles, on every consecutive and improved version of the software, we have repeatedly validated that our technology has the ability to generate higher returns without amplifying risk." b. PMI represented itself as follows: "Portfolio Manager International

LLC is a registered and licensed investment advisor providing remote automated portfolio management and market timing services to investment advisers, private wealth managers, hedge funds, and high net worth individuals.” c. PMI further represented about itself: "We developed our

applications to provide clients with a way to reliably and consistently generate superior returns with substantially reduced risk. Period. Everything we do is aimed at serving your investment objectives." d. PMI and Oneiros represented their relationship to be as follows:

"Portfolio Manager International (PMI) retains the exclusive United States software usage rights to Oneiros Technologies' quantitative portfolio management and market timing software applications. PMI is licensed by Oneiros Technologies to operate its software applications in the PMI data center. PMI's technical staff is trained and certified by Oneiros Technologies." e. In a twist on the classic HYIP fraud schemes, rather than

suggesting that the world's best financial institutions were part of the program,

33

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 34 of 105

Desc Main

defendants pointed to those institutions as models for their own program: First the defendants discussed the pre-eminent banks: "Many large banks with proprietary trading departments, investment houses and hedge funds have spent hundreds of millions of dollars developing extremely sophisticated technologies that manage their portfolio monitoring and market timing operations. With superior stock selection methods and real-time analytics of market data they are able to gain a significant edge in the market, an edge most investors will never be able to replicate." Then the defendants proffered themselves as having identical capabilities: "Using real-time stock selection processes, we are able to rapidly locate and take advantage of opportunities that would have otherwise been missed. By constantly screening and evaluating securities that have a higher than average expectancy for outperforming the market, we are able to build optimally diversified portfolios. This helps reduce overall market risk and generate better returns." f. Defendants then falsely cloaked Wright's company, Oneiros, with

legitimacy and credibility, attributing to it the supposedly proprietary system which allowed PMI to operate like the big banks: "The Oneiros system monitors real-time up and down price movements in all stocks contained within an optimally diversified portfolio. Tens of thousands of quantitative and analytic calculations are applied to a portfolio each market day. These processes are constantly working to capture exploitable pricing inefficiencies. During periods of relatively little movement in a single stock or in the market, defensive aspects built into the system protect and preserve accumulated equity."

34

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 35 of 105

Desc Main

g.

Defendants utilized a chart ostensibly showing the performance of

PMI active management using the Oneiros system with respect to 50 randomly chosen stocks, versus using a "buy and hold" strategy on those same stocks, and also purporting to show the performance of "the S&P 500 Index" all during the same three-month time period between January 1, 2008 and March 27, 2008. The chart purported to show negative returns on investment of (9.7%) and (14.1%) for the S&P 500 Index and the buy and hold strategy, while showing a 15.7% return over those same three months using the PMI active management strategy. h. Defendants then repeated "Lower Risk Higher Returns" and stated:

"Lower volatility of returns indicates that the superior returns were created with substantially reduced risk. This dispels the idea that an investor must take on more risk if he wishes to receive a better return. Our software and electronic infrastructure have essentially inverted this concept by showing it can provide a far better return with considerably less risk." i. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants PMI,

Oneiros, Wright, Hunter, Williams, Hales and Richardson would and did falsely represent to plaintiffs that they had access to High Yield Investment Programs that could yield anywhere between 5% per month to 24% per month with extremely low risk. j. At least the following representations about high yield returns were

made to plaintiffs, either for the purpose of inducing investment or in the process of executing lulling schemes:

35

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 36 of 105

Desc Main

i.

In May 2008, Hales and Williams, at their Wylie Drive

residence, represented to Bagley, on the first occasion they spoke about the investment opportunity, showed Bagley a PMI portfolio brochure stating that investing money in the opportunity would provide a 5% to 8% return on investment each month. ii. In July 2008, Williams represented to Bee, in his first

conversation with her, that PMI was a good investment and that Bagley and Bee could see an 8% to 12% return on investment each month and that a 5% return on investment was guaranteed. iii. In September 2008 Hales provided to Bagley, for the

purpose of showing to Bee, a PMI brochure which stated that a 15.7% return over a three month period of paper trading was observed. During the same time period, Hales represented to Bee that even if PMI didn't make a 5% per month return on investment, which, he stated, was highly unlikely, that Hales and Williams through Bentley Holdings and Bentley Equities, would guarantee a 5% per month return on investment so that Bee and Bagley had no need to worry about their money. iv. On or about January 12, 2009, Bee and Bagley met with

Wright, Hunter, Hales and Williams at the PMI office. Wright gave a 45 minute presentation with several color bar graphs illustrating returns on investment. Wright represented that PMI, through paper trading test runs, had made up to 72% in a 3 month period. Wright represented that the

36

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 37 of 105

Desc Main

potential was there for investors to make an excellent profit with relatively no risk involved. v. On or about January 16, 2009 Bee met with Williams at a

Beans and Brews. Williams represented that from the continual paper trading tests that PMI was conducting a return on investment of 10% per month could be expected. vi. In or about July 2009, Richardson met with Bee and Bagley

at Mimi's Café at 5400 South and State Street in Salt Lake City. Richardson represented that Bee and Bagley could expect a return on investment of 5% to 10% per month once PMI got off the ground and that PMI just needed to get all the documentation to cover certain Securities and Exchange Commission requirements. vii. In addition, during the period from May 2009 through

December 2009, Williams, Hales and Richardson sent multiple text messages to Bee and Bagley, representing that similar high yield returns on investment would be forthcoming. k. It was a further part of the conspiracy that the ostensible

relationship between Williams, Hales, Erickson, Bentley Holdings & Investments, LLC, Bentley Holdings, LLC, and Bentley Equities LLC (the "Bentley CoSchemers"), on the one hand, and PMI, Oneiros, Wright and Hunter ("the "PMI Defendants"), on the other hand, was that the Bentley Co-Schemers would act in the role of investment advisers who would bring (1) investors who would invest directly in PMI; and (2) investors for the PMI/Oneiros trading program to PMI.

37

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 38 of 105

Desc Main

l.

It was a further part of the conspiracy that Wright would and did

falsely represent to plaintiffs that he had in fact realized a 72% return on investment over a 3 month period in paper trading test runs. m. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants would and

did use Richardson's position as a former registered representative of Fidelity Investments to give their fraudulent scheme the appearance of legitimacy and credibility. n. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants, in an attempt

to give the appearance of legitimacy, would and did present confidentiality agreements to plaintiffs before revealing to them the information about PMI, Oneiros, the trading program and the terms of the investment program. o. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants, in an attempt

to give the appearance of legitimacy, would and did suggest that PMI was awaiting final documentation from the Securities and Exchange Commission to commence trading. p. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants would, and

did, hold an investor meeting at the offices of PMI, in an effort to cloak PMI( with the appearance of legitimacy. q. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants would, and

did, represent that a portion of the proceeds of the operation of PMI would be used for humanitarian purposes, through the donation of water purification systems and the building of housing in Africa, which Plaintiffs now understand to

38

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 39 of 105

Desc Main

be related to the defendants’ plans to unjustly enrich the Church entities by using investments in PMI as a funnel of funds to the Church entities. r. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants would, and

did, claim to be honest, church going, legitimate business people. s. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants would and

did ostensibly allow plaintiffs to invest in a "special" manner not available to other investors, by allowing investment over time rather than a lump sum. Part of this "special" manner of investing consisted of having Bagley use his good credit to obtain a loan on a recreational vehicle, with the proceeds to go to Hales, in exchange for Hales and Williams putting up $20,000.00 of Bagley's investment. t. It was a further part of the conspiracy that when plaintiffs began to

inquire about their investments that the Bentley Co-Schemers, as investment advisers, were to divert such inquiries by the use of fraudulent Note Trading investment opportunities as a lulling scheme which they were to and did represent would recoup monies quickly despite the delays in PMI's operations commencing. u. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants, in an attempt

to lull plaintiffs, represented that their investment funds remained intact and secure in PMI and falsely representing that the delays being encountered in getting PMI up and running were nothing unusual. v. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants, in an attempt

to lull plaintiffs, represented that progress was being made toward completion of the investment.

39

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 40 of 105

Desc Main

w.

It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants, in an attempt

to lull plaintiffs, falsely agreed to return the investment funds. x. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants in an attempt

to lull plaintiffs, represented that plaintiffs could obtain current high yield on new investments in Note Trading. y. It was a further part of the conspiracy that defendants, on

information and belief, would and did divert and convert to their own personal use and benefit, or for other unauthorized purposes, the funds fraudulently obtained from plaintiffs. 117. PMI solicited investments in it from Bagley and Bee, ostensibly so as to

obtain working capital to purchase and/or lease "servers" which constituted necessary hardware for the operation of software and the execution of trade orders for its future customers. Such investments in PMI were directly solicited from both Bagley and Bee by each of Wright, Hunter, Hales and Williams. At the time of such solicitations and all other actions and omissions described throughout this complaint, Wright was acting within the course and scope of his agency for both Oneiros and PMI; Hunter was acting within the course and scope of his agency for PMI; and Hales and Williams were acting in the course and scope of their agency for PMI, and also for the Bentley Co-Schemers, which entities in turn were acting within the course and scope of their agency for PMI; and each of the defendants was acting in the course and scope of their agency to the conspiracy which binds all of them together. 118. At the time of such solicitations, no registration statement for the sale of

securities in PMI was on file with the Utah Department of Commerce, Division of

40

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 41 of 105

Desc Main

Securities ("Securities Division"), as required by UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-7, and no exemptions applied to the requirements of that section. 119. Further, Wright, Hunter, PMI, Williams, Hales and Bentley Equities were

not, at the time of the solicitations, licensed with the Securities Division as broker-dealers or agents, nor as investment advisers under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-3. 120. Following certain false representations which had been made as

described above for the purpose of providing a false appearance of legitimacy, solvency and credibility to defendants and the trading scheme, the first direct solicitation to Bagley was made by Williams and Hales, who induced Bagley to invest $30,000.00 on August 21, 2008. The circumstances surrounding that first investment are that, at the urging of Williams and Hales, on July 17, 2008 Bagley wrote an equity line check to himself in the amount of $30,000.00 from Wachovia Bank. He deposited that check into his Wells Fargo account. Wells Fargo put a hold on the check because is was such a large sum and verification of funds had to be completed before it could be withdrawn. On August 21, 2008 Bagley was working at the Verizon store at the University Mall. Bagley went to the University Mall Wells Fargo Branch on his break. Bagley obtained a cashier's check in the amount of $20,000.00 payable to Williams and Bentley Holdings, he also withdrew $10,000.00 cash. Bagley met Williams at the mall. Williams stated that the cashier's check was made out incorrectly. He said it needed to be divided into two separate cashier's checks, one payable to Hales for $10,000.00 and the other payable to Williams for $10,000.00. Bagley had to return to work and the bank was closing so Bagley met Williams after he finished working at the Wells Fargo branch inside the Smith's Marketplace on 11400 South and State Street. Bagley deposited the cashier's

41

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 42 of 105

Desc Main

check back into his account and had two new separate cashier's check issued as Williams requested. 121. During October through December 2008 Hales and Williams put pressure

on Bagley to get Bee to invest in PMI. 122. Following certain false representations which had been made as

described above for the purpose of providing a false appearance of legitimacy, solvency and credibility to defendants and the trading scheme, the first direct solicitation to Bee was made in a meeting at Oneiros and PMI's offices, on or about January 11, 2009, attended by Bagley, Bee, Wright, Hunter, Williams and Hales. During the meeting, Wright identified himself as the Chief Executive Officer of Oneiros and Hunter identified himself as the President, Program Manager and Director of PMI. The meeting had been arranged by Williams and Hales for the purpose of having PMI solicit investments of Bagley and Bee's retirement savings. 123. PMI required Bee and Bagley to execute Confidentiality Agreements prior

to the beginning of the meeting. During the meeting, Wright described the interrelationship of Oneiros, PMI and Bentley Equities. Wright made it sound as though Bentley Equities and its principals, Williams and Hales, were an integral part of the trading business that was to be conducted using the computer servers. It was further disclosed by Wright that a proprietary stock trading program had been developed which would read stock market activity and make investments in stocks according to parameters established by Wright. Wright made representations about PMI's future plans for its business and numbers in the range of $5 million were discussed as

42

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 43 of 105

Desc Main

amounts that were expected to be traded for customers through the PMI stock trading program. 124. Bee and Bagley expressed concern in light of the fact that they were

investing funds earmarked for their retirement and due to the fact that neither Bee nor Bagley had any substantial background in investing in the stock market. 125. It was then explained to Bee and Bagley that they could invest directly in

PMI, through the servers, or that they could invest in the stock market through the proprietary PMI trading program. 126. Either way, it was represented to Bee and Bagley that Bentley Equities’

role would be to receive investment monies directly from Bee and Bagley on behalf of PMI for the purpose of channeling it to PMI, as had been done for other investors. PMI, Wright, Hunter and Oneiros thereby cloaked Hales and Williams, and their companies including without limitation Bentley Equities, LLC, Bentley Holdings & Investments, LLC and Bentley Holdings, LLC with the appearance of legitimacy and solvency and with an agency relationship with PMI, Oneiros, Wright and Hunter, whom they had agreed to act for as agents in collecting Bee and Bagley's investment funds. All of the representations made by Wright during the meeting were confirmed by Hunter, Williams and Hales overtly or through their silence. 127. The January 11, 2009 meeting was left off with Williams and Hales to

pursue the investment by Bagley and Bee. 128. Following up on the January 11, 2009 meeting, Williams arranged for a

meeting with Bee. Williams met with Bee or about January 16, 2009 at Beans and Brews to deliver paperwork for Bee and Bagley to investment in PMI. Williams did not

43

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 44 of 105

Desc Main

have the paperwork on him at the time of this meeting. Williams told Bee to make her check payable to Hales and that the paperwork would be delivered within a week. Bee gave Williams a check payable to Hales in the amount of $30,00.00, she also gave Williams $20,000.00 in cash. The cash was money Bee had been saving up for emergencies for the past 10 years. 129. Shortly thereafter, Hales requested of Bagley that he obtain financing

secured by a recreational vehicle by way of a loan from Zions Bank, for the purpose of giving the financed funds to Hales for investment in PMI. Bagley was to receive from Hales the sum of $20,000.00 for providing the creditworthiness for the transaction and Hales agreed to apply that sum towards Bagley's investment in PMI. Bagley procured such financing on or about January 31, 2009 and Bagley gave all the proceeds of that loan, in the approximate amount of $45,071.29, to allow Hales to invest in PMI. 130. The January 2009 meeting with Williams was followed by an investor open

house at PMI in or about February, 2009. Wright, Hunter, and some persons represented to be PMI technicians were in attendance. New servers appeared to be in place and new technical personnel were represented to have been hired. Both Wright and Hunter expressed excitement about getting the stock trading program started. At the open house, Wright represented to Bee and Bagley that Richardson, the manager of BE, had been an experienced and licensed stock broker with experience through a major stock brokerage, Fidelity Investments. 131. Williams represented that PMI needed the funds now for the servers that

were needed before PMI could get on line. However, he assured Bee that she would be paid on the investment just like the people who were investing in the actual trading plan.

44

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 45 of 105

Desc Main

132.

Hales and Williams wanted a $100,000.00 investment from Bee and

Bagley. Bagley and the defendants agreed that Brian would purchase an RV for the benefit of the defendants. Defendants would pay the monthly payments and insurance on the RV. After a few months the RV would be sold, the loan on the RV paid off and Brian would receive $20,000.00 to invest in PMI for his assistance in obtaining the loan and helping defendant's gain capital that they could invest. The original amount of the RV loan was $45,071.29. 133. Promissory Note dated October 1, 2009 shows that Bentley Holdings &

Investments borrowed $100,000.00 from BeeBag Holdings & Investments LLC. 134. Bee and Bagley were also involved with note trading with Hales and

Williams for investing with Otis Oil. On April 22, 2009 Plaintiffs gave Hales a cashier's check in the amount of $15,000.00. Plaintiffs were reimbursed without interest on April 27, 2009, but that check bounced. A new check in the amount of $15,000.00 was deposited on May 11. 135. On May 13, 2009 plaintiffs gave Hales a cashier's check in the amount of

$15,000.00. Plaintiffs were reimbursed and deposited a check from Vision Capital in the amount of $17,500.00, the amount of the original investment plus $2,500.00 in interest. 136. On May 22, 2009 plaintiffs gave Hale a cashier's checks in the amount of

$10,000.00 and $15,000.00 for a total of $25,000.00. Plaintiffs were reimbursed with a check in the amount of $30,000.00. At that time Hales asked Bagley for $1,000.00 cash. Bagley deposited the $30,000.00 into his Wells Fargo account and gave Hales $1,000.00 in cash.

45

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 46 of 105

Desc Main

137.

On May 27, 2009 plaintiffs gave Hales a cashier's check in the amount of

$40,000.00. Defendants have failed to repay the principal amount and any interest. 138. On June 2, 2009 plaintiffs gave Hales cashiers checks for $8,000.00 and

$7,000.00. Defendants have failed to repay the principal amount and any interest 139. On June 10, 2009 plaintiffs gave Hales a cashier's check payable to Todd

Smith in the amount of $11,000.00. Defendants have failed to repay the principal amount and any interest. 140. On June 18, 2009 plaintiffs gave a cashier's check to Hales in the amount

of $8,000.00. Defendants have failed to repay the principal amount and any interest. 141. Plaintiffs have given Williams, Hales and Smith $130,000.00. Plaintiffs

have received $55,000.00 back along with $6,500.00 in interest. 142. Bagley's original balance on the RV loan was $45,071.29, the payoff as of

August 31, 2010 was $37,717.67. As of this date the defendants have failed to make any payments on the loan. 143. Each of the following payments represents an investment in securities by

Bee or Bagley which was induced by the conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy, and which was caused through the use of misrepresentations and omissions of material fact: Date 08.21.08 08.21.08 08.21.08 01.16.09 Initial Investment $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $30,000.00 Repayment -0-0-0-0Interest Paid -0-0-0-0Paid To Cashier=s check to M. Williams Cashier=s Check to C. Hales Cash to Williams Cashier=s check to Hales

46

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 47 of 105

Desc Main

01.16.09

$20,000.00 $20,000.00 $100,000.00 Initial Investment $15,000.00

-0-0-0Repayment of Principal

-0-0-0Interest Paid -0-

Cash to Williams RV Credit

TOTAL: Date 04.22.09 04.27.09 05.13.09 05.22.09 05.22.09 05.22.09 05.27.09 05.29.09 05.29.09 06.02.09 06.02.09 06.10.09 06.18.09 TOTAL

Paid To Cashier=s Check to M. Williams

$15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,000.00 $15,000.00 $40,000.00 $25,000.00 $1,000.00 $8,000.00 $7,000.00 $11,000.00 $8,000.00 $130,000.00 $55,000.00

-0Cashier=s check to C. Hales $2,500.00 Cashier=s check to C. Hales Cashier’s check to C. Hales Cashier=s check to C. Hales $5,000.00 Cash to C. Hales Cashier=s check to C. Hales Cashier=s check to C. Hales Cashier=s check to Todd Smith Cashier=s check to C. Hales $7,500.00

GRAND TOTAL $67,500.00

The repayments, in turn, were in furtherance of the conspiracy's lulling scheme, and again were made to create the appearance of legitimacy of misrepresentations of material fact and/or to cover up such misrepresentations and omissions. 47

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 48 of 105

Desc Main

144.

Since June 2009, Bagley and Bee have requested information from

Williams about PMI. Bagley and Bee were told not to “bother” PMI or to talk with Wright “because Mike is a hot-head and loses his temper. He doesn't even know what he says when he gets mad.” Bee related that comment to Wright about the $100,000.00 investment with PMI. Wright attempted to deny involvement, stating: “Hell, I don't know what Chris did with your money. He may have paid a house payment with it.” At this juncture, in June 2009, Bee suspected for the first time that something might be awry. 145. In July 2009 Bee met with Richardson at Mimi's Café to find out

information as to why there were so many delays on monthly payouts from PMI and what the expectations for payouts would be. Richardson stated that it looked possible for Bee and Bagley to make 5% to 10% per month once PMI got off the ground and that they were just needing to get all the documentation to cover certain SEC requirements. Richardson said he did not have the documentation with him but that he would bring it with him the next time they met. Bagley met with Richardson the following week in the Oyster Bar parking lot in Cottonwood Heights, Utah, where Richardson said he would deliver documentation for Bee and Bagley to fill out to show that they were accredited investors. 146. Bee spoke with Hunter in December 2009 at which time Hunter explained

that the real time live trading had not occurred until November 4, 2009, ran for two weeks, then there had been a Thanksgiving break, and it had just been up for two days when prior to the conversation. Hunter stated that December was slow and that not a lot of activity would be going on until after January 1, 2010.

48

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 49 of 105

Desc Main

147.

Richardson called Bagley to set up a meeting after several requests from

Bagley to get documentation on PMI and the Bee and Bagley investments with PMI. The meeting date was December 28, 2009. Bee and Bagley arrived early and could not get in the door, so they texted Richardson, who in turn called Hunter, who unlocked the door. Bee and Bagley went upstairs with Hunter and advised Wright that his headlights were on in the parking lot. Bee and Bagley sat at the meeting table and waited for Richardson. Hunter gave a brief overview of how PMI was supposedly functioning. Then Wright discussed Oneiros as the parent company with PMI a branch off of it. Wright asked what contacts plaintiffs had with Hales, and amounts of money that plaintiffs had invested in PMI through Hales. Wright confirmed that Hales had “invested money” with PMI but asserted that it was “not anywhere near the amount you are talking about.” Bee asked whether her call to Wright in July had been the first “red-flag” and if he had others. Wright said that there was another couple who had spoken to him about investments they had made in PMI through Hales. Wright attempted to divert attention from he and PMI, stating that he, Wright, was “concerned” that Hales and Williams were operating a fraudulent investment scheme. Wright then asked Bee and Bagley to indemnify Wright, Hunter, PMI and Oneiros in exchange for helping Bee and Bagley go after Hales and Williams. Wright said that he would then have his attorneys present Bee and Bagley's situation to “the Utah Court system” as well as the similar situation of other people. Wright said that he felt that there may be several more people who have “invested money” through Hales and Williams and that there might be a “Ponzi scheme.” Wright asked that Bee and Bagley turn over to him all of their documentation of their dealings with Hales and Williams. Wright said that he was concerned that his

49

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 50 of 105

Desc Main

company could be misconstrued as having been a part of a fraudulent investment scheme. 148. At or around the same December 2009 meeting at PMI about 5 or 6

minutes before Richardson had to leave, Bee mentioned money that Bee and Bagley had given Hales and Williams for investing in Otis Oil. Richardson said he did not think Hales invested money there unless it was through yet another company, called Vision Capital. COUNT I (NON-DISCHARGEABILITY OF BEE’S AND BAGLEY’S CLAIMS AGAINST DEBTOR UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(2)(A), (A)(4) - AGAINST DEBTORS BARRY DON AND KIMBERLY CHAMPLIN HUNTER) 149. 150. Bagley and Bee incorporate all previous allegations. 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(iii) provides, in pertinent part: (a) A discharge under section 727 of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt- (2) for money, property, services, or an extension, renewal, or refinancing of credit, to the extent obtained by- (A) False pretenses, false representation or actual fraud other than a statement respecting the Debtor’s or an insider’s financial condition. 151. The representations Hunter made referenced herein concerned presently

existing material facts that were false and that Hunter either knew to be false or made recklessly knowing that he had insufficient knowledge upon which to base such representations. 152. Hunter as an investment advisor for Bagley and Bee, was a fiduciary at

the time of making representations.

50

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 51 of 105

Desc Main

153.

Hunter made the representations to Bee and Bagley to induce them to rely

on those misrepresentations. But for those misrepresentations, Bee and Bagley would not have acted as they did in reliance thereon. 154. As a result of the false pretenses, artifices, false representations and

actual fraud described above, Bee and Bagley, acting reasonably and in ignorance of the facts gave money and other things of value to Hunter as described above, acting reasonably and in ignorance of the facts. 155. Bee and Bagley thereby were damaged in amounts to be proven at trial

for which they are entitled to recovery. 156. Bee and Bagley’s losses and damages were proximately caused by

Hunter’s false pretenses, artifices, false representations and actual fraud. 157. Accordingly, Bee and Bagley’s claims against Hunter as set forth herein,

as well as those alleged in the State Court Action, are not dischargeable pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). 158. All of the co-conspirators are liable for all of the damages caused to Bee

and Bagley in furtherance of the Conspiracy an award of full restitution, damages against the defendants, jointly and severally, resulting from their fraud and/or material misrepresentations, in the sum of $1,000,000.00, together with all reasonably foreseeable consequential damages, prejudgment interest thereon, plus all of the costs, including attorneys’ fees. Bee and Bagley are also entitled to an appropriate award of punitive damages against each of those defendants as the proof may show.

51

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 52 of 105

Desc Main

COUNT II (DENIAL OF DISCHARGE OF DEBTORS UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 727 (a)(2)(A), 727(a)(3), 727(a)(4) - AGAINST DEBTORS BARRY DON AND KIMBERLY CHAMPLIN HUNTER) 159. 160. Bagley and Bee incorporate all previous allegations. 11 U.S.C. § 727(a) provides, in pertinent part:

(a) The court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless... (2) the debtor, with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud a creditor or an officer of the estate charged with custody of property under this title, has transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed, or has permitted to be transferred, removed, destroyed, mutilated, or concealed(A) property of the debtor, within one year before the date of the filing of the petition; or (B) property of the estate, after the date of the filing of the petition; (3) the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated, falsified, or failed to keep or preserve any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, from which the debtor's financial condition or business transactions might be ascertained, unless such act or failure to act was justified under all of the circumstances of the case; (4) the debtor knowingly and fraudulently, in or in connection with the case(A) made a false oath or account; (B) presented or used a false claim; (C) gave, offered, received, or attempted to obtain money, property, or advantage, or a promise of money, property, or advantage, for acting or forbearing to act; or (D) withheld from an officer of the estate entitled to possession under this title, any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, relating to the debtor's property or financial affairs; (5) the debtor has failed to explain satisfactorily, before determination of denial of discharge under this paragraph, any loss of assets or deficiency of assets to meet the debtor's liabilities; 161. Under Utah law, all property of a limited liability company which has been

dissolved, after winding up, belongs to the members.

52

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 53 of 105

Desc Main

162.

On their Statements and Schedules filed with the Court on May 25, 2012,

Hunter and Kimberly, in paragraph 18 of the Statement of Financial Affairs (Bankruptcy Case No. 12-26860, Docket No. 2, at page 27 of 36), under penalty of perjury, falsely and fraudulently described Hunter’s business, PMI, as having the nature of business being “Business Consulting” and so operating between January 2006 and October 2011. The false and fraudulent description of the nature of PMI’s business, the millions of dollars of assets that flowed into or were controlled by it during its operations and the absolute failure to explain what happened to the hundreds of thousands of dollars of PMI’s hard assets, in the form of computer servers and equipment, at least some and perhaps all of which is Hunter’s sole property upon PMI’s winding up and therefore part of the debtors’ estate, the willful concealment of the existence of these assets by failing to list as creditors or even give notice of the bankruptcy to Bee and Bagley until after the Trustee filed his no asset report, which was done deliberately with the intent to conceal the true facts from the Trustee, the failure to turn over documents evidencing the assets of the dissolved PMI that belong to Hunter, the failure to disclose that Wright and Oneiros have taken their proprietary trading program which was exclusively licensed to PMI and now seek to “license” it in conjunction with the continuing FOREX trading, ongoing component of the Ponzi scheme all fit within the statutory bases to deny a discharge to the debtors. 163. There has been no account given for the assets of PMI remaining upon its

dissolution and winding up, which assets are part of the debtors’ estate. 164. Accordingly, the Court should deny a discharge to the debtors under 11

U.S.C. § 727(a).

53

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 54 of 105

Desc Main

COUNT III (FRAUDULENT TRANSFER - AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 165. 166. Bagley and Bee incorporate all previous allegations. Some or all of the assets of PMI were transferred to one or more

defendants who are “insiders” as that word is defined in UTAH CODE ANN. § 25-6-2(7). 167. As to those insider transfers made by PMI, they are fraudulent as to Bee

and Bagley to the extent they were made after Bee and Bagley’s claims against PMI arose and they were made to such insiders for an antecedent debt. 168. PMI was insolvent at all times because it was operated as a Ponzi scheme

and all the insiders knew it. 169. PMI’s transfers were made, or obligations incurred by it, without receiving

a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfers or obligations. 170. In addition, all transfers of PMI and obligations incurred by it were made

with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud the creditors of PMI; or without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation and PMI: (I) was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of PMI were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or (ii) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that it would incur, debts beyond its ability to pay as they became due. 171. Bee and Bagley are entitled to all such relief under the Utah Fraudulent

Transfer Act and or in equity or otherwise for all transfers made by PMI and obligations incurred by PMI to others, directly or indirectly, with respect to Wright, Oneiros, Hunter, Kimberly, the Church, the Utah Church, the Utah Mission, Madsen, Lucidity, Volition, Cynthia, Burton, D’Arezzo, Farr, Hites, Kingdon, Petersen, Stowe and Szaniszlo, 54

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 55 of 105

Desc Main

whether for alleged services, employment, repayment of debt, distribution of capital or otherwise. COUNT IV (CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) - AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT KIMBERLY CHAMPLIN HUNTER AND CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL) 172. Bagley and Bee incorporate all previous allegations. THE PERSONS 173. Each of the named defendants are "persons" within the meaning of 18

U.S.C. § 1961(3). Defendants Barry D. Hunter; Kimberly Champlin Hunter; Portfolio Manager International L.L.C.; Oneiros Technologies L.C.; Michael J. Wright; Gregory B. Madsen; Lucidity Management, LLC; Volition Trading Company, LLC; Church of Scientology of Utah; Cynthia L. Wright; Church of Scientology Mission of Salt Lake City; Church of Scientology International; Tom Burton; James D'Arezzo; Alan S. Farr; George Hites; Greg Kingdon; David Petersen; Robby J. Stowe; Sandor Szaniszlo shall be referred to collectively, from time to time, in this Count, as the “co-conspirator defendants.” 174. Each of the co-conspirator defendants entered into an agreement to

violate the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b) and (c), and to commit two or more predicate acts in furtherance thereof. The predicate acts are described in the section on predicate acts below, which is incorporated herein in its entirety. THE ENTERPRISE 175. The "Enterprise" as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) consists of

an association-in-fact of entities as depicted in the Handwritten Fraud Organization Chart drawn by defendant Wright and attached hereto as Exhibit B. In the alternative, 55

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 56 of 105

Desc Main

the association-in-fact consists of Oneiros, PMI, Wright, Hunter, Hales, Williams, Richardson, Volition, Lucidity, the Church, the Utah Mission, the Utah Church and other persons who performed specific functions in the organization that formed a criminal organization with a defined structure, that was ultimately led by the Church, is the Enterprise or, as the final alternative, PMI itself is not a “person” but instead is the Enterprise. PLAINTIFFS' STANDING TO SUE 176. Plaintiffs have standing to pursue claims against the co-conspirator

defendants for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, because they have been injured in their property by reason of those violations, as follows: INVESTMENT INJURY INCURRED BY REASON OF VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) 177. Each of the co-conspirator defendants operated as a funding source for

the Enterprise and has, in furtherance of the conspiracy, received income, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity consisting of, inter alia, mail fraud, wire fraud, Theft by Deception under UTAH CODE ANN. § 76-6-405, chargeable as a felony under UTAH CODE ANN. § 76-6-405, in that each occurrence of theft involved the obtaining of a thing of value exceeding $1,000.00, Communications Fraud chargeable as a felony under UTAH CODE ANN. § 76-10-1801 in that each occurrence of the obtaining of a thing of value was for a value exceeding $1,000.00, Money Laundering under UTAH CODE ANN. § 76-10-1903, chargeable as a felony under UTAH CODE ANN. § 76-10-1904, Unlawful Dealing of Property by a Fiduciary, under UTAH CODE ANN. § 76-6-513, chargeable as a felony under that section in that each occurrence of the obtaining of a thing of value was for a value exceeding $1,000.00, Securities Fraud 56

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 57 of 105

Desc Main

under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-1, -2, -3, -7, -16, each chargeable as a felony under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-21(2). The defendants reinvested the funds obtained from plaintiffs and other victims, directly or indirectly, in the Enterprise, for use in funding further fraudulent activities and procuring funds from additional victims and thus to operate the Enterprise, the activities of which affect interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). The predicate acts involved numerous wire transfers, text messages and e-mails, transmitted across state lines and over the interstate wires, each such transmission being an essential step in the plot and/or related to subsequent lulling schemes. 178. By reason of the defendants’ use and investment of the racketeering

proceeds in the Enterprise, the Enterprise was capable of surviving, maintaining its operations and entering into multiple fraudulent transactions with plaintiffs which directly injured plaintiffs in form of (1) the loss of plaintiffs' monies invested; (2) the incurring of debt by Bagley for which he is responsible to Zions First National Bank, NA; (3) the incurring of mental anguish and emotional distress over the loss of their funds, as with other victims. But for the pattern of racketeering activity through which those illicit proceeds of racketeering were generated, the Enterprise would have failed and plaintiffs would not have been injured in such a fashion. PREDICATE ACT INJURY INCURRED BY REASON OF THE CONDUCT OF THE AFFAIRS OF AN ENTERPRISE, IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) 179. Plaintiffs also have been injured by reason of the co-conspirator

defendants' employment by or association with the Enterprise, because their participation, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the Enterprise's affairs, through a

57

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 58 of 105

Desc Main

pattern of racketeering activity has directly resulted in the plaintiffs'(1) accumulation of debt without receiving any benefit; and (2) losing the funds they invested through the persons who committed the crimes alleged. PREDICATE ACTS OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY 180. All of the actions of each co-conspirator defendant were taken for and on

behalf of the Enterprise thereby making each person chargeable for the predicate acts of each other person. 181. Each time the defendants procured monies from either of the plaintiffs or

other victims and invested such funds in the Enterprise the defendants, together and as co-conspirators, committed each of the predicate acts described above. 182. Each defendant has engaged in the commission of at least two predicate

acts in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy and operation of the enterprise that form part of the pattern of racketeering activity as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961, evidenced by at least the following known specific acts and communications in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Mail Fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Wire Fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 2314 (Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys, fraudulent State tax stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting); or a violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7), which violations are chargeable under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-21 as a third degree felony:

58

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 59 of 105

Desc Main

BARRY D. HUNTER/PMI/SALT LAKE MISSION

Date
Early 2005

Summary of Documentary Evidence
Hunter (UT) had a phone conversation with Tom Burton (CA) about Hunter being appointed as the CEO of PMI. Email communications between T. Burton (CA) and B. Hunter (Mike and Greg)(UT) re. referencing David Petersen's investment of $150K and budget projections to draw $276,500.00. Email from B. Hunter (UT) to D. Petersen (UT) with an attached operating agreement for Burton in his role as the “Establishment Officer” and states that “I know Alan [Farr] is especially impressed with Tom [Burton] and wants his involvement. This might be a good [sic] to show Alan to put him more at ease.” Email from B. Hunter (UT) to A. Farr (UT) re. investment funding. Email communications between Barry Hunter (UT) and Tom Burton (CA) in which Co-Conspirator Burton explains his efforts to recruit Montecito Hedge Fund Managers and claiming that “[t]he story and positioning is so easy now.” Co-Conspirator Burton also mentioned his efforts to contact Co-Conspirators Szaniszlo and Hites to update them on “the new plan,” and requested a withdrawal of $75,000 from the “TradeStation corporate account.” Co-Conspirator Hunter stated that he would “continue to push the comm lines out on this end so we can get the funds we need” and requests the routing number and account number in addition to the name on the account “that I will be wiring the funds to.” Email comm. between B. Hunter (UT) and T. Burton (CA) with attached master plan explaining the organization of PMI and Oneiros, including the “Oneiros Offshore Expansion Plan,” the coconspirators’ long-range plan for PMI and Oneiros to expand trading capital to “$100-150 million.”

Predicate Act under § 1961
Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

11.01.06 11.02.06

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

11.06.06

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

01.26.07 11.22.06

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

11.30.06

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

08.28.06

Email from B. Hunter (UT) to A. Farr (UT) re. offering position as a managing member of PMI

59

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 60 of 105

Desc Main

01.23.07

B. Hunter (UT) sent an email to James D’Arezzo (CA) and identified $346,000.00 in loans to PMI from Greg Kingdon, Michael Wright and Barry Hunter and also references loans to PMI from David Peterson, Alan Farr, Tom Burton and Sandor Szaniszlo

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

01.23.07

Barry Hunter (UT) sent an email to James D'Arezzo (CA) regarding inclusion into PMI as a way for key members to trade their own accounts and help in directing PMI business activities and indicating that Mr. D'Arezzo can be part of the LLC or take a more informal role.

11.13.07

Email between B. Hunter (UT) and D. Petersen (UT) re. $15,000.00 invoice and slot to invest.

12.17.07

Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to David J. Petersen (UT) showing $200,000.00 added to PMI in December 10, 2007 and requesting permission to use Petersen’s “trading data, symbol names and results in preparing a promo piece.”

04.29.07 (Hunter, PMI and Salt Lake Mission Cont.)

Email from B. Hunter (UT) to A. Farr (UT) which included an attached letter purported to be answers from Wright, Hunter, Madsen, and Steve Wyatt, PMI’s CPA, to questions asked about the PMI business plan and its software application. The letter states that “[i]nvestment capital at this point would be going into PMI operations and infrastructure. Additionally, the PMI 500K brokerage account will be used to validate the trading algorithms released by Oneiros in automated live funded trading before it is approved for any client accounts.” The letter memorializes the co-conspirators’ intent that “the majority of the profits will be earmarked to profit sharing plans with the bulk of the capital being used to fund a philanthropic foundation,” and that “[t]he system will ultimately be used to fund the foundation.”

60

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 61 of 105

Desc Main

10.16.08

Email from B. Hunter (UT) to C. Hales (UT) in which he provided account and routing numbers for PMI’s bank account with Wells Fargo. Hunter also forwarded a message from Wright to Hales in the email, in which Wright states “We are assuming, based on the last few days of absent communication, that you are trying as best you can to get things resolved on your end. I want to make sure that you know we are also working as well to resolve things too. The main thing I want to stress is that we must stay in complete communication of any vital data each of us may need. Vital data can be good news or bad news...[t]he hallmark of our group’s agreement is that each one of us can and will confront and handle any barrier that is presented.” Email communications between Barry Hunter (UT) to Tom Burton (CA) re. "Fat Cats" that Chris Hales brought in, references funds that PMI has agreements with including PMI board of Advisors, David Petersen, Rusty Tweed, Chris Hales, George Hites, Mike Schwartz, Steve Garhardt, Peter Lowden. Involves Mike Ricks and states that Barry Hunter and Michael Wright are aware that Ricks plead guilty to insider trading. Hunter (UT) responded to Burton’s (CA) late email the night before and informed him that “[h]ere’s the funds that we have agreements with. PMI Board of Advisers David Petersen’s own fund. Rusty Tweed (Rusty’s going to be in Utah next week for Thanksgiving) Chris Hales (He’s the you [sic] young guy(28) who brought us the fat cat and is partnering in the deal). On a side note: Chris is starting his Purif next Wednesday. We introduced him to Scientology. George Hites. Possible, Mike Schwartz (Oregon $10 Million Fat Cat) Dr. Steve Garhardt (Las Vegas high net worth investor) Peter Lowden, Hedge fund from Reno.” That same day, Burton responded to Hunter’s email: “Barry - Are you aware of Ricks past? Looks like he pleaded guilty to insider trading. See link below. What do you think of his ethics level. -Tom http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/nrdoj0406.htm.” Email between B. Hunter (UT), Jean Hammer (Sage Financial)(NV) and Mel Myer re. looking forward to being of service to you, Dr. Rodney Howard Browne.

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

11.13.08 11.19.08

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

11.19.08 (Hunter, PMI and Salt Lake Mission Cont.)

01.08.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

61

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 62 of 105

Desc Main

01.09.09

Email communications from Barry Hunter (UT) to Jim D'Arezzo (CA) discussing an email which PMI sent out “to shut the door on any future guys who might come back and say you promised me that I could set up my own server. We have two fat cat clients who could easily bring in over $500 Million each so we’re not really wanting more small clients. The 50K fee is actually a partially refundable Earnest Money Agreement. They have been fairly easy to come by with clients who have large amounts of liquid cash.” Between January 6, 2009 and January 8, 2009 Barry Hunter and David Petersen communicated via email Hunter's anticipation that PMI would receive $90,000.00 from Mike Ricks in the next four days.

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

01.08.0901.09.09

01.22.09

Hunter sent an email to Hales with an attached statement of residual compensation for sales with PMI and a copy of the solicitor agreement with PMI. Hunter states that “[i]n order to receive revenue on a residual basis from a client, you must pass the Series 65 Exam. This allows us to designate you personally as an IAR Investment Adviser Representative of PMI and allows you to receive residual compensation for clients that you introduce to PMI... [i]n doing the math, even with the introductions you’ve made thus far, this should be a $Million+ yearly game in and of itself. Of course the biggest compensation should come through strategic alliance and building up your own fund.”

[Intentionally Blank]

62

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 63 of 105

Desc Main

01.23.09

Hunter emailed a copy of a “Management Agreement Template,” stating “Chris here’s a copy of the Management Agreement Template that potential clients can look [sic]”. The Management Agreement Template included wire information for PMI’s account with Wells Fargo and outlines a “Master Fund Feeder Fund Business Model” and claims “PMI can in some cases act as the Portfolio Manager for other fund managers, its [sic] PMI’s responsibility to be actively involved with the all [sic] the other entities that compose the various possible business models that PMI may become affiliated with or be a part. Without this understanding of the Master Fund Feeder Fund structure and PMI’s role in it, it could be easily construed that all the parties are ‘in business’ with each other, when the truth is that each entity is autonomous and has its own responsibilities, functions and compensations.”

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

02.15.09

Email from B. Hunter (UT) to C. Hales (UT) with attached list contained the following names of individuals purportedly introduced by Hales or by another individual introduced to PMI by Hales.

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

02.19.09

Email from B. Hunter (UT) to M. Williams (UT) re. Live paper trading test to pass on to appropriate parties.

63

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 64 of 105

Desc Main

02.19.09

Hunter (UT) sent an email to Williams (UT) with an attached “schematic Mike [Wright] put together on the Strategic Alliance Idea.” The schematic outlined the process by which the co-conspirators obtained a loan for their LLC entity from an investor. The schematic explains the following process: “Lender and the Borrower both set up a two signature bank wire restricted bank account. This account becomes the originating account that funds a brokerage account. The brokerage cannot cross wire and must wire back through the originating account so any funds that come from the brokerage account will be locked up in the two signature bank wire only bank account which protects the lender. The brokerage account is funded with the $10 million via the bank account. A $1 million cash reserve account is set up inside the brokerage account. The brokerage account is then leveraged to 18 million which is 180%. PMI with its software and electronic infrastructure build the portfolios and manage the 18 million and set a total liquidation account trigger at 5% or $900,000 on the 18 million being managed. The borrower or another 3rd party agrees to fund a one million dollar reserve account inside the brokerage account-via the two signature bank wire only account. Since PMI has total liquidation trigger of 5% on $900K on the 18 million, in the brokerage account this million dollars would be used to offset such a loss and so restore the lender back to 10 million.” Email from B. Hunter (UT) to M. Williams (UT) re. attached Portfolio Design Build Services & Earnest Money Agreement Email from B. Hunter (UT) to M. Williams (UT) re. List of people who have been in the office and raising operating capital. Email between G. Kingdon (UT) and B. Hunter (UT) re. email from M. Baybak to M. Wright and B. Hunter and PMI operations. Email from B. Hunter (UT) to C. Hales (cc. Eric Richardson)(UT) re. Trade Station Securities contact Jake Hinkle in Florida. Email from B. Hunter (UT) to J. Hinkle (FL) re. New client, Chris Hales needs brokerage account. Also considerable expansion.

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

02.20.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

02.27.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

03.10.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

02.23.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

03.21.08

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

64

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 65 of 105

Desc Main

11.18.08

Email from Hunter (UT) to Burton (CA) to provide an update on PMI, and stating that “I’ve been on the phones the last two days generating interest for our initial PMI fund. I’m at about $2.7 Million in commitments thus far.” Later that day, Burton responded to Hunter’s email and inquired as to Hunter’s availability for December 5 and 6, 2008, to visit with Burton and David P[etersen]. Hunter responded that evening and informed Burton that “Mike and I are fully engaged in finishing up the legal for our agreement with the Fat Cat who has agreed verbally to fund the build out. He’s agreed to about $700K in infrastructure costs and his intent is to trade up to $500 Million over the next few years.” Burton responded late on November 18, stating that “[i]t is really important that we confront and handle the operating agreement BEFORE you actually start trading the funds. This is critical for all of our protection now that substantial money is being traded. Also I know that I am the cosignor on a number of documents related to Tradestation and I believe on some docs related to the investor registration. If you want to send what you have done so far on the operating agreement I can start looking at what will need to be modified.” Email from B. Hunter (UT) to C Hales (UT) re. Eric [Richardson] good addition to team. Michael Baybak43, a prominent Scientologist and potential investor for PMI, sent an email to Hunter and Wright thanking them “for forwarding your write-up on the strategic vision you folks have for your group’s grand goals as well as the interdependent structure of the four entities you have in mind to carry forth successful accomplishment of your (emerging favorite word here) audacious and, dare I say, exteriorizing mission. I can certainly buy into the grand vision and the enlightened purposes of your intended activity, and I do rather like your conception of the structural elements, including the “hub and spoke” concept of the various funds that would [sic] structured to operate under, if I get this rightly, PMI operations. Seems to me that you are really maximizing the structure to milk the global market’s cow maximally - and for the greater good.”

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

03.08.09 03.09.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

43

See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html

65

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 66 of 105

Desc Main

05.08.09

Hunter (UT) sent an email to Hales (UT) to memorialize investments received by PMI from Hales or investors whom Hales introduced to PMI. Hunter states “Here are the records of Investment received by PMI that were not for Design-Build Service Agreements. 11-82008 $10,000 You dropped this off at the office. 1-262009 $5,000 I picked it up at your home. 2-18-0009 $5,000 Ben and Dan dropped this off. Let me know who the promissory note(s) need to written [sic] to and I’ll draft the document(s). FYI, Ben had mentioned when he dropped off the $5,000 that he was responsible for some of the money that Bentley had written to PMI earlier. I don’t know if he was talking about the $30K Design/Build or not, it was just a comment he made.” Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to Craig Garhardt (NV), Jean Hammer (NV), Steve Garhardt (NV) with attachment titled "Strategic Alliance Performance Fee Calculation" Hunter states that “Our understanding from our previous discussions is that in an Strategic Alliance, interest charges that are incurred by Sage monthly on raising capital would be deducted from the increase in the trading account before performance fees were paid. PMI would also receive a fee to go towards its monthly operating costs. When we are up and running, we anticipate our monthly costs will be $60,000 and our idea was to have our Strategic Alliance with Sage pay for 1/3rd of that or $20,000.” Email communications between B. Hunter (UT), M. Baybak (CA), (cc. Rob Rainer, George Duggan, M. Wright) forwarded to G. Kingdon re. Trading Baybak’s $2 Million pension on PMI system. Eric Richardson referred to as Compliance Officer. Email communication between B. Hunter (UT), C. Hales (UT) and E. Richardson (UT) a copy of the “Portfolio Management Subscription Agreement Template” and stated that “This should be much more thorough and it is what we will need to use in the agreements with Lucidity and Volition.” Hunter (UT) sent an email to Hales (UT) with an attached “Management Agreement Template that I sent to Eric last week.”

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

05.21.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

06.05.0906.09.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

06.29.09 and 07.07.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

07.07.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

66

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 67 of 105

Desc Main

07.13.09

Email from Greg Kingdon (UT) to Barry Hunter (UT) referencing a $2 Million investment in PMI from Michael Baybak

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

08.04.0908.05.09

Email communication between Barry Hunter (UT) and Greg Kingdon discussed via email Eric Richardson getting $4 Million dollars from Christopher Hales and allocating $2 Million to PMI and also PMI having obtained $50,000.00 from Chris Hales in the previous year.

08.10.09 10.14.09

Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to Greg Kingdon (UT) with an attachment outlining the PMI Fee Structure Email communication from Greg Madsen (UT) to Greg Kingdon (UT) and Barry Hunter (UT) confirming an order for servers and attached an invoice and receipt for payment in the amount of $7,291,47. Hunter sent an email to Steve Gerhardt, Jean Hammer and Craig Gerhardt, stating that “This letter is to reconfirm the terms and conditions on which we accepted your funds for a slot in the data center. As we communicated, we have a data center capacity for only one Strategic Alliance and have several interested parties whom are working on funding this opportunity. In that there is only one of these Strategic Alliance slots, the offer is open on a first come first serve basis only. In the event another party performs by securing a sizeable account, the slot and Strategic Alliance we have with you will become null and void. While the opportunity to have a dedicated slot for your S.A. will have been terminated, you will still have the opportunity to come into our master fund, feeder fund set up. The money you tendered for servers plus the interest on that money will be refunded to you our can be used to offset any fee splits that may become due to PMI...All arrangements for management going forward will be done on a case by case basis and at our sole discretion.”

10.23.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

67

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 68 of 105

Desc Main

10.26.09 and 10.28.09

Email communications between Barry Hunter (UT) to Craig Garhardt (NV), Jean Hammer (NV), Steve Garhardt (NV) of Sage Financial Holdings LLC efforts of Sage towards securing funds for the Strategic Alliance and Craig Garhardt stating "we are ready on our end and able to handle the $45 million." Email from G. Kingdon (UT) to B. Hunter (UT) re. withdrawing portion of funds, will add funds in the new year. Email from Rusty Tweed (CA) to B. Hunter (UT) in the form of a letter of intent for Tweed Financial Services, Inc. to place $1,000,000.00 with PMI and another $5,000,000.00 by end of first quarter of 2010.

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

12.31.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

12.31.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

01.01.10 01.05.10

Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to Jim D'Arezzo (CA) stating Sandor has been paid back. Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to David Petersen (UT), Greg, Kingdon (UT) with attached December 31, 2009 letter from Eric Richardson, President RPM Investments Company LLC to Barry Hunter, PMI stating, "Based on our agreements with PMI and the achievement of performance metrics, we have obtained investment commitments for Volition Fund currently in excess of $17,000,000." Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to Craig Garhardt (NV) of Sage Strategic Alliance, LLC in reference to Hunter’s and Wright’s changes to a Letter of Intent document attached to the email for Sage Financial Holding’s intent to execute a PMI Strategic Alliance Management Agreement. The letter states that Sage “will be increasing the funding of the account after this initial funding state to approximately $5-8 million by the end of the second quarter and $25 million by year end.” Email communications between Tom Burton (CA) and Barry Hunter (UT) indicating that Rusty Tweed will have $1.5 Million dollars ready to trade before February and another client Sage called and would have $2 Million dollars before February 1st as well as debt consolidation on some notes that have come due in an amount between $250,000.00 to $300,000.00.

01.11.10

01.15.10

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

68

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 69 of 105

Desc Main

02.02.10

Email from B. Hunter (UT) to Rusty Tweed (CA) re. restructuring Master Fund and excited to start trading your brokerage account. And $265K is deposited in PMI Quant Pool Account.

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

02.03.10

Email communication between Barry Hunter (UT), Greg Kingdon (UT) and Rusty Tweed (CA) including the attached “Conceptual Process and Procedure for a Master-Fund” to Kingdon and stated that “Eric [Richardson] put this together some time ago to show how a Master Fund needs to be set up. I’d like to work with you and Eric on a new structure for the Quantitative Analytics Master Fund.” The attachment includes a chart explaining how funds are to be transferred via wire transfer to the separate feeder funds from the PMI Prime Fund master fund. Email communications between B. Hunter (UT) and J. D’Arezzo (CA) re. Chris needs to distribute funds. “Mike [Wright] and I [Hunter] have gone after other sources of funding.” Email communication between Barry Hunter (UT) and Greg Kingdon (UT) which referenced a letter from James D'Arezzo identifying his role in "orchestrating a danger handling on Oneiros/PMI" and identifying efforts to bypass Greg Madsen, Jean Hammer, Eric Richardson and Michael Wright in decision making for PMI Email communication between B. Hunter (UT) and D. Petersen (UT) re. postulating will receive $90K from Mike Ricks. Conf. Call with large financial planner out of Tampa.

06.30.10 and 07.06.10 09.14.10 and 09.15.10

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

01.06.09 and 01.08.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

01.23.07

Email communication between B. Hunter (UT) and J. D’Arezzo (CA) re. Petersen, Farr Burton and Szaniszlo together have loaned PMI $346,000.00. Also potential users with high net worth.

69

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 70 of 105

Desc Main

02.21.08

Email from Hunter to Alan Farr with attached draft of promissory note to Farr $50,000.00 (unsigned).

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

03.03.09

Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to David Petersen (CA) stating he believes he found the $30,000.00 spent on trading slot. A spreadsheet attached to the email shows payment from David Petersen to PMI in the amount of $330,500.00.

03.05.08

Promissory Note from Carol Farr $50,000.00 (unsigned) Email communications between Barry Hunter (UT) and Greg Kingdon (UT) communicated via email regarding an investment by Chris McCormack of $500,000.00 in PMI and $1.5 million in Oneiros, and that he has committed $50 Million in the Sage account. The email communications also highlight a transfer $600,000.00 into a new "Master Fund."

03.08.10 03.10.10

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

03.18.09

Email communications between B. Hunter (UT) and David Petersen (UT) regarding ownership interest in PMI and identifying Barry Hunter initially as 100% owner of PMI and making reference to Barry Hunter's CPA's advice to include another managing member with at least 10% ownership.

08.08.08

Email from Hunter to Steve Wyatt with attached Promissory Note to Wyatt ($200,000.00). Hunter states: “We’d like to get this signed as soon as is convenient for you so that we can close out 2008 for PMI.

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

70

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 71 of 105

Desc Main

09.01.10

Email from B. Hunter (UT) to Hilton Bell with attached 08.31.10 Promissory Note between PMI and Hilton and Lee Ann Bell ($200,000.00). Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to Sandor Szaniszlo (CA) regarding payment to Szaniszlo and Capital Unicorn Integrity, an entity apparently owned in whole or in part by Mr. Szaniszlo, in the amount of $5,000.00. Design Build Services and Earnest Money Agreement, unsigned, between David Petersen and PMI in the amount of $15,000.00 to be tendered at time of signing and another $15,000.00 due on November 15, 2007 and in consideration of the up front costs to purchase equipment and labor costs Mr. Petersen agreed that $25,00.00 of the $30,00.00 is considered a non-refundable fee. Email communication between Barry Hunter (UT) and Christy Fenton (christyfenton@aol.com), Eric Richardson (UT), Boyd Cook, Mickey Fenton (mickeyfenton@aol.com) and others stating $94,000 will be transferred back to the Volition account

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

10.03.06

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

10.12.07

Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

12.21.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

01.29.0801.30.08

Email communications between B. Hunter (UT) and J. D’Arezzo (CA) re. PMI results and D’Arezzo request summary to give to his contacts. Hunter asking D’Arezzo for “resources and comm lines that could help us. . . ” Asking for $100k and some additional capital and want to create a "strategic alliance" with D'Arezzo.

MICHAEL WRIGHT/ONEIROS/ PMI/UTAH CHURCH / SALT LAKE MISSION Date
10.23.06

Summary of Documentary Evidence
Letter possibly sent via email attachment from Mike [Wright] (UT) to T. Burton (CA) re. organizations, funding and loan proceeds.

Predicate Act under § 1961
Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1341; Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

71

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 72 of 105

Desc Main

1.22.07

Email from M. Wright (UT) to Jim D’Arezzo (CA) via Barry Hunter (UT) outlining terms of D’Arezzo’s investment including without limitation an access rights license with PMI that allows him to use the PMI management market timing software and a personal trading account “in the amount of 10 times your investment capital or $1,000,000" with a preferential fee structure. Letter possibly sent via email attachment from Mike [Wright] (UT) to T. Burton (CA) re. putting together a group that would “help us financially.”

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1341; Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343 Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1341; Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

04.30.08

Letter possibly sent via email attachment to C. Hales (UT) from M. Wright (UT) re. setting [Hales and the Bentley Entities] up properly. Wright states: “For ease of managing your LLC, you can designate one member/manager of the LLC to initiate bank wire requests to pay PMI fees from the brokerage to the LLC account. Once the funds hit the LLC account you can bank wire them to the PMI account.” Michael Baybak44, a prominent Scientologist and potential investor for PMI, sent an email to Hunter and Wright thanking them “for forwarding your write-up on the strategic vision you folks have for your group’s grand goals as well as the interdependent structure of the four entities you have in mind to carry forth successful accomplishment of your (emerging favorite word here) audacious and, dare I say, exteriorizing mission. I can certainly buy into the grand vision and the enlightened purposes of your intended activity, and I do rather like your conception of the structural elements, including the “hub and spoke” concept of the various funds that would [sic] structured to operate under, if I get this rightly, PMI operations. Seems to me that you are really maximizing the structure to milk the global market’s cow maximally and for the greater good.” Email between G. Kingdon (UT) and B. Hunter (UT) re. email from M. Baybak (CA) to M. Wright (UT) and B. Hunter (UT) and PMI operations. Email from Michael Baybak to Wright regarding time and costs lining up legal set-ups and availability of investment capital. Baybak acknowledges: “I don’t think it’s workable to contort the fund’s operations and payout schemes to a monthly basis so as to primarily serve your overhead necessities.”

03.09.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

03.10.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

07.20.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

44

See http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Fishman/time-behar.html

72

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 73 of 105

Desc Main

10.30.09

Email from Craig Gerhardt (Sage)(NV) to Wright and Hunter re conference call scheduled for 11.04.09 with Andress Enterprises, potential investors, and includes call number and conference code.

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

CYNTHIA L. WRIGHT/UTAH CHURCH/SALT LAKE MISSION Date
03.28.2009

Summary of Documentary Evidence
Email from M. Wright to M. Baybak using Cynthia Wright’s hotmail account discussing Baybak’s visit to the PMI/Oneiros facility. Email from M. Baybak to M. Wright using Cynthia Wright’s hotmail account regarding Baybak’s visit to Salt Lake “in the April 10-15 time frame.” Baybak states “Don’t worry about any meddling by me in your software release or the operability of your system timed for my trip.”

Predicate Act under § 1961
Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

03.30.2009

GREG KINGDON/PMI Date
03.07.09

Summary of Documentary Evidence
Email chain between B. Hunter and G. Kingdon regarding a presentation to the “Las Vegas Group” and investment from Michael Baybak of $40k per month for a few months and $30k to “run[] [Kingdon’s] gold fund” and that “the gold miners have $5 mill together for trading and another $20 mill lined up.” Kingdon states “I am poised and ready to appear on stage and deliver my lines.”

Predicate Act under § 1961
Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

[Intentionally Blank]

73

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 74 of 105

Desc Main

03.10.09

Email between G. Kingdon (UT and Thailand) and B. Hunter (UT) re. email from M. Baybak to M. Wright and B. Hunter and PMI operations. Hunter states “We met again with the Gold Fever Boys yesterday. They also brought us a $40,000 check to pay for the rest of their server slot. I think I told you that we raised the price of a slot to 60K. They will be ready very soon. Mike Wright is on the second review of his letter to Michael Baybak...Sorry for the quick note but we’ve had the Boys from Vegas here most of the day.”

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

06.05.0906.09.09

Email communications between B. Hunter (UT), M. Baybak (CA), (cc. Rob Rainer, George Duggan, M. Wright) forwarded to G. Kingdon re. Trading Baybak’s $2 Million pension on PMI system. Eric Richardson referred to as Compliance Officer.

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343 Wire Fraud18 U.S.C. §1343

07.13.09

Email from Greg Kingdon (UT) to Barry Hunter (UT) and Michael Wright (UT) referencing a $2 Million investment in PMI from Michael Baybak and Cortez

08.04.0908.05.09

Email communication between Barry Hunter (UT) and Greg Kingdon discussed via email Eric Richardson getting $4 Million dollars from Christopher Hales and allocating $2 Million to PMI and also PMI having obtained $50,000.00 from Chris Hales in the previous year.

08.10.09 10.14.09

Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to Greg Kingdon (UT) with an attachment outlining the PMI Fee Structure. Email communication from Greg Madsen (UT) to Greg Kingdon (UT) and Barry Hunter (UT) confirming an order for servers and attached an invoice and receipt for payment in the amount of $7,291,47. Email from G. Kingdon (UT) to B. Hunter (UT) re. withdrawing portion of funds, will add funds in the new year.

12.31.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

74

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 75 of 105

Desc Main

02.03.10

Email communication between Barry Hunter (UT), Greg Kingdon (UT) and Rusty Tweed (CA) including the attached “Conceptual Process and Procedure for a Master-Fund” to Kingdon and stated that “Eric [Richardson] put this together some time ago to show how a Master Fund needs to be set up. I’d like to work with you and Eric on a new structure for the Quantitative Analytics Master Fund.” The attachment includes a chart explaining how funds are to be transferred via wire transfer to the separate feeder funds from the PMI Prime Fund master fund. Email communication between Barry Hunter (UT) and Greg Kingdon (UT) which reference a letter from James D'Arezzo identifying his role in "orchestrating a danger handling on Oneiros/PMI." and identifying efforts to bypass Greg Madsen, Jean Hammer, Eric Richardson and Michael Wright in decision making for PMI. Email from Greg Kingdon (UT) to Barry Hunter (UT) stating he an come up with an additional $23,611.95 this week for second Kingdon slot. Email communications between Barry Hunter (UT) and Greg Kingdon (UT) communicated via email regarding an investment by Chris McCormack of $500,000.00 in PMI and $1.5 million in Oneiros, and that he has committed $50 Million in the Sage account. The email communications also highlight a transfer $600,000.00 into a new "Master Fund."

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

09.14.10 and 09.15.10

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

02.17.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

03.08.10 03.10.10

TOM BURTON/PMI Date
10.3.0610.6.06

Summary of Documentary Evidence
Hunter sent an email to Burton and Petersen to address legal requirements of registering as investment advisors to meet both federal and state regulations. On October 6, 2006, Petersen responded “I am in Dallas, and will be back on Sat. So I will review this and then get back with you next week.”

Predicate Act under § 1961
Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

75

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 76 of 105

Desc Main

10.23.06

Letter sent either as attachment to email or through firstclass mail from Mike [Wright](UT) to T. Burton re. organizations, funding and loan proceeds. “I personally want you to know that it’s not just about your helping provide the financing which is of course a great help. But I feel the greater value comes in having a group of thetans with some horsepower on board pushing together with us as a single determined entity. Money can’t make a postulate.” “I know, you all know our church needs our help and I do not know about you but I personally see no other group of individuals other than ourselves that have an actual workable plan underway.” Hunter sends an email communication purportedly from Hunter, Wright and Kingdon to Burton outlining Burton's contribution to "building the professional trading system and management team," and stating a proposal for "preferential trading terms" for Burton, Petersen and Hites for their involvement with PMI and Oneiros and the proposal that outstanding debt owed to Szaniszlo be repaid and referencing David Petersen's investment of $150K and budget projections to draw $276,500.00. Letter from Mike [Wright](UT) to T. Burton re. putting together a group that would help us financially.

Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1341; Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

11.01.06 11.02.06

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1341; Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

11.6.06

Hunter sent an email to Petersen with an attached operating agreement for Burton in his role as the "Establishment Officer" and states that "I know Alan [Farr] is especially impressed with Tom [Burton] and wants his involvement. This might be a good [sic] to show Alan to put him more at ease." Email communications between Barry Hunter (UT) and Tom Burton (CA) in which Co-Conspirator Burton explains his efforts to recruit Montecito Hedge Fund Managers and claiming that “[t]he story and positioning is so easy now.” Co-Conspirator Burton also mentioned his efforts to contact Co-Conspirators Szaniszlo and Hites to update them on “the new plan,” and requested a withdrawal of $75,000 from the “TradeStation corporate account.” Co-Conspirator Hunter stated that he would “continue to push the comm lines out on this end so we can get the funds we need” and requests the routing number and account number in addition to the name on the account “that I will be wiring the funds to.

11.22.06

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

76

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 77 of 105

Desc Main

11.30.06

Email comm. between B. Hunter (UT) and T. Burton (CA) with attached master plan explaining the organization of PMI and Oneiros, including the “Oneiros Offshore Expansion Plan,” the co-conspirators’ longrange plan for PMI and Oneiros to expand trading capital to “$100-150 million.”

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

11.13.08 11.19.08

Email communications between Barry Hunter(UT) to Tom Burton (CA) re. "Fat Cats" that Chris Hales brought in, references funds that PMI has agreements with including PMI board of Advisors, David Petersen, Rusty Tweed, Chris Hales, George Hites, Mike Schwartz, Steve Garhardt, Peter Lowden. Involves Mike Ricks and states that Barry Hunter and Michael Wright are aware that Ricks plead guilty to insider trading. Email from Hunter (UT) to Burton (CA) to provide an update on PMI, and stating that “I’ve been on the phones the last two days generating interest for our initial PMI fund. I’m at about $2.7 Million in commitments thus far.” Later that day, Burton responded to Hunter’s email and inquired as to Hunter’s availability for December 5 and 6, 2008, to visit with Burton and David P[etersen]. Hunter responded that evening and informed Burton that “Mike and I are fully engaged in finishing up the legal for our agreement with the Fat Cat who has agreed verbally to fund the build out. He’s agreed to about $700K in infrastructure costs and his intent is to trade up to $500 Million over the next few years.” Burton responded late on November 18, stating that “[i]t is really important that we confront and handle the operating agreement BEFORE you actually start trading the funds. This is critical for all of our protection now that substantial money is being traded. Also I know that I am the co-signor on a number of documents related to Tradestation and I believe on some docs related to the investor registration. If you want to send what you have done so far on the operating agreement I can start looking at what will need to be modified.”

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

11.18.08

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

[Intentionally Blank]

77

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 78 of 105

Desc Main

11.19.08

Hunter (UT) responded to Burton’s (CA) late email the night before and informed him that “[h]ere’s the funds that we have agreements with. PMI Board of Advisers David Petersen’s own fund. Rusty Tweed (Rusty’s going to be in Utah next week for Thanksgiving) Chris Hales (He’s the you [sic] young guy(28) who brought us the fat cat and is partnering in the deal). On a side note: Chris is starting his Purif next Wednesday. We introduced him to Scientology. George Hites. Possible, Mike Schwartz (Oregon $10 Million Fat Cat) Dr. Steve Garhardt (Las Vegas high net worth investor) Peter Lowden, Hedge fund from Reno.” That same day, Burton responded to Hunter’s email: “Barry - Are you aware of Ricks past? Looks like he pleaded guilty to insider trading. See link below. What do you think of his ethics level. -Tom http://www.usps.com/postalinspectors/nrdoj0406.htm.” Hunter responded on November 19, stating that “I too did a Google search some time ago on Mike Ricks. Mike Wright and I are aware of it. In fact we were speaking with the director of compliance and licensing with the State of Utah Dept of Securities this morning about it. He has looked into it and found that we are not precluded from working with him. I would put his tone level at strong interest. I would suspect he has a very high IQ...[w]e’ll be talking with him one on one about this before signing any agreements.” Email communications between Tom Burton and Barry Hunter (UT) indicating that Rusty Tweed will have $1.5 Million dollars ready to trade before February and another client Sage called and would have $2 Million dollars before February 1st as well as debt consolidation on some notes that have come due in an amount between $250,000.00 to $300,000.00.

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

01.15.10

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

[Intentionally Blank]

78

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 79 of 105

Desc Main

JAMES D’AREZZO/PMI Date
Prior to January 23, 2007

Summary of Documentary Evidence
Sometime before January 23, 2007, whether by email or U.S. mail, Wright caused to be sent to D'Arezzo a letter offering D'Arezzo a non-managing member interest in PMI. In the letter, Wright states that "[t]he first and main reason [PMI was organized] was to be a legal insulator or buffer to Oneiros Technologies...The second reason was to provide a way for individuals who were helping us in terms of finance and advice to have a way to use our technology without requiring PMI to get involved in the licensing requirements of the SEC...[s]ince PMI has been organized as an LLC, its member's [sic] liability is limited and because it would have a limited number of assets, it would be a much less juicy target for some possible SP's actions." B. Hunter (UT) sent an email to James D’Arezzo (CA) and identified $346,000.00 in loans to PMI from Greg Kingdon, Michael Wright and Barry Hunter and also references loans to PMI from David Peterson, Alan Farr, Tom Burton and Sandor Szaniszlo

Predicate Act under § 1961
Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1341; Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

01.23.07

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

01.23.07

Barry Hunter (UT) sent an email to James D'Arezzo (CA) regarding inclusion into PMI as a way for key members to trade their own accounts and help in directing PMI business activities and indicating that Mr. D'Arezzo can be part of PMI or take a more informal role. Email communications from Barry Hunter (UT) to Jim D'Arezzo (CA) discussing an email which PMI sent out “to shut the door on any future guys who might come back and say you promised me that I could set up my own server. We have two fat cat clients who could easily bring in over $500 Million each so we’re not really wanting more small clients. The 50K fee is actually a partially refundable Earnest Money Agreement. They have been fairly easy to come by with clients who have large amounts of liquid cash.” Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to Jim D'Arezzo (CA) stating Szaniszlo has been paid back. Email communications between B. Hunter (UT) and J. D’Arezzo (CA) re. Chris needs to distribute funds. Mike and I [Hunter] have gone after other sources of funding.

01.09.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

01.01.10 06.30.10 and 07.06.10

79

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 80 of 105

Desc Main

01.29.0801.30.08

Email communications between B. Hunter (UT) and J. D’Arezzo (CA) re. PMI results and D’Arezzo request summary to give to his contacts and Hunter asking D’Arezzo for “resources and comm lines that could help us. . . ” asking for $100k and some additional capital and want to create a "strategic alliance" with D'Arezzo.

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

DAVID PETERSEN/PMI/SALT LAKE MISSION Date
11.06.06

Summary of Documentary Evidence
Email from B. Hunter (UT) to D. Petersen (UT) with an attached operating agreement for Burton in his role as the “Establishment Officer” and states that “I know Alan [Farr] is especially impressed with Tom [Burton] and wants his involvement. This might be a good [sic] to show Alan to put him more at ease.” Email from B. Hunter to D. Petersen referencing a transfer of $50,000 from the Tradestation account to the PMI account to be transferred online to Petersen. Hunter states “Since we will be transferring funds in great quantity, I’d like to set up an online transfer to your accounts.”

Predicate Act under § 1961
Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

08.25.06

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

08.28.06

Email from B. Hunter (UT) to D. Petersen(UT)re. offering position as a managing member of PMI Email from Hunter to Petersen. Hunter states: I spoke with Mike [Wright] about changing the letter to be addressed to you personally. He agreed. I believe that positions you better as the insider (trusted adviser) that you are. I believe it’s time to push out all our communication lines until we find the right investor to help take us over the top. My good friend Kevin Calderwood is coming to see the system next Tuesday. He has a personal net worth of over $100 Million ans is presently the CEO of a Geothermal Energy company based in Salt Lake City. He is also a Stake President in Washington D.C., a very theta guy and could be an excellent ally for ridding the LDS church of Psychiatry and Psychology.”

09.12.06

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

80

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 81 of 105

Desc Main

02.27.07

Response email from Petersen to Hunter: “I’m still at flag and would go along with the rest of the group. They are keeping me real busy which is great but I haven’t been able to keep up on any other stuff. It was great to get the good update from you the other day. On another note I understand Janet [Petersen] is trying to get Robin and her boy friend in to see you at the Mission. They are great people, I sure [sic] they will make it and sign up for a course or some auditing.” Email from J. D’Arezzo (CA) to B. Hunter (UT), S. Szaniszlo (CA), Alan Farr (UT), D. Petersen (UT), T. Burton (CA) regarding M. Wright’s “State of the Union” memo and insight into performance of PMI system. Design Build Services and Earnest Money Agreement, unsigned, between David Petersen and PMI in the amount of $15,000.00 to be tendered at time of signing and another $15,000.00 due on November 15, 2007 and in consideration of the up front costs to purchase equipment and labor costs Mr. Petersen agreed that $25,00.00 of the $30,00.00 is considered a non-refundable fee. Email between B. Hunter (UT) and D. Petersen (UT)re. $15,000.00 invoice and slot to invest.

Wire Fraud18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

07.17.07

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

10.12.07

Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

11.13.07

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

12.17.07

Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to David J. Petersen (UT) showing $200,000.00 added to PMI in December 10, 2007 and requesting permission to use Petersen’s “trading data, symbol names and results in preparing a promo piece.” Email from Hunter to Petersen regarding “large client cycles going on. A hedge fund manager out of Las Vegas, $100 Million plus under management met with us on Monday. His partner followed up with Mike yesterday. Interest is high in forming a strategic alliance.”

05.21.08

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

81

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 82 of 105

Desc Main

10.20.08

Email chain between Petersen and Hunter. Hunter stated: “I got this text from Chris [Hales] today ‘Got funds in my one hundred percent possession. I really apologize for the lack of communication but will be back tomorrow....talk to you soon.’ Chris followed up with a call to David Wright and said that he has 5.1 million for PMI. $1 Million will go to the move and build out and the remaining amount is for a trading account. So the money is in the bank as we postulated.” Email communication between B. Hunter (UT) and D. Petersen (UT) re. postulating will receive $90K from Mike Ricks. Conf. Call with large financial planner out of Tampa.

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

01.06.09 and 01.08.09

01.09.09 01.12.0901.13.09

Invoice for $6,000.00 from PMI for consulting services to Cottontree Management, David Petersen Email chain between Hunter, Kingdon and Petersen. Hunter states: “Greg, In the list you brought in of the Top 50 US Hedge Fund Groups in 2006 a familiar name jumped out at number 31 31. Renaissance Technologies Corp. East Setauket NY 24.00 Billion and 175.86%. Renaissance was developed by Jim Simmons. He’s the best of the best until we unseat him. He’s the guy we are after with our tech. If I’m figuring right, 175% on $24 Billion is $42 Billion in profits. That seems to be more like the orders of magnitude that we should be operating on. Well, let’s get on with it then.” Petersen writes: “I agree let’s get going”. Hunter writes: “David, Have a great trip to the Ship. It’s very prosurvival for our group that you [sic] businesses are prospering...We’ll be creating a large flow here while you are gone.” Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to David Petersen (UT) stating he believes he found the $30,000.00 spent on trading slot. A spreadsheet attached to the email shows payment from David Petersen to PMI in the amount of $330,500.00. Email communications between B. Hunter (UT) and David Petersen (UT) regarding ownership interest in PMI and identifying Barry Hunter initially as 100% owner of PMI and making reference to Barry Hunter's CPA's advice to include another managing member with at least 10% ownership.

03.03.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

03.18.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

82

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 83 of 105

Desc Main

03.24.09

Email chain forwarded from Michael Baybak to Wright, Hunter, and Kingdon to Petersen. Hunter states: “David, This is an E-Mail we received from Michael Baybak today. This is very confidential but I wanted to share the information with you and get your perspective. Greg Kingdon gets back today so I’m sure he will be heavily involved in this. Just keeping you in the loop!!!” Baybak writes: “One concomitant aspect of my professional work is that I do tend to work on a personal basis with hundreds if not thousands of high-net worth investors and institutional money managers, and perhaps this potential resource could be of interest in connection with your own plans.”

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

SANDOR SZANISZLO/PMI Date
09.13.06

Summary of Documentary Evidence
Email from Barry Hunter to S. Szaniszlo re repayment of $10,000.00 and request for a phone call from Szaniszlo.

Predicate Act under § 1961
Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

10.03.06

Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to Sandor Szaniszlo (CA) regarding payment to Szaniszlo and Capital Unicorn Integrity, an entity apparently owned in whole or in part by Mr. Szaniszlo, in the amount of $5,000.00.

[Intentionally Blank]

83

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 84 of 105

Desc Main

02.27.07

Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to Sandor Szaniszlo (CA), David Petersen (UT), and Tom Burton (CA) expressing appreciation for advice, loans and referrals to PMI. “In January of 2006 $400,000 was deposited into the TradeStation PMI Corporate account, $100,000 each from Alan, David, Tom and Sandor...[a] various times during the year David, Alan and Tom all transferred funds from the Corporate Accounts to PMI which were used for operations. Since that time we discontinued trading in August, each member of the group requested that their remaining trading funds be returned to them. David was sent $50,000 in August, Sandor was sent $100,000 in October, Tom was sent his remaining $75,000 in November and David transferred his remaining $25,000 directly to PMI in October. At various times during the year, Alan transferred $75,000 of his funds directly to PMI to be used for operations.” Email from J. D’Arezzo (CA) to B. Hunter (UT), S. Szaniszlo (CA), Alan Farr (UT), D. Petersen (UT), T. Burton (CA) regarding M. Wright’s “State of the Union” memo and insight into performance of PMI system. Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to Sandor Szaniszlo (CA) outlining PMI plans moving forward and update from Mike [Wright] Email from Barry Hunter (UT) to Sandor Szaniszlo (CA) with attached sales commission agreement between PMI and Szaniszlo, which states “On any amount of Investment in or Loans that Sandor secures for PMI operations, Sandor receives a onetime commission of 6%.”

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

07.17.07

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

07.24.07

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

10.02.07

ALAN FARR/PMI Date
01.26.07 08.28.06

Summary of Documentary Evidence
Email from B. Hunter (UT) to A. Farr (UT) re. investment funding. Email from B. Hunter (UT) to A. Farr (UT) re. offering position as a managing member of PMI, with attached unsigned letter offering a position as a managing member of PMI to Farr.

Predicate Act under § 1961
Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

84

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 85 of 105

Desc Main

04.29.08

Email from B. Hunter (UT) to A. Farr (UT) which included an attached letter purported to be answers from Wright, Hunter, Madsen, and Steve Wyatt, PMI’s CPA, to questions asked about the PMI business plan and its software application. The letter states that set up fees for a new client “are based on several costs. Commission base compensation to the sales person who may solicit the client and the amount of money the fund wants to allocate and, the money being allocated effects [sic] the number of computer data servers that will be needed as well as dictating how much custom programming and personnel will be required to create custom or replicated investment portfolios within the system. This is all done on a case by case basis. In some cases a portion of the setup fees are recoverable.” The letter further states that “[i]nvestment capital at this point would be going into PMI operations and infrastructure. Additionally, the PMI 500K brokerage account will be used to validate the trading algorithms released by Oneiros in automated live funded trading before it is approved for any client accounts.” Email from Hunter to Alan Farr with attached draft of promissory note to Farr $50,000.00 (unsigned).

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

02.21.08

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

03.05.08

Promissory Note from Carol Farr $50,000.00 (unsigned)

CHRISTOPHER HALES/LUCIDITY/VOLITION/PMI Date
04.30.08

Summary of Documentary Evidence
Ltr. To C. Hales (UT) from M. Wright (UT) re. setting [Hales] up properly

Predicate Act under § 1961
Mail Fraud18 U.S.C. §1341; Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. § 1343

85

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 86 of 105

Desc Main

10.16.08

Email from B. Hunter (UT) to C. Hales (UT) in which he provided account and routing numbers for PMI’s bank account with Wells Fargo. Hunter also forwarded a message from Wright to Hales in the email, in which Wright states “We are assuming, based on the last few days of absent communication, that you are trying as best you can to get things resolved on your end. I want to make sure that you know we are also working as well to resolve things too. The main thing I want to stress is that we must stay in complete communication of any vital data each of us may need. Vital data can be good news or bad news...[t]he hallmark of our group’s agreement is that each one of us can and will confront and handle any barrier that is presented.”

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

01.23.09

Hunter emailed a copy of a “Management Agreement Template,” stating “Chris here’s a copy of the Management Agreement Template that potential clients can look [sic]”. The Management Agreement Template included wire information for PMI’s account with Wells Fargo and outlines a “Master Fund Feeder Fund Business Model” and claims “PMI can in some cases act as the Portfolio Manager for other fund managers, its [sic] PMI’s responsibility to be actively involved with the all [sic] the other entities that compose the various possible business models that PMI may become affiliated with or be a part. Without this understanding of the Master Fund Feeder Fund structure and PMI’s role in it, it could be easily construed that all the parties are ‘in business’ with each other, when the truth is that each entity is autonomous and has its own responsibilities, functions and compensations.”

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

[Intentionally Blank]

86

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 87 of 105

Desc Main

02.15.09

Email from B. Hunter (UT) to C. Hales (UT) stating, “[h]ere is the list of people that have come in our office. I need phone numbers and E-Mail addresses on each of them.” The attached list contained the following names of individuals purportedly introduced by Hales or by another individual introduced to PMI by Hales: Joe Freed, Dustin Wilcox, Cameron Cox, Aaron Browning, Scott Alldredge, Carol Bee, Brian Bagley, Dan Burbank, Brett Candiotti, Andrew Chudd, Ben Davis, Phillip Davis, Ryan Davis, Todd De Bic, Gavin Dickson, Brent Garrison, Eric Garrison, Ashton Gifford, Lloyd Gleave, John Grealish, Derrett Harding, Lynn Hirschi, Joel Jeffrey, Robbie Kauo, Garret Kelsch, randy Kurek, Brad Labarm, Gary McDonald, Troy Morgan, Kit Morrison, Andrew Mullen, Roy Nelson, Nixon Pierre, David Fank, Kenny Andam, Kevin Price, Ren Richards, Mike Ricks, Colton Rogers, Michael Showhaus, Michael Stewart, Todd Smith, Tyler Tarpenning, Greg Tarpenning, Joel M. Vanderhoof, Josh Watson, Jeff White, Marcus Williams, David Youmans, Jean Hammer, Peter Lowden, Steve McCarty, Melvin Myer, (Hedge Fund Manager getting data), Rodney Howard Brown, Mike Pappas, Palm Springs Group, Brian King ODL Securities, Andrew Harris - Jones and Jones, Steve Garhardt, Craig Garhardt, Michael Peros EX (CIA), Carmine Avino, and Margaret Petersen. Email from B. Hunter (UT) to C. Hales (cc. Eric Richardson) (UT) re. Trade Station Securities contact Jake Hinkle in Florida. Email from B. Hunter (UT) to C Hales (UT) re. Eric [Richardson] good addition to team. Email communication between B. Hunter (UT), C. Hales (UT) and E. Richardson (UT) a copy of the “Portfolio Management Subscription Agreement Template” and stated that “This should be much more thorough and it is what we will need to use in the agreements with Lucidity and Volition.” Hunter (UT) sent an email to Hales (UT) with an attached “Management Agreement Template that I sent to Eric last week.”

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

02.23.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

03.08.09 06.29.09 and 07.07.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

07.07.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

87

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 88 of 105

Desc Main

01.22.09

Hunter sent an email to Hales with an attached statement of residual compensation for sales with PMI and a copy of the solicitor agreement with PMI. Hunter states that “[i]n order to receive revenue on a residual basis from a client, you must pass the Series 65 Exam. This allows us to designate you personally as an IAR Investment Adviser Representative of PMI and allows you to receive residual compensation for clients that you introduce to PMI... [i]n doing the math, even with the introductions you’ve made thus far, this should be a $Million+ yearly game in and of itself. Of course the biggest compensation should come through strategic alliance and building up your own fund.” Hunter (UT) sent an email to Hales (UT) to memorialize investments received by PMI from Hales or investors whom Hales introduced to PMI. Hunter states “Here are the records of Investment received by PMI that were not for Design-Build Service Agreements. 11-8-2008 $10,000 You dropped this off at the office. 1-26-2009 $5,000 I picked it up at your home. 2-18-0009 $5,000 Ben and Dan dropped this off. Let me know who the promissory note(s) need to written [sic] to and I’ll draft the document(s). FYI, Ben had mentioned when he dropped off the $5,000 that he was responsible for some of the money that Bentley had written to PMI earlier. I don’t know if he was talking about the $30K Design/Build or not, it was just a comment he made.” Email communication between Barry Hunter (UT) and Christy Fenton (christyfenton@aol.com), Eric Richardson (UT), Boyd Cook, Mickey Fenton (mickeyfenton@aol.com) and others stating $94,000 will be transferred back to the Volition account

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

05.08.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

12.21.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

12.31.09

Eric Richardson authored a letter on behalf of RPM Investments Company LLC, regarding commitments for Volition Fund "currently in excess of $17,000,000.00."

07.17.08

Upon request by Hales for initial $30,000 investment, Bagley wrote an equity line check to himself in the amount of $30,000.00 from Wachovia Bank. He deposited that check into his Wells Fargo account. Wells Fargo put a hold on the check because is was such a large sum and verification of funds had to be completed before it could be withdrawn.

88

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 89 of 105

Desc Main

08.21.08

Bagley obtained two separate cashier's checks, one payable to Hales for $10,000.00 and the other payable to Williams for $10,000.00. he also withdrew $10,000.00 cash and gave it to Williams. Bagley Cashier’s Check to Hales for $30,000; $20,000 cash to Williams Bee Cashier’s check for $15,000 to M. Williams

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C.§1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

01.16.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314 Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

04.22.09

05.13.09 05.22.09

Bee Cashier’s check for $15,000 to Hales Check from Hales to Bee for $17,500.

05.22.09

Bee Cashier’s check for $10,000 to Hales; $15,000 cash to Hales Bee Cashier’s check for $40,000 to Hales Check from Hales to Bee for $29,000. Bee $1,000 cash to Hales. Bee Cashier’s check for $8,000 to Hales Bee Cashier’s check for $7,000 to Hales Bee Cashier’s check for $11,000 to Hales

05.27.09 05.29.09 05.29.09 06.02.09 06.02.09 06.10.09

06.18.09

Bee Cashier’s check for $8,000 to Hales

[Intentionally Blank]

89

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 90 of 105

Desc Main

GREG MADSEN/PMI Date
08.12.09

Summary of Documentary Evidence
Email from B. Hunter (UT) to G. Kingdon and copied to Greg Madsen (UT), Michael Wright (UT), and Andrew Kingdon about Madsen’s choice for naming a PMI feeder fund. “PMI could use its exclusive license relationship of the Oneiros AlphaGen System as a marketing advantage. It’s probably easier for PMI to promote the AlphaGen System than if Oneiros promoted it. We could have the groups putting feeder funds together, promoting the technology also. We could highlight the extreme out of the box thinking of Oneiros as a definite advantage and create some mystery.” Email communication from Greg Madsen (UT) to Greg Kingdon (UT) and Barry Hunter (UT) regarding the order information for servers and hard drives. Email from G. Kingdon to Barry Hunter (UT) and copied to Greg Madsen (UT), Michael Wright (UT) including L. Ron Hubbard quote: “Your success depends upon the production of an effect, your finance depends upon attracting interest. If you find finance faltering, you will discover immediately why if you realize that the financial system is a communications system and that communications systems are the background of what you are doing.” Email from G. Kingdon to Barry Hunter (UT) and copied to Greg Madsen (UT), Michael Wright (UT) referring to a communication received by Kingdon from a representative of the International Association of Scientologists stating “I’m glad you’re doing everything you’re doing with amporn and the different campaigns. Definitely needed.” Kingdon writes: “This from the IAS rep on the ship chasing me for my next status. I sure am proud to be a Scientologist, and they sure do need our help.”

Predicate Act under § 1961
Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

10.14.09

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

01.14.10

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

01.25.10

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

GEORGE HITES/PMI Date
01.01.08

Summary of Documentary Evidence
PMI and Infinity Catamaran Ltd., located in Road Town Tortola British Virgin Islands and owned by George Hites, entered a Subscription Agreement in the amount of $250,000.00, which was forwarded via email to Hites by Hunter.

Predicate Act under § 1961
Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314

90

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 91 of 105

Desc Main

03.21.07

Email from Hunter to Hites with attached Promissory Note to Hites for $85,000.00 (unsigned) with instructions to sign and fax and including PMI wire transfer information

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

ROBBY J. STOWE/PMI Date
Unknown

Summary of Documentary Evidence
Letter to Robby Stowe from Hunter requesting a financial commitment for a “four server slot in the new data center.” Hunter states “A client’s server set up like this could manage upwards of $30+ million; however this is something that must be negotiated at the time of activation. In other words, we are not saying how much money we will run, only that you have our commitment to give you access to our tech and some portion of the available capacity of our data center at the time your operation is activated. Based on this, the $50,000 is a technology access fee, nothing else.” Email from Hunter to R. Stowe re. Steve Nemeth, a friend of Wright and Hunter who is planning to work for PMI. Attached to the email is a narrative authored by Nemeth outlining his Scientology “auditing.” Email from B. Hunter to R. Stowe providing update on “finalizing the first part of our funding package today which is an Earnest Money Agreement and deposit.” Hunter also states: “ We have a long time contact, fund manager in Oregon who is going ahead with a trading account. He is managing $125 million so the potential here is significant.”

Predicate Act under § 1961
Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1341; Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

12.05.06

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343

05.13.08

Wire Fraud 18 U.S.C. §1343; Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314; Violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7).

183.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, as see on the face of many of them,

that the e-mail communications were transmitted over the internet and through multiple states using various national email servers and internet service providers.

91

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 92 of 105

Desc Main

184.

Each of the preceding predicate acts was an essential step in the plot

towards the execution, operation and fulfillment of the object of the conspiracy, either by way of being an essential component of the fraud scheme or as an essential component of lulling schemes designed to prevent and/or delay detection of the fraud. 185. Further, the foregoing is expressly not intended to encompass all of the

predicate acts committed by the defendants, for it is anticipated that additional acts will be uncovered in discovery and that additional analysis of the structure, organization and operation of the enterprise and of the conspiracy will yield other bases to allege predicate acts, such as, by way of example only and not by way of limitation, the additional of felony charges under state law. EXTERNAL PATTERN/MULTIPLE VICTIMS 186. Plaintiffs know that the predicate acts forming a pattern with respect to

their victimization are only part of an external pattern of commission of predicate acts by which others have been victimized for the following reasons: a. above; b. Plaintiffs were told by Williams and Hales that those other victims Plaintiffs met other target victims at the PMI function described

had likewise placed investments in PMI on behalf of other victims; c. Email communications between the co-conspirators revealed the

following names of individuals purportedly introduced to the co-conspirators by Hales or by another individual introduced to PMI by Hales: Joe Freed, Dustin Wilcox, Cameron Cox, Aaron Browning, Scott Alldredge, Carol Bee, Brian Bagley, Dan Burbank, Brett Candiotti, Andrew Chudd, Ben Davis, Phillip Davis,

92

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 93 of 105

Desc Main

Ryan Davis, Todd De Bic, Gavin Dickson, Brent Garrison, Eric Garrison, Ashton Gifford, Lloyd Gleave, John Grealish, Derrett Harding, Lynn Hirschi, Joel Jeffrey, Robbie Kauo, Garret Kelsch, Randy Kurek, Brad Labarm, Gary McDonald, Troy Morgan, Kit Morrison, Andrew Mullen, Roy Nelson, Nixon Pierre, David Fank, Kenny Andam, Kevin Price, Ren Richards, Mike Ricks, Colton Rogers, Michael Showhaus, Michael Stewart, Todd Smith, Tyler Tarpenning, Greg Tarpenning, Joel M. Vanderhoof, Josh Watson, Jeff White, Marcus Williams, David Youmans, Jean Hammer, Peter Lowden, Steve McCarty, Melvin Myer, Rodney Howard Brown, Mike Pappas, Palm Springs Group, Brian King, ODL Securities, Andrew Harris from Jones and Jones, Steve Garhardt, Craig Garhardt, Michael Peros, Carmine Avino, and Margaret Petersen. d. Wright admitted to plaintiffs that Williams and Hales had brought

other victims to invest in PMI. CONTINUITY AND RELATEDNESS 187. The predicate acts described above are each related to the conduct of the

Enterprise and the objects of the conspiracy. 188. The predicate acts described above exhibit both open-ended and

closed-ended continuity. 189. The predicate acts exhibit closed-ended continuity in that they occur

regularly, they are high in number, they occur with frequency over an extended period of time and they involve multiple victims, of which the plaintiffs were only one pair. 190. The predicate acts also exhibit open-ended continuity, in that the fraud

scheme could be perpetrated indefinitely and has shown no sign of abating, with Hales

93

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 94 of 105

Desc Main

soliciting further investment from Bee just within one month of the filing of the State Court Action. 191. Because the time frame of the schemes is indefinite and has the potential

to continue for months and years, the pattern of racketeering activity has open-ended continuity. 192. Further, the recent amendment of the Oneiros filings with the state of Utah

evidence the intent to continue the scheme into the future at least with respect to FOREX trading. INJURY BY REASON OF CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b) AND (c), IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) 193. Each and every co-conspirator defendant herein agreed to commit, in

furtherance of the conspiracy, two or more predicate acts. 194. The commission of predicate acts in furtherance of the conspiracy caused

damage to the plaintiffs by reason of the respective violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), (b) and (c), as described above. 195. Each co-conspirator defendant is, therefore, jointly and severally liable to

the plaintiffs for all damages incurred by them and all relief available to the plaintiffs for the violations of each of those sections as set forth in more detail above. 196. Defendants violations have been the cause-in-fact and legal cause of

damages to plaintiffs in the sum of not less than $300,000.00, or such other and greater sum as may be proven at trial. 197. In addition, a reasonably foreseeable consequential damage to each of

the plaintiffs as the result of their financial devastation caused by the defendants is extreme emotional distress and mental anguish, for which plaintiffs are each entitled to 94

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 95 of 105

Desc Main

judgment in the sum of not less than $1,000,000.00, or such other and greater sum as may be proven at trial. 198. The plaintiffs are entitled to recover from the conspirator defendants,

jointly and severally, three times the amount of their damages plus pre-judgment interest, together with all attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). COUNT V (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY - AGAINST PMI, ONEIROS, WRIGHT, HUNTER, HALES) 199. 200. Bagley and Bee incorporate all previous allegations. The co-conspirator defendants, together with their co-conspirators the

Bentley Entities, Hales, Richardson, Williams, Hunter, PMI, Lucidity and Volition, purported to act as investment advisers for plaintiffs and therefore owed plaintiffs a fiduciary duty. 201. The foregoing facts demonstrate that the co-conspirator defendants each

breached such fiduciary duty. 202. One or more unlawful, overt acts were committed by each co-conspirator

defendant in furtherance of the object of the Conspiracy. 203. Such breaches are the cause-in fact and legal cause of damages to

plaintiffs in the sum of not less than $300,000.00, or such other and greater sum as may be proven at trial. 204. In addition, a reasonably foreseeable consequential damage to each of

the plaintiffs as the result of their financial devastation caused by the defendants is extreme emotional distress and mental anguish, for which plaintiffs are each entitled to

95

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 96 of 105

Desc Main

judgment in the sum of not less than $1,000,000.00, or such other and greater sum as may be proven at trial. 205. Plaintiffs are also entitled to an appropriate award of punitive damages

against each of the conspirator defendants as the proof may show. COUNT VI (CIVIL CONSPIRACY - AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS) 206. 207. Bagley and Bee incorporate all previous allegations. Each co-conspirator defendant entered into a combination of two or more

persons to accomplish the object of the Conspiracy as set forth above. 208. Each co-conspirator defendant reached a meeting of the minds on the

object of the Conspiracy and on one or more courses of action as described above. 209. One or more unlawful, overt acts were committed by each co-conspirator

defendant in furtherance of the object of the Conspiracy. 210. The unlawful, overt acts of the co-conspirators, in furtherance of the object

of the conspiracy, have been the cause-in-fact and legal cause of damages to plaintiffs in the sum of not less than $300,000.00, or such other and greater sum as may be proven at trial. 211. In addition, a reasonably foreseeable consequential damage to each of

the plaintiffs as the result of their financial devastation caused by the co-conspirator defendants is extreme emotional distress and mental anguish, for which plaintiffs are each entitled to judgment in the sum of not less than $1,000,000.00, or such other and greater sum as may be proven at trial. 212. Plaintiffs are also entitled to an appropriate award of punitive damages

against each of the co-conspirator defendants as the proof may show. 96

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 97 of 105

Desc Main

COUNT VII (CIVIL LIABILITY FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE UTAH UNIFORM SECURITIES ACT– UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-22 - AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS EXCEPT CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF UTAH, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, CYNTHIA AND KIMBERLY) 213. 214. Bagley and Bee incorporate all previous allegations. The named co-conspirator defendants, and each of them, offered or sold

securities to Bagley and Bee in violation of UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-1(2), -3(1), -7, -17(2), and/or a rule or order under UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-15, which requires the affirmative approval of sales literature before it is used, and/or a condition imposed under UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 61-1-10(4) or 11(7). 215. The named co-conspirator defendants, and each of them, are liable to

Bagley and Bee. 216. Bagley and Bee elect to recover the consideration paid for the securities,

together with interest at 12% per year from the date of payment, costs, and reasonable attorney fees. 217. Bagley and Bee hereby tender the return of such securities to the co-

conspirator defendants, and each of them. 218. In addition, because each of the violations of UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-1(2)

by each of the named co-conspirator defendants were reckless and intentional, Bagley and Bee are each entitled to three times the consideration paid for the securities, together with interest, costs, and attorney fees. 219. Each of the representations of material fact detailed above was false when

it was made, in that there was no viable software which virtually eliminated the risk of securities investment and which guaranteed profits of no less that 5% per month and

97

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 98 of 105

Desc Main

could make up to a 72% return on investment over three months. Moreover, all the misrepresentations made to cloak the conspirators with legitimacy were false in that none of the conspirators were legitimate business persons nor did any of the businesses operate legitimately, having all been funded with the proceeds of fraud. The conspirators had not complied with the securities laws and had no intention of complying. The conspirators had no intention of supporting charities. Although representing themselves as investment advisers, none of the individual defendants in fact were registered with the state of Utah as investment advisers. The representations about the nearness of PMI commencing its wonderful program were all false. The representations about compliance with the securities laws were false in that no registration statements were filed, no adequate disclosures made and, of course, misrepresentations and omissions of material fact were being made. 220. Numerous material omissions were also made in conjunction with the offer

and sale of securities to Bee and Bagley, including the failure to advise Bee and Bagley that the conspirators were defrauding them, that the High Yield Investment Program was a fraud scheme, that none of the conspirators had complied with the securities laws, that the idea of a trading program that could eliminate risk from market trading was a fantasy and not legitimate, that the investments were actually the highest risk investments which could be made, that they were unsuitable for plaintiffs' investment objectives, that the delays in implementation were the result of the true fact that no implementation would ever be made as represented, that no proprietary software in fact existed, that no legitimate licenses in fact existed, that Hales and Williams were operating numerous businesses and supporting their lifestyles through a pattern of fraud

98

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 99 of 105

Desc Main

schemes, that Wright was a real estate developer and not a computer programmer or securities expert, that the only "humanitarian" work that was going to occur was in the interest of the conspirators, that the Note Trading was part of a lulling scheme as were the assurances that the investments were secure and numerous others. 221. Plaintiffs are thus entitled to judgment against the named co-conspirator

defendants for defendants' making of any untrue statements of material fact and defendants' omission to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading with respect to is purchase of plaintiff's securities, pursuant to UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-22, for all damages caused thereby, including consequential damages, in the sum of not less than $300,000.00, or such other and greater sum as may be proven at trial, together with interest thereon from July 2, 2007 forward at the statutory rate of 12% per annum, together with all of plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses incurred herein. 222. Because the named co-conspirators’ conduct as pleaded was reckless or

intentional, plaintiff is entitled to have the judgment against plaintiff tripled in amount, pursuant to UTAH CODE ANN. § 61-1-22(2), resulting in a judgment against defendant and in favor of plaintiff in a total sum of not less than $900,000.00, or such other and greater sum as may be proven at trial, together with interest thereon from July 2, 2007 forward at the statutory rate of 12 % per annum, together with all of plaintiff's reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses incurred herein. 223. In addition, a reasonably foreseeable consequential damage to each of

the plaintiffs as the result of their financial devastation caused by the co-conspirator

99

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 100 of 105

Desc Main

defendants is extreme emotional distress and mental anguish, for which plaintiffs are each entitled to judgment in the sum of not less than $1,000,000.00, or such other and greater sum as may be proven at trial. COUNT VIII (ALTER EGO– AGAINST WRIGHT, MADSEN, ONEIROS, CYNTHIA, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY OF UTAH, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY MISSION OF SALT LAKE CITY, CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL) 224. 225. Bagley and Bee incorporate all previous allegations. PMI was formed to operate and did operate a high yield investment

program as part of a series of Ponzi schemes. 226. From its formation through its cessation of business, PMI was

undercapitalized. 227. Although PMI purported to be, at times, owned by Hunter, Burton,

D'Arezzo, Farr, Hites, Kingdon, Petersen, Stowe and/or Szaniszlo, and controlled by Hunter, in fact PMI was formed and existed in order for Wright to oversee and control the generation of funds to be paid to one or more of the Church of Scientology of Utah, the Church of Scientology Mission of Salt Lake City and the Church of Scientology International. 228. PMI failed to recognize the formalities of operating as a limited liability

company, with irregular shifting of memberships, additions and withdrawals of members, unclear management, operating entirely within the offices of Oneiros, sharing personnel, and a variety of other sham factors. 229. Plaintiffs believe that no legitimate distributions were made to members

and that any funds received by members were illegal repayments of capital.

100

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 101 of 105

Desc Main

230.

Plaintiffs believe that all material funds of PMI were largely siphoned off to

Wright and Oneiros, who were in actual control of PMI, and in turn siphoned in part to Cynthia, Madsen, Church of Scientology of Utah, Church of Scientology Mission of Salt Lake City, Church of Scientology. 231. Despite purporting to have multiple members, non-members Wright and

Oneiros provided the only true functional management of PMI. 232. PMI has an absence of adequate records to explain where the large pools

of capital that purported to be infused into it and the funds generated from its high yield investment program actually went. In fact, it is believed that a part of PMI’s operations were conduction through other entities which collected funds from victims and paid some or all of those funds to PMI directly or indirectly in such a fashion as to scrub, launder or conceal the sources and uses of funds. 233. PMI never operated as a legitimate business and plaintiffs believe that

PMI always operated as a facade for Wright, Madsen, Oneiros, Cynthia, Church of Scientology of Utah, Church of Scientology Mission of Salt Lake City and Church of Scientology International. 234. The misuse of PMI’s purported limited liability existence to further the

wishes of the persons who controlled it operated and operates to promote injustice and fraud. 235. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaration that PMI was and is an alter ego of,

at a minimum, and possibly more, Wright, Madsen, Oneiros, Cynthia, the Church of Scientology of Utah, the Church of Scientology Mission of Salt Lake City and the

101

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 102 of 105

Desc Main

Church of Scientology International and that each of those persons is fully liable for all of the debt of PMI, including all sums owing to plaintiffs. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs demand judgment in their favor, and against defendants, jointly and severally as applicable, as follows: A. For a determination of the debt owed to Bee and Bagley by Hunter and

Kimberly and a determination that such debt is non-dischargeable; B. For a determination that the Debtors, Hunter and Kimberly, should be

denied a discharge; C. For such relief against each defendant as the particular proof may show

entitlement, legally, equitably, by statute or otherwise, including without limitations all forms and nature of damages; D. E. F. For trebling as may be allowed; For punitive damages as may be allowed; For orders of relief of rescission, alter ego, replevin, restitution,

receivership, injunction or otherwise and for the avoidance and set aside of transfers and orders of turnover to the debtors’ estate of the assets transferred and of each such alter ego as needed to satisfy the estate’s creditors; G. For all of plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys fees, costs and expenses, as may

be allowed at law, in equity, by contract, statute, rule, inherent power of the Court or otherwise, both before and after judgment; and H. For all such other and further relief to which the proof at trial may show

entitlement or which the Court otherwise deems just, equitable and proper in the premises.

102

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 103 of 105

Desc Main

DATED this 26th day of April, 2013. PETERS š SCOFIELD A Professional Corporation

/s/ David W. Scofield DAVID W. SCOFIELD Attorneys for Plaintiffs

103

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 104 of 105

Desc Main

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 26th day of April, 2013, the foregoing FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT TO DENY DISCHARGE UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 727, TO DETERMINE NONDISCHARGEABILITY PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 523 AND FURTHER RELIEF was electronically filed with the Court to be served via the Court's ECF/CM system upon the following: Cameron Hancock: chancock@kmclaw.com Danny C. Kelly: dckelly@stoel.com Michael R. Lofgran: atalie@huntsmanlofgran.com Lyle T. Millham: lyle.millham@gmail.com Shawn T. Richards: srichards@kmclaw.com Stuart H. Schultz: sschultz@strongandhanni.com and by e-mail to the following attorneys not yet appearing of record for the parties they represent as indicated: Steven C. Russell: stever808@msn.com for Greg Kingdon Richard C. Terry: richard@tjblawyers.com for Michael J. Wright Douglas J. Payne: dpayne@fabianlaw.com for Gary E. Jubber, Tr. and by United States mail, first class postage prepaid, to: Sandor Szaniszlo 10290 Tujunga Canyon Boulevard, #305 Tujunga, CA 91042 Lucidty Management, LLC c/o Reg. Agent Benjamin J. Davis 9060 N. Lakeshore Drive Lakepoint, UT 84070 George Hites 5945 Bruce Drive Pleasanton, CA 94588 Tom Burton 5350 Paseo Rio Santa Barbara, CA 93111 Alan S. Farr 682 East 4129 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84107

104

Case 12-02544

Doc 39

Filed 04/26/13 Entered 04/26/13 16:49:33 Document Page 105 of 105

Desc Main

James D' Arezzo 7645 Rocky Mountain View Rd. Tujunga, CA91042 Cynthia L. Wright 1335 Colonial Circle Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Gregory B. Madsen 2382 Pauline Way West Jordan, UT 84088 Church of Scientology Mission of Salt Lake City c/o Its Registered Agent Cynthia Wright 1335 South Colonial Circle Salt Lake City, Utah 84108 Volition Trading Company, LLC c/o Its Registered Agent, Christopher D. Hales #17419-081 FCI Safford Federal Correctional Institution P.O. Box 9000, Safford, AZ 85548 Oneiros Technologies L.C. c/o its Member Michael J. Wright 1335 South Colonial Circle Salt Lake City Utah 84108 Church of Scientology of Utah c/o Its Registered Agent Wendy L. Lauritzen 1931 South 1100 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84106

/s/ David W. Scofield DAVID W. SCOFIELD

105

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful