Affidavit of Bryan Christopher Moon Prepared for the U.S. Treasury Department's Office of Inspector General ~ Tax Administration May 25, 2015 Re: Case Number 54-1504-0002-C ‘Thuy-Duyen Thi Huynh Tax Evasion Witness Tampering and Intimidation| BRYAN CHRISTOPHER MOON, have prepared this affidavit in response to a phone call | received on May 19, 2015, from Special Agent Michelle Uthe of the U.S Treasury Department's Office of Inspector General - Tax Division. Special Agent Uthe provided me with the following case number: 54-1504-0002-C. I state as follows: 1. 1am prepared to cooperate with any criminal and/or civil investigation and prosecution of Thuy- Duyen Thi Huynh, Michael C. O’Young and Early M. Hawkins. 2. Ihave personal knowledge of all the facts stated herein. The following facts are based on my personal knowledge and understanding of the facts. if called as a witness, | could and would competently testify to these facts under oath. 3. | witnessed Thuy-Duyen Thi Huynh (SS: ***-**-4008) brag that she intentionally violated federal and state income tax laws. | have seen (and had in my possession) HUYNH's tax returns from 2006-2010 that show a combined 5-year reported income of approximately $65,000. 4, Based upon my personal knowledge and Huynh’s financial records, | estimate that HUYNH deliberately underreported her in han. or a combined $500,000 for the years 2006-2010. 5. InJanuary 2012, HUYNH requested | assist her in maintaining her long running tax evasion scheme by lying to the Internal Revenue Service regarding the source of the $20,000 down payment she made on a brand new Lexus. | promptly refused her request. 6. Onor around March 3, 2012, | reported HUYNH's long running tax evasion scheme to the Internal Revenue Service by fling a Form 3048a tax evasion referral along with providing overwhelming evidence of HUYNH’ criminal conduct. 7. Inresponse to my refusal to assist HUYNH in defrauding the US government and for reporting her long running tax evasion scheme, HUYNH launched an all-out campaign to harass and terrorize me. HUYNH’s campaign of terror has lasted for the three years and had included harassing myself and my friends and colleagues, stalking me, creating defamatory pages about me, efforts to destroy my career and business relationships, and worst of all — inciting violence against me. Its clear it was HUYNH’s intention to have me maimed or killed in retaliation for reporting her long running tax evasion scheme. | had to flee the state of California out of fear for my life. 8. Thuy Huynh did not act alone in her campaign of terror. HUYNH’ co-conspirators were her former attorneys, Michael C. Young and Early M. Hawkins. O"YOUNG and HAWKINS both abused their positions, abused the j im, violated their oaths, and broke the law in their efforts to punish me for reporting HUYNH’s federal and state crimes.10. ii 12, 23. 14, 15. 16. v7. 18, On the weekend of December 1, 2012, after a nearly a year of being terrorized by HUYNH and O'YOUNG, | was pushed to the brink of suicide. if not for the intervention of David L. White, | would likely not be alive now. ‘The rest of this affidavit thoroughly details the above statements. became romantically involved with HUYNH in August 2010 after having known her for many years. At the time HUYNH was working as a “bikini bartender” at the Pump Room in Orange and Maxx’s Sports Bar in Huntington Beach. HUYNH would occasionally work as a model and gogo dancer. | would later learn that HUYNH would sometimes work as a paid escort to high paying clientele. Shortly thereafter, HUYNH flew to Texas to see me for three days. While there, she persuaded ‘me to move in with her in California and even suggested we get married. In September 2010, HUYNH sent me a message on Facebook bragging that she had made $520 that day in tips at work. HUYNH went on to brag that she never reports any of her tip income on her tax returns. This was the first time | became aware of the possibility HUYNH underreported her income. it was not until after we started living together that I learned she was making over {$120,000 a year and was reporting less than $15,000. Huynh told me she often made between $800 and $1,000 2 day in tips and never made less than $500. On average she worked 4-5 days a week ‘At HUYNH's request, | moved from Texas to California to live with her on September 26, 2010. (On February 2, 2011, HUYNH sent me an email with a picture of her 2010 W-2 attached, with the message: “Look how much bunny made!”. The W-2 reflected a gross income of $14,816; a social security deduction of $918.59; a federal income tax deduction of $274.38; and a Medicare of deduction of $214.83, In early April 2011, HUYNH used my laptop to prepare her 2010 tax returns. HUYNH used her previous year tax returns prepared by Orachorn Singleton as a guide. A completed version was still on my laptop when I contacted the IRS in February 2012. The total income HUYNH reported to the IRS for 2010 was $14,816. While HUYNH was preparing her 2010 tax return, | had an opportunity to view and photocopy her tax returns from previous years (2006-2009). | noted that in 2009 HUYNH reported $13,900 to the IRS as her total income. | also noted that in other years HUYNH never reported more than $13,000 a year in total income. Since we were planning to marry in less than a month, | made a copy of all of her tax returns for my records as part of our expected marital financial planning efforts. HUYNH and | were married on May 18, 2011. Shortly thereafter, | discovered HUYNH had been offering to exchange sex-for-money with some of her wealthier contacts. | also found out she19. 20. 21. 22. 23, was seeking with work with various escort agencies in the Newport Beach area. Shortly thereafter we separated. | later learned HUYNH was trying to pressure other young women into prostitution. In June 2011, HUYNH asked for my help in disputing unauthorized charges on both her Citibank credit card and American Express card and gave me the login information for both accounts. This gave me the opportunity to see just how much she spent and paid on both accounts. | noticed the previous month she had paid over $5,000 towards her Citibank card which astonished me. This lead to me printing out the previous 12 months of statements for both accounts. After totaling up her payments for both cards over the previous 12 months, | saw that she had paid over $35,000 to Citibank and over $25,000 to American Express for a total of $60,000. | then added in her yearly rent payments of $19,000. | then looked at her bank statements and ‘saw that she had spent more than $25,000 through her bank account in the previous 12 months. AlLof this meant that HUYNH had spent more than $100,000 the previous year despite reporting an income of less than $15,000. This was the first time | realized the extent that HUYNH was deliberately underreporting her income to the IRS. On of around September 19, 2011, | accompanied HUYNH to a doctor's visit after she told me she had cancer. | was surprised when her doctor when her doctor said HUYNH did not have cancer and only needed to have her thyroid removed. Upon leaving the doctor's office HUYNH asked me to not tell anyone she did not have cancer. HUYNH promptly began posting on social ‘media that she had cancer. Shortly thereafter she had a “F*ck Cancer” party at her work and encouraged all of her regular customers to attend, Later that day HUYNH texted me that she had made $1,800 that day in tips and said that she should fake cancer more often. L was hock HUYNH li havin rit ople out of money. On or around January 10, 2012, | visited Huynh at her work and she asked me to give her $15,000-20,000 for a down payment on a new Lexus. | declined due to our deteriorating relationship. She then told m stitution. She then asked me if would be willing to lie on her behatfin the event she were ever audited by the IRS and questioned about the source of funds. | told her that | would not assist her tax evasion. This lead to an argument and HUYNH telling me she never wanted to speak with me ever again. | have not spoken to HUYNH since that day. | later learned that a week later she bought a brand new Lexus with a $20,000 down payment. On or around February 12, 2012, HUYNH created a page on Facebook titled “Chris Moon FB ‘Scam Alert”. HUYNH created the page for the purpose of harassing and defaming me. She falsely accused me of committing multiple financial crimes. HUYNH took this action in retaliation for ‘my refusal to assist her in defrauding the government. HUYNH sent the link to many of her friends and “fans” and asked them to leave derogatory comments about me. HUYNH then sent the link to many of my friends in order to humiliate me. | was contacted by a friend to alert me that one of HUYNH’ friends offered to smash my head in with a brick and HUYNH responded24, 25. 26. 27. 28. 29, 30. that she would get him my address. It was clear that HUYNH was openly advocating that | be murdered. | contacted James P. Witkofsky, a municipal court judge who was a mutual friend of HUYNH. He told me that HUYNH was committing a crime and encouraged me to contact the police if | feit my life was in danger. Witkofsky told me he contacted HUYNH and informed her that she could face criminal charges and be sued civilly for her criminal behavior. Witkofsky informed me that he contacted Facebook and had them take the page down. After it became clear that HUYNH intended to have me maimed or killed, | did not leave my apartment for three days. On February 15, 2012, | went to the Irvine Police Department and requested a criminal complaint be made against HUYNH for harassment, stalking, and terroristic threatening. Officer Blake Reutershan took the report and noted that | seemed terrified and looked “frazzled”. He noted that I had large chunks of hair missing due to the intense stress | was under after learning HUYNH was trying to have me killed. Officer Reutershan told me he ‘would be forwarding the report to detectives. That same week | was served with divorce papers filed by attorney Damian Fragoso on behalf of HUYNH. | contacted Fragoso and told him his client, HUYNH, was stalking and harassing me and openly advocating that I be killed. | asked him to counsel his client and get her to stop. Shockingly, Fragoso shrugged me off. | sought legal advice from James Witkfosky regarding the divorce. He informed me that | could be liable for HUYNH's long running scheme to defraud the government. He encouraged me to seek an “innocent spousal exemption” with the IRS. On or around February 23, 2022, | contacted Special Agent Maridehl Tablac (Mather), a criminal investigator with the IRS. I had known Special Agent Tablac through mutual friends on social media. | told Special Agent Tablac of the det luding how HUYNH was making over {$120,000 a year and reporting less than $15,000. Special Agent Tablac told me that HUYNH's conduct was a federal crime and would be of interest to the IRS. Special Agent Tablac gave me the phone number of an IRS office in Orange County. On or around February 24, 2012, | contacted Special Agent Kenneth Hines, a criminal investigator with the IRS. | had previously connected with Special Agent Hines on social media. | left a voicemail for Special Agent Hines explaining | had information regarding HUYNH’s long running tax evasion scheme. Special Agent Hines called me back and asked for HUYNH's relevant information and said he would forward it along. He then suggested | complete a Form 3949a tax evasion referral and provide as much information and evidence as possible. On or around February 24, 2012, | called the number given to me by Special Agent Tablac and | spoke to an investigator | believe was named David Gordon. | told him everything regarding HUYNH’s long running tax evasion scheme and he agreed that it sounded like HUYNH was31, 32. 33, 34, 35. 36. 37. 28, breaking federal law. Gordon asked me to complete a Form 3949a and said that he would refer it toa criminal investigator. | completed the Form 3949a and then | compiled HUYNH's bank records, credit card records, tax returns, and online messages of her bragging that she evades reporting her full income. On or around March 3, 2012, | mailed all of this information to the address Agent Gordon provided me. On or around March 1, 2012, | notified attorney Damian Fragoso that | was reporting his HUYNH's criminal behavior to the Internal Revenue Service. (On May 3, 2012, | was served with a copy of a lawsuit filed by HUYNH (Case# 30-2012- (00564239-CU-BC-CIC). It was filed just 6 weeks after | informed HUYNH’s attorney that | had reported her criminal conduct. HUYNH claimed she had lent me $56,000 in 2010 despite reporting less than $15,000 to the IRS. She also accused me of Fraud and intentional infliction of Emotional Distress. The lawsuit was brought without probable cause and without supporting evidence and was allowed to continue for over 18 months until it was terminated in my favor after HUYNh refused to comply with multiple court orders — further proof that HUYNH will not hesitate to thumb her nose the law. Itis clear that HUYNH filed the lawsuit solely to retaliate against me for reporting her criminal conduct. The following day | received a phone call from attorney Michael C. O’Young, the attorney representing HUYNH in the frivolous lawsuit, and he demanded that | immediately agree to pay his client $150,000. He said if| refused that he would subject me to expensive litigation and that he and HUYNH would continue to humiliate me. itis clear that "YOUNG was abusing his position and the judicial system simply to EXTORT me. | told O'YOUNG that | would not give in to his extortion or threats and that | would be hiring a lawyer. Shortly after this call retained attorney Mark T. Risner. | firmly believe that O’YOUNG was HUYNH’s co-conspirator in reporting a federal crime and should be charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 1512. At the time, O'YOUNG was 28 years old and had only been practicing law for a few years when he had been retained by HUYNH. It is my belief that O'YOUNG chose to violate his professional oath and break the law in order to curry favor with HUYNH ~ a Playboy/lingerie/bikini model and escort, During his entire involvement with the lawsuit, O' YOUNG refused to provide any evidence to back up the allegations he was making against me in court. The reason for O’YOUNG’s refusal39, In addition to alleging Breach of Contract and Intentional infliction of Emotional Distress, O'YOUNG also accused me of Fraud. Much like his other allegations, O'YOUNG refused to provide any evidence to back up his claim, O'YOUNG knew I was a finance professional and that any allegation of fraud could destroy my career, O"YOUNG’s sole reason for accusing me of fraud was to punish me for reporting HUYNH’s criminal conduct to federal authorities. 40. After filing the lawsuit, HUYNH stepped up her campaign to terrorize and harass me. She regularly posted dozens of defamatory statements on her social media pages including that | was stalking her and trying to cause her harm (even though she never reported any of this to law enforcement). Because she was a model, HUYNH has a large “fan” base of over 10,000 fans. twas clear that she still trying to incite violence against. | knew that as long as HUYNH was obsessed with me and obsessed with causing me harm that my life was in danger. On July 2, 2012, | fled the state of California for a small town in the middle of East Texas, where | decided | would remain until | knew my life was no longer in danger from HUYNH, 41. During written discovery HUYNH had claimed that she suffered from depression, insomnia, loss of appetite, etc. to support her claim of Emotional Distress. Her claims were contradicted by more than 300 online postings showing her eating, partying, and generally have a good time. Further proof that HUYNH will not hesitate to lie under oath. 0’ YOUNG was confronted with this overwhelming evidence of his client’s dishonesty and rather than uphold his oath and obey the law, O'YOUNG chose to simply ignore his client’s perjury. O'YOUNG chose to violate his professional oath and break the law by continuing to proceed with perjured testimony. 42, In August 2012, | prepared a 96-page summary of bank statements, receipts, and emails that showed that not only were HUYNH’ allegation false, but that | was continually giving her money ‘and buying her gifts in an attempt to keep HUYNH from carrying out her threat to continue being a prostitute. O-VOUNG was presented with this evidence and simply ignored itand hi i 43. In November 2012, | sought out Dallas attorney and businessman David L. White, who | had known since 2007. | sought his advice on how to deal with HUYNH and O'YOUNG’s campaign to harass me, including how to bring their retaliatory and frivolous lawsuit to an end. | also asked for his help in getting the IRS to investigate HUYNH for her tax crimes and retaliation. 44, On the weekend of December 1, 2012, | was distraught that HUYNH was still Intent on terrorizing me and that O'YOUNG was willing to break the law in order to continue the retaliatory lawsuit and | came very close to suicide. | contacted many of my friends to say goodbye and made several calls to a suicide hotline. If not for the direct intervention of White, | would likely not be alive today. White offered to help me fight the retaliatory frivolous lawsuit and to bring HUYNH's criminal conduct to the attention of law enforcement. 45, On January 4, 2013, | attended my deposition in California at the request of O'YOUNG. Within 1 hour after the deposition began it became clear that the testimony ! was presenting destroyed46. 47, 48, 49, 50. 51 his client's credibility and his case. O'YOUNG immediately terminated the deposition and ordered the court reporter to stop recording. Further proof O’'YOUNG was willing to go to great lengths to prevent the truth from getting on the record. (On January 13, 2013, | received a phone call from Special Agent Rosanne Oddo, a criminal investigator with the IRS. She asked me if | had any more information regarding HUYNH’s long. running tax evasion scheme. | told Special Agent Oddo about the lawsuit and that O'YOUNG was claiming HUYNH gave me $40,000 in cash. Oddo remarked that O'YOUNG's action were foolish and that he was implicating his own client in a serious federal crime. Special Agent Oddo asked ‘me to contact her if| learned any more information regarding HUYNH's criminal conduct. On April 15-16, 2013, | attended the deposition of HUYNH at the office of attorney Mark T. Risner. On the first day of the deposition | witnessed HUYNH admit to making many of the defamatory posts she made about me. She admitted to contacting my friends and colleagues in an effort to destroy my career and relationships. During a break in the deposition, RISNER and WHITE held a “meet and confer” with O’'YOUNG in which they reminded him again that the lawsuit was frivolous and that he did not have any evidence to support his case. | was in the hallway outside the conference room and could hear the entire conversation. O'YOUNG admitted he had no evidence and was only pursuing the ‘case to exhaust me financially. | was shocked that he would so brazenly admit to violating his professional oath. Then | heard O'Young refer to me asa “lunatic” | went back inside the conference room for the deposition to resume. As I was taking my seat, | told RISNER | thought O’YOUNG was incompetent. O'YOUNG jumped to his feet and rushed ‘towards me with his laptop raised over his head and he threw it at my head. | narrowly avoided it by moving out of the way and the laptop crashed with enough force to damage the wall behind me, O'YOUNG yelled “I am going to kick you're a**!!” and had to be restrained by WHITE and in the process O'YOUNG injured WHITE’s wrist —all the while was screaming threats at me, RISNER then called 911 and requested the police to come. O’YOUNG realized the police were in route and he quickly fled the scene to avoid arrest. As O’'YOUNG was fleeing the crime scene he ordered HUYNH to flee with him and turned towards all of us in the room and yelled “F*CK YOU!” and extended his middle finger. The following day the deposition resumed. | witnessed HUYNH admit under oath that she did not report a significant amount of her income on her state and federal income tax returns. The transcripts of the deposition are available. Shortly after his violent rampage at HUYNH's deposition, O’'YOUNG recused himself from representing HUYNH any further in an attempt to avoid being sanctioned by the Court for his violent behavior. Attorney EARLY M. HAWKINS then began representing HUYNH.52. The Court later sanctioned 0" YOUNG $2,437.56 for his violent rampage during HUYNH’s deposition. It is my belief that O’YOUNG, continuing his pattern of dishonesty and unethical conduct, failed to report the sanction to the State Bar as is required by B.P.C Section 6068(0) 53, At the same hearing, the Court ordered HUYNH to turn over the evidence she previously claimed under oath to have. HUYNH defied the Court's order and did not turn over any of this supposed evidence. Simply for the reason that it did not exist despite her claims under oath. Her defiance of multiple court orders would later lead to her lawsuit being terminated in my favor. 54, On June 4, 2013, WHITE contacted me to inform me that he had just received a threatening phone call from HAWKINS. HAWKINS threatened WHITE with retaliation if he continued to report HUYNH’s criminal behavior. WHITE informed HAWKINS he would report his attempted WITNESS INTIMIDATION to law enforcement. 55. After being threatened with retaliation by HAWKINS, White contacted Special Agent Anthony Romero. White gave Special Agent Romero all of the details of HUYNH’s long running tax evasion scheme, including the fact that HUYNH admitted under oath at her deposition to not reporting a significant amount of her income. Special Agent Romero requested White to follow ‘up with an email, which White promptly did and include all the information that Special Agent Romero would need to subpoena the transcripts from HUYNH’s deposition. 56. On July 5, 2013, | received a phone call from Detective Melissa Partida with the Irvine Police Department informing me that HUYNH was now accusing me of theft. WHITE and I called Det. Partida and informed her of all the details - that | had reported HUYNH to the IRS for tax evasion and that HUYNH was engaging in a campaign of retaliation that included inciting others to maim. or kill me. WHITE also informed Det. Partida that HUYNH was my ex-wife and that HUYNH had sued me in retaliation for reporting her tax crimes. Detective Partida told us she was aware of none of these facts because HUYNH had failed to mention we were married or that there was a lawsuit. Detective Partida finished the call by telling me she would confront HUYNH about her ‘omissions, Later Det. Partida would inform me the case was closed because she felt HUYNH was dishonest. 57. In early August 2013, James P. Witfosky informed me that HUYNH was posting on her social media accounts that she was diagnosed with Lupus ~a disease with no known cure ~ and that she was soliciting money for her treatment at True North Medical Center in the Bay Area. After collecting money from people, HUYNH spent two weeks at the center and was miraculously cured of lupus. 58. Itis Li ft ious “diagnosis” with cancer, that this was anoth scheme of HUYNH’s to scam people out of money. 59. On or about August 5, 2013, David White informed me that in retaliation for reporting HUYNH's criminal behavior, HUYNH had filed a frivolous State Bar complaint against White with the Texas State Bar. In her complaint, HUYNH made many defamatory statements about White. The TexasState Bar summarily dismissed HUYNH’s complaint and took no action against White. This is further proof that HUYNH will retaliate against any witness that reports her criminal behavior. 60. On October 9, 2013, after HUYNH repeatedly refused to obey multiple Court orders, the Court terminated her frivolous lawsuit and declared me the prevailing party. At this hearing, HAWKINS admitted he could not turn over evidence because it could implicate HUYNH in a crime. 61. In January 2014, James P. Witkfosky informed me that he was upset with HUYNH's criminal conduct and with her scamming people out of money with claims of cancer and lupus. He told me he wished to make his own referral to the IRS and felt that his status as a Judge would give him more clout. | provided him with the names and contact information for several IRS criminal investigators, Witkfosky later informed me that he had made his own criminal referral of HUYNH to the IRS and the Orange County District Attorney's Office. Unfortunately, Witkfosky passed away shortly after this 62. The last several years | have suffered and continue to suffer a great deal because of the criminal conduct of Thuy Huynh, Michael C. O’Young, and Early M. Hawkins. Due to the efforts of HUYNH, O'YOUNG, and HAWKINS to punish me for doing nothing more than my civic duty to report HUYNH’s criminal behavior, | have suffered from depression and experienced suicidal thoughts. | have suffered physically. | have been harassed, stalked, and threatened with violence. My friends and colleagues have been harassed and threatened. | have lost business ‘opportunities and my career has suffered. All of this continues to the present day because the Internal Revenue Service failed to take action when presented with overwhelming evidence of HUYNH's guilt, 63. Lrequest that the Internal Revenue Service investigate THUY HUYNH for tax evasion. 64, Lrequest that the DOJ/FBI investigate THUY HUYNH, MICHAEL O’YOUNG and EARLY HAWKINS. for witness tampering and intimidation of myself and David L. White 65.1 .S. Attorney's Office consider bringing criminal, inst THUY. HUYNH, MICHAEL O’YOUNG and EARLY HAWKINS. 66. | am willing and prepared to cooperate with any investigation and prosecution of THUY HUYNH, MICHAEL O'YOUNG, and EARLY HAWKINS. | declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the forgoingis true and correct Executed on May 25, 2015 Sqn Chahphs Meer BRYAN CHRISTOPHER MOONExhibit A Thuy Huynh would often brag that she was underreporting her income — an indication that her tax evasion was deliberate. This is a screen shot of a message she sent Bryan Christopher Moon on Facebook bragging that she evades income taxes.Thuy Li | think the phone is fucked now!!!! anyway, today turned out to be quite busy despite the slow lunch hour. | made $540 in tips and gave $20 to my bar back - go home with $520 no tax I know how much you love the no tax part.. | definitely don't claim that shit.Exhibit B In 2008, Thuy Huynh was sued in California Superior Court of Oran 2008-001 13957) for embezzlement and account ze County (Case No. 30- 1 fraud, = i 313.000,«i e : e 1 |) RICK BLAKE, State Bar No.81452 | LAW OFFICES OF RICK A. BLAKE 2107 N. Broadway, Suite 106 4 | SamtAns Califomia 92706 FILED Tel: (714) 667-7171 = | Fax: (714) 667-0477 sere GoarY or nance ry] canta STE CeNTER Attomey for Defendant and Cross-Complainant s| DEC 09 2008 AA CARON, Ca Coun 6 | wee | Cae | 8 | SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA i FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE - CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER 9 10 | THE LOUNGE NETWORK II CORP. a | Calfomia corporation, SUSAN THANE 11 || NGOC,LE, and HAI VAN NGUYEN: Case No. 30-2008 00113957 ASSIGNED TO THE HONORABLE, JAMES J. DI CESARE 2 Plaintiffs | DEPARTMENT: C18 B vs. | CROSS-COMPLAINT for 14 | THUY HUYNH, and DOES 1 to 10, i 1, Breach of Contract 1s Defendants 2. Fraud \ 3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 16 jj 4. Declaratory Relief THUY HUYNH 5. Accounting it Slander ind Overtime Claim I Cross-Complainant, . Wages I vs, TONY HAI NGUYEN, an individual; 20 || SUSAN THANH NGOC LE aka SUSAN NGUYEN, an individual; THE LOUNGE 21 | NETWORK III, CORP. a California corporation and ROES I through 5, 22 i Cross-Defendants. 23 || 2 | | Cross-Complainant alleges: 25 jj | GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 26 | al 1. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Cross- | Defendant, Tony Hai Neuyen an individual, hereinafter referred to as Nguyen is and 28 | all times relevant hereto was a resident of the County of Orange, State of ‘CROSSCOMPLANT15 | 20 |) ai} California, Nguyen claims to be an owner of Network. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Cross- Defendant, Susan Thanh Ngoc Le who is also know as Susan Nguyen, an individual, hereinafter referred to as Le is. and at all times relevant hereto was a resident of the County of Orange, State of California, Le claims to be an owner of Network. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Cross- Defendant, The Lounge Network Il, Corp. a California Corporation herein referred to as Network, is a California Corporation duly formed and existing with a principal place of business in the County of Orange, State of California and does and at all times relevant hereto did business as The Lounge located at 11951 Beach Blvd., Suite H, I and J, Stanton, California, hereinafter referred to as the business. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Nguyen and Le are husband and wife. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Nguyen and Le each hold or claim to hold an ownership interest in and exercise control of Network. Cross-Complainant is ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Cross- Defendants sued as ROES | through 10, inclusive and therefore sues these Cross- Defendants by such fictitious names. Cross-Complainant will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of the fictiously named Cross-Defendants is indebted to Cross-Complainant or in some way responsible for the acts and occurrences as herein alleged and that Cross- Complainant has rights against the fictiously named Cross-Defendants arising from such indebtedness and/or action or inaction on their part. Atall time herein mentioned Cross-Complainant is informed and believes that each of the Cross-Defendants was the agent, servant and/or employee of their Co-Cross- (CROSS COMPLAINT | | { | \ 1 | I |13 | 4 1s || tél 7 18 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 | 26 ny 28 | 10. u 12. 1B. 14, 15. Defendants in some manner and were each responsible for the events hereinafter ‘mentioned and were acting within the scope of their authority as such agent, servant ‘or employee and with the permission, consent and/or ratification of their Co-Cross- Defendants, On or about early 2007, Nguyen approached Cross-Complainant with regard to investing in the business. ‘Nguyen informed Cross-Complainant, that Cross-Complainant could acquire a 25% ‘ownership in said business for the sum of $80,000.00, which would be paid $40,000.00 at the time Cross-Complainant acquired her 25% ownership of said business and the balance of $40,000.00 from 50% of her profits as earned from the business until paid. She would receive the other 50% of profits and following full payment would then receive 100% of her profits Neuyen further explained that Cross-Complainant would operate the business on a day to day basis and that Nguyen would handle business start up and participate in the overall management of the business. The corporation would operate pursuant to corporate formalities and as a distinct business. Based upon the above, Cross-Complainant and Nguyen entered into an oral ‘agreement that incorporated such terms and further provided that she and Nguyen ‘would be the sole shareholders with Cross-Complainant owning 25% of the corporation and Nguyen owning 75% of the corporation. twas further orally agreed that Cross-Complainant would be paid an hourly wage for her work at the business in addition to the profits she would receive. These wages would be deducted from business income before calculating profit. Profits ‘would be paid out on a monthly basis. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION ‘Breach of Contract As 1ss-Defend: 08 Cross-Complainant realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 as though set forth herein in ‘CROSS-COMPLAINT13 | 4 is | 16} a 18 | 19 20 aj 2 |) 2 | 24] 2s | 6 al 28 18, 19. 20. 2. full Cross-Complainant has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required ‘on her part to be performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the oral contract until such time she was excluded from the business by Cross-Defendant, Nguyen. Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendant, Nguyen did undertake start up efforts for the business, however, Cross-Complainant was required to do significantly more work in connection therewith than had been agreed between the parties. By July of 2007 the business was open and operating and thereafter Cross- ‘Complainant operated and managed the business by herself, She would see Nguyen approximately once each three or four months. On or about late summer of 2007 through spring 2008, Nguyen breached the contract by retaining the corporate business bank account with his name as a signator only, by selling additional shares of the corporation to Yoe Yoe Tang, by not participating in the business operation or management, by taking stock in trade from the business and diverting it to other uses for Nguyen’s purposes to the exclusion of Cross-Complainant and upon complaint of such breaches by Cross- Complainant to Nguyen, Nguyen then excluding her from and refusing admittance or access to the business by Cross-Complainant. Asa result of Cross-Defendant, Nguyen’s breach of the contract Cross- ‘Complainant has been damaged in the sum of $80,000.00 representing her payment for the business plus her share of profits from the business in an amount which is unknown. When Cross-Complainant determines the profits to which she is entitled the complaint will be amended to reflect such amount. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Fraud ndant ind ROES 1 thro 5, Cross-Complainant realleges paragraphs } through 20 as though set forth herein in full CROSS-COMPLAINT14 | 16 7 18 | 19 | 20 2 2 4 25 | 26 | al 8 22, 23. In early 2007 Nguyen made representations to Cross-Complainant that Cross- Complainant could acquire 25% ownership in the corporation forthe sum of $80,000.00 to be paid $40,000.00 at that time and $40,000.00 from 50% of her profits until paid; the other 50% of profits on her interest would be paid to her; that he and she would be the sole shareholders ofthe corporation; that she would operate the business on a day to day basis and he would undertake all start up efforts and do overall management of the business; the business would be operated as an independent corporation with he and she as owners; she would have free access to business books and records and would be entitled to sign business checks. | The representations made by the Cross-Defendant were, infact, false, The true facts ‘were that while Cross-Complainant was told that she owns 25% of the business she | has never seen any documentation thereof. Cross-Complainant understands that | shares of the corporation were issued to Le not to Nguyen and that subsequently an additional 12% of the corporation was sold to Yoe Yoe Tang. Nguyen apparently could not hold title tothe corporate shares, due either to a record of disqualifying rests or credit problems. Cross-Complainant did not and has not received any profits from the business. Nguyen did not do all start up efforts as Cross- Complainant was required to participate in and perform startup efforts in order to get the business going as Nguyen claimed he wes occupied in other matters. ‘Neuyen did not participate in the management or operation of the business, but once every three or four months, that Nguyen took assets of the business for his own personal use tothe exclusion and without knowledge of Cross-Complainant, “That Cross-Complainant has not been able to examine the books and records ofthe business nor had any access to the business bank accounts. When Cross-Defendant made these representations he knew them to false and made these representations with the intention to deceive and defraud Cross-Complainant | and to induce Cross-Complainant to act in reliance on these representations in the | ‘manner hereinafter alleged or with the expectation Cross-Complainant would so | { | ‘CROSS. COMPLAINTs 24. 25. 26. act. | ‘The Cross-Complainant at the time these representations were made by the Cross- Defendant and at the time the Cross-Complainant took the actions herein alleged ‘was ignorant of the falsity of Cross-Defendant’s representations and believed them to be true, In reliance on these representations the Cross-Complainant was induce to and did invest $40,000.00 of her money at the outset of the venture and expended significant time, labor and effort in the start up and operation of the business with ‘an expectation that she would be receiving profits and ownership interest in the business. Had the Cross-Complainant known the actual facts she would not have taken such action. The Cross-Complainant’s reliance on Cross-Defendant's representations was justified because Nguyen appeared to be a successful business ‘man, whom she had known for sometime. Nguyen indicated to her that she could make significant money by working at a business that they would both own and that her payment of money was for ownership of 25% of the stock in a corporation in which he would hold the other 75%, j As further justification for Cross-Complainant’s belief in the statements as made by Nauyen, Cross-Defendant Le who is known to Cross-Complainant, supported ‘Nguyen’s representation and confirmed that this was a good opportunity for her to make money and that Cross-Defendant, Nguyen would make a good business partner. Le had no facts upon which to base such statements and, in fact, took ‘ownership of corporation shares. Asa proximate result of the fraudulent conduct of the Cross-Defendants as herein alleged, the Cross-Complainant was induced to expend $40,000.00 of her personal | savings and to spend numerous hours in the start up, operation and in furtherance of the business purposes of the corporation afl in an attempt to derive a profit from the business, but Cross-Complainant has received no profit or other compensation (other than nominal wage as had been agreed) for her time, effort and energy in the business. By reason of which Cross-Complainant has been damaged in the sum of ‘CROSS-COMPLAINT7 18 19 | 20 | al] 2 2B 4 25) 26 | 27 28 21. 28. 29. 30. 3 $80,000.00, plus all unaccounted for profits of the business which should have ‘otherwise been her's which sum is unknown. Cross-Complainant will amend this complaint when such sum is known. The aforementioned conduct of the Cross-Defendants was an intentional rmisrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of material fact known to the Cross- Defendants as Cross-Defendants had previously taken investment funds from other parties for purposes of going into business without providing the agreed upon return therefore and that Cross-Defendant, Nguyen was unable to hold ownership of an alcoholic beverage license due to a personal record and/or creditor problems and the intention on the part of the Cross-Defendants, Nguyen and Le was to deprive the Cross-Complainant of property or legal rights or otherwise cause injury and was despicable conduct that subjected the Cross-Complainant to cruel and unjust hardship and conscious disregard of the Cross-Complainant's rights so as to justify ‘an award of exemplary and punitive damages. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION of Fic Dut (Agains ss-Defer Cross-Complainant realleges paragraphs I through 27 as though set forth herein in full ‘Asa result of the relationship established between the parties with Nguyen offering the business opportunity to Cross-Complaint and accepting her money, agreeing to 50% of the profits she would be entitled to as payment for her interest and operating 4 business as joint shareholders a special relationship was created whereby Nguyen owed Cross-Complainant« fidueiary duty by committing the acts and omissions as have been alleged such duty was breached Due to the shares of the corporation being issued in Cross-Defendant Le’s name she 100 owed a fiduciary duty to Cross-Complainant. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and on such basis alleges that Nguyen failed to tell her he could not hold an alcoholic beverage license, That he would ‘CROSS-COMPLAINT { | | | | | |19 | 20 21 | 22 | 2B 24|| 25 26 7 28 32, 33. 34 35, 36. 37. issues shares to people other than her and he should not have removed assets of the corporation for his personal use. Nguyen should have provided an accounting to Cross-Complainant and has not done those other things as alleged herein. Le failed to inform Cross-Complainant that she held Nguyen’s stock and further participated with Nguyen as to the acts and omissions as herein alleged. ‘AS a proximate result of the wrongful acts herein alleged Cross-Complainant has been generally damaged in ¢ sum of $80,000.00 plus any profits from the business which amount is unknown, but Cross-Complainant will amend the complaint when such sum is determined {In doing the things herein alleged Cross-Defendants and each of them acted with alice and oppression as defined by California Civil Code §3294( c) by willfully and with the intention of causing injury to the Cross-Complainant in conscious disregard of Cross-Complainant’s rights thereby warranting an assessment of punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish the Cross-Defendants and to deter others from engaging in similar misconduct. 1H OF A 7 2 ainst all Cross-Defe Cross-Complainant realleges paragraphs 1 through 34 as though set forth herein in full. ‘An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Cross-Complainant and Cross-Defendants concerning their respective rights and duties in that Cross- Complainant contends that she isa shareholder of Network entitled to all the benefits and rights in connection therewith and that she is entitled to compensation for profits derived from the business operated by Network, whereas Cross- Defendants dispute these contentions and contend that Cross-Complainant is not entitled to access to books, records or other materials of the business and that she is not entitled to participate in any of Network's activities or operation. Cross-Complainant desires a judicial determination of her rights and duties and a ‘CROSS COMPLANT18 | 38, 39, 40 41 42. 43. declaration as to whether she is a shareholder of Network, as to what her rights are ‘with regard to Network and what her rights are to compensation for work in connection with Network and/or profits therefrom. ‘A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time under the circumstances in order that Cross-Complainant may ascertain her rights and duties with regard to Network as she is being excluded therefrom. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION ‘Accounting (Against all Cross-Defendants) Cross-Complainant realleges paragraphs 1 through 38 as though set forth herein in full, Cross-Defendant, Network has been operating as a bar selling alcoholic beverages in the City of Stanton, California at all times relevant to this complaint. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Cross- Defendant, Network has been making a profit in connection with its operation and that Cross-Defendant, Nguyen and Le have been taking money and other assets of the business for their own personal use and/or benefit. They have acvepted money from Yoe Yoe Tang for an ownership interest. Cross-Complainant is due a percentage of all profits and or ownership of Network, ‘which amount is unknown to Cross-Complainant and cannot be ascertained without an accounting of the receipts and disbursements of the aforementioned business operation of Network. Cross-Complainant is informed and believes and thereon alleges that the amount owed, however, to her from business revenues is in excess of $40,000.00. On or about summer and fall of 2008 on numerous occasions Cross-Complainant has demanded that Cross-Defendant Nguyen and Le account for the aforementioned transactions and business revenue/profits and that they provide books and records to Cross-Complainant to determine the amount of money due to Cross- Complainant. Cross-Defendants have failed and refused and continue to fail and ‘CROSS-COMPLAIT | | |15] 16 | 45 47. 48. 49, 30. st 52 refuses anc continues to fail and refuse to render the accounting and pay Cross- Complainant. SIXT) Ti Slander (Against Cross Defend: en and 1 through 5 Cross-Complainant realleges paragraphs 1 through 43 as though set forth herein in full On or about November 15, 2008, and upon information and belief other times in connection therewith Cross-Defendant Nguyen spoke the following words of and concerning the Cross-Complainant that she had embezzled money from the business and that she would be going to jail. That the business was not doing well because of the Cross-Complainant and that he was going to post the lawsuit he was filing for everyone to see. ‘These words were heard by approximately 14 employees of the business together with customers. ‘These words were slanderous because they accused the Cross-Complainant of ‘committing a crime of stealing money. ‘The words uttered were a false statement because Cross-Complainant had not stolen any money nor taken any money that she was not otherwise entitled to, ‘The words cause a defamatory meaning because they set forth facts that indicate that Cross-Complainant was untrustworthy and had done something wrong. Cross-Complainant was later confronted by several of the people who had heard these words and asked what she had done and why she did it. ‘Asa result of the above-described words plaintiff has suffered general damages to her reputation, embarrassment, humiliation and injury as reflects upon her honesty and integrity and trustworthiness all to her damage in an amount to be proven at trial. ‘The above-described words were spoken by Cross-Defendant Nguyen with malice and oppression and with the intent to hold Cross-Complainant out to public ridicule “CROSS COMPLANT53 34, 35 36. 37. 58, Ww ut and cause her personal injury and embarrassment and thus an award of exemplary and punitive damages is justified as established at time of trial. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ‘Wage and Overtime Claim inst Cross-Defendant Ng rough 5 Cross-Complainant realleges paragraphs 1 through 52 as though set forth herein in full. In or about July of 2007, Cross-Complainant entered into an employment relationships set forth herein above and at the request of Cross-Defendant Nguyen with Network. It was agreed that Cross-Complainant would work for a wage of $9.00 per hour performing the duties of a server, bartender, and manager of Network's business. This was in addition to her interest in the comporation. Cross-Complainant worked at said business approximately 60 hours per week between July 2007 and September 2008 during which time she did not receive any overtime pay with the approximate 20 hours per week that she was working times 64 weeks at $13.50 per hour or $17,280.00 in unpaid overtime. Cross-Defendants. failure to pay the amount due Cross-Complainant on each payday isa violation of Labor Code Section 209. In addition thereto Cross-Complainant was not paid by paycheck and did not receive a paycheck stub with each paycheck pursuant to California Labor Code and as such is entitled to the statutory penalties in connection therewith. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 218.5, Cross-Complainant requests that the Court award reasonable attomey’s fees and costs incurred by her in connection with this, action. Pursuant to Labor Code Section 218.6, Cross-Complainant requests that the Court award Cross-Complainant interest on all due and unpaid wages at the maximum legal rate accruing from the date of the wages until paid. ‘GROSS COMPLAINT12] 13 4 | 15 | | 7] 18 | 19 | | 0 a 2 | 21) al 24 25 16 26 21 28 WHEREFORE, Cross-Complainant prays judgment as follows: UNDER FIRS THROUGH FIFTH CAUSES OF ACTION: SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION: FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION: FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION: 6. 9. 1 4. 5, 4. 5, For general damages in the sum of $80,000.00 plus an amount unknown at this time, but representing Cross-Complainant’s share of profits from business operations as proven at trial Interest on $80,000.00 at the maximum legal rate from July 07 until paid. | Interest on all profits due at the maximum legal rate from the date due until | paid as proven at trial For further and other relief as the Court may deem just an appropriate. For costs of suit herein. Punitive and exemplary damages as determined by the Court. Fora declaration that Cross-Complainant has a 25% ownership interest in| the Network Lounge III, Corp. and is entitled to all rights and privileges connected therewith together with an examination of all book, records and material of said corporation. For an Order requiring an account of Cross-Defendant, The Lounge Network Ill Corp, und a determination of Cross-Complainant’s rights to profits thereof. { ‘An accounting and a determination as to what funds Nguyen and/or Le have been taking from the corporate business accounts in excess of their right | thereto and an Order for repayment thereof. For an Order requiring Network I{T to pay Cross-Complainant all profits or other monies to which she is entitle from the corporation, For general damages as proven at trial. { SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION: ‘CROSS-COMPLAINTs |) 12. For interest at the maximum legal rate on all due and unpaid wages from the date 1 10 i | ni 4 i 17 | 3] 11. The statutory penalties for failure to provide wage statements according to proof at I time of trial. due until paid. DATED: December 8, 2008 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION: l 10. For unpaid wages in the sum of $17,280.00. LAW OFFICES OF RICK A. BLAKE Attorney at Law A. , Attorney for DefendanCross-Complainant CROSS CONPLAINTFOF ICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE 1am employed in the county of Orange State of California. 1 am over the age of 18 and not party to the within action; my business address is 2107 North Broadway, Suite 106, Santa Ana, CA 92706. (On December 8.2008, | served the foregoing document described as CROSS, COMPLAINT (THE LOUNGE NETWORK v. THUY HUYNH Case No.: 30-2008 0113957) on the interested parties in this action. {X] _ by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed to: Pete Nguyen 10872 Westminster Ave. #111 Garden Grove, CA 92843 Attorneys for Plaintiffs LJ __ byplacing the original thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as stated on the attached mailing list: (X]_ (BY MAIL) LI deposited such envelopes in the mail at Santa Ana, California. The envelopes ‘were mailed with postage thereon fully prepaid. (X] [am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Its deposited with the U.S. postal service on that ‘same day in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day afier date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. [] BY FACSIMILE on before 5:00 p.m. [1 (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) | delivered such envelope by hand to the offices of the addressee. [x] (State) I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. [) (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. = ea Date: December 8, 2008 Wt lo JL eI KATHLEEN 8. PALMORE 1 PROOF OF SERVICEExhibit C The original Form 3949a Tax Evasion Referral filed by Bryan Christopher Moon in March 2012, regarding Thuy Huynh’s long running tax evasion scheme,Department ofthe Treasury — Internal Revenue Service pneu Information Referral (OMB # 1545-1960 fier hlbcte aera) 7. Taxpayer Name 7 Business Name Thuy-Duyen Thi Huynh 2. Street AdsTess 3 Seat Adress 1361 E1Camino Real, #106 ®. CiyState/IP 5 ORS Tustin, CA 92780-7844 <, Social Secuty Number (SSN) <: Employer Wenication Number Cenupation Principal Bus Actiy Baltender , Date of ith ot7/64 3. Marital Stats a, Name of Spouse CiMaried single C}Head of Househols CloWorced Separated “4 Alleged Violation of income Tax Law (Check all that apply). False Exemption _L) Unsulsstantiated Income Unreported Income i Failure to Withhold Tax. (False Deductions [1 Kickback Ci Nareoties income Ci Wagering/Gamoting Ci Mutipte Filing C False/Attered Documents] Public/Poltical Corruption] Earned Income Credit, Clorganized crime 7] Fallure to Pay Tax Failure to File Return Other (Describe below) 5, Unreported income and Tax Years (Flin Tax Years and dollar amount(s), if known, e.g., TY2005 $10,000) TY2010$ 100,000. TY2009$ 100,000 TY2008 § 100,000 TY2007 $ 100,000 TY. We & GRIURST ES ARN AES ARS ENS BFE AU MPSA SH Tas ON aM EEN RENIow. Atach another sheet. ifresdes). i. Are books/records available? ‘Do you consider the taxpayer dangerous? idYes [No Dyes (No <. Banks, Financial Institutions used by the taxpayer. Name: Chase Name: American Express Acct# ending in 1-65001 ‘Adgress: ‘Address: City/Stater2iP City/StaterZIP: ‘e Please describe how you learned and/or obtained the information in this report (Attach another sheet, if needed) 6. Your Name: a. Address: b. CityiState/ZiP. ‘. Telephone Number (Please include the Area Code) For Mailing Address, see instructions For Paperwork Reduction Act, see Instructions Catalog Number 47872E Form 3949 A (Rev. 2-2007)Instructions Provide the following information for the Person/Business You Are Reporting if Known: 1. Name 2. Business Name a, Street Address of Residence a, Street Address of Business b. City, State, and Zio Code b. City/State/Zip Code «. Social Security Number ¢. Enter Employer Identification Number 4. Date of the Person’s Birth 4d, Describe the Primary Business Activity 3. Indicate Martial Status M-Married $-Single HH -Head of Household Div - Divorced Sep - Separated 3a. Enter name of spouse, if applicable. 4. Check all Tax Violations That Apply to Your Report or Describe in Comments If Not Listed. 5. If your report involves unreported income, indicate the year(s) and the dollar amount(s) a, Briefly describe the facts of the alleged violation(s) as you know them. Please attach another sheet, if you need more room, 5b. Indicate (Yes or No) if books and/or records are available that substantiate your report. 5c. Indicate (Yes or No) if you consider the person to be violent or dangerous and provide an explanation in the comments section of this form 5d, List name and address of bank(s) and/or financial institution(s) used by the taxpayer if known. Se. Briefly explain how you leamed of or obtained the information contained in your report. Please attach another sheet, if you need more room 6. Enter your name, street address, city, state, zip code and a telephone number where you can be contacted. indicate time of day you may be contacted if appropriate. This Information is not Required to Process Your Report. Please print and send your completed form to the Internal Revenue Service at: Internal Revenue Service Fresno, CA 93888 PAPERWORK REDUCTION NOTICE: We ask for the information on this form to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the United States. This report is voluntary and the information requested helps us determine if there has been a violation of Income Tax Law. We need it to insure that taxpayers are complying with these laws and to allow us to figure and collect the right amount of tax. You are not required to provide the information on a form that is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act unless the form displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a form or its instructions must be retained as ong as their contents may become material in the administrations of any Internal Revenue laws. Generally, tax returns ‘and tax return information are confidential, as required by Code section 6103. ‘The time required to complete this form will vary depending on individual circumstances, The estimated average time is 15 minutes. Privacy Act Notice We are requesting this information under authority of 26 U.S.C. 7801 ‘The primary purpose of this form is to report potential violations of the Internal Revenue laws ‘The information may be disclosed to the Department of Justice to enforce the tax laws Providing the information is voluntary. Not providing all or part of the information will not affect you. ‘Catalog Number 47872E Form 3949 A (Rev. 2-2007)Addendum Form 3949a - Thuy-Duyen Thi Huynh, _— ‘This is being filled out according to instructions provided in a phone call with LRS. fraud investigator, David Gordon, 02/24/2012. Attached are photos copies of tax returns filed by Thuy Huynh for the years: 2010, 2009, 2008, and 2007. In them Thuy Huynh claims to have never made more than $15,000 a year. ‘Thuy Huynh has bragged many times about filling fraudulent tax returns and making in excess of $100,000. While much of the bragging was done in face-to-face conversation, some bragging did take place though emails and texts messages. A total of 36 pages of emails and forwarded text messages have been attached. Huynh keeps most of cash earned through tips in a safe at home or in a safety deposit back at Wells Fargo and will deposit cash into checking accounts as needed. Bank records for checking account at Chase will reflect deposits well in excess of any declared income. Monthly payments made to American Express account consistently well in excess of any declared income. Monthly payments made to Citibank card well in excess of declared income. 1. For a period of approximately 5 years Thuy Huynh lived at 1235 Town and Country Rd, Unit 2332 Orange, CA 92868. The rent on this apartment was $1,585 a month or $19,020 a year. 2. Inconnection with a lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court: The Lounge Network III vs Thuy Huynh (#30-2008-00113957-CU-BT-CJC) Huynh claims to have invested $100,000 that she earned into the venture. Please see emails notated as Exhibit A 1-3 3. Huynh claims to have given $40,000 to Bryan C. Moon that she earned prior to marriage. Please see emails notated Exhibit B 1-7 4, Huynh sent text message on June 20, 2011 stating a payment of $7,000 was made for Citibank credit card. Please see attached email, Exhibit C-1 5. Huynh sent text message on August 24, 2011 stating a payment of $3,800 had been made for American Express card. Please see attached email Exhibit C-2 6. Huynh sent text message on September 11, 2001 stating that payment of, $3,000 had been made for American Express card, Please see attached email, Exhibit C-3. 7. Huynh sent text message on November 30, 2011 stating that payment of $3,000 had been made for American Express card. Please see attached email, Exhibit C-4. 8. Huynh sent a text message on January 8, 2012 that she would be making a $20,000 down payment on a new car, Please see attached email, Exhibit C-6 9, Huynh negotiated through email to exchange sex for money ($25,000). Please see attached email, Exhibit D-1Exhibit D lous lawsuit filed by Thuy Huynh and Michael ©” Young against Bryan Christopher just six weeks after Huynh leamed Moon had reported her long running tax evasion scheme to the IRS. ing ani ofless than $15,000,Michael C, O°Young, SBN 260953 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. O'YOUNG & ASSOCIATES 3972 Barranca Pkwy Ste J-304 Irvine, CA 92606 Tel (714) 868-5740 Riper Gout et Calta Fax: (949) 954-8393 County of Orange E-mail: moyounglaw@gmail.com 04/24/2012 at 01:20:48 PM Clerk of the Supetior Court Attorneys for Plaintiff By Maria Gina Barr,Deputy Clerk ‘Thuy Huynh SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE ~ CENTRAL JUSTICE CI Defendants Judge Francisco F. Firmat ‘THUY HUYNH, an individual ) Case No. 30-2012-00864239-CU-BC-CJC ) Plaintiff, ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, ) y ) 1) BREACH OF CONTRACT ) 2) FRAUD BRYAN CHRISTOPHER MOON, an ) 3) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF individual, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive.) EMOTIONAL DISTRESS ) ) ) : 1. COMES NOW THUY HUYNH, an individual (hereinafter referred to as “PLAINTIFF *), alleges as follows: 2. PLAINTIFF is, and at all times mentioned in this Complaint, was a resident in the Orange County, in the State of California, in the city of Tustin, 3. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that Defendant BRYAN CHRISTOPHER MOON (hereinafter referred to as “MOON? is a resident of the City of Irvine, County of Orange, State of California located at 2801 Alton Pkwy., #414, Irvine, CA 92606. 4. Unless otherwise alleged in this Complaint, PLAINTIFF is informed and believe, and| upon such information and belief allege, that at all times mentioned in this Complaint, Defendants 7 ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESExhibit 1) This amount totaled at least $21,000. ‘Throughout this entire period, MOON claimed that he was working on several business deals, and would repay PLAINTIFF later. In order to support his claims, MOON contacted PLAINTIFF using several fake online personalities, pretending] to vouch for his business experience 17. Between June and November 2010, MOON also solicited large amount of funds from PLAINTIFF, allegedly needing the money for both business purposes, and to treat his alleged illnesses. PLAINTIFF then entered into an oral contract with DEFENDANT MOON, whereby she agreed to lend $35,000 to MOON, who promised to return the money by March 2011 18. At the time these willful, malicious, false, and fraudulent representations were made by DEFENDANT MOON, DEFENDANTS knew that these statements were false. In fact, DEFENDANTS never intended to repay any money given by PLAINTIFF. In fact, MOON never had any illness of any sort that was life-threatening. DEFENDANTS only made the statement so that they could deceive PLAINTIFF into marrying MOON and supporting him financially Additionally, DEFENDANTS intentionally created online accounts for non-existent people in order to support MOON’s claims of being a successful businessman 19, Atthe time this representation was made, PLAINTIFF was ignorant of it falsity, but believed them to be true, PLAINTIFF did not know DEFENDANT s have no intention of repaying, her loans. Furthermore, PLAINTIFF did not know that DEFENDANT MOON did not have cancer. Had PLAINTIFF known the true facts about the DEFENDANT s’ intent to defraud, PLAINTIFF would not have agreed to marry MOON, much less loan DEFENDANTS the money. PLAINTIFF only discovered that DEFENDANTS had intended to deceive when she discovered that MOON had used the same methods to defraud others. 20. Inreliance on these representations made by the DEFENDANTS, PLAINTIFF agreed, to lend $35,000 to DEFENDANTS. 21, This reliance was justified because PLAINTIFF and DEFENDANT MOON were in al romantie relationship, which resulted in the marriage of both parties. 22. Thus as a proximate result of the willful, malicious, false, and fraudulent misrepresentations made by DEFENDANT s to PLAINTIFF, PLAINTIFF has been deprived of the 7 ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES6 an 2% were the agents and employees of their Co-Defendants, and in doing the things alleged in this Complaint were acting within the course and scope of that agency and employment. 5. PLAINTIFF does not know the true name or identities of DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and therefore sues them by those fictitious names. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes that these DOE defendants are responsible for PLAINTIFF’s damages herein, FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF ORAL CONTRACT) As Against All Defendants 6 PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 5, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth. 7. In the summer of 2010, DEFENDANT MOON contacted PLAINTIFF via Facebook through a fake profile named “Holly.” MOON represented to PLAINTIFF that he was a very successftl business man who also suffered from cancer. To maintain this sympathetic persona, MOON also used fake aliases to communicate with PLAINTIFF. MOON then proposed to PLAINTIFF. Fooled by MOON’s army of virtual friends and feeling sympathetic, PLAINTIFF agreed to marry him 8 PLAINTIEF helped to pay for MOON’s relocation from Texas to California, The parties then cohabited in Orange, CA, for a very brief time. However, due to immediate differences between the two, PLAINTIFF moved out in June of 2011. However, the two maintained a close friendship. 9. From summer of 2010 to July 2011, PLAINTIFF paid all of MOON’s living expenses, including but not limited to: rent, car payments, phone bills, and living allowances, (See Exhibit 1 ~a sample of checks written by PLAINTIFF to support MOON) This amount totaled at least $21,000. Throughout this entire period, MOON claimed that he was working on several business deals, and would repay PLAINTIFF in full later. In order to support his claims, MOON contacted PLAINTIFF using several fake online personalit s, pretending to vouch for his business COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESexperiences. (See Exhibit 2 - Facebook communications between PLAINTIFF (online as Thuy Li) and a “John Nehemiah” and “Simon Levy.”) 10. Between June and November 2010, MOON also solicited large amount of funds from PLAINTIFF, allegedly needing the money for both business purposes, and to treat his alleged illnesses. PLAINTIFF then entered into an oral contract with DEFENDANT MOON, whereby she agreed to lend $35,000 to MOON, who promised to return the money by March 2011 11, PLAINTIFF has performed all conditions, covenants, and promises required on her part to perform in accordance with the terms and the conditions of the agreement. Between November 2010 to January 2011, PLAINTIFF loaned $35,000 (in two payments) to MOON, pursuant to the agreement. 12, In March 2011, DEFENDANT MOON failed to return the money to PLAINTIFF as promised. When asked, MOON has refused to return any part of the loan. PLAINTIFF filed for| divorce against MOON on January 31, 2012. 13, Asadirect and proximate result of DEFENDANT s’ breach, PLAINTIFF has suffered damages in an amount of $56,000.00, or to be determined at the time of trial SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (FRAUD) inst All DEFENDANTS 14. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference Paragraphs 1 through 13, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth 15, Inthe summer of 2010, DEFENDANT MOON contacted PLAINTIFF via Facebook through a fake profile named “Holly.” DEFENDANT MOON, through numerous other aliases, represented to PLAINTIFF that MOON was a very successful business man who also suffered from cancer. After these representations, DEFENDANT MOON proposed to PLAINTIFF. PLAINTIFF married MOON in May of 20111 out of misguided sympathy 16. From summer of 2010 to July of 2011, PLAINTIFF paid all of MOON’s living expenses, including but not limited to: rent, car payments, phone bills, and living allowances. (See ‘COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESsum of $35,000 and has been damaged in that sum. Additionally, PLAINTIFF has suffered further damages of $21,000 due to her financial support of MOON in the form of rent and other living, expenses, 23, The aforementioned conduct of the DEFENDANT s was an intentional misrepresentation and concealment of material facts known to the DEFENDANT s with the intention on the part of the DEFENDANT s to deprive the PLAINTIFF of property or legal right or otherwise causing injury and was despicable conduct that subjected the PLAINTIFF to cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of the PLAINTIFF °s rights so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at the time of trial THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS) As Against All DEFENDANTS 24. PLAINTIFF incorporates by reference Paragraphs | through 23, inclusive, of this Complaint as though fully set forth 25. DEFENDANT MOON, through both his own online accounts and his numerous fake aliases, sent malicious electronic messages to PLAINTIFF’s friends and family. These messages made false allegations regarding PLAINTIFF’s reputation and lifestyle 26. DEFENDANT s acted with the intent to damage the PLAINTIFF and to cause the PLAINTIFF severe emotional and physical distress 27. As a proximate result of the acts of DEFENDANTS , the PLAINTIFF suffered severe| emotional distress in the form of public humiliation, mental anguish, anxiety, and emotional distress. 28. Asa direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS’ conduct, the PLAINTIFF suffered general damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial 29. The DEFENDANTS” conduct was done knowingly, willfully and with malicious intent, and the PLAINTIFF is entitled to punitive damages in an amount to be determined by proof at trial COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGESWHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment as follows: For the First Cause of Action: a. For compensation in the amount of the sum according to proof but no less than $56,000, b. For interest thereon, ©. Forcosts of suit; 4d. And for such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper. For the Second and Third Cause of Action. 2 mu 25 26 a. For General damages according to proof, b. Exemplary damages according to proof, c. Prejudgment interest according to law, d, Punitive damages so as to prevent DEFENDANTS from future misconduct; e. Any other further relief that the court considers proper. Dated: 04/22/12 LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. O°'YOUNG _—- : Michael © O'Young= Attorney for PLAINTIFF Thuy Hyunh 7 COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES