Docstoc

California Nevada County Court Records Restraining Orders - DOC

Document Sample
California Nevada County Court Records Restraining Orders - DOC Powered By Docstoc
					 1   Frank Frisenda, Jr. (State Bar No. 85580)
     Mark Estes (State Bar No. 110518)
 2
     FRISENDA, QUINTON & NICHOLSON
 3   11755 Wilshire Boulevard, 10th Floor
     Los Angeles, California 90025
 4   Telephone: 310/478-4540
 5
     Attorneys for Plaintiff
 6   AMI SHAFRIR
 7
 8
 9
                                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
10
                                CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
11
12
13
     AMI SHAFRIR, an individual,                    )       CASE NO. CV-01-01507 CAS (JWJx)
14                                                  )
                  Plaintiff,                        )       AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR:
15
                                                    )
16      vs.                                         )       1) VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1962(b),
                                                    )          RICO;
17
     DANIEL NISHRIE, aka DANIEL                     )       2) VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1962(c),
18   NICHERIE, an individual; ABNER                 )          RICO;
     NISHRIE aka ABNER NICHERIE, an                 )       3) VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1962(d),
19
     individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive.          )          RICO CONSPIRACY;
20                                                  )       4) FRAUD AND DECEIT:
                                                    )       5) DECLARATORY RELIEF; and
21
                                                    )       6) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
               Defendants.
22                                                  )
                                                    )       DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
23                                                  )
24
25
26            Plaintiff Ami Shafrir, for his amended complaint against defendants, alleges:
27
28
29                                                      1
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
                                    JURISDICTION AND VENUE
 2
 3
     Jurisdiction
 4
             1.     This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the first,
 5
     second, third, fifth and sixth counts of this complaint which arise under the provisions of
 6
     sections 1964 and 1965 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
 7
     (―RICO‖) of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, as amended, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964,
 8
     1965, based on a pattern of racketeering activity in which defendants have been engaged in
 9
     connection with plaintiff‘s and other‘s business activities engaged in interstate commerce,
10
     consisting of violations of (a) 18 U.S.C. §1341 relating to mail fraud; (b) 18 U.S.C. §1343
11
     relating to wire fraud; (c) 18 U.S.C. §1344 relating to bank fraud; (d) 18 U.S.C. § 1512
12
     relating to tampering with a witness, (e) 18 U.S.C. §664 relating to embezzlement from
13
     pension and welfare funds, and (f) 18 U.S.C. §1342 relating to fictitious name or address.
14
             2.     Jurisdiction over counts four, five and six of this complaint further arise under
15
     the doctrine of pendent jurisdiction.
16
17
     Venue
18
             3.     The causes of action arose in the Central District of California, in that many of
19
     the acts and transactions constituting the violations alleged took place in the Central District.
20
     The defendants are residents of the Central District of California. Venue is founded on 28
21
     U.S.C. §1391(b) and in 28 U.S.C. 1965.
22
23
                                                PARTIES
24
             4.     Ami Shafrir ("Plaintiff" or "AMI") is, and at all times mentioned herein was, a
25
     citizen of the State of California. Plaintiff resides in the City of Los Angeles, State of
26
     California.
27
28
29                                                   2
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            5.      Defendant Daniel Nishrie aka Daniel Nicherie is, and at all relevant times was,
 2
     a citizen of the State of California residing in this judicial district.
 3
            6.      Defendant Abner Nishrie aka Abner Nicherie is, and at all relevant times was,
 4
     a citizen of the State of California residing in this judicial district. Defendants Daniel Nishrie
 5
     and Abner Nishrie shall collectively be referred to as ―the Nishries‖ or ―the Nicheries.‖
 6
            7.      The true names and capacities, whether individual, plural, corporate,
 7
     partnership, associate or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, are presently
 8
     unknown to Plaintiff who, therefore, sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. The
 9
     full extent of the facts linking said fictitiously designated Defendants with the causes of
10
     action herein alleged is unknown to Plaintiff at this time. Plaintiff is informed and
11
     believes, and thereon alleges, that each of the Defendants designated herein as a DOE,
12
     inclusive, was and is negligently, carelessly, recklessly, unskillfully, unlawfully, tortuously,
13
     wantonly, wrongfully, and legally responsible in some actionable manner for the events
14
     and happenings hereinafter referred to, and thereby proximately caused the hereinafter
15
     alleged injuries and damages to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will hereafter ask leave of court to
16
     amend this Complaint to show said Defendants' true names and capacities after the same
17
     have been ascertained.
18
            8.      Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon allege, that at all times herein
19
     mentioned, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, employees and representatives
20
     of each other, and in doing the things hereinafter alleged, were at all times acting within
21
     the course and scope of such agency, employment and representation; and that each
22
     Defendant affirmed and ratified the acts of each of the remaining Defendant.
23
24
                          I.      BACKGROUND STATEMENT OF FACTS
25
            9.      As set forth herein, plaintiff brings this action seeking damages caused by the
26
     Nishries and their associates who, through a pattern of racketeering, have wrongly acquired
27
     and/or are controlling plaintiff‘s business and assets.
28
29                                                     3
30                                       Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            10.    Plaintiff furthermore brings this action seeking damages caused by the
 2
     Nishries and their associates who are employed by, and/or are associated with an
 3
     enterprise, and who are conducting, or participating in conducting, such enterprise affairs
 4
     through a pattern of racketeering.
 5
            11.    By and through threats of physical harm, force, intimidation, bribery, forgery,
 6
     mail fraud, bank fraud, wire fraud, abuse of process, malicious prosecution and specific
 7
     predicate acts identified herein, the Nishries have seized physical possession of two
 8
     community property office buildings owned by plaintiff and his estranged wife. The
 9
     Nishries further seized control of plaintiff‘s community property corporations Amtec
10
     Audiotext, Inc. and Worldsite, Inc. that maintained their principal place of business in said
11
     office buildings. The Nishries similarly seized control of Federal Transtel, Inc. a
12
     corporation owned at the time 75% by plaintiff that had its principal place of business in
13
     Alabama.
14
            12.    The Nishrie‘s racketeering activities are conducted through related predicate
15
     acts, and these predicates amount to and pose a threat of continued criminal activity. The
16
     predicates themselves are a part of the regular way the Nishries do business and are a
17
     regular means of conducting or participating in their ongoing racketeering activities.
18
            13.    These predicate acts have the same or similar purposes, results, participants,
19
     victims and/or methods of commission, or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing
20
     characteristics and are not isolated.
21
            14.    The series of these related predicate acts committed by the Nishries extend
22
     over a substantial period of time and pose a threat of long-term racketeering activities.
23
     They have sufficient continuity and relationship to constitute a pattern.
24
            15.    The Nishries have violated (a) 18 U.S.C. §1341 relating to mail fraud; (b) 18
25
     U.S.C. §1343 relating to wire fraud; (c) 18 U.S.C. §1344 relating to bank fraud; (d) 18
26
     U.S.C. § 1512 relating to tampering with a witness, (e) 18 U.S.C. §664 relating to
27
28
29                                                 4
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     embezzlement from pension and welfare funds, and (f) 18 U.S.C. §1342 relating to fictitious
 2
     name or address in the commission of their racketeering activities.
 3
 4
     The SHAFRIR ENTITIES
 5
            16.    In August 1998, plaintiff‘s wife, SARIT filed for divorce.
 6
            17.    As recent as December 31, 1999, plaintiff and his estranged wife, SARIT
 7
     were the undisputed owners of five corporations: 8670 Wilshire Corp.;1 8335 Property,
 8
     Inc.;2 Amtec Audiotext, Inc.; Worldsite, Inc.; and Federal Transtel, Inc.(“FTT”) (75%
 9
     interest) (the SHAFRIR ENTITIES‖); a personal residence of Ami Shafrir located at 1400
10
     Laurel Way, Beverly Hills, a personal residence of Sarit Shafrir located at 2015 Mount
11
     Olympus Drive, Los Angeles and various minor real estate properties.
12
            18.    These assets were collectively worth approximately $40,000,000 as of
13
     December 31, 1999, immediately prior to the date the Nishries‘ and their associates‘
14
     racketeering activities affected the SHAFRIRS.
15
            19.    The divorce was proceeding rather uneventful until the influence of the
16
     Nishries in late 1999. By March 2000, every SHAFRIR asset other than plaintiff‘s
17
     personal residence and small real estate holdings were under the ownership and control of
18
     the Nishries who were knowingly assisted by SARIT and other associates in an organized
19
     plan to seize ownership and control of the SHAFRIR ENTITIES, and to further conduct
20
     such affairs through a pattern of racketeering activities.
21
22
23
     The Related Predicate Acts
24
     1
25     Controlled ownership of a three story, 50,000 square foot office building, purchased by AMI and
     SARIT in 1996 for $4,500,000, which has a present market value of approximately $12,000,000
26   and a mortgage of $5,500,000
     2
27     Controlled ownership of a three story,10,000 sq. foot office building purchased by AMI and
     SARIT in 1997 for approximately $900,000 which has a present market value of approximately
28   $1,850,000 with a mortgage of $1,000,000
29                                                   5
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            20.    The related predicate acts, identified herein, that are committed by the
 2
     Nishries in their acquisition, control and operation of the SHAFRIR ENTITIES and the
 3
     enterprises of many other victims, have been continuing for over fifteen years and pose a
 4
     threat of continued long-term racketeering activities.
 5
            21.    The Predicate Acts have sufficient continuity and relationship to constitute a
 6
     pattern; are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and are not isolated because the
 7
     Predicate Acts;
 8
                    have the same or similar purpose of enabling the Nishries to seize
 9
                       ownership and control of a victim‘s business enterprise; maintain
10
                       possession and control of said enterprise; and generally enable the
11
                       Nishries to further conduct the enterprise affairs through a pattern of
12
                       racketeering activities;
13
                    generally result in the total destruction of the victim and/or irreparable
14
                       harm;
15
                    have, as participants, the Nishries and four to five associates plus a large
16
                       team of attorneys;
17
                    are generally targeted at victims who are wealthy; and
18
                    generally enable the Nishries and their associates: to illegally transfer
19
                       property owned by the victim or the victim‘s entities to any of a number
20
                       of newly created entities; to execute forged instruments for acquiring
21
                       ownership and control of the enterprises; to obtain restraining orders
22
                       preventing the true owners from accessing the businesses or accessing
23
                       property taken from them; to engage in the theft of the enterprise assets
24
                       and/or those assets of additional victims coming into contact with the
25
                       Nishries or their enterprise; to maintain control of the enterprise; to
26
                       engage in massive abuse of process against the victims utilizing the
27
                       courts; including the engagement and control of a team of attorneys and
28
29                                                  6
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
                       the conduct of aggressive litigation including filing meritless lawsuits
 2
                       with financing made possible from the criminally derived property of the
 3
                       enterprise.
 4
 5
                             II.     THE NISHRIE PLAN, IN GENERAL
 6
     (A)            The Illegal Seizure and Takeover of Various
 7
                    Enterprises from their Rightful Owners
 8
            22.     At the beginning of the scheme or artifice to defraud, the Nishries, to acquire
 9
     and/or control their victims enterprises attempt to establish some relationship between
10
     themselves and the intended victim under the pretext of representing themselves as wealthy
11
     investors or investment bankers who are interested in acquiring, managing, forming a joint-
12
     venture with, merging, being an agent of, or mediating a dispute of the victim.
13
            23.     The Nishries form a confidential relationship with their intended victim built
14
     on friendship, trust and confidence. In reliance on this relationship of trust and confidence,
15
     the victims disclose detailed confidential information relating to the financial structure of
16
     their companies and introduce the Nishries to their associates.
17
            24.     The Nishries represent themselves as legitimate businessmen and they
18
     intentionally conceal their true name ―Nicherie‖ and their criminal record from the victim.
19
            25.     The Nishries either use existing corporate shells or create new corporate
20
     entities to assist them in the conduct of their enterprise that are used in the acquisition and
21
     transfer of the victims property.
22
            26.     After establishing the semblance of a business relationship and obtaining a
23
     knowledge of the victims business structure, the Nishries prepare transfer documents,
24
     generally with the assistance of counsel, necessary to transfer corporate stock, real property,
25
     automobiles, bank accounts, stock portfolios and other tangible assets to themselves or to one
26
     of their controlled corporate entities.
27
            27.     The Nishries subsequently obtain signatures to these documents through
28
29                                                   7
30                                       Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     misrepresentations and forgeries of the name of the victim.
 2
            28.    The Nishries next step is to obtain physical custody of the victims real and
 3
     personal property. Where real property is involved, the Nishries change the locks to the
 4
     premises, hire armed guards and prevent the true owner or officer from gaining access to the
 5
     enterprises. Where personal property is involved, the Nishries use any means available to
 6
     acquire physical possession.
 7
 8
     (B)    The Illegal Transfer of Criminally Derived Property
 9
            29.    Over the past ten years, cash, personal property and real property have been
10
     fraudulently transferred through in excess of 100 Nishrie controlled corporate entities.
11
     These transfers are often made through the use of the U.S. Mail and through the wires. The
12
     Nishries continue in control of the enterprises to maximize the revenues and to conduct other
13
     racketeering activities using the recently acquired enterprise and the businesses associated
14
     with the enterprise.
15
16
     (C)    The Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution
17
            Against the Victims Seeking Redress through the Courts
18
            30.    Generally, the Nishries initiate aggressive litigation against the victim. In most
19
     instances the Nishries initiate litigation against the victim through the victims own corporate
20
     enterprise they now control. The victim is usually accused of operating illegal businesses,
21
     conducting unlawful activities such as wire fraud, mail fraud and bank fraud, all done in an
22
     attempt to taint the victim and divert attention away from their own criminal enterprise.
23
            31.    The Nishries generally claim their litigation against the victim is to protect and
24
     preserve the business enterprise. In reality, the Nishries are conducting further acts of
25
     racketeering through these enterprises and delay judicial determination in order to plunder the
26
     enterprise assets for as long as possible through manipulation of the Courts. Furthermore, the
27
28
29                                                   8
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     Nishries generally leave the enterprises in total ruin so as to hinder the victim from seeking
 2
     redress against them.
 3
            32.     The Nishries abuse the judicial system to cause delay and confusion while
 4
     they continue their racketeering activities.
 5
 6
                                                    III
 7
                     BACKGROUND FACTS – PLAINTIFF AMI SHAFRIR
 8
 9
            A.      Plaintiff Founded AMTEC
10
            33.     At the end of 1990, Plaintiff started a business called ―AMTEC‖, a
11
     telecommunications business which provided ―chat lines" on a pay per call basis.
12
            34.     By the beginning of 1993, Plaintiff had incorporated AMTEC under the
13
     name of "AMTEC AUDIOTEXT, INC." AMTEC became an extremely profitable
14
     enterprise that were engaged in interstate commerce.
15
16
            B.      Plaintiff acquired real estate and other business entities
17
            35.     With the earnings from AMTEC, Plaintiff made real estate and corporate
18
     investments:
19
                    a.       2015 Mount Olympus Drive, Los Angeles, a single family residence
20
            purchased by Plaintiff and his wife, Sarit Shafrir, (―SARIT‖) in 1992 for
21
            approximately $1,300,000, which has a current market value of $1,500,000 with
22
            contents worth approximately $500,000 and a mortgage of approximately $700,000.
23
            SARIT currently resides therein.
24
                    b.       FEDERAL TRANSTEL, INC.(―FTT‖), a Georgia corporation,
25
            founded by Plaintiff and Patrick Herold in or about 1993, to provide long distance
26
            and telephone billing services between telecommunications corporations and end
27
            users. Plaintiff held in his own name as community property 75% and Herold 25%
28
29                                                   9
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
           of the stock of FTT. Sarit valued FTT at $20,000 in a December 31, 1999 financial
 2
           statement.
 3
                  c.     WORLDSITE, INC., a California corporation, founded by Plaintiff in
 4
           approximately 1995 or 1996, to be an internet service and e-commerce solutions
 5
           provider, 100% of the outstanding shares of which were and are owned equally by
 6
           Plaintiff and SARIT as community property.
 7
                  d.     8670 Wilshire Boulevard, Beverly Hills, California, a three story,
 8
           50,000 square foot office building, purchased by Plaintiff and SARIT in 1996 for
 9
           $4,500,000, which has a present market value of $14,000,000 and a mortgage of
10
           $5,500,000.
11
                  e.     8335 Sunset Boulevard, Los Angeles,California,a three story,10,000
12
           sq. foot office building purchased by Plaintiff and SARIT in 1997 for approximately
13
           $900,000 which has a present market value of approximately $2,500,000 with a
14
           mortgage of $1,000,000.
15
                  f.     Various real estate properties in Los Angeles, California purchased by
16
           Plaintiff and SARIT during the past 3 years and managed by Raffi Cohen.
17
                  g.     1400 Laurel Way, Los Angeles, California, a single family residence
18
           purchased, with community funds and with SARIT's agreement, by Plaintiff in 1999
19
           for approximately $700,000, which has a current market value of $1,000,000 and a
20
           mortgage of approximately $930,000 of which Plaintiff invested $600,000 in
21
           WORLDSITE and $230,000 in other community assets. Plaintiff currently resides
22
           therein.
23
24
           C.     Plaintiff Separated from his wife who Commenced Divorce Proceedings
25
           36.    In or about April of 1998, because of marital difficulties, Plaintiff and
26
     SARIT separated.
27
28
29                                                10
30                                   Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            37.    On or about August 18, 1998, SARIT filed a petition for dissolution in the
 2
     action titled Sarit Shafrir v. Ami Shafrir, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BD 285-
 3
     703. On that same date the Court entered the standard family law restraining order ("A-
 4
     TRO") prohibiting transfers of community and separate property by either party without
 5
     court dispensation except for attorney's fees.
 6
            38.    At the commencement of the divorce proceedings in August 1998 neither the
 7
     NISHRIES, nor their controlled entities, ANKE, ARCHIBALD, KENT, Corporate
 8
     Management Control, Berlaga or SBN Venture held any interest in the Shafrir‘s Entities.
 9
10
            D.     The NISHRIES were Introduced to the SHAFRIRs and Gained SARIT's
11
                   Confidence
12
            39.    In the Fall of 1999, DANIEL and ABNER NISHRIE were introduced to
13
     Plaintiff and SARIT as successful venture capitalists and facilitated angel funding.
14
            40.    The Nishries represented themselves to be wealthy businessmen who
15
     purported to assist start-up companies for Mergers and Acquisitions. The Nishries also
16
     represented they could assist companies in reorganizing various aspects of their businesses
17
     and provide management services.
18
19
                                     IV.    THE ENTERPRISE
20
     (A)    The Individuals
21
            41.       The following union or group of associated-in-fact individuals comprise the
22
     enterprise. Daniel Nishrie aka Nicherie and Abner Nishrie aka Nicherie are the named
23
     defendant participants and each is actively doing the bidding of the other. Nondefendant
24
     participants Sarit Shafrir, Richard Albertini, David Adrabi, Samuel Rozanis, Michelle Dizon,
25
     Tiffany Azima, Sara Oaks, Polly Wong, Randy Miller, George Hoops, Vaughn Whims and
26
     various unnamed attorneys have all knowingly aided the Nishries in furtherance of their
27
28
29                                                    11
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     racketeering activities and have engaged in the wrongful acts for the purpose of converting
 2
     the assets of plaintiff and others.
 3
 4
     (B)    The Shafrir Entities
 5
            42.     The following companies were illegally acquired by the Nishries from plaintiff,
 6
     collectively referred to as the ―Shafrir Entities.‖ (1) Amtec Audiotext, Inc.; (2) Worldsite,
 7
     Inc.; (3) 8670 Wilshire Corp.; (4) 8335 Property, Inc.; (5) 8670 Property Partners, Ltd.; (6)
 8
     8335 Sunset Property Partners, Ltd.; (7) Multitel, Inc.; (8) Federal Transtel, Inc.; and (9)
 9
     NetOptions, Inc.
10
11
     (C)    The Nishrie Entities
12
            43.     The following companies were created by the Nishries, collectively referred to
13
     as the ―Nishrie Created Entities‖ or ―Nishrie Entities‖ by the use of the mails for purposes of
14
     acquiring and/or maintaining interests in, and/or control of, enterprises engaged in
15
     interstate commerce. These entities were created for the purpose of receiving the assets
16
     transferred from the Shafrir Entities and as an integral part in maintaining control of the
17
     enterprise. (1) Anke Investment Co.; (2) Archibald Management, Inc.; (3) Kent Family
18
     Fund; (4) Millenium Capital; (5) Gedese Management, Inc.; (6) Berlaga, Inc.; (7) Net Com,
19
     Inc.; (8) Corporate Management Control, Inc.; (9) 20-20 Vision; (10) SBN Ventures, (11)
20
     Capital Resources, (12) Guardian Life Insurance Company, (13) Online Recovery, (14) Call
21
     Center Management and (15) numerous other domestic and offshore corporate entities.
22
23
     MAIL FRAUD - 18 U.S.C. §1341 and WIRE FRAUD – 18 U.S.C. §1343
24
            44.     The Nishries having intentionally devised a scheme or artifice to defraud, or
25
     for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
26
     promises, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, have placed in the U.S. Postal
27
     Service, or caused to be placed or have received from the U.S Postal Service the matters or
28
29                                                   12
30                                         Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     things as set forth herein and constitutes Mail Fraud within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1341;
 2
     and have transmitted or caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in
 3
     interstate commerce, the writings, signs, signals, pictures or sounds for the purpose of
 4
     executing such scheme or artifice as set forth herein and constitutes Wire Fraud within the
 5
     meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1343.
 6
     .       45.     Furthermore, the Nishries acted with knowledge that the use of the mails and
 7
     interstate wires would follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use could be
 8
     reasonably foreseen, even though not actually intended. The scheme is reasonably calculated
 9
     to deceive persons or ordinary prudence and comprehension and the mails and wires were
10
     used in its execution.
11
             46.     Abner Nishrie, Daniel Nishrie and Does 1-10 (collectively referred to as the
12
     ―Nishries‖) are in active participation with each other, and are agents of each other in the
13
     commission of their racketeering activity
14
             47.     The Nishries, for the purpose of executing their scheme or artifice set forth
15
     above used the mails and wires to form the Nishrie Entities, from which they intended to
16
     conduct their racketeering activities as follows:
17
18           (a)    Archibald Management, Inc. – Daniel Nishrie formed Archibald
             Management, Inc. through use of the interstate wires or U.S. Mails in his
19
             contact with Val-U-Corp Services, Inc.3 Furthermore, an invoice for $294.00
20           dated 1/21/00 from Val-U-Corp Services, Inc. was sent via the U.S. Mails to
             Daniel Nicherie, c/o Living Retreat Management, 6343 El Cajon #219, San
21
             Diego, CA 92115 for services connected with forming this entity.4
22
             (b)    Kent Family Fund, Inc. – Daniel Nishrie formed Kent Family Fund, Inc.
23
             through use of the interstate wires or mails in his contact with Val-U-Corp
24           Services, Inc. Furthermore, an invoice for $369.00 dated 1/21/00 from Val-U-
             Corp Services, Inc. was sent via the U.S. Mails to Daniel Nicherie, c/o Living
25
26
     3
27       All of the Nishrie Entities were set up by Val-U-Corp Services, Inc. located at 1802 N.
         Carson Street, Suite 212 in Carson City, NV at the request of Daniel Nicherie:
     4
28       mail fraud and wire fraud – 1962 (b) and 1962 (c)
29                                                    13
30                                      Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            Retreat Management, 6343 El Cajon #219, San Diego, CA 92115 for services
 2          connected with forming this entity.5
 3
            (c)    Anke Investment Corporation. – Daniel Nishrie formed Anke Investment
 4          Corporation through use of the interstate wires or U.S. Mails in his contact with Val-
            U-Corp Services, Inc. Furthermore, an invoice for $100.00 dated 1/21/00 from Val-
 5
            U-Corp Services, Inc. was sent via the U.S. Mails to Daniel Nicherie, c/o Living
 6          Retreat Management, 6343 El Cajon #219, San Diego, CA 92115 for services
            connected with forming this entity.6
 7
 8          (d)     Millenium Capital – Daniel Nishrie formed Millenium Capital through use of
            the interstate wires or U.S. Mails in his contact with Val-U-Corp. Furthermore, an
 9
            invoice for $299.00 dated 1/3/00 from Val-U-Corp Services, Inc. was sent via the U.S.
10          Mails to Daniel Nicherie, 2907 Shelter Island Dr., San Diego, CA 92107 for services
            connected with forming this entity.7
11
12
            48.    Based on information and belief, the Nishries have similarly used the U.S.
13
     Mails and wires in executing the formation of Corporate Management Control, Inc., Gedese
14
     Management, and other Nishrie Entities (identified at exhibit page 47 and 48) that have been
15
     referred to as the ―Nicherie Conglomerate‖ in an action in Connecticut wherein Daniel
16
     Nicherie aka Nishrie received a judgment including RICO violations based on predicate acts
17
     of bank fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud for $18,155,566.87.
18
19
     V.     Sale of WORLDSITE
20
            49.    In December, 1999, negotiations for the sale of WORLDSITE commenced
21
     with ShopNet, a NASDAQ company. In January, 2000, the Shafrirs reached an agreement
22
     in principle for ShopNet to purchase WORLDSITE for $6,000,000, a very lucrative
23
     transaction for SARIT and Plaintiff. Under the agreement with ShopNet, SARIT would
24
     receive $1 million cash, AMI would receive ShopNet stock, ShopNet would assume $1.5
25
     million of WORLDSITE debt on the books and WORLDSITE would be merged into
26
     5
27     mail fraud and wire fraud – 1962 (b) and 1962 (c)
     6
       mail fraud and wire fraud – 1962 (b) and 1962 (c)
     7
28      mail fraud and wire fraud – 1962 (b) and 1962 (c)
29                                                   14
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     ShopNet. After the sale, AMI would be employed by ShopNet as a paid officer/consultant.
 2
     The only matter left to consummate the contract was for SARIT to sign the agreement.
 3
 4
     VI.    SARIT, DOES 1-10 and the NISHRIES Gained Control of
 5
            Plaintiff’s Businesses
 6
            50.       On January 19, 2000, under duress that SARIT would not approve a $6
 7
     million sale of Worldsite, a community property corporation, AMI resigned from Worldsite
 8
     and Amtec in reliance on Sarit‘s expressed statement that it would be temporary (30 days)
 9
     pending Sarit‘s review of the books and records. Sarit initially agreed to the sale to
10
     ShopNet, however when the documents were presented to her on January 14, 2000 she
11
     refused to sign and attempted to leverage control of Amtec and Worldsite from AMI in
12
     exchange for her signature.
13
            51.    Plaintiff reluctantly, under duress and protest, agreed to resign as president of
14
     WORLDSITE and AMTEC with the understanding that the resignation would be for no
15
     more than 30 days and that Sarit would act in the best interests of the corporations required
16
     of a fiduciary and would not act inconsistent with her fiduciary duties under the family law
17
     A-TRO.
18
            52.    Under the agreement, Plaintiff would continue to run the businesses during
19
     that time. In return, SARIT promised that she would cooperate with Plaintiff in all
20
     business matters, including the approval and completion of the sale of WORLDSITE to
21
     ShopNet.
22
            53.    On information and belief, the Nishries had formulated a secret agenda with
23
     Sarit for the illegal acquisition and control of plaintiff‘s property and induced plaintiff into
24
     resigning as corporate officer.
25
26
27
28
29                                                  15
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     VII.   PLAINTIFF IS DENIED ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY BUSINESSES
 2
            54.    Two weeks after AMI resigned the presidency of WORLDSITE and
 3
     AMTEC, on January 18, 2000, in violation of their agreement, SARIT and DOES 1-10,
 4
     acting in concert with the NISHRIES to defraud Plaintiff out of his share of the marital
 5
     assets, excluded Plaintiff from the business premises at 8670 Wilshire, 8335 Sunset, and
 6
     from AMTEC and WORLDSITE, by the use of armed security guards.
 7
 8   (A)    Use of Fabricated Allegations of Violence
            to Obtain Restraining Orders
 9
            55.    Central to the Nishries‘ scheme or artifice to defraud, as set forth herein, is to
10
     maintain exclusive control of the premises from which they operate their enterprise This is
11
     accomplished by force by using armed guards or by abuse of the legal system by perjured
12
     declarations of violence, and baseless litigation.
13
14
     TAMPERING WITH A WITNESS – 18 U.S.C. § 1512
15
            56.    On many occasions, the Nishries have corruptly persuaded another person, or
16
     have attempted to do so, or have engaged in misleading conduct towards another person with
17
     the intent to influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding.
18
     The Nishries have corruptly persuaded Sarit and others to fabricate charges of plaintiff
19
     engaging in violent conduct on numerous occasions with the intent to influence, delay and
20
     prevent the testimony presented in official proceedings in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512.
21
            57.    The filing of baseless allegations of violence against plaintiff is done for the
22
     purpose of circumventing Court Orders and to improperly influence court hearing relating to
23
     control of the properties by the Shafrirs pending their divorce.
24
            58.    On several occasions, as set forth herein, the Nishries have engage in extrinsic
25
     fraud to circumvent Court Orders and/or to obtain improper judgments to use against plaintiff
26
     and his property.
27
28
29                                                  16
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            59.     The following acts involve the making of false accusations of violence against
 2
     plaintiff and abuse of process in furtherance of the Nishrie plan or artifice, enabling them to
 3
     maintain control of their enterprise from which they conduct their racketeering activities.
 4
 5
     VIII. SARIT’S FALSE ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLENCE
 6         TO SEIZE CONTROL OF THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
 7          60.        Several claims have been filed by Sarit, and others, based on domestic
 8   violence and/or workplace violence. Some of the original claimants have recanted their
 9   original allegations and identified Sarit and the Nishries as offering bribes for initiating false
10   litigation against plaintiff.
11          61.        In each of these cases, the allegations are fabricated by the Nishries and
12   Sarit to aid in obtaining restraining orders preventing Plaintiff from accessing his property
13   located at 8670 Wilshire Blvd. and 8335 Sunset Blvd.
14          62.        As set forth herein, the Nishries have taken extreme measures to prevent
15   AMI from accessing his properties located at 8670 Wilshire Blvd and 8335 Sunset for over
16   one year, properties used by the Nishries to conduct further racketeering activities.
17
18   (A)    SARIT’s 2/8/00 Application for Emergency TRO, Without Notice to AMI
19          63.        SARIT filed charges against plaintiff on February 8, 2000 claiming that the
20   previous day AMI had thrown a computer at her and bruised her while they were in a
21   meeting.8
22          64.        Plaintiff was first denied access to his property located at 8670 Wilshire
23   Blvd. On February 6, 2001 when Sarit instructed a security guard to escort AMI from the
24   building. AMI‘s office was subsequently cleared out and his personal items were never
25   delivered to him.
26   8
        Amtec‘s in-house counsel, Cynthia Takacs was present at a meeting wherein a computer fell to the
27   floor, however Cynthia Takacs testified in deposition, and was in court on April 11, 2000 during a
     discussion of her deposition, that she testified the computer did not come near SARIT and SARIT
28   was not injured as she claims.
29                                                   17
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            65.        Sarit filed a Law enforcement case with Beverly Hills Police Dept on
 2
     February 8, 2000 seeking an Order that AMI stay at least 100 yards from Sarit and her
 3
     places of work listed as 8670 Wilshire Blvd., and 8335 Sunset Blvd. citing the alleged
 4
     disturbance on 2/7/00. The application was Granted for a duration of 3 days and it was
 5
     extended on 2/11/00 by application of Sarit to 2/17/00. No notice was provided to AMI of
 6
     either hearing.
 7
 8
     (B)    SARIT’s 2/17/00 Ex Parte Application for TRO, Without Notice to AMI
 9
            66. In the Divorce action, on 2/17/00, without notice to AMI, Sarit filed for an Order
10
     that AMI stay at least 100 yards from Sarit and her places of work i.e. 8670 Wilshire Blvd.,
11
     and 8335 Sunset Blvd.
12
            67.        Sarit‘s declaration stated that AMI threatened to kill her on 2/6/00 and
13
     2/7/00, that he pushed her down on the floor on 2/6/00, that he threw a computer at her on
14
     2/6/00, bruised her, was stalking her and was making harassing phone calls. AMI denies all
15
     these allegations.
16
            68.        That application was granted by Anthony S. Jones, Judge Pro Tem, Dept.
17
     2C. on 2/17/00 pending a March 8, 2000. Pending the March 8, 2000 hearing, AMI was
18
     allowed peaceable entry to the properties. Plaintiff had not been given notice of the
19
     application and was unaware of the Order.
20
21
     (C)    The Nishries Prepared Transfer Documents to Acquire Control of
22          Plaintiff’s Companies Without Plaintiff’s Knowledge or Consent
23          69.        Unknown to Plaintiff, beginning in late January 2000 and through February
24   22, 2000 Daniel Nishrie prepares transfer documents and effects the transfer of Plaintiff‘s
25   Stock of FTT through the use of forged instruments while acquiring physical control of
26   plaintiff‘s office buildings
27          70.    Federal Transtel, INC. (“FTT”), is a Georgia corporation doing business in
28   Alabama. The corporation was formed by plaintiff and Patrick Herold in or about 1993, to
29                                                  18
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     provide long distance and telephone billing services between telecommunications
 2
     corporations and end users.
 3
           71.     A financial statement prepared by Sarit reflected the value of FTT in an open
 4
     market to be approximately $20,000,000 as of December 31, 1999. FTT had substantial
 5
     liquid assets and was owned 75% by Ami Shafrir, as community property..
 6
           72.     The true owner of FTT today is plaintiff however documents prepared by or
 7
     at Daniel Nishrie‘s direction purport to transfer the ownership to ANKE INVESTMENT,
 8
     INC., a Nevada corporation established on January 6, 2000 by Daniel Nicherie.
 9
           73.     Attached hereto as Exhibit “9” are pertinent pages of a report of Howard C.
10
     Rile, Jr., Forensic Document Examiner dated April 24, 2000 Supplemented on June 8,
11
     2000 in which the examiner identifies 13 forgeries of Ami Shafrir‘s signature transferring
12
     his assets to corporations controlled by Daniel Nishrie and creating loans on SHARFIR
13
     Real Estate in favor of FTT. In that report, at page 4, the following Opinion was rendered.
14
                 “The purported signatures of Ami Shafrir on the documents
15
                 described and attached as Exhibits G1 through G13, and the
16
                 exemplars attributed to him were probably not written by the same
17
                 individual. In my best judgments the purported signatures are
18
                 simulations.”
19
20
           74.     Exhibit 9 contains the G series of exhibits attached to the Rile Report.
21
     Exhibit G1 thereto through G13 relate to the wrongful transfer of ownership of FTT.
22
23
           75.     Exhibit G-13 – Transfer of Share Certificates - This document purports to
24
     be the signature of Ami Shafrir to the February 22, 2000 transfer of 7,500 shares of
25
     common stock in Federal TransTel, Inc. representing 75% of the issued stock at that time
26
     to Anke Investment Corporation. Furthermore, there was no consideration paid for these
27
28
29                                                19
30                                   Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     shares and any transfer would have been in violation of the A-TRO. By its terms, Daniel
 2
     Nishrie was appointed the transfer agent of the FTT Stock.
 3
 4
     (D)    DANIEL NICHERIE Effected Forgeries of Plaintiff's Signature To Implement
 5
                   the Foregoing Transfers
 6
            76.    The Nishries, SARIT and DOES 1-10 acting together have transferred
 7
     Plaintiff‘s assets away from the community estate as set forth herein. The NISHRIES and
 8
     SARIT forged or caused to be forged Plaintiff's signature to the following documents to
 9
     assist in the foregoing unlawful transfers of Plaintiff‘s property:
10
                   a.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature to an
11
            Assignment dated February 22, 2000, transferring Plaintiff's interest in the stock
12
            of FTT to ANKE.
13
                   b.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature to
14
            Escrow Instructions dated Jan. 24, 2000, authorizing recordation of a grant deed
15
            from Plaintiff to SARIT of his interest in 2015 Mt. Olympus. Subsequently, on or
16
            about January 24, 2000 Daniel Nishrie faxed, via interstate wires, a memo to Mary
17
            Ben Zion at (310) 247-2396 from fax machine number (310) 322-9141 and a copy
18
            of a fraudulently induced Quit Claim Deed from Plaintiff. The faxed memo
19
            instructed Mary Ben Zion to record the original Quit Claim Deed and to prepare a
20
            Grant Deed from SARIT in favor of Kent Family Fund, an entity owned by and
21
            controlled by Daniel Nishrie.
22
                   c.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature to a
23
            Partnership Resolution of 8670 Property Partners, Ltd. dated February 16, 2000,
24
            authorizing the execution of a Deed of Trust conveying to FTT a security interest in
25
            8670 Wilshire.
26
27
28
29                                                 20
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            d.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature to a
 2
     Partnership Resolution of 8335 Sunset Property Partners, Ltd. dated February 16,
 3
     2000, authorizing the execution of a Deed of Trust conveying to FTT a security
 4
     interest in 8335 Sunset.
 5
            e.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature to an
 6
     Assignment dated February 22, 2000, transferring his interest in the stock of FTT
 7
     to ANKE.
 8
            f.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's and Villegas'
 9
     signatures to a Mutual Release dated Feb. 22, 2000, absolving SARIT, FTT's
10
     president Patrick Herold and ANKE for their misconduct.
11
            g.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature to
12
     FTT Bd. of Dir. Resolution dated Feb. 22, 2000, ratifying a Stock Purchase
13
     Agreement evidencing purchase of Herold's stock in FTT.
14
            h.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature to a
15
     Marital Settlement Agreement dated February 22, 2000, ratifying the transfer of
16
     all of his stock in FTT to ANKE.
17
            i.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature to an
18
     Assumption Agreement dated February 22, 2000, assuming an obligation of
19
     Plaintiff to FTT in the amount of $2,529,082.21.
20
            j.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature to a
21
     Shareholder Note dated December 31, 1999, reflecting an obligation of Plaintiff of
22
     $2,529,082.21.
23
            k.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature twice
24
     to an Incumbency Certificate dated February 22, 2000 used in support of the
25
     aforesaid Stock Purchase Agreement.
26
27
28
29                                         21
30                              Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            l.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature and
 2
     initials to a Guarantee by 8670 Property Partners, Ltd. of payments of loans by
 3
     FTT to ANKE of $1,400,000 and $2,529,082.
 4
            m.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature and
 5
     initials to Guarantee by 8335 Sunset Property Partners, Ltd. of payments of loans
 6
     by FTT to ANKE of $1,400,000 and $1,221,432.
 7
            n.     The Nishries performed, or caused to be performed, a "cut and paste"
 8
     forgery of Plaintiff's signature on Letter on WORLDSITE stationary dated April
 9
     17, 2000, reflecting the wiring of $45,000 to Marathon National Bank to an account
10
     under her sole control.
11
            o.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature to an
12
     Acknowledgment by Plaintiff that he had rights in the Shareholder's Agreement
13
     dated February 22, 2000.
14
            p.     The Nishries forged, or caused to be forged, Plaintiff's signature to an
15
     Acknowledgement and Agreement concerning FTT and ANKE dated February
16
     14, 2000.
17
            q.     The Nishries conveyed, or caused to be conveyed, to FTT a security
18
     interest in 8670 Wilshire, securing a $4,550,000 loan by FTT to SARIT, pursuant to
19
     a Deed of Trust dated February 16, 2000, effected by forgeries of the signatures of
20
     Plaintiff and the Notary Public Jennifer Villegas.
21
            r.     The Nishries conveyed, or caused to be conveyed, to FTT a security
22
     interest in 8335 Sunset, securing a $750,000 loan by FTT to SARIT, pursuant to a
23
     Deed of Trust dated February 16, 2000, effected by forgeries of the signatures of
24
     Plaintiff and the Notary Jennifer Villegas.
25
26
27
28
29                                         22
30                             Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
             77.     The Nishries having intentionally devised a scheme or artifice to defraud, and
 2
     for obtaining property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises,
 3
     for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, have placed in the U.S. Postal Service,
 4
     or caused to be placed in the U.S Postal Service documents including the forged documents
 5
     identified above at (q) and (r). These documents were placed in the U.S. Mails along with
 6
     other fraudulently executed documents on February 17, 2000 by attorneys for Daniel
 7
     Nishrie, Graham & James addressed to United Title Company, 4065 East Thousand Oaks
 8
     Blvd., Suite 290, Westlake Village, CA 91362.9
 9
             78.     Based on information and belief, these forged documents have been placed,
10
     or caused to be placed in the U.S. Mails and interstate wires on several occasions after
11
     February 2000, by the Nishries for the purpose of defrauding plaintiff.
12
     (E)     False Arrest of Plaintiff in Connection With Plan to
13           Fraudulently Seize Plaintiff’s Companies and Buildings
14           79.        On February 29, 2000 plaintiff entered the 8670 Wilshire Blvd building
15   and was informed by an armed security guard orally of a 2/17/00 Order restraining AMI from
16   entering the building. The guard prevented AMI from passing and she tripped AMI when he
17   attempted to peacefully pass and pushed him to the floor. When the police arrived, they
18   confirmed AMI had not yet been served the TRO and served him at that time. The Order
19   allowed for lawful, peaceable and quiet use and AMI was free to go.
20           80.        On March 1, 2000 when AMI visited 8670 Wilshire, again in a peaceable
21   manner, the security guard called the police and Sarit made a citizen‘s arrest of AMI. The
22   Beverly Hills Police were forced to arrest AMI and released him, without bail, two hours
23   later. During this time and continuing through the present, SARIT is aggressively trying to
24   prevent AMI from accessing his buildings. On April 10, 2001, 8335 Sunset Blvd. was
25   eventually placed into bankruptcy by Joel Glaser because of the mismanagement and fraud
26   committed by SARIT.
27
     9
28       mail fraud – 1962 (b)
29                                                  23
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
 2
     IX.    THE REAL PROPERTY TRANSFERS –
 3          (A)    8670 Wilshire Blvd. Property
 4          81.    8670 Property Partners, Ltd. .is the legal owner of the 8670 Wilshire
 5   property. The owner of 8670 Property Partners is 8670 Wilshire Corp., (1 % interest as
 6   general partner) and AMI and Sarit (99% interest as limited partners) as community
 7   property
 8          82.    Pursuant to a grant deed dated March 9, 2000 Sarit, acting as president of
 9   8670 Wilshire Corp. transferred the community property building located at 8670 Wilshire
10   Blvd. to Archibald Management, Inc,. a Nevada Entity established and controlled by the
11   Nishries. This transfer was done without consideration. In a deposition taken on 7/20/00,
12   Sarit claims that Archibald is community property, however AMI had no control.
13
14          (B)    8335 Sunset Blvd. Property
15          83.    8335 Sunset Property Partners, Ltd. is the legal owner of the 8335 Sunset
16   Blvd. property. 8335 Sunset Property Partners, Ltd. is owned by 8338 Property, Inc., (1 %
17   interest as general partner) and by AMI and Sarit, (a 99% interest as limited partners) as
18   community property
19          84.      Pursuant to a grant deed dated March 9, 2000 Sarit, as President of 8335
20   Property, Inc. transferred the community property building located at 8335 Sunset Blvd. to
21   Archibald Management, Inc. a Nevada Entity established and controlled by Daniel
22   Nicherie. This transfer was also done without consideration.
23   X.     SARIT’s April 11, 2000 Ex Parte Application for TRO
24          85.      On April 11, 2000, Sarit‘s applied ex parte before the Hon. Kenneth Black
25   for an order restraining AMI from accessing either property based on claims that AMI
26   injured SARIT. The Court ordered, among other things, that each party is enjoined from
27   tampering with computer networks or telephone lines, that AMI was ordered to remain 10
28
29                                                24
30                                   Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     yards from 8670 Wilshire Blvd., and AMI was limited to the first and second floors of 8335
 2
     Sunset Blvd. where Amtec computer servers were maintained. Cynthia Takacs testified in
 3
     deposition that Sarit was not injured.
 4
            86.         The very first complaint of violence wherein SARIT alleged that
 5
     plaintiff injured her was untrue, however on April 11, 2000 the Court denied AMI’s
 6
     access to 8670 Wilshire Blvd. and granted AMI access to only the first two floors at
 7
     8335 Sunset Blvd.
 8
            87.         At the conclusion of the April 11, 2000 hearing, the parties stipulated that
 9
     the forensic examiner report of Howard Rile ―comes into evidence without further
10
     foundation‖ and the Court set May 1, 2000 to return and the Court would revisit the
11
     Restraining Order after reviewing the Rile Report.
12
13
     XI.    The April 14, 2000 Application for TRO was made by Sarit
14          To Circumvent her Deposition and Document Production
            Initially Set for 4/14/00
15
            88.         On April 4, 2000 AMI‘s attorney served a Notice of Deposition to SARIT
16
     and also served a Request for Production of Documents and set April 14, 2000 as the
17
     deposition date.
18
            89.         On April 11, 2000 AMI‘s attorney received a Notice of Objection to Sarit‘s
19
     4/14/00 deposition citing ―trial counsel‖ is unavailable with instructions to set another date.
20
     On April 11, 2000 AMI‘s counsel requested a convenient date before April 19, 2000 due to a
21
     Motion that required information from Sarit, however none was provided.
22
            90.         On April 12, 2000 AMI‘s counsel, while attending AMI‘s deposition, again
23
     requested a date for Sarit‘s deposition and Sarit‘s counsel refused to provide a date.
24
            91.         Furthermore, on April 12, 2000 Sarit served her response to AMI‘s
25
     document production objecting to every category of documents that were necessary for
26
     AMI‘s attorney to support a fee application and to resolve other issues citing ―nuisance‖
27
     objections.
28
29                                                   25
30                                      Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
             92.      Sarit objected to and refused to produce information relating to income
 2
     received from her business interests, the SHAFRIR ENTITIES, citing privacy rights of third
 3
     parties. SARIT further objected to requests for documents reflecting whether SHAFRIR
 4
     ENTITIES were parties to any lawsuits citing relevancy objections. Essentially SARIT was
 5
     denying inquiry into her finances and the use of community assets.
 6
 7
     XII AMI’s 4/14/00 Application to Compel Sarit’s Deposition and Document Production
 8        SARIT’S 4/14/00 Application for TRO – Dept 27, Hon Kenneth Black
 9           93.      On April 12, 2000 AMI entered 8335 Sunset Blvd. and since the elevator
10   was not working AMI took the stairwell to the second floor where he met security officer
11   Jacqueline Jones who denied AMI access to the second floor in violation of Judge Black‘s
12   4/11/00 Order. Ms. Jones further denied AMI access to the code for his office.
13           94.      On April 13, 2000 AMI‘s counsel noticed an ex parte application for April
14   14, 2000 for an order compelling SARIT‘s deposition, production of documents and for a
15   shortened notice for hearing on Order that Sarit vacate the 8335 Sunset Blvd. giving
16   exclusive possession of 8335 Sunset Blvd. to AMI.
17           95.      Sarit appeared at the April 14, 2000 hearing before the Hon. Kenneth Black
18   and requested that the Court issue new orders restraining AMI from the 8335 Sunset
19   Building. The Hon. Kenneth Black denied SARIT‘s request and continued AMI‘s ex parte
20   application.
21
22   XIII. SARIT’S 4/14/00 Ex Parte Application for TRO, Without Notice to AMI
23           96.      After being denied her 4/14/00 ex parte application for a TRO restraining
24   AMI from 8335 Sunset Blvd. in Dept 27, for the purpose of circumventing that denial, later
25   that same day, SARIT filed three workplace violence lawsuits10 against AMI. Sarit then
26
     10
27        1) Richard Albertini v. Ami Shafrir (BS 062662) 2)Ronen Liany v. Ami Shafrir (BS
     062663) and 3) Jacqueline Jones v. Ami Shafrir (BS 062664)
28
29                                                26
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     appeared in Dept. 2C seeking an ex parte TRO, with no notice to plaintiff, restraining
 2
     plaintiff from accessing 8335 Sunset Blvd. SARIT‘s 4/14/00 ex parte application was
 3
     denied and set for hearing for May 16, 2000. On May 2, 2000 the actions were transferred to
 4
     Dept. 27 and on 5/16/00 the application was Denied.
 5
 6
     IX.    Actions Filed August 3, 2000
 7
            97.       Two 8/9/00 ex parte application to Prohibit Harassment were noticed by
 8
     Sarit, without notice to AMI. These matters were not heard for failure to give notice.11 Sarit
 9
     was again attempting to claim workplace harassment, prior to the hearing scheduled for
10
     August 9, 2000 that addressed issues of AMI‘s access to the real properties located at 8335
11
     Sunset and 8670 Wilshire.
12
            98.       At the 8/3/00 hearing, the Hon. Kenneth Black vacated all personal
13
     restraining orders made by the court. In addition, the Court ordered Sarit to provide within 7
14
     days the records of Amtec for the period 1/1/00 through 7/31/00 for all cash receipts journal,
15
     cash disbursements journal and all wire instructions. Furthermore, On 48 hours notice
16
     (excluding weekends) by phone & fax, Petitioner shall supply respondent with copies of
17
     other reasonably requested business records of Amtec. None have been produced.
18
19
     X.     Discovery Abuse - Divorce Action 8/9/00 Order
20
21   A.     The First C.C.P. §170.6 Challenge
22          99.    On June 6, 2000 attorneys on behalf of SARIT filed a CCP §170.6 Motion to
23   disqualify Judge Black in the 940 Entity Litigation and that matter was reassigned to Hon.
24   Ronald M. Sohigian on June 13, 2000. The divorce action remained before Judge Black.
25
26
     11
27      Richard Albertini v. Ami Shafrir (BS 064628) and Judith Zamora v. Ami Shafrir (BS
     064629)
28
29                                                 27
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
              100.   On October 20, 2000 an Ex Parte Application for Appointment of Receiver
 2
     over the SHAFRIR ENTITIES was brought by AMI in Dept. 86 before the Hon. David
 3
     Jaffee who denied to hear the matter stating the proceeding should be brought in family
 4
     court.
 5
 6   XI.      November 7, 2000 False Allegations Daniel Nishrie Made
               to the United States Department of Justice
 7
              101.   Based on information and belief, on November 7, 2000 Daniel Nishrie sent a
 8
     memo, via facsimile transmission using the wires, addressed to his attorney, Victor
 9
     Sherman describing the results of an extensive computer-filtering program designed to find
10
     matches of specific variables.
11
              102.   Based on information and belief, Daniel Nishrie identified only two credit
12
     card transactions of Amtec Audiotext that matched the numbers set forth in the FTC
13
     complaint targeted against Ken Taves, an individual convicted of fraudulent credit card
14
     billing on the internet.
15
              103.   Based on information and belief, Victor Sherman used this information to
16
     initiate an investigation against plaintiff for internet credit card fraud. Amtec derives much
17
     of its $40,000,000 annual revenues from a large volume of small credit card sales. It
18
     would be expected that with such high volume that a few matches would occur.
19
              104.   Based on information and belief, essentially, 2 customers who processed
20
     transactions with Amtec, (approximately one million credit card transactions), were
21
     defrauded by Taves. This appears to be the only information Daniel Nishrie is alleging that
22
     qualifies as plaintiff‘s connection with Taves.
23
24   (A)      In 1990 Daniel Nicherie Planned False Allegations to Harm Guardian
              Life Insurance Company of America
25
              105.     The filing of false reports to harass the victim is a pattern engaged in by
26
     Daniel Nishrie with past victims. It is designed to not only harm the victim, but to draw
27
     attention away from their fraudulent conduct.
28
29                                                  28
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
 2
           106.   In the Connecticut action:
 3
 4
             ―Daniel … Nicherie used the interstate wires for the purpose of advising
 5
             and instructing [his] counsel, Mary Nell Maloney, Esq., of a plan of action
 6
             against Guardian, which [he] intended to include a public relations
 7
             campaign against Guardian, attacks upon Guardian through regulatory
 8
             agencies, and ‗leaks‘ to the press, all for the purpose of exerting
 9
             commercial and other pressure on Guardian, of causing policyholder
10
             dissatisfaction, and of otherwise harming Guardian.‖ (emphasis added)
11
             (numbered exhibit page 60, ¶80)
12
           107.   Attached hereto as Exhibit 11 is a letter from Brent Whittlesey, Assistant
13
     United States Attorney to Victor Sherman, believed to be the attorney for Daniel and Abner
14
     Nishrie at one time in response to a communication made by Victor Sherman: Pertinent
15
     parts reflect that the Nishries are in charge of Amtec and that no evidence was provided to
16
     the Justice Department supporting the accusations.
17
18
           “…You further stated that Daniel Nicherie and Abner Nicherie has
19
           assumed management of a company formerly operated by Mr. Shafrir,
20
           Amtec”
21
           ―…this Office had been unable to identify any evidence suggesting that
22
           Mr. Shafrir had been involved in the Taves credit card fraud or that he
23
           had engaged in a credit card fraud scheme through Amtec independent
24
           of the activities of Taves. I suggest that if your clients had business
25
           records of Amtec which showed that fraudulent credit card charges had
26
           been processed by the company, such record should be assembled and
27
           produced…”
28
29                                                29
30                                   Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     XII.    Discovery Abuse In Divorce Action 1/5/01 Order
 2
 3           108.   On January 5, 2001 Judge Black ordered Sarit to pay Spousal Support of
 4   $7,750 per month forthwith, retroactive to October 1, 2000 and granted Respondent‘s
 5   Motion to Compel the deposition of Petitioner on January 23, 2001 and there produce the
 6   documents sought by Respondent in his Motion. This Order was signed on January 23,
 7   2001. Sarit has failed to make any payments.
 8           109.   On January 8, 2001 Sarit‘s counsel, Mr. Landau objected to the production
 9   of these records on the grounds that Amtec, FTT and Worldsite were not parties to the
10   divorce proceeding and that Sarit was not an officer, managing agent, director, or employee
11   of FTT and has had no relationship to that entity for approximately one year. He further
12   stated that Sarit is also not a shareholder of that entity, and has no access to nor is she able
13   to produce any records of said entity.
14           110.   Mr. Landau further stated that Sarit is not the managing agent, director, or
15   employee of Worldsite, Inc. or Amtec Audiotext, Inc. and is a minority shareholder of
16   Amtec Audiotext, Inc. and that Sarit has no access to nor control of any of the records of
17   Amtec or Worldsite and was unable to produce the requested records and he suggested that
18   discovery be conducted in the 940 action.
19           111.   Sarit appeared for her deposition on January 23, 2001, however she gave
20   non-responsive answers for ½ hour, produced no responsive documents and refused to
21   continue in plaintiff‘s presence.
22
23   XIII.    Amtec v. Ami Shafrir BC 225826 1/18/01 Order
24
             112.   On January 18, 2001 Judge Sohigian issued an Order in actions 826 and 940
25
     that Sarit‘s deposition shall commence on January 29, 2001 at the courthouse.
26
27
28
29                                                  30
30                                       Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            113.   On March 15, 2000 the NISHRIES caused Amtec to file an action against
 2
     AMI alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and embezzlement titled Amtec Audiotext, Inc. v.
 3
     Ami Shafrir, Case No. BC 225826 (the ―826 action‖). That lawsuit contained fabricated
 4
     allegations of transfers of Amtec funds by AMI to ―Bogus Vendors,‖ ―Bogus Affiliates,‖
 5
     and ―Sham International Entities.‖ The complaint further alleged that AMI had wrongly
 6
     used Amtec credit lines and had committed acts of forgery.
 7
            114.   On February 9, 2001 Judge Sohigian issued an OSC on why Amtec and
 8
     counsel therefor should not be sanctioned for failure of Sarit Shafrir to comply with order
 9
     of 1/18/01 and for dismissal of the action. The OSC was set for March 2, 2001, however
10
     Jerry Solomon Berger dismissed that lawsuit on February 28, 2001 two days before the
11
     sanction hearing.    As a result of this February 28, 2001 dismissal, Sarit‘s Court Ordered
12
     deposition in the 826 matter initially set for January 29, 2001 could not be compelled for a
13
     later date.
14
     XIV. Discovery Order in BC 227940 – January 18, 2001
15
            115.   On January 2, 2001 AMI placed Archibald Management into involuntary
16
     Bankruptcy in the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division, Case No. LA 01-
17
     10015-SB (the ―Archibald California Bankruptcy‖)
18
            116.   On January 18, 2001 Judge Sohigian issued an Order in actions 826 and 940
19
     that Sarit‘s deposition shall commence on January 29, 2001 at the courthouse.
20
            117.   On January 25, 2001 Joel Glaser filed a Motion to dismiss the Archibald
21
     California Bankruptcy and set March 13, 2001 for the hearing date.
22
            118.   On January 26, 2001 Joel Glaser removed the 940 action to the Archibald
23
     California Bankruptcy Court. The 940 action was removed by Joel Glaser to the
24
     ―California‖ Bankruptcy Court just one day after he set a Motion to Dismiss the Archibald
25
     California Bankruptcy action.
26
            119.   As a result of this January 26, 2001 removal, Sarit‘s Court Ordered
27
     deposition in the 940 action set for January 29, 2001 did not go forward.
28
29                                                31
30                                   Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     XV.    Actions Filed by Sarit on March 9, 2001
 2
            120.   On March 6, 2001 while being recorded by Fox, KTTV LA News AMI
 3
     entered his buildings located at 8335 Sunset and 8670 Wilshire, during the hours of
 4
     approximately 7:30 p.m. through midnight. Sarit appeared at the buildings and demanded
 5
     that Ami leave creating a large commotion. As repeatedly done in the past, Sarit and the
 6
     Nishries fabricated detailed reports of violence being committed by AMI against various
 7
     Amtec employees including Reginold Blando, David Adrabi, Michelle Dizon and Richard
 8
     Albertini and caused four workplace violence applications to be filed, all seeking to
 9
     prevent AMI from having access to the buildings.
10
            121.   Reginold Blando has recanted the allegations of workplace violence against
11
     AMI and executed a declaration to that effect. Reginold Blando stated that he was coerced
12
     to sign the declaration against AMI; that the fabrications were untrue and that they were.
13
     written by Tiffany Azima, an employee of the Nishrie conglomerate12
14
            122.   Based on information and belief, Reginold Blando has witnessed Sarit and
15
     Daniel forcing people to sign false declarations under threat of termination.
16
            123.   Richard Albertini is a front for Daniel Nishrie, and represents himself to be
17
     the president of all of the SHAFRIR ENTITIES except for FTT. David Adrabi and
18
     Michelle Dizon are employed by the Nishrie conglomerate and are in knowing
19
     participation with the Nishries racketeering activities.
20
            124.      These actions were filed by Jerry Solomon Berger on March 9, 2001
21
     seeking ex parte applications for Amtec for the issuance of a TRO preventing AMI from
22
     accessing the properties13. An ex parte application was brought in Department 27 on March
23
     8, 2001 and again on March 12, 2001, before the Hon. Kenneth Black by Thomas Emmitt,
24
25
     7.     Amtec, Inc. employee Reginold Blando v. Ami Shafrir (BS 068177)
26   8.     Amtec, Inc. employee David Adrabi v. Ami Shafrir (BS 068178)
27   9.     Amtec, Inc. employee Michelle Dizon v. Ami Shafrir (BS 068175)
     10.    Amtec, Inc. employee Richard Albertini v. Ami Shafrir (BS 068176)
28
29                                                 32
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     attorney for Sarit Shafrir specially appearing for Stephen Landau of Hersh & Mannis. The
 2
     Hon. Kenneth Black denied the applications.
 3
            125.      In a declaration attached to the applications for a TRO against AMI, Jerry
 4
     Solomon Berger, Esq. declares under penalty of perjury that as of March 8, 2001 Amtec is a
 5
     viable business that employs approximately 60 people, interacts with up to 100 independent
 6
     contractors and that Amtec operates 24 hours per day, 7 days a week.
 7
            126.      Not satisfied with the results in Department 27, Jerry Solomon Berger
 8
     noticed a third identical ex parte application in Department 6 before, the Hon. Victor
 9
     Reichman who also denied the TRO at a hearing on March 16, 2001. The prior ex parte
10
     applications submitted before the Hon. Kenneth Black were not disclosed to the Hon. Victor
11
     Reichman in the application.
12
            127.   On Friday, March 16, 2001, the Court in Department 6 dismissed the four
13
     lawsuits brought against Respondent AMI SHAFRIR. Petitioner, acting through Amtec
14
     Audiotext (representing 4 employees) was attempting to obtain a restraining order against
15
     AMI SHAFRIR preventing him from accessing 8670 Wilshire Blvd., and 8335 Sunset
16
     Blvd. (the ―Properties‖) based on perjured declarations of violence, in an attempt to
17
     circumvent a 3/13/01 Order issued by the Hon. Kenneth Black preventing anyone from
18
     interfering with his access to the buildings.
19
            128.   The following activities of Joel Glaser in the West Los Angeles District on
20
     March 15, 2001 and March 16, 2001 were designed to circumvent Judge Black‘s March
21
     13, 2001 Order. Mr. Glaser failed to disclose this Order to the Court in Dept 27 or Dept 6.
22
     XVI. Extrinsic Fraud in a West Los Angeles District Action
23
          West Judicial District
24          129.   In an action in Los Angeles County, West Judicial District titled Archibald
25   Management v. Amtec, Audiotext, Inc. SC 065702 Joel Glaser represented plaintiff
26   Archibald against defendant Amtec. Joel had represented Archibald prior to that date,
27   and his associates are Archibald‘s attorneys.
28
29                                                   33
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
              130. On March 26, 2001 the Court set aside a Stipulated Judgment for extrinsic
 2
     fraud in Dept. L before the Hon. Valerie L. Baker.
 3
              131.    The litigation in the West Judicial District, Santa Monica was staged by Joel
 4
     Glaser, Esq. in an attempt to obtain a judicial determination of a matter to circumvent a
 5
     Court Order issued by the Hon. Kenneth Black on March 13, 2001 in the Central District.
 6
              132.    The matter presented before the West Judicial District is as follows.
 7
                             March 15, 2001 – Complaint filed for Breach of Contract
 8
                             March 16, 2001 - Stipulated Judgment “Ex Parte”14
 9
                             March 19, 2001 - Records Sealed “Ex Parte”.
10
11
     (A)      The Nishries’ attorney, Joel Glaser Violated a March 13, 2001 Order Issued by
12            the Hon. Kenneth Black by Requesting Relief Through a Sham Stipulated
              Judgment Before the Hon. Valerie L. Baker
13
              .133. On March 13, 2001, the Hon. Kenneth A. Black issued a Court Order
14
     relating to the specific issue of Ami Shafrir‘s access to the two community property
15
     buildings located at 8670 Wilshire Blvd., and 8335 Sunset Blvd. as follows:
16
17                        ―Mr. Shafrir is not ordered to remain away from 8335 Sunset or

18                        8670 Wilshire. However, if both Petitioner [Sarit Shafrir] and

19                        Respondent [Ami Shafrir] are present in either building at the same

20                        time, Respondent will remain a minimum of 5 yards away from

21                        Petitioner.‖

22
23            134.    The March 13, 2001 Court Order was Amended by Hon. Kenneth A. Black

24   on March 16, 2001, on Ami Shafrir‘s Motion, to grant Ami Shafrir the following ―more

25   detailed rights‖ because Ami was prevented from accessing his community property

26   located at 8670 Wilshire and 8335 Sunset, despite the Court Order.

27
28   14
          Furthermore, a Judgment was entered against Amtec for $45,000.
29                                                   34
30                                       Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
                      ―Ami Shafrir shall not be restricted in any way from accessing 8670
 2
                      Wilshire Blvd., and 8335 Sunset Blvd., (the ―Properties‖). This
 3
                      Order specifically grants the right to Ami Shafrir to access the
 4
                      Properties, including unrestricted entry onto and into the Properties.
 5
                      Petitioner and her agents are restricted and enjoined from
 6
                      interfering with his access thereto. Petitioner and her agents are
 7
                      restricted and enjoined from locking Ami Shafrir out of the
 8
                      Premises…‖
 9
10
            135.   On March 16, 2001, at the same time the Hon Kenneth Black was expanding
11
     Ami Shafrir‘s ability to access his community property buildings, the Hon. Valerie Baker,
12
     in the West Judicial District, in Santa Monica was asked by Joel Glaser, Esq. on behalf of
13
     Archibald Management to execute a Stipulated Judgment preventing AMI‘s access to the
14
     buildings in the action titled Archibald Management, Inc. v. Amtec Audiotext, Inc. Case
15
     No. SC 065702. Mr. Glaser failed to disclose the 3/13/01 Order of Judge Black that
16
     prevented anyone from interfering with AMI‘s access to the building.
17
            136.   The Stipulated Judgment was presented to the Court in the West Judicial
18
     District one day after the Complaint had been filed in that action.
19
            137.   The Stipulated Judgment was orchestrated by Joel Glaser, Esq. to circumvent
20
     the Hon. Kenneth Black‘s March 13, 2001 Order by staging litigation between Archibald
21
     and Amtec to prevent a third party, Ami Shafrir from accessing what is his community
22
     property, but for the wrongful transfer of 8335 Sunset and 8670 Wilshire to Archibald
23
     Management.
24
            138.   Pertinent portions of the March 16, 2001 Stipulated Judgment presented to
25
     and signed by the Hon. Valerie L. Baker, as set forth in ¶1 thereof provide:
26
27
28
29                                                35
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
                      ―For an injunction enjoining and restraining former Amtec
 2
                      employee Ami Shafrir, Ronen Liany, and their agents, employees,
 3
                      all those acting in concert with Ami Shafrir or Ronin Liany, and
 4
                      any persons which Archibald designates as a ―disruptive person‖
 5
                      from coming within 100 yards of Archibald Properties located at
 6
                      8335 Sunset Blvd., Los Angeles, California 90069 and 8670
 7
                      Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, California.‖ {emphasis added}
 8
            139.   On March 26, 2001 the Hon. Valerie Baker VACATED the Judgment on
 9
     AMI‘s ex parte application based on extrinsic fraud.
10
            140.   Subsequent to March 26, 2001, and with full knowledge of the revocation of
11
     Judge Baker‘s 3/16/01 Order, on several occasions when plaintiff attempted to access his
12
     real properties, Joel Glaser, Richard Albertini and Samuel Rozanis called the police and
13
     upon their arrival, informed them that AMI was in violation of Judge Baker‘s Order. This
14
     was done to prevent AMI‘s access to the buildings.
15
            141.   Based on information and belief, the Nishries have corruptly persuaded Joel
16
     Glaser, Esq. or have engaged in misleading conduct towards Mr. Glaser with the intent to
17
     influence his testimony in official proceedings before the Hon. Baker and Ronald Klein in
18
     Orange county.
19
            142.   Based on information and belief, the Nishries have corruptly persuaded Mr.
20
     Glaser to file a declaration in the Santa Monica action intentionally omitting Judge Black‘s
21
     3/13/00 Order and in direct violation of that order. Furthermore, the Nishries have corruptly
22
     persuaded Mr. Glaser with the intent to influence his testimony in official proceedings before
23
     Ronald Klein in the Berlaga matter in Orange County in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1512.
24
25
     Destruction of Amtec
26
            143.      As of July, 2001, 1 ½ years after Sarit took control of AMTEC, its
27
     operations no longer exist. AMI has been prevented from accessing his property while these
28
29                                                 36
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     businesses and properties were under the control of SARIT and were intentionally destroyed,
 2
     with the revenues diverted to Nishrie controlled entities. Furthermore, the 8335 Sunset Blvd.
 3
     building is presently in bankruptcy.
 4
            144.      SARIT testified in her only deposition on July 20, 2000 that she did not
 5
     know who owned FTT, a company she valued as of December 31, 1999 at book value of
 6
     $1,675,000, however, in a footnote thereto, the company is represented to have an ―open
 7
     market value in excess of $20,000,000‖.
 8
     XVII. OTHER HEARINGS
 9
     (A)    Archibald California Bankruptcy
10
            145.   On February 1, 2001 counsel for AMI also filed a motion to Dismiss the
11
     California Bankruptcy action of Archibald and that matter was heard on March 6, 2001.
12
     Joel Glaser, representing Archibald opposed the motion despite having a Motion to
13
     Dismiss set for March 13, 2001.
14
            146.   The Archibald California Bankruptcy action was dismissed on March 6,
15
     2001 with an order entered on March 21, 2001. An ex parte application for the
16
     appointment of a receiver over the SHAFRIR ENTITIES was brought by AMI on March
17
     22, 2001.
18
19
     (B)    OSC Date Set in 940 Action by Hon. Ronald Sohigian
20
            147.   At that March 22, 2001 hearing Hon. Ronald Sohigian granted the request
21
     for an OSC and he set April 30, 2001 as the date for an OSC re: Appointment of a receiver
22
     over the SHARFIR ENTITIES would be heard.
23
24   (C)    Archibald Nevada Bankruptcy

25          148.   On April 5, 2001, AMI obtained relief from the stay in Archibald‘s Nevada

26   Bankruptcy action, In Re: Archibald Management, Southern District of Nevada, Case No.

27   01-10021 (rcj) (the ―Archibald Nevada Bankruptcy‖) filed by Joel Glaser. On April 6,

28   2001 Ami Shafrir gave notice of an Ex Parte Application for Appointment of a Receiver

29                                                37
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     over Archibald that was set to be heard on April 9, 2001 in the 940 action before the Hon.
 2
     Ronald Sohigian.
 3
 4   (D)   The Second C.C.P. §170.6 Challenge

 5         149.   On April 9, 2001, before the Ex Parte Application of AMI‘s for the

 6   Appointment of a Receiver over Archibald could be heard, Marvin Benson, Esq. on behalf

 7   of defendant Worldsite who just made its appearance in the action filed a CCP §170.6

 8   challenge to disqualify Hon. Ronald Sohigian.

 9         150.   At the April 9, 2001 receiver motion, Marvin Benson stated ―substantial

10   adverse interests‖ existed between defendants Worldsite and Sarit in support of the

11   CCP§170.6 requirement in challenging Hon. Ronald M. Sohigian wherein ―Worldsite

12   intended to sue SARIT for theft of Worldsite funds.‖ This lawsuit was never filed. Hon.

13   Ronald Sohigian recused himself from the 940 action at that hearing and vacated all

14   pending motions including the April 30, 2001 OSC re: Appointment of Receiver over the

15   SHAFRIR ENTITIES and vacated the trial date. The 940 action was reassigned to Hon.

16   Malcolm H. Mackey on April 10, 2001.

17         151.   On April 10, 2001 AMI gave notice of an Ex Parte Application for the

18   Appointment of a Receiver over Archibald Management set for 8:30 a.m. April 11, 2001

19   before the Hon. Malcolm H. Mackey based, in part, on the impending foreclosure sale of

20   the 8335 Sunset Blvd. property scheduled for 11:30 a.m. on April 11, 2001.

21
22
     (E)   8335 Property, Inc. Bankruptcy and
23         Removal of the 940 Action to 8335 Bankruptcy
24         152.   On April 10, 2001 Joel Glaser, Esq., on behalf of 8335 Property, Inc.
25   removed the 940 action to Bankruptcy Court, Central District of California, Los Angeles
26   Division where he had placed the 8335 Property, Inc. into bankruptcy that same day.
27
28
29                                               38
30                                  Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            153.    A trustee over 8335 Property, Inc. was appointed on AMI‘s Motion on May
 2
     22, 2001. This Motion was aggressively opposed by the Nishrie conglomerate headed by
 3
     Joel Glaser.
 4
            154.    The 940 action was removed to bankruptcy court by JOEL GLASER to delay
 5
     and frustrate AMI‘s application for the appointment of a receiver over the SHAFRIR
 6
     ENTITIES where the action currently remains.
 7
 8
     (F) Glaser Violated the Nevada Bankruptcy Prohibition Against Refiling Bankruptcy
 9
            155.    On March 9, 2001 the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Nevada
10
     granted AMI‘s Motion to Dismiss the Chapter 11 Proceedings in Re: Archibald
11
     Management, Inc. dba 8335 Property Partners, LLP and authorized the entry of a 180 day
12
     bar to re-filing the bankruptcy.   The Debtor‘s only asset was the commercial real
13
     properties transferred by SARIT in March 2000, the properties located at 8335 Sunset
14
     Blvd., and 8670 Wilshire Blvd.
15
16
     (G)    Transfer of Property Located at 8335 Sunset Blvd. to 8335 Property, Inc.
17
            156.    On March 30, 2001 Samuel Rozanis, as President of Archibald Management,
18
     Inc. transferred, by Grant Deed, the 8335 Sunset Blvd property to 8335 Property, Inc.
19
     The original illegal transfer made by SARIT had been made from 8335 Property Partners,
20
     LLP, however the Nevada Bankruptcy Court prohibited the re-filing of another bankruptcy
21
     for debtor Archibald Management, Inc. dba 8335 Property Partners, LLP. To circumvent
22
     the stay on re-filing the Bankruptcy, Glaser transferred the property to the 1% Corporate
23
     general partner, 8335 Property, Inc. and then represented that entity in filing for bankruptcy
24
     on April 10, 2001. The transfer of the 8335 Sunset Blvd. property was done without
25
     consideration.
26
27
28
29                                                 39
30                                      Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     (H)    Transfer of 8670 Wilshire Blvd to Corporate Management Control, Inc.
 2          157.   On April 9, 2001 Samuel Rozanis, as President of Archibald Management,
 3   Inc. transferred by Grant Deed the 8670 Wilshire Blvd., property to Corporate
 4   Management Control, Inc., a corporation created and controlled by Daniel Nishrie. The
 5   original transfer had made from 8670 Wilshire Partners, LLP. This transfer of the 8670
 6   Wilshire Blvd. property was done without consideration.
 7
 8   XVIII ABUSE OF PROCESS RE: NEW YORK LIFE AND METROPOLITIAN LIFE
 9          158.   On April 3, 2001, the Hon. Roy Paul ordered that Ami Shafrir could access his
10   New York Life Insurance policy for $63,906 plus his Metropolitan Life policy for
11   approximately $80,000 for the purpose of bringing the mortgage on his residence with
12   Washington Mutual current.
13          159.   On April 5, 2001, Jerry Solomon Berger, Esq. as attorney for Amtec brought
14   the action titled Audiotext, Inc. and Worldsite, Inc. v. Ami Shafrir, New York Life
15   Insurance, Metropolitan Life Insurance in Case No. BC 248135 to interfere with the
16   court‘s April 3, 2001 ruling designed to prevent Ami Shafrir from bringing the mortgage
17   current.15
18          160.   On April 20, 2001 Ami Shafrir brought an exparte application for the
19   appointment of a receiver over only Amtec and Worldsite in Dept. 86 before the Hon.
20   David Yaffee. The Hon David Yaffee denied the application stating that the matter should
21   be brought in Dept. 9 before the Hon. Roy Paul in the Divorce matter and that the Court
22   could exercise jurisdiction over the SHAFRIR‘s community assets. Jerry Solomon Berger
23   appeared for Amtec and Worldsite
24          161.   On April 26, 2001 Ami Shafrir brought an exparte application for the
25   appointment of a receiver over the SHAFRIR ENTITIES in Dept. 9 before the Hon. Roy
26
     15
27    Amtec Audiotext, Inc., Worldsite, Inc. v. Ami Shafrir, New York Life Insurance Co.,
     Metropolitian Life Insurance Co., Lawrence Tover, BC 248135 filed on April 5, 2001
28
29                                                 40
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     Paul who declined to hear the matter stating that he could not hear it because the entities were
 2
     not before him.
 3
            162.   On May 9, 2001 Ami Shafrir brought a Motion that he be the community
 4
     partner in charge of managing the SHAFRIR ENTITIES in Dept. 9 before the Hon. Roy Paul
 5
     who again stated that he would not hear the matter because he did not want to make a ruling
 6
     effecting the Entities that were all before the court in the 940 action and that the motion
 7
     would have to be heard there, or in a consolidated action including the corporations.
 8
 9
     (IX)   ABUSE OF PROCESS RE: WASHINGTON MUTUAL AND PACKWOOD
10
            163.   On April 3, 2001, the Hon. Roy Paul ordered that Ami Shafrir could access his
11
     New York Life Insurance policy for $63,906 plus his Metropolitan Life policy for
12
     approximately $80,000 for the purpose of bringing the mortgage on his residence with
13
     Washington Mutual current.
14
            164.   On April 9, 2001 Thomas Emmitt, Esq. as attorney for Sarit Shafrir, filed
15
     another lawsuit against Ami Shafrir and the mortgage holders on his personal residence,
16
     titled Sarit Shafrir v. Washington Mutual Bank, Ami Shafrir, Packwood
17
     Communications, Daniel Maman, et al., BC 248326 currently in Dept. 38.
18
19
     (A)    Cases Related and Consolidation
20
            165.   On May 24, 2001, Department 1 of the Superior Court of California, County
21
     of Los Angeles, Central District Related 26 cases to the lead case pending in department 38
22
     and on May 31, 2001, this Court entered an order transferring the 26 related cases to Dept.
23
     38 and further set dates for Status Conference and OSC for these cases Re: Why these
24
     related cases (1) should not be declared complex, and/or (2) should not be permanently
25
     consolidated for August 3, 2001 at 1:30 p.m.
26
27
28
29                                                  41
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
 2
            166.   Frustrated by the lack of progress in circumventing Judge Black‘s 3/16/01
 3
     order by filing frivolous litigation, six lawsuits were filed on March 30, 2001 against Ami
 4
     Shafrir and his attorney Mark Estes by three in-house attorneys for Daniel and Abner
 5
     Nishrie.
 6
            167.   The allegations in these lawsuits are that now, Mark Estes, Esq. has
 7
     committed battery, false imprisonment, negligent supervision filed by Sarit Shafrir, David
 8
     Adrabi, Michelle Dizon, Richard Albertini, Archibald Management, and Samuel Rozanis.
 9
     Archibald Management also seeks a quiet title cause against 8670 Wilshire Blvd. in its
10
     complaint
11
12
     FICTITIOUS NAME OR ADDRESS 18 U.S.C. §1342
13
            168.   As set forth herein, the Nishries, for the purpose of conducting, promoting, or
14
     carrying on by means of the Postal Service, a scheme or device mentioned in section 18
15
     U.S.C. §1341 and/or other unlawful business, have used or assumed, or requested to be
16
     addressed by a fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address or name other than their
17
     own proper name, and/or the Nishries have taken or received from a post office or
18
     authorized depository of mail matter, a letter, postal card, package, and/or other mail matter
19
     addressed to such fictitious, false, or assumed title, name, or address, or name other than
20
     their own proper name in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1342
21
            169.   On March 3, 2001 Ami Shafrir noticed a Special Meeting of Directors and
22
     Shareholders for Amtec, Worldsight, Multitel, 8670 Wilshire Corp., and 8335 Property, Inc.,
23
     and a Partnership meeting for 8670 Property Partners, Ltd., and 8335 Sunset Property
24
     Partners, Ltd. to be held on March 13, 2001.
25
            170.   By letter placed in the U.S. Mails on March 12, 2001, Richard Albertini, as
26
     agent of the Nishries, and in furtherance of the terms of that agency, represented himself to
27
     be President of all of the corporations and general partner of the partnerships identified in
28
29                                                  42
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     plaintiff‘s notices. In reply to plaintiffs shareholder, partner and director meetings, Mr.
 2
     Albertini stated that AMI had no interest in the corporations either as director, officer or
 3
     shareholder and had no interest in the partnerships and informed him that the notices were
 4
     ―invalid and of no force or effect…and that the Company will not recognize the validity of
 5
     any actions purported to be taken.‖
 6
 7
     XX.      The NISHRIES Effected Transfers of Community Assets
 8
              171.   In February, 2000 the NISHRIES; SARIT and DOES 1-10 caused Plaintiff's
 9
     signature to be forged16 on documents (1) borrowing $5.25 million on 8670 Wilshire and
10
     8335 Sunset and encumbering said properties with trust deeds in like amount in favor of
11
     FTT; and (2) borrowing $5 million on said properties and encumbering same with trust
12
     deeds in like amount in favor of ANKE Investment Corp., a corporation created and
13
     controlled by the Nishries. In March, 2000 the NISHRIES, SARIT and DOES 1-10,
14
     fraudulently caused title to 8670 Wilshire and 8335 Sunset to be transferred to
15
     ARCHIBALD MANAGEMENT, INC., a Nevada corporation created and controlled by
16
     the Nishries.
17
              172.   The NISHRIES, SARIT and DOES 1-10 have effected the following
18
     transfers of community assets in violation of the August 18, 1998 Family Law Restraining
19
     Order:
20
                     a.     Daniel and Abner Nishrie conveyed, or caused to be conveyed, to FTT
21
              a security interest in 8670 Wilshire, securing a $4,550,000 loan by FTT, pursuant to
22
              a Deed of Trust dated February 16, 2000, effected by forgeries of the signatures of
23
              Plaintiff and the Notary Public Jennifer Villegas.
24
                     b.     Daniel and Abner Nishrie conveyed, or caused to be conveyed, to FTT
25
              a security interest in 8335 Sunset, securing a $750,000 loan by FTT, pursuant to a
26
       16
27            The forgeries have been established by 2 handwriting experts, one selected by Judge
     Black.
28
29                                                  43
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     Deed of Trust dated February 16, 2000, effected by forgeries of the signatures of
 2
     Plaintiff and the Notary Jennifer Villegas.
 3
            c.     Daniel and Abner Nishrie conveyed, or caused to be conveyed, to
 4
     ANKE a security interest in 8670 Wilshire, securing a $2,000,000 loan, pursuant to
 5
     a Deed of Trust dated February 9, 2000.
 6
            d.     Daniel and Abner Nishrie conveyed, or caused to be conveyed, to
 7
     ANKE a security interest in 8670 Wilshire, purportedly securing a $1,000,000 loan,
 8
     pursuant to a Deed of Trust dated February 9, 2000.
 9
            e.     Daniel and Abner and Abner Nishrie conveyed, or caused to be
10
     conveyed, to ANKE a security interest in 8670 Wilshire, securing a $1,000,000
11
     loan, pursuant to a Deed of Trust dated February 9, 2000.
12
            f.     Daniel and Abner Nishrie conveyed, or caused to be conveyed, to
13
     ANKE a security interest in 8335 Sunset, purportedly securing a $1,000,000 loan,
14
     pursuant to a Deed of Trust dated February 9, 2000.
15
            g.     Daniel and Abner Nishrie conveyed, or caused to be conveyed, 8670
16
     Wilshire to ARCHIBALD pursuant to a Deed dated March 9, 2000, for an unknown
17
     amount of consideration.
18
            h.     Daniel and Abner Nishrie conveyed, or caused to be conveyed, 8335
19
     Sunset to ARCHIBALD, pursuant to a Deed dated March 9, 2000, for an unknown
20
     amount of consideration.
21
            i.     Daniel and Abner Nishrie conveyed, or caused to be conveyed, 2015
22
     Mount Olympus Drive to KENT, an entity owned by DANIEL NISHRIE, pursuant
23
     to a Grant Deed recorded January 25, 2000, for $855,000.00, half its true value of
24
     $1,500,000.00.
25
            j.     Daniel and Abner Nishrie transferred, or caused to be transferred, in
26
     January, 2000, the Shafrirs' stock portfolio worth $336,996.49 from the Shafrirs'
27
28
29                                         44
30                              Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            joint community DLJ direct Account #016 094807 at Merrill Lynch to Account
 2
            #20715Z44 and then to Account #20716F10 in the name of SARIT only.
 3
                   k.     Daniel and Abner Nishrie transferred, or caused to be transferred,
 4
            Plaintiff's interest in the stock of FTT to ANKE, pursuant to an Assignment dated
 5
            February 22, 2000, bearing a forgery of Plaintiff's signature.
 6
                   l.     Based on information and belief, Daniel and Abner Nishrie
 7
            transferred, or caused to be transferred, over $4 million from AMTEC bank
 8
            accounts.
 9
10
     XXI. ABUSE OF PROCESS
11
            173.   The Nishries capitalize on the complexity of the plan, scheme or artifice to
12
     defraud and with the active assistance of some of their attorneys, use it to delay and
13
     confuse the issues before the Courts.
14
            174.   The Nishries maintain control of the various corporate shells that are a part of
15
     the enterprise for as long as possible. One corporate shell is easily abandoned, and assets
16
     diverted to other corporate shells as necessary. The Nishries ignore discovery obligations
17
     while conducting aggressive discovery of their own all part of the scheme to delay and
18
     confuse.
19
            175.   The Nishries risk sanctions against shell entities that will either never pay or
20
     in which the sanctions are meaningless compared to the millions of dollars diverted to
21
     offshore accounts or used to continue their activities.
22
            176.   Valuable resources are wasted by the judicial system in compliance with the
23
     ―rules and procedures‖ despite the Nishries‘ blatant disrespect for, and abuse of, these very
24
     same ―rules and procedures.‖
25
            177.   Having seized control of all of the victim‘s assets, and with the
26
     disproportionate distribution of resources, the Nishries maintain control of their enterprise
27
     by preventing accountability and capitalize on delay and confusion. The status quo, the
28
29                                                 45
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     Nishries maintain before a judicial determination, is that of the recently changed and/or
 2
     created criminal enterprise, rather than the true, economic and equitable status quo that
 3
     existed immediately prior to the critical events causing such drastic changes.
 4
 5
     XXII. The Nishries Engage in Abuse of Process with their Aggressive Litigation
 6
            Tactics Designed to Destroy the Victim and are in Violation of Ethics
 7
            178.   Literally, overnight Plaintiff was ousted from his businesses and office
 8
     buildings by the use of armed guards. Plaintiff was denied access to his source of income,
 9
     bank accounts and credit that had been there for the past ten years.
10
            179.   During the period since February 2000, baseless accusations have been made
11
     against Plaintiff that he diverted millions of dollars. The Nishries claim that plaintiff
12
     diverted funds during a period of time he and his estranged wife, SARIT operated the
13
     SHARFIR ENTITIES.
14
            180.   Two convicted criminals are in possession and control of virtually every asset
15
     plaintiff once owned and plaintiff is forced to defend himself during a divorce that
16
     suddenly turned very bitter at the same time the Nishries entered the SHAFRIR‘S life. The
17
     estranged wife and convicted criminals are acting with malicious intent of destroying
18
     plaintiff.
19
20
                           Special Master Report in Texas in 1990-1991
21
            181.   The Nishries have misused the court proceedings to delay determination of
22
     the merits of allegations brought against them in the past. A special master, Susan Blush,
23
     was appointed in the Connecticut action due to the discovery abuses of the Nicheries.
24
            182.      The Blush Report17 in the Connecticut Action, attached as Exhibit 7
25
     hereto describes the Nishries‘ conduct in the first paragraph of the summary as follows
26
     17
27       In July 1990, the judge in the Connecticut Action requested Susan A. Blush to serve as a
     Special Master. Susan A. Blush issued her report on September 11, 1991 (the ―Blush Report‖). A
28   true and correct copy of this report is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
29                                                 46
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     (numbered exhibit page 88):
 2
 3          ―The Nicheries and their counsel … are a very litigous group of
            individuals. They have a plethora of corporations,18 seeming to change
 4          corporate entities more often than their clothing, which they use to
 5          conceal their nefarious activities. Despite their propensity for utilizing
            court process, they fail to have any respect for the Courts and refuse to
 6          follow the procedures and orders of the Courts.‖ (emphasis added)
 7
            183.   The term Nicheries in the Blush Report refers to Emmanuel, Orah
 8
     and Daniel Nicherie, however the term Nishries or Nishries used herein refers to
 9
     Daniel and Abner Nishrie.
10
            184.   Delay and Confusion Caused by Blatant Discovery Abuse With No
11
     Accountability.    The Nishrie Created Entities were set up specifically to provide them
12
     with a shield from which to hide behind while they continue their racketeering activities.
13
     Sanctions and court Orders are ignored by the Nishries. The Nishries goal is to remain in
14
     control of their enterprise.
15
            185. ―The Special Master concluded that Bonito and his clients delayed the
16
     proceedings, prevented other parties from obtaining information in violation of the
17
     Stipulated Order on Discovery, and ―demonstrated a pronounced lack of respect for the
18
     judicial process.” The Special Master concluded that Bonito and his clients treated the
19
     discovery process as a ―source of amusement‖ and that 65% of the expenses incurred by
20
     Guardian and LOA in discovery conducted before her was the result of this obstructive
21
     behavior.‖ (see numbered exhibit page 98, ¶13).
22
            a)     ―Based upon the Special Master‘s Report and the evidence presented to this
23
                   court, this court finds that from July 1990, Bonito mocked and ignored his
24
                   discovery obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the
25
26
     18
27       Paragraph 24 of the attached Exhibit 5 Memorandum of Decision in the Connecticut Action
     identifies approximately 90 entities operated, managed and controlled by Daniel Nicherie
28   referenced by the Court as the ―Nicherie Conglomerate‖. (See numbered exhibit page 47)
29                                                47
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
                   Stipulated Order, and treated these proceedings as a source of amusement, as
 2
                   is set forth in more detail below.‖ (see numbered exhibit page 98, ¶14)
 3
            b)     ―The court further concluded that during the period after the trial of this case,
 4
                   Bonito and his clients continued to file meritless pleadings whose sole
 5
                   purpose was to obfuscate the issues and avoid the entry of judgment. It
 6
                   further finds that Guardian reasonably responded to those pleadings, as it was
 7
                   required to do by their filing. As a result, Guardian incurred costs and
 8
                   attorneys fees simply to respond to motions and pleadings which should
 9
                   never have been filed in good faith.‖ (see numbered exhibit page 104, ¶28)
10
                   {emphasis added}
11
12
13          186.   On the issue of sanctions against the Nicheries and their counsel,

14   Mr. Bonito, Susan Blush stated in her 1991 report:

15
                   ―I also believe that some of the attorneys fees and other expenses
16
                   incurred by Guardian and LOA should be paid by the Nicheries and
17
                   Mr. Bonito. …Given the sums of money the Nicheries transfer
18
                   through various accounts (which I observed in their documents),
19
                   including Mr. Bonito‘s trust account, sanctions even in the sum of
20
                   $100,000.00 would not be of any real significance to these
21
                   people.‖ (emphasis added)
22
23
24
            187.   In closing, Susan A. Blush stated in reference to the Nicherie defendants ―It
25
     was also disheartening to see such blatant abuse and disrespect for our judicial process as was
26
     demonstrated by the defendants and their counsel.‖
27
28
29                                                 48
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     XXIII. The Nishrie Attorneys Actively Engage in Extrinsic Fraud to Obtain
 2         Stipulated Judgments to Execute on Frozen Assets and for Stipulations to
           Circumvent Other Court Orders.
 3
            188.   One such fraud on the Court committed by a current Nishrie Attorney, Joel
 4
     Glaser, Esq. is demonstrated in a sham litigation titled Berlaga v. Amtec Audiotext and
 5
     Sarit Shafrir OOCC 15558.
 6
 7
                                 Extrinsic Fraud in “BERLAGA”
 8
            189.   On March 28, 2001 the Hon. Ronald Kline VACATED the Judgment on
 9
     AMI‘s ex parte application based on extrinsic fraud. A sanction hearing is proceeding in
10
     that Court currently addressing Joel Glaser‘s conduct.
11
            190.   Joel Glaser, Esq. used Mark Hamilton, Esq. as a front to sue his own clients
12
     Amtec and Sarit in the action in Orange County before the Hon. Ronald Kline. Joel Glaser
13
     paid Mark Hamilton, attorney for Berlaga, to sue clients of Joel Glaser and clients of
14
     Glaser‘s associates, Amtec and Sarit.
15
            191.   Joel Glaser prepared the Judgment and Stipulation for Judgment for Mark
16
     Hamilton to file at the same time he prepared the complaint. Joel Glaser staged the entire
17
     Berlaga action from beginning to end to obtain a $110,000 judgment against his own
18
     clients Amtec and Sarit Shafrir he could use to obtain funds from plaintiff maintained in
19
     a Merrill Lynch account frozen in the Divorce matter. Merrill Lynch was forced to
20
     interplead the funds into Court.
21
22   XXIV The Attorneys Retained by the Nishrie Conglomerate, as a Group, and Some
          Individually, Engage in Conflicts of Interests that Cannot be Waived in
23
          Violation of Rules of Professional Conduct and Established Case Law
24          192.   The NISHRIE ATTORNEYS are representing the SHAFRIR ENTITY
25   corporations and a 50% shareholder, SARIT SHAFRIR against the other 50% shareholder,
26   AMI SHAFRIR relating to factional differences of ownership and control.
27
28
29                                                49
30                                      Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            193.   The NISHRIE ATTORNEYS‘ improper representation is specifically
 2
     prohibited by Rules of Professional Conduct and by established case law mandating the
 3
     disqualification of all NISHRIE ATTORNEYS and further requires their fees to be
 4
     returned to the community estate.
 5
 6
     XXV The Attorneys Retained by the Nishrie Conglomerate, as a Group, and Some
 7
         Individually, Fail to Withdraw When Mandated
 8          194.   These NISHRIE ATTORNEYS fail to withdraw from representation of the
 9   SHAFRIR ENTITIES on the basis that they know or should know they are conducting a
10   defense and asserting a position in litigation for the purpose of harassing or maliciously
11   injuring plaintiff in violation of Ca Professional Conduct Rule 3-700(B)(1).
12          195.   The Nishries fail to presented any defense nor have they ever provided
13   competent evidence of consideration paid for any transfer of the Shafrir Entities. All that
14   is present are transfer documents and assumption agreements as if this evidences payment.
15   What is evidenced in the many quit claim deeds transferring valuable properties at will is
16   that NO consideration has been paid, ever.
17          196.   Furthermore, the only defense offered by the Nishries in response to
18   plaintiff‘s claims that the Nishries have taken his property are groundless allegations that
19   plaintiff is a purported criminal who was stealing from his own companies. In essence,
20   the Nishrie defense is that they stole plaintiff’s property to keep plaintiff from stealing
21   from himself. The Nishries are aided by SARIT in this regard.
22
23
24
25
26
                      XXVI.       PROCEDURAL HISTORY OF BC 227940
27
28
29                                                 50
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     A.     The Entity Litigation (the 940 Action)
 2
            197.   In April 2000 AMI SHAFRIR brought an action against the following
 3
     defendants seeking, among other remedies, the return of the SHAFRIR ENTITIES
 4
     including the two commercial real estate properties that had been transferred to the
 5
     NISHRIE ENTITIES (entities set up by DANIEL NISHRIE) without consideration and in
 6
     violation of the family law TRO.
 7
            198.   The essence of that action BC 227940, (the ―940 action‖) and the other
 8
     related cases is a fight over control and ownership of these entities.
 9
     The SHAFRIR ENTITIES - Defendants
10
             Amtec Audiotext, Inc., a California Corporation;
11
             Worldsite, Inc., a California Corporation;
12
             8670 Wilshire Corp., a California Corporation;
13
             8335 Property, Inc., a California Corporation;
14
             8670 Property Partners, Ltd., a Limited Partnership;
15
             8335 Sunset Property Partners, Ltd., a Limited Partnership; and
16
17           Federal Transtel, Inc., a Georgia Corporation.

18   The NISHRIE ENTITIES - Defendants

19           Anke Investment Co., a Nevada Corporation;

20           Archibald Management, Inc., a Nevada Corporation;

21           Kent Family Fund, Inc.; a Nevada Corporation., and

22           Corporate Management Control, Inc., a Nevada Corporation.

23   The Individual Defendants

24                    Sarit Shafrir, Daniel Nishrie, Abner Nishrie and Patrick Herold.
25
26
            199.   The Nishrie attorneys have used procedural trickery to prevent a full hearing on
27
     the matter of appointing a receiver over the SHARFIR ENTITIES.
28
29                                                 51
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            200.     The proper management and operations of the SHAFRIR ENTITIES has
 2
     ceased and their assets are being dissipated without an accounting and the property is in
 3
     danger of becoming insolvent, lost, removed, or materially injured.
 4
 5
     XXVII.          Daniel Nishrie And Sarit’s Declarations Resulting in Restraining Ami
 6                   From The Property Allowed Them To Divert The Revenues
                     To Related Companies And Destroy Amtec
 7
              201. Amtec is no longer operational, the property located at 8335 Sunset Blvd. is
 8
     under the control of a Trustee in bankruptcy, the property located at 8670 Wilshire Blvd., is
 9
     facing foreclosure, and the Nishries control the current management of FTT in Alabama.
10
     Amtec revenues are diverted to Corporate Management Control, Inc. and in excess of 20
11
     attorneys currently represent the Nishries or one of their entities.
12
                202. The following statement made by Daniel Nishrie was made in opposition
13
     to plaintiffs application to operate the Shafrir Entities, were made with the knowledge of
14
     their falsity and with the intent to maliciously injure plaintiff.
15
                203. In a declaration executed by Daniel Nishrie on 3/11/00 under penalty of
16
     perjury he stated that he was an officer of SBN Venture Capital Resource Partners, Inc., a
17
     venture capital fund engaged in mergers and acquisitions. Mr. Nishrie states that since his
18
     initial involvement with Worldsite and Amtec he communicated daily with Sarit and Ami
19
     and was frequently on the business premises and witnessed numerous interactions between
20
     Ami and Sarit as well as the daily operations of both businesses.
21
                204. Mr. Nishrie stated that as a result of Sarit‘s efforts, and restructuring, the
22
     companies were at a point where investors (such as IJNT had expressed a willingness to fund
23
     Worldsite‘s ongoing operations; that Sarit was uniquely qualified to negotiate with the
24
     creditors of the corporations because of her reputation in the internet and audiotext industry;
25
     that she has been able to continue operations despite the fact that Ami left the companies
26
     saddled with debts for advertising, by keeping the creditors at bay.
27
              205.     The statement is misleading, in part, because Mr. Nishrie failed to identify
28
29                                                   52
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     that the only business he was engage in was the business of theft. Daniel Nishries‘
 2
     declaration contained false and misleading information including the true spelling of his
 3
     name is Nicherie, the omission of his criminal background, and the statements that Sarit was
 4
     good for the Shafrir Entities was designed to influence the Court, and the Court was
 5
     influenced in denying plaintiff‘s motion.
 6
              206.     Daniel Nishries‘ statements were made for the purpose of keeping AMI
 7
     away from his property so that the Nishries could continue their racketeering activities.
 8
              207.     Mr. Nishrie further stated, in a declaration presented before the Court that
 9
     Sarit has positioned Amtec and Worldsite for profitability and has taken control of the books
10
     and records. Mr. Nishrie further stated that he was aware that Sarit retained the services of
11
     Bruce Hochman, Esq. and Noel Applebaum to examine the misappropriations and conduct an
12
     audit of the books and records of Amtec and Worldsite. In addition, she hired John
13
     Ackerman as a manager of internet operations. He is a renowned internet industry executive.
14
              208.     Mr. Nishrie further stated that ―without Sarit Shafrir‘s day to day
15
     management and leadership, the Worldsite and Amtec companies would not survive. In my
16
     opinion, no other investment funds will be forthcoming unless Sarit Shafrir is permitted to
17
     continue her efforts on behalf of the corporations.‖
18
             209.      In closing Mr. Nishrie stated ―On behalf of SBN, we urge the court to
19
     deny Respondent‘s request for any change to the corporation or its management, since we
20
     perceive such a change to be very detrimental to the corporation and their financial
21
     viability.‖
22
23
24
25
            210.     In an affidavit under penalty of perjury executed by Daniel Nishrie on
26
     December 6, 2000 Daniel Nishrie claimed to be the president of FTT.
27
             211. In a declaration executed on April 10, 2000 by Sarit Shafrir under penalty of
28
29                                                  53
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     perjury, she states that:
 2
              ―I have retained the services of a tax attorney, I have retained the services
 3
              of a tax attorney, Bruce Hochman, and a forensic accountant. At this time,
 4
              I do not have a cash flow report, nor has my accountant completed the
 5
              fraud audit, I believe that the audit will reveal that Respondent has been
 6
              self—dealing, skimming cash from our corporations, misappropriating
 7
              funds, money laundering, and shifting wealth outside the United States.
 8
 9
              ―I have readily conceded to Ami and his counsel that Archibald
10
              Corporation is community property in nature. .. Ami is not an officer of
11
              Archibald and never has been. The 8670 Wilshire and 8335 Sunset
12
              buildings are liened to collateralize the loans to the Shafrirs. FTT loaned
13
              money to Ami for HBC and other loans.‖
14
15
            212. Two days later, in objecting to plaintiff‘s request for production of documents,
16
     Sarit objected to and refused to produce information relating to income received from her
17
     business interests, the SHAFRIR ENTITIES, citing privacy rights of third parties. SARIT
18
     further objected to requests for documents reflecting whether SHAFRIR ENTITIES were
19
     parties to any lawsuits citing relevancy objections. Essentially SARIT was denying inquiry
20
     into her finances and the use of community assets
21
            213.    On January 8, 2001 Sarit‘s counsel, Mr. Landau objected to the production
22
     of Amtec business records in the divorce action on the grounds that Amtec, FTT and
23
     Worldsite were not parties to the divorce proceeding and that Sarit was not an officer,
24
     managing agent, director, or employee of FTT and has had no relationship to that entity for
25
     approximately one year. Mr. Landau further stated that Sarit is also not a shareholder of
26
     that entity, and has no access to nor is she able to produce any records of said entity.
27
28
29                                                 54
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            214.   The Nishries and Sarit continue to fail to produce documents they claim are
 2
     being compiled and reviewed, documents they claim evidence plaintiff‘s thefts. However,
 3
     when pressed for these documents, they claim exist, their response is either privacy or the
 4
     request is being made in the wrong proceeding and when brought in the correct proceeding,
 5
     further discovery games are played.
 6
 7   June 8, 2000 Declaration of Sarit
 8
            215.   In a declaration executed by Sarit Shafrir on June 8, 2000 under penalty of
 9
     perjury, she declares that she and Ami had entered into a partial settlement agreement on
10
     January 18, 2000 and under the heading ―Real Property Transfers‖ Sarit states that:
11
            “Ami’s allegations that I transferred community property assets without
12
            his consent are entirely untrue. I have made no transfers that were
13
            either not consented to by Ami, or in the usual course of doing business
14
            or for the necessities of life.”
15
            whereby he resigned from his positions in our businesses to allow me to
16
            clean up the debts he incurred and attempt to rebuild the assets of the
17
            community by managing the businesses. Based on said Settlement
18
            Agreement, I have readily conceded to Ami that once all the debt he incurred
19
            is paid off, what will be left of Archibald is part of the community estate.
20
     Sarit later denies AMI‘s interest in Archibald.
21
             216. In a declaration executed by Sarit Shafrir on June 8, 2000 under penalty of
22
     perjury, she declares under a heading ―Sale of Mount Olympus Residence‖ that ―upon
23
     closing of escrow for the sale of my home, I was able to net a total of $100,000. Next
24
     month I will have to move.‖
25
            217. This statement is contradicted in her deposition in that she states she had one
26
     year free rent with a 4-year lease back for $2,000 per month.
27
28
29                                                 55
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     EMBEZZLEMENT FROM PENSION AND WELFARE FUNDS 18 U.S.C. §664
 2
            218.    The Nishries have embezzled, stolen, or unlawfully and willfully abstracted
 3
     or converted to their own use or to the use of another, the moneys, funds, securities,
 4
     premiums, credits, property, and/or other assets of an employee welfare benefit plan or
 5
     employee pension benefit plan, or of any fund connected therewith as set forth above.
 6
 7
     XXVIII         The Nishries and Sarit Have Jointly Raided Amtec’s Pension Plan
 8
            219.    Through the use of the U.S. Mail and wires, a series of communications were
 9
     made between Mainstay Investments on the one hand and Daniel Nishrie and SARIT on the
10
     other hand for the purpose of wrongly depriving Plaintiff of his pension plan monies.
11
            220.    On information and belief, on July 31, 2000, Daniel Nishrie and/or Sarit Safrir,
12
     in furtherance of their common plan to defraud, sent a letter to Mainstay Funds, the entity
13
     maintaining AmTec Audiotext, Inc.‘s pension plan monies.
14
            221.    In that letter, Daniel Nishrie and/or SARIT, request Mainstay Funds to ―cash-
15
     out the outstanding shares for of our previous employees, Randy Miller and Ami Shafrir‖ On
16
     information and belief, this letter was placed by Daniel Nishrie, or at his direction, into the
17
     U.S. Mail on or about July 31, 2000.
18
            222.    New York Life mailed a letter to Sarit Shafrir, Amtec Audiotext, Inc. on or
19
     about August 9, 2000 requesting her to comply with a few conditions prior to distributing the
20
     funds of Ami Shafrir and Randy Miller. Based on information and belief, Daniel Nishrie
21
     received this letter.
22
            223.    Based on information and belief, Daniel Nishrie communicated with Mainstay
23
     Investments, either by use of the wires or U.S. Mail, during the period between August 9,
24
     2000 and September 7, 2000 requesting Mainstay Investments to transfer the pension plan
25
     monies of Ami Sharfir and Randy Miller to his account with The Guardian Life Insurance
26
     Co.
27
            224.    On or about September 7, 2000, Mainstay Investments sent a letter via the U.S.
28
29                                                  56
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     Mail to Amtec Audiotext Inc. Profit Sharing Plan, Att: Sarit Shafrir stating ―Dear Trustee:
 2
     Thank you for your recent request to transfer the funds from the above referenced Mainstay
 3
     accounts to your account with The Guardian Life Insurance Co.‖ Based on information
 4
     and belief, Daniel Nishrie received this letter and/or directed it to be received by him.
 5
             225.    Daniel Nishrie fraudulently used the name Guardian Life several years ago.
 6
     Paragraphs 17-21 of the attached Exhibit 5, Memorandum of Decision in the Connecticut
 7
     Action reflect the Court‘s finding of facts that Daniel Nicherie had wrongly and without
 8
     authorization conducted business through the use of the name The Guardian Life
 9
     Insurance Company.
10
             226.    On information and belief, Mainstay issued in excess of $100,000 in checks,
11
     these were received by Daniel Nishrie, however a stop payment was placed on these checks
12
     prior to being negotiated. These funds are currently frozen.
13
14
     XXIX.          FRAUD AGAINST TENANT MATCHNET
15
             227.      The use of the wires and mails were used by the Nishries in their
16
     racketeering activities against MatchNet. in the action titled Sarit Shafrir v. MatchNet
17
     (Chapter 7) (LA 00-28618-ER) – MatchNet was a tenant in the 8670 Wilshire Blvd. building
18
     who had been locked out of its offices effective June 27, 2000 by Daniel Nishrie who
19
     subsequently seized control of MatchNet‘s internet server equipment.
20
             228.      On June 26, 2000, within two hours after the completion of MatchNet‘s
21
     initial public offering raising $20,588,000 euros, Daniel Nishrie and SARIT initiated
22
     involuntary bankruptcy proceedings against MatchNet and subsequently offered to settle if
23
     MatchNet paid fabricated invoices for approximately $500,000 prepared by Daniel Nishrie or
24
     at his direction. Based on information and belief, Daniel Nishrie, either acting alone or with
25
     SARIT fabricated invoices on Worldsite Networks letterhead and on 8670 Property Partners
26
     letterhead in excess of $500,000 in fraudulent charges to Match-Net.
27
             229.      Together with a third party, who fraudulently claimed Match-Net owed him
28
29                                                  57
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     $400,000, these three creditors placed MatchNet into involuntary bankruptcy. Daniel
 2
     Nicherie have intentionally placed in the U.S. Postal Service, or caused to be placed or have
 3
     received from the U.S Postal Service the Bankruptcy Petition and creditor schedules for the
 4
     purpose of executing the Nishrie Plan. MatchNet bonded around the false claims by posting
 5
     $900,000 bond.
 6
            230.   When MatchNet made claim to their office possessions including computer
 7
     servers, the heart of their business, the Nishries claimed the property belonged to them.
 8
     MatchNet was forced to bond approximately $130,000 in the Superior Court of California to
 9
     obtain what was left of their property.
10
11
     MAIL FRAUD - 18 U.S.C. §1341 and WIRE FRAUD – 18 U.S.C. §
12
            231.   The Nishries having intentionally devised a scheme or artifice to defraud, or
13
     for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
14
     promises, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, have placed in the U.S. Postal
15
     Service, or caused to be placed or have received from the U.S Postal Service the matters or
16
     things as set forth herein and constitutes Mail Fraud within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1341;
17
     and have transmitted or caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in
18
     interstate commerce, the writings, signs, signals, pictures or sounds for the purpose of
19
     executing such scheme or artifice as set forth herein and constitutes Wire Fraud within the
20
     meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1343.
21
     .      232.   Furthermore, the Nishries acted with knowledge that the use of the mails and
22
     interstate wires would follow in the ordinary course of business, or where such use could be
23
     reasonably foreseen, even though not actually intended. The scheme is reasonably calculated
24
     to deceive persons or ordinary prudence and comprehension and the following mails and
25
     wires were used in the execution against MatchNet.
26
            233.   On April 25, 2000 Fred Gagliardini, Esq., in-house attorney for the Nishries
27
     operating from 8670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300, sent by the U.S. Mails a letter to Mr. Joe
28
29                                                 58
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     Shapira, 8670 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 204 making demand for $348,000 in fabricated invoices
 2
     for past due rent to Worldsite, Inc.. Mr. Gagliardini stated in his letter that
 3
                 ―to prevent costly litigation, and avert any potential disruption of
 4
                 business, this amount must be tendered on or before the close of
 5
                 business, May 22, 2000…Because of the large amount in arrears, a
 6
                 payment schedule would be unacceptable to my client.‖
 7
 8          234.    The $348,000 amount claimed to be due reflected, in part, fabricated charges

 9   for $25,000 per month Pass Through from Landlord; $51,000 for night time Parking for 30

10   spots from January 1999 through May 2000; $79,000 for Human Resources and $40,000 for

11   ―HR Materials.‖

12          235.    On May 25, 2000 Fred Gagliardini, Esq., sent by the U.S. Mails a second letter

13   to Mr. Joe Shapira and made a second demand for $348,000 in fabricated invoices for past

14   due rent. Mr. Gagliardini stated in his letter that:

15               ―to prevent costly litigation, and avert any potential disruption of

16               business, this amount must be tendered on or before the close of

17               business, Friday June 22, 2000…Because of the large amount in

18               arrears, payment is demanded in full.‖

19           236. At 9:51 a.m., on June 27, 2000 a fax was received in Frankfurt informing the
20   exchange that ―I understand that MatchNet PLC is going public on June 27, 2000. An
21   involuntary Bankruptcy Petition was filed against Matchnet PLC in the United States
22   Bankruptcy Court – Central District of California on June 26, 2000.‖
23          237.    Base on information and belief that fax was sent by Fred Gagliardini at the
24   direction of the Nishries and Sarit. Sarit was the individual who signed the Matchnet
25   bankruptcy petition.
26
27   XXX.           FRAUDULENT ACTIONS AGAINST CITICOLOR
28
29                                                   59
30                                      Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            238.   The Nishries having intentionally devised a scheme or artifice to defraud, or
 2
     for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
 3
     promises, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, have placed in the U.S. Postal
 4
     Service, or caused to be placed or have received from the U.S Postal Service various
 5
     documents relating to the causing, prosecuting or defending against the following actions,
 6
     including correspondence with their attorneys, motions, petitions, notices of hearings,
 7
     discovery demands, and deposition notices.
 8
            239.   The Nishries, having devised or intending to devise a scheme or artifice to
 9
     defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
10
     representations, or promises, have transmitted or caused to be transmitted by means of wire
11
     communication in interstate commerce, the writings, signs, signals, pictures or sounds for the
12
     purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, communications with their attorneys and
13
     others, faxes of documents and letters relating to causing, prosecuting and/or defending
14
     against the following actions.
15
            240.      Jade, Citicolor v. Ami Shafrir and Sarit Safrir (SC 062607) – After a third
16
     Court Order in this action, Citicolor representatives gained access to their corporate offices
17
     only to find that all office furniture and equipment had been removed. Daniel Nishrie
18
     subsequently interfered with the owner of Citicolor from receiving $300,000 in insurance
19
     proceeds from California Capital Insurance Co. to cover the losses resulting from the
20
     Nishries wrongful conduct.
21
            241.      On or about October 6, 2000 via use of interstate wires, Daniel Nishrie,
22
     faxed or caused to be faxed from number (310) 734-0088 to fax number (714) 712-9019 on
23
     Citicolor, Inc.‘s letterhead, without authorization, instructions to cease investigation of the
24
     insurance claim and to withhold payment to the true owner of Citicolor.
25
26
     XXXI.         FRAUD COMMITTED ON OTHER TENANTS
27
28
29                                                   60
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            242.      The NISHRIES, SARIT and DOES 1-10 have caused the operations of the
 2
     rental business to be terminated creating a vacancy rate of 80% to 100%. 8335 Sunset
 3
     Blvd., is in bankruptcy and 8670 Wilshire Blvd., is in imminent danger of foreclosure.
 4
     Prior to the Nishries influence, the real property located at 8670 Wilshire Blvd., a 50,000
 5
     square foot office building, produced monthly rental income of approximately $100,000
 6
     and 8335 Sunset produced approximately $10,000.
 7
            243.      The following actions have been taken against the tenants of 8670 Wilshire
 8
     Blvd. by the Nishries or at their direction:
 9
                      a.    The tenant Matrix Models has been locked out of its leased space.
10
                      b.    The tenant Tony Fieno, president of NetOptions, has been locked out
11
            of his leased space.
12
                      c.    The tenant CDK has been out of its leased office and was forced to
13
            pay $30,000 to the Nishries and SARIT to regain their possessions.
14
                      d.    The tenant MatchNet was locked out of its leased computer's space.
15
                      e.    The tenant Citicolor was locked out of its leased space.
16
                      f.    The tenant Fireworks was locked out of its premises and denied use of
17
            its computers and telephone switch.
18
                      g.    The telephone lines of the tenant Mark Brenner, Esq. were
19
            disconnected.
20
                      h.    The corporate in-house attorney Cynthia Takacs was locked out of her
21
            office.
22
                      i.    Plaintiff‘s office has been ransacked and all of his personal belongings
23
            and files have been taken.
24
                      j.    The personal belongings of former employees Alina Chem, Ronen
25
            Liany, Ariane Giladi, Danny Yelin and Glenn Morris were taken.
26
27
28
29                                                  61
30                                      Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            244.   Armed guards have been paid substantial sums of money to prevent Plaintiff
 2
     from entering the buildings. Based on information and belief, in or about late July 2000
 3
     the Nishries retained the protection services of Titan Security, owned and operated by
 4
     George Hoops, a Los Angeles Police Officer assigned to the Rampart division.
 5
            245.   Based on information and belief, continuing from July 2000 through at least
 6
     March 2001, the Nishries received protection and guard services from Titan Security.
 7
     Based on information and belief, Titan Security employed approximately ten Los Angeles
 8
     Police Officers, most believed to have been assigned to the Rampart division to provide
 9
     high-security professional protection services, at times, under color of authority of the Los
10
     Angeles Police Department.
11
            246.   Based on information and belief, Titan Security received approximately
12
     $15,000 per week to provide services to the Nishries at 8670 Wilshire Blvd., and 8335
13
     Sunset Blvd. Furthermore, based on information and belief, George Hoops became privy
14
     to the inner workings of the Nishrie operations and assisted the Nishries in their
15
     racketeering activities including returning computers purchased on Amtec‘s credit line to
16
     Comp USA for cash, ―running‖ errands for the Nishries and coordinating with attorneys
17
     and security, among other tasks.
18
19
                                                 XXXII
20
                              OTHER VICTIMS OF THE NISHRIES
21
            247.      The criminal conviction in Texas and the two state civil RICO judgments as
22
     set forth above were the result of substantial expense on the part of the respective victims.
23
     The judicial system eventually worked, however only after immense and irreparable damage
24
     had been inflicted by the Nishries.
25
     PRIOR FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
26          AGAINST DANIEL NICHERIE
27
28
29                                                  62
30                                      Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
              248.   Attached to the concurrently filed Request for Judicial Notice as Exhibit 5, and
 2
     incorporated herein by reference, is a true and correct copy of a Memorandum of Decision in the
 3
     Connecticut Action (the ―Connecticut Memorandum of Decision‖).
 4
              249.   At pages 25-27 of the Connecticut Memorandum of Decision, the Court sets forth the
 5
     detailed findings relating to the RICO allegations and at paragraph 28, page 27 the Court makes the
 6
     following conclusion of law: ―The plaintiffs have sustained their burden to prove violation of the
 7
     Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by Daniel Nicherie, Emmanuel Nicherie,
 8
     Orah Nicherie and Innovative Planning, Inc., by clear and convincing evidence‖. (see numbered Ex
 9
     64-66)
10
              250.   These judicially determined findings of facts and conclusions of law were
11
     established in the Connecticut Action. The following findings relate to Daniel Nishrie‘s conduct in
12
     late 1980 and early 1990‘s and continues today:
13
                     (a)       multiple acts of forgery;
14
                     (b)       multiple acts of conversion;
15
                     (c)       acts of mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud;
16
                     (d)       Nishrie conglomerates (over 90 in 1990) are their alter egos;
17
                     (e)       Daniel Nicherie created a fictitious CPA in Texas
18
                     (f)       Daniel Nicherie created false allegations against his victims;
19
                     (g)       A Special Master appointed in the Connecticut Action stated that the
20
                               Nishries have a ―plethora of corporations, seeming to change
21
                               corporate entities more often than their clothing, which they use to
22
                               conceal their nefarious activities.;‖
23
                     (h)       Daniel Nishrie and his attorney in the Connecticut Action violated the
24
                               Special Master‘s discovery seal and destroyed over 25 files.
25
26
              251.   Prior actions have been brought by or against the Nicheries all based on the
27
     same or similar pattern and predicates of Mail Fraud, Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud as set
28
29                                                     63
30                                       Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     forth above. The following is a partial list of victims of the Nicheries that, based on
 2
     information and belief, have collectively lost well over one hundred fifty million dollars,
 3
     ($150,000,000) not counting the personal toll extracted in the process: 1) Dr. Martin List,
 4
     2) Charles Heath, 3) Merchant Bank, 4)University Savings, 5) Michael Khan, 6) Willaim C.
 5
     Padon, 7) Steven D. Lewis, 8) Efraim Abramoff, and 9) Robert Rubin.
 6
            252.   After acquiring control of a victim‘s enterprise, the Nishries engage in a
 7
     pattern of abuse of process through a complex maze of state and federal court litigation.
 8
            253.      The following brief summary of the Nishries‘ frauds committed against
 9
     other victims. Generally, the Nishries initiated the litigation against their respective victims
10
     as a form of preemptive strike and the Nishries accuse their victims of criminal conduct..
11
12
     (A)    Dr. Martin List
13
            254.      As of 1985 Dr. List had accumulated substantial personal holdings including
14
     a residence in La Quinta, California; a residence in Colorado Springs; real estate he planned
15
     to develop into a Holiday Inn in Huntington Beach, California; a substantial art collection;
16
     two Rolls Royce automobiles; 10,000 acres of land in El Paso County, Colorado; real estate
17
     at the Colorado Space Center; 1,000 acres of land in Colorado Springs; List American Bank
18
     with 3 branches; an option to purchase 1,000 acres of land in Contra Costa County,
19
     California known as the Bethel Island Project and approximately twenty companies including
20
     M.L. Properties, Incorporated and List Enterprises. Dr. List estimated his net worth in early
21
     1987 to be well over one hundred million dollars ($100,000,000).
22
            255.      Dr. List originally met with Daniel Nicherie in the summer of 1986 to
23
     discuss various business ventures and eventually became a victim of the Nicheries losing all
24
     of his assets within six months. Daniel Nicherie committed similar fraudulent acts as set
25
     forth herein against Martin List in the late 1980s. The Exhibit 5 Memorandum of Decision
26
     in the Connecticut Action, paragraphs 38-46 reflects the following findings of facts:
27
            (a) Paragraph 38. – Guardian never received the check dated August 5, 1986, in the
28
29                                                  64
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
               amount of $200,000 payable to Martin List and Guardian, issued by USA
 2
               [University Savings Association] with regard to the alleged binder insurance loan
 3
               made by USA to Martin List (exh. 1A), or the proceeds thereof.
 4
           (b) Paragraph 40. – Daniel Nicherie, Emmanuel Nicherie, the Nicherie
 5
               Conglomerate, and associates of the Nicheries converted the $200,000 in loan
 6
               proceeds represented by exh. 1A, by depositing its proceeds, when they were
 7
               received from Lewis/Orestis & Associates (―LOA‖), into account number 1693 at
 8
               Allied Bank Northwest, an account in the name of Innovative Planning, Inc.,
 9
               which was controlled by Daniel and Emmanuel Nicherie.
10
           (c) Paragraph 44. – The signatures on the loan application documents submitted to
11
               USA regarding Martin List which purportedly are those of Martin List are, in fact,
12
               forgeries by Daniel Nicherie of Martin List‘s signature. These forgeries were
13
               made and forged documents submitted to USA for the purpose of deceiving USA
14
               into delivering such loan proceeds to Daniel and Emmanuel Nicherie, and such
15
               forgeries caused USA to loan such funds in reliance upon such documents, which
16
               were prepared without the knowledge or consent of Martin List.
17
           (d) Paragraph 45. – The signatures on the application for insurance to Guardian with
18
               regard to Martin List (exh. 33), which purportedly are those of Martin List, are in
19
               fact forgeries of his signature by Daniel Nicherie, and such forgeries were made
20
               for the purpose of inducing USA to loan money to Martin List and to deliver the
21
               loan checks to Daniel and Emmanuel Nicherie.
22
23
24
25
     (B)   Charles V. Heath
26
           256.     Charles Heath was an employee for Diagnostic Centers of America, a
27
     company controlled by Daniel and Emmanuel Nicherie.        Barbara A. Sanchez testified in
28
29                                                65
30                                   Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     her deposition taken on August 17, 1989 in San Antonio, Texas that she was instructed by
 2
     Daniel Nicherie to practice writing the signature of Charles Heath and that on several
 3
     occasions she signed Charles Heath‘s signature on documents at the request of Daniel
 4
     Nicherie. Documents forged by Daniel Nicherie and Barbara Sanchez, at the instruction of
 5
     Daniel, included an Investor Subscription Booklet purporting to bind Charles Heath to
 6
     purchasing an interest in Bethel Island Limited Partnership. Other documents she testified
 7
     that Daniel Nicherie executed using Charles Heath‘s signature include Charles Heath‘s 1985
 8
     Individual Income Tax Return.           Charles Heath was forced into bankruptcy as a result of
 9
     fraud committed on him by Daniel Nicherie and he lost approximately $1,500,000 of his
10
     assets.
11
               257.     Daniel Nicherie committed similar fraudulent acts as set forth herein against
12
     Charles V. Heath in the late 1980s. The Exhibit 5 Memorandum of Decision in the
13
     Connecticut Action, paragraphs 47-53 reflects the following findings of facts:
14
               (a) Paragraph 47. – Guardian never received the check dated May 21, 1986, in the
15
                  amount of $200,000 payable to Guardian and Charles V. Heath, issued by USA
16
                  [University Savings Association] with regard to the alleged binder insurance loan
17
                  made by USA to Charles V. Heath (exh. 2A), or the proceeds thereof.
18
               (b) Paragraph 48. – USA delivered exhibit 2A to Daniel Nicherie, who did not deliver
19
                  exh. 2A or its proceeds to Guardian or to Guardian‘s General Agent for transmittal
20
                  to Guardian, and instead participated in the conversion of such funds.
21
               (c) Paragraph 50. – Guardian never received the check dated August 27, 1986, in the
22
                  amount of $249,942.00 payable to Guardian, issued by USA [University Savings
23
                  Association] with regard to the alleged final insurance loan made by USA to
24
                  Charles V. Heath (exh. 2B), or the proceeds thereof.
25
               (d) Paragraph 51. – USA delivered exhibit 2B to Daniel Nicherie, who did not deliver
26
                  exh. 2B or its proceeds to Guardian or to Guardian‘s General Agent for transmittal
27
                  to Guardian, and instead participated in the conversion of such funds.
28
29                                                   66
30                                      Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     (C)    Merchant Bank & University Savings
 2
            258.      In the action titled UNIVERSITY SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, a Texas
 3
     Savings and loan association v. MERCHANT BANK OF CALIFORNIA, a California
 4
     banking corporation et al. and related counterclaims against DR. EMMANUEL E.
 5
     NICHERIE and DANIEL NICHERIE, United States District Court, Central District of
 6
     California, Case No. 88-00428 JWC (tx) before the Honorable Jesse W. Curtis, the court
 7
     entered an order on February 21, 1989 judicially establishing that Emmanuel Nicherie
 8
     obtained $249,320 from Merchant Bank over a forged endorsement.
 9
            259.      Daniel Nicherie committed similar fraudulent acts as set forth herein against
10
     Guardian in the late 1980s. The Exhibit 5 Memorandum of Decision in the Connecticut
11
     Action, paragraphs 66-68 reflects the following findings of facts:
12
            (a) Paragraph 66. – In order to induce USA to make the insurance loan represented by
13
               exh. 5 to Emmanuel Nicherie and to deliver exhibit 5 to them, not only did Daniel
14
               and Emmanuel Nicherie misrepresent the existence of a Guardian One-Pay
15
               insurance program…, but they also submitted a financial statement allegedly
16
               prepared by Richard Brown Bennett, and alleged Certified Public Accountant…It
17
               also included a purported tax return prepared by the same Richard Brown Bennett,
18
               C.P.A.. These statements were made with the intent to deceive USA and to induce
19
               USA to make the insurance loan to Emmanuel Nicherie, were relied upon by USA,
20
               and did induce USA to deliver $249,320.00 to Daniel and Emmanuel Nicherie.
21
            (b) Paragraph 67. – No person named Richard Brown Bennett has ever been licensed,
22
               or applied to be licensed, by the Texas Board of Public Accountancy.
23
            (c) Paragraph 68. – Daniel Nicherie prepared the financial statements and tax returns,
24
               purportedly prepared by Richard Brown Bennett…and such statements were
25
               prepared with the intention of deceiving their respective recipients, including
26
               USA, List American Bank, and U.S. West Financial, into believing these had been
27
               prepared by a Certified Public Accountant, and did induce such institutions to
28
29                                                 67
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
               deliver funds to the Nicheries.
 2
 3
     (D)    Michael Khan, Willaim C. Padon, Steven D. Lewis, and Efraim Abramoff
 4
            260.      Daniel Nicherie committed similar fraudulent acts as set forth herein against
 5
     the individuals listed below in the late 1980s. The Exhibit 5 Memorandum of Decision in
 6
     the Connecticut Action, paragraphs 54-76 reflects the following findings of facts:
 7
            (a) Paragraphs 54-59 – Michael Khan - $200,000.
 8
            (b) Paragraphs 60-62 – William C. Padon, III - $200,000 and $111,903.
 9
            (c) Paragraphs 69-70 – Steven D. Lewis - $239,509.
10
            (d) Paragraphs 75-76 – Efraim Abramoff - $200,000.
11
12
     (E)    Robert Rubin
13
            261.      In the late 1980s the Nishries filed an action against Robert Rubin titled
14
     M.M.A., Inc. Formerly Medical Point Imaging Center, Inc. a Texas Corporation v. Robert
15
     Rubin, an Individual and Physicians Treatment & Care, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and
16
     related counterclaims, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No.
17
     SA CV-88-673 JSL (RWRx) before the Honorable Spencer J. Letts.
18
            262.   On information and belief, the Nishries‘ fraud began on or about May 16, 1988
19
     when Daniel Nicherie and his father Emmanuel Nicherie entered into a letter agreement with
20
     Rubin, pursuant to which they, and those acting in concert with them, including Abner
21
     Nicherie took control of the day-to-day operations of Superior Care of California, Inc.
22
     (―SCC‖), a 100% owned corporation of Robert Rubin.
23
            263.      Robert Rubin agreed to allow Daniel Nicherie to run the operations of SCC.
24
     However, shortly after the execution of the letter agreement, Daniel Nicherie forged
25
     documents purporting to transfer ownership of SCC from Robert Rubin to himself. Daniel
26
     Nicherie began to liquidate the receivables and based on information and belief, Daniel
27
     Nicherie fraudulently re-bill collected insurance accounts as part of a plan to obtain as much
28
29                                                 68
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     cash as possible before being stopped.
 2
            264.      Soon after Robert Rubin discovered that SCC had been purportedly
 3
     transferred to Daniel Nicherie‘s control and the receivables were being looted, Daniel
 4
     Nicherie initiated litigation against Robert Rubin claiming Robert Rubin had committed
 5
     fraud and misrepresentation in his purported sale of SCC to him.
 6
 7
                                        XXXIII
 8
                         PRIOR CIVIL AND CRIMINAL JUDGMENTS
 9
                                  AGAINST DANIEL NICHERIE
10
     (A)    Daniel Nicherie’s Prior Criminal Judgment in Texas
11
            of Bank Fraud, the Transfer of Criminally Derived Property
12
            and Aiding and Abetting
13
            265.   Daniel Nicherie served one year in Federal Prison pursuant to a plea bargain.
14
     Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Judgment in Criminal Case
15
     United States of America v. Daniel E. Nicherie, Case No., 4:92CR000277-001 entered on
16
     December 23, 1994 pursuant to a Plea Agreement to Count 1 – 18 U.S.C §371; Conspiracy
17
     to violate the laws of the United States, with respect to bank fraud and the transfer of
18
     criminally derived property and Count 6 – 18 U.S.C §1344; Bank fraud, aiding and
19
     abetting (the ―Daniel Nicherie‘s Criminal Judgment‖).
20
            266.   Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the nine-count
21
     indictment against Daniel Nicherie. (―Daniel Nicherie‘s Indictment‖).
22
23
     (B)    Daniel Nicherie’s Prior Judgment in Texas
24          for Civil RICO and Sanctions
25          267.   Daniel Nicherie has been found guilty of civil RICO violations in Texas.

26   Attached hereto as Exhibit 3, and incorporated herein by this reference, is a true and correct

27   copy of a judgment in the action Innovative Planning, Inc., Doctor Emmanuel Nicherie,

28   Daniel Nicherie, et al. v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of America, University Savings

29                                                 69
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     and Loan et al. (1991) Case No. SA-89-CA-0328, United States District Court, Western
 2
     District of Texas, San Antonio Division 19(the ―Texas Judgment‖). Total judgment against
 3
     the Nicheries in this action is $11,741,909.34.
 4
            268.    At page 2 of Exhibit 3 the Court ―finds that the conduct of
 5
     Counterdefendants Daniel Nicherie and Emmanuel Nicherie constitutes common-law fraud
 6
     and knowing violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(a)-(d) of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
 7
     Organizations Act (R.I.C.O.).
 8
 9   (C)    Defendant Daniel Nicherie’s Prior Judgment in Connecticut
            for Civil RICO
10
            269.    Daniel Nicherie has been found guilty of civil RICO violations in Connecticut
11
     for predicate acts of mail fraud, wire fraud and bank fraud. Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is
12
     a true and correct copy of a judgment in the action University Savings Association v. Bank
13
     of New Haven, et al., (1992) Case No. N-88-240 (WWE) Consolidated Cases, United States
14
     District Court, District of Connecticut (the ―Connecticut Action‖) 20(the ―Connecticut
15
     Judgment‖). Total judgment against the Nicheries in this action is $18,155,566.87.
16
17
     19
18       - Judgment for Guardian Life Insurance against Emmanuel and Daniel Nicherie, et al. in the
     amount of $442,704.25 in attorney fees and expenses as sanctions; judgment for Guardian Life
19   against Emmanuel and Daniel Nicherie et al. in the amount of $2,133,123.67 as damages for the
     conduct of Emmanuel Nicherie and Daniel Nicherie, et al. which the Court found was tortious, in
20   furtherance of a conspiracy, involved knowing participation in breaches of fiduciary duties and was
21   otherwise wrongful; judgment for Connecticut Savings Bank et al. against Emmanuel and Daniel
     Nicherie et al. In the amount of $280,067.40 in attorney fees and expenses; judgment for Resolutions
22   Trust Corporation (―RTC‖) against Emmanuel and Daniel Nicherie in the amount of three times
     damages of $1,943,122.30 for common-law fraud and knowing violation of 18 U.S.C. §1962(a)-(d)
23
     of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (R.I.C.O.); judgment for RTC against
24   Emmanuel and Daniel Nicherie et al. in the amount of $272,124.49 in attorney fees and expenses;
     judgment for Lewis/Orestis Associates et al. against Emmanuel and Daniel Nicherie et al. in the
25   amount of $2,378,785.88 in damages; and judgment for Lewis/Orestis Associates et al. against
26   Emmanuel and Daniel Nicherie et al. in the amount of $405,736.75 in attorney fees and expenses.
     20
         judgment ordered on March 5, 1992 for Guardian against Daniel Nicherie and his parents Emmanuel
27   (deceased) and Orah in the amount of $8,323,850.90; judgment for LOA against Daniel and Emmanuel
     Nicherie in the amount of $6,803,785.80; and judgment for Guardian and LOA jointly against Daniel and
28   Emmanuel Nicherie in the amount of $3,028,200.17
29                                                      70
30                                        Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            270.   Attached hereto as Exhibit 5, and incorporated herein by reference, is a true
 2
     and correct copy of a Memorandum of Decision in the Connecticut Action (the
 3
     ―Connecticut Memorandum of Decision‖).
 4
            271.   At pages 25-27 of the Connecticut Memorandum of Decision, the Court sets
 5
     forth the detailed findings relating to the RICO allegations and at paragraph 28, page 27 the
 6
     Court makes the following conclusion of law: ―The plaintiffs have sustained their burden to
 7
     prove violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by Daniel
 8
     Nicherie, Emmanuel Nicherie, Orah Nicherie and Innovative Planning, Inc., by clear and
 9
     convincing evidence‖.
10
            272.   In July 1990, the judge in the Connecticut Action requested Susan A. Blush
11
     to serve as a Special Master. Susan A. Blush issued her report on September 11, 1991 (the
12
     ―Blush Report‖). A true and correct copy of this report is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
13
14
     (D)    The Connecticut Memorandum of Decision Sets Forth the Court’s
15          RICO Findings Against Daniel and Emmanuel Nicherie
16          273.   In the Connecticut Memorandum of Decision, the Court used the term
17          “racketeering activity” as applied to Daniel and Emmanuel Nicherie to be ―defined
18          in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) as ‗any act which is indictable under any of the following
19          provisions of [18 U.S.C.]: . . .section 1341 (relating to mail fraud) . . . section 1343
20          (relating to wire fraud) section 1344 (relating to financial institution fraud).‘‖
21          (emphasis added)(Exhibit 5, numbered page 65, ¶20)
22          274.    The Connecticut Memorandum of Decision relating to identifying the
23   Enterprise sets forth the Courts finding that ―Daniel Nicherie, Emmanuel Nicherie, Orah
24   Nicherie, Innovative Planning, Inc., and other members of the Nicherie Conglomerate
25   constitute an Enterprise [the ―Enterprise‖] within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §1961(4) and
26   18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).‖ (numbered exhibit page 65, ¶23)
27          275.    The Connecticut Memorandum of Decision at ¶24 further sets forth the
28
29                                                  71
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     Court‘s finding that ―During the period of its existence, the Enterprise has engaged in and
 2
     its activities have affected interstate commerce.‖ Furthermore, the Court finds ―In-
 3
     undertaking the fraudulent activities and conversion in which Daniel Nicherie, Emmanuel
 4
     Nicherie, the Nicherie Conglomerate, and associates of the Nicheries engaged with regard
 5
 6   to USA, LOA, CSB, List American Bank, and Guardian, and in furtherance of those

 7   fraudulent activities, Daniel Nicherie and Emmanuel Nicherie utilized the United States

 8   Mails and interstate wires in multiple acts of mail and wire fraud, within the meaning

 9   of 18 U.S.C.§ 1341 and § 1343.‖ (emphasis added) (numbered exhibit page 66, ¶25)

10          276.    The Connecticut Memorandum further identified ―The fraudulent
11   statements and misrepresentations made by Daniel and Emmanuel Nicherie to USA, List
12   American Bank, and U.S. West Financial, and the submissions of falsified and forged
13   documents to those lending institutions in connection with obtaining loans from those
14   lending institutions, constitute bank fraud, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1344.
15   (emphasis added) (numbered exhibit page 66, ¶26)
16          277.    Finally, the Connecticut Memorandum of Decision sets forth the Courts
17   conclusion that ―The plaintiffs have sustained their burden to prove violation of the
18   Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by Daniel Nicherie, Emmanuel
19   Nicherie, Orah Nicherie and Innovative Planning, Inc., by clear and convincing evidence.‖
20   (numbered exhibit page 66, ¶28)
21
22
     OVERVIEW
23
            278.   In late 1999, during the course of a divorce proceeding between Ami Shafrir
24
     and his wife Sarit, the Nishries target the Shafrirs as the next victim of their racketeering
25
     activities. After gaining confidential information from the Shafrirs, the Nishries enlist the
26
     aid of Sarit Shafrir in destroying Ami Shafrir.
27
28
29                                                 72
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            279.   In violation of Orders in the Divorce matter restraining the transfer of
 2
     community property, Sarit transfers the bulk of the Shafrir‘s Community Property assets to
 3
     Nevada corporations set up and controlled by the Nishries. The Nishries cause Ami‘s
 4
     signature and that of a notary public to be forged to transfer documents and simultaneously
 5
     exclude Ami Shafrir from his office buildings where the corporate offices are maintained
 6
     for his companies. Within a short period of time, Federal Transtel, (a company operating
 7
     in Alabama that Ami owns 75%, and Patrick Herald 25%) and his office buildings in Los
 8
     Angeles are transferred by the Nishries with the assistance of Sarit:
 9
10
                                 Ami Shafrir‘s signature is forged to documents transferring his
11
                       ownership of 75% of FTT to ANKE, a company created and controlled by
12
                       Daniel Nishrie.
13
                                 $1,400,000 is paid to Patrick Herald from FTT bank accounts
14
                       for his $25% interest in FTT.
15
                                 8670 Property Partners and 8335 Sunset Property Partners,
16
                       community property assets of the Shafrirs Guarantee the Debts of ANKE
17
                       for a total of $5,300,000 and allow Deeds of Trust to be placed on the
18
                       Property in
19
                                 .favor of FTT.
20
                                 8670 Property Partners and 8335 Sunset Property Partners
21
                       transfers the buildings owned by the partnership to Archibald
22
                       Management, a Nevada corporation created and controlled by Daniel
23
                       Nishrie.
24
            280.   To destroy Ami, to divert attention from their own criminal enterprise and to
25
     maintain control of the buildings and businesses, the Nishries engaged in aggressive litigation
26
     against Ami including detailed allegations of fraudulent conduct and false claims of violence
27
28
29                                                 73
30                                    Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     designed to obtain restraining orders keeping Ami from accessing his buildings and
 2
     businesses.
 3
               281.   Discovery is not complied with and the Nishries create confusion and cause
 4
     delays in the judicial system. During the entire time, the Nishries and Sarit are diverting all
 5
     of the revenues of Amtec to other Nishrie controlled companies. Meritless CCP 170.6
 6
     challenges are made to cause the recusal of judges who begin to understand the magnitude of
 7
     the fraud and timely bankruptcy filings create more delay.
 8
               282.   Extrinsic fraud is engaged in to acquire stipulated judgments against Ami‘s
 9
     property as well as default judgments obtained in Alabama and Ohio. The in-house attorneys
10
     for the Nishries engage in conflicts of interest in their concurrent representation of
11
     corporations and 50% shareholders against the other 50% shareholder in issues relating to
12
     ownership and control.
13
               283.   The Nishries produce no support for their allegations against Ami despite
14
     repeated demands and court orders compelling discovery. The goal of the Nishries is to
15
     cause as much confusion and delay as possible while they resist receiver motions in order to
16
     remain in control of the enterprise and attempt to destroy their victims.
17
18
                                               COUNT ONE
19
                  (VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) RICO - against all defendants)
20
               284.   Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
21
     paragraphs 1 through 283 of this complaint as though the same were more fully set forth
22
     herein.
23
               285.   The Nishries have engaged, and continue to engage in a pattern of
24
     racketeering to gain control of the enterprises engaged in interstate commerce actually and
25
     proximately causing injury to plaintiff‘s business and property.
26
               286.   As a result of said Defendants' conduct, Defendants did in fact violate 18
27
     U.S.C. 1962(b) as a result of which Plaintiff has been damaged, and continues to suffer
28
29                                                    74
30                                       Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     damages, in an amount yet to be fully ascertained, but which will be established according to
 2
     proof at trial.
 3
               287.    Defendants' aforesaid acts constitute malice, oppression and fraud, as defined
 4
     by California Civil Code § 3294, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages as
 5
     hereinafter prayed.
 6
               288.    As a result of said Defendants' conduct, Defendants did in fact violate 18
 7
     U.S.C. 1962(b) as a result of which Plaintiff is entitled to recover threefold the damages he
 8
     has sustained and cost of the suit, including reasonable attorney‘s fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
 9
     § 1964 (c) to be fully ascertained, but which will be established according to proof at trial.
10
11
                                                COUNT TWO
12
                  (VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) RICO - against all defendants)
13
               289.    Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
14
     paragraphs 1 through 288 of this complaint as though the same were more fully set forth
15
     herein.
16
               290.    The Nishries directly and indirectly, have participated, and continue to
17
     participate, in the conduct of an enterprise‘s affairs through a pattern of racketeering
18
     activity (―predicate acts‖) actually and proximately causing injury to plaintiff‘s property
19
     and business that were for relevant times engaged in interstate commerce. The Nishries
20
     were employed by or associated with said enterprises engaged in interstate commerce, and
21
     have conducted and participated in conducting said enterprise‘s affairs through a pattern of
22
     racketeering.
23
               291.    The racketeering activity, as set forth herein, stems from the enterprise‘s
24
     activity and/or has a relationship to the enterprise.
25
               292.    As a result of said Defendants' conduct, Defendants did in fact violate 18
26
     U.S.C. 1962(c) as a result of which Plaintiff has been damaged, and continues to suffer
27
28
29                                                     75
30                                        Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     damages, in an amount yet to be fully ascertained, but which will be established according to
 2
     proof at trial.
 3
               293.    Defendants' aforesaid acts constitute malice, oppression and fraud, as defined
 4
     by California Civil Code § 3294, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages as
 5
     hereinafter prayed.
 6
               294.    As a result of said Defendants' conduct, Defendants did in fact violate 18
 7
     U.S.C. 1962(c) as a result of which Plaintiff is entitled to recover threefold the damages he
 8
     has sustained and cost of the suit, including reasonable attorney‘s fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
 9
     § 1964 (c) to be fully ascertained, but which will be established according to proof at trial.
10
11
                                              COUNT THREE
12
                  (VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) RICO - against all defendants)
13
               295.    Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
14
     paragraphs 1 through 294 of this complaint as though the same were more fully set forth
15
     herein.
16
               296.    Defendants Daniel Nishrie and Abner Nishrie have each willfully agreed to
17
     enter into a conspiracy and have so conspired to induce the other to violate 18 U.S.C. 1962(b)
18
     and 18 U.S.C. 1962(c).
19
               297.    As a result of said Defendants' conduct, Defendants did in fact violate 18
20
     U.S.C. 1962(b) and 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) as a result of which Plaintiff has been damaged, and
21
     continues to suffer damages, in an amount yet to be fully ascertained, but which will be
22
     established according to proof at trial.
23
               298.    Defendants' aforesaid acts constitute malice, oppression and fraud, as defined
24
     by California Civil Code § 3294, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages as
25
     hereinafter prayed.
26
27
                                                COUNT FOUR
28
29                                                     76
30                                        Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
                                (Fraud and Deceit - against all defendants)
 2
               299.   Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
 3
     paragraphs 1 through 298 of this complaint as though the same were more fully set forth
 4
     herein.
 5
               300.   As is more particularly set forth above in this Complaint, Plaintiff reasonably
 6
     and justifiably relied, to his detriment, on the aforesaid misrepresentations of material facts,
 7
     and the aforesaid omissions, concealments and false promises made by Defendants, and is,
 8
     therefore, entitled to damages resulting therefrom under the law of the State of California.
 9
               301.   The Nishries intentionally concealed their true identity, name, prior criminal
10
     convictions and true intentions when they initially were introduced to the Shafrirs.
11
               302.   The Nishries were under a duty to disclose these facts to the Shafrir‘s due to
12
     the confidential relationship that existed between them and the Nishries intentionally omitted
13
     these material facts.
14
               303.   Had Plaintiff known of the true facts that the Nishries were actually convicted
15
     felons with in excess of $34,000,000 in fraud and RICO judgments for predicate acts of bank
16
     fraud, wire fraud and mail fraud, plaintiff would not have been injured.
17
               304.   Defendants' acts constitute malice, oppression and fraud, as defined by
18
     California Civil Code § 3294, and Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages as
19
     hereinafter prayed.
20
21
22
23
                                               COUNT FIVE
24
                          (DECLARATORY RELIEF – against all defendants)
25
               305.   Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
26
     paragraphs 1 through 304 of this complaint as though the same were more fully set forth
27
     herein.
28
29                                                    77
30                                       Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
             306.      For a declaratory judgment that certain documents are declared to be forgeries
 2
     according to proof at trial including the documents described as forgeries herein, according to
 3
     proof at trial;
 4
             307.      For a declaratory judgment that any and all other documents by and between
 5
     the Nicheries and Plaintiff and/or the following entities are declared null and void;
 6
             308.      For a declaratory judgment that any transfers of assets to the Nicheries or any
 7
     corporation controlled by the Nicheries including Archibald Management from plaintiff and
 8
     the following entities, Amtec Audiotex, Inc., Federal Transtel, Inc., WorldSite, Inc., 8670
 9
     Wilshire Blvd., 8335 Sunset Blvd. during the period January 1, 1999 through the date of the
10
     order be null and void
11
             309.      For declaratory judgment that subject to the family court‘s ruling that SHARIF
12
     Shafrir‘s interest in the following community assets be charged for damages caused by her
13
     conduct herein, according to proof at trial.
14
             310.      For declaratory judgment that Plaintiff‘s and SARIT‘s respective interest in the
15
     community assets before charges against SARIT‘s interests be determined according to proof
16
     at trial including the following assets:
17
             Amtec Audiotex, Inc., Federal Transtel, Inc., WorldSite, Inc., 1400 Laurel Way, Los
18
     Angeles,
19
             8670 Wilshire Blvd., 8335 Sunset Blvd., and 2015 Mount Olympus Drive
20
21
             311.      For a dismissal of all actions by the Nicheries or their related entities and
22
     agents acting on their behalf against Plaintiff and his related entities.
23
             312.      For declaratory relief that Plaintiff be reinstated as sole officer and director of
24
     the following corporations:
25
             Amtec Audiotex, Inc.; Federal Transtel, Inc.; WorldSite, Inc.; 8670 Wilshire Property
26
     and 8335 Sunset Property.
27
28
29                                                      78
30                                         Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
 2
                                                COUNT SIX
 3
                               (INJUNCTIVE RELIEF – against all defendants)
 4
               313.   Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in
 5
     paragraphs 1 through 312 of this complaint as though the same were more fully set forth
 6
     herein.
 7
               314.   For injunctive relief restraining Daniel Nicherie, Abner Nicherie and any and
 8
     all employees, agents, attorneys, persons representing them or acting on their behalf from
 9
     entering the premises located at 8670 Wilshire Blvd., Beverly Hills, 8335 Sunset Blvd., West
10
     Hollywood, from conducting any business with or relating to, or interfering with, the
11
     business of the following entities and/or persons: Ami Shafrir, Amtec Audiotex, Inc., Federal
12
     Transtel, Inc., WorldSite, Inc., 1400 Laurel Way, Los Angeles, 8670 Wilshire Corp., 8335
13
     Sunset Property, 2015 Mount Olympus Drive, Los Angeles.
14
15
               WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants as follows:
16
               ON THE FIRST COUNT:
17
               1) For threefold the damages sustained by Plaintiff according to proof at trial;
18
               2) For exemplary or punitive damages according to proof at trial;
19
               3) For cost of the suit, including reasonable attorney‘s fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
20
                  1964 (c) to be fully ascertained, but which will be established according to proof at
21
                  trial; and
22
               4) For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
23
24
               ON THE SECOND COUNT:
25
               1) For threefold the damages sustained by Plaintiff according to proof at trial;
26
               2) For exemplary or punitive damages according to proof at trial;
27
28
29                                                    79
30                                       Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
     3) For cost of the suit, including reasonable attorney‘s fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
 2
        1964 (c) to be fully ascertained, but which will be established according to proof at
 3
        trial; and
 4
     4) For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
 5
 6
     ON THE THIRD COUNT:
 7
     1) For threefold the damages sustained by Plaintiff according to proof at trial;
 8
     2) For exemplary or punitive damages according to proof at trial;
 9
     3) For cost of the suit, including reasonable attorney‘s fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
10
        1964 (c) to be fully ascertained, but which will be established according to proof at
11
        trial; and
12
     4) For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
13
14
     ON THE FOURTH COUNT:
15
     1) For the damages sustained by Plaintiff according to proof at trial;
16
     2) For exemplary or punitive damages according to proof at trial;
17
     3) For cost of the suit, including reasonable attorney‘s fees to be fully ascertained, but
18
        which will be established according to proof at trial; and
19
     4) For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
20
21
     ON THE FIFTH COUNT:
22
     1) For declaratory relief set forth above and as this Court deems just and proper, and
23
     2) For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
24
     ON THE SIXTH COUNT:
25
     1) For injunctive relief set forth above and as this Court deems just and proper, and
26
     2) For such other and further relief as this Court deems just and proper.
27
28
29                                           80
30                             Amended Complaint – RICO
31
 1
            ON COUNTS ONE THROUGH THREE:
 2
     For an Order directing Defendants to forfeiture all of Plaintiff‘s assets to Plaintiff which
 3
     Defendants have acquired any interest in, security of, claim against, or property or
 4
     contractual right of any kind affording a source of influence over any enterprise which
 5
     Defendants have established, operated, controlled, conducted, or participated in the
 6
     conduct of, in violation of section 1962; and any property constituting, or derived from,
 7
     any proceeds which Defendants obtained, directly or indirectly, from racketeering activity
 8
     in violation of section 1962.
 9
                                     FRISENDA, QUINTON & NICHOLSON
10
11
     DATED: July 5, 2001                    By:__________________________
12
                                                 Mark Estes, Esq.
13
                                                 Attorneys for Plaintiff
14                                               Ami Shafrir
15
16                                   DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
17          Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.
18
19                                   FRISENDA, QUINTON & NICHOLSON
20
21   DATED: July 5, 2001                    By:__________________________
22                                               Mark Estes, Esq.
                                                 Attorneys for Plaintiff
23
                                                 Ami Shafrir
24
25
26
27
28
29                                                   81
30                                     Amended Complaint – RICO
31

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: California Nevada County Court Records Restraining Orders document sample