How To Report Fraud at Bustathief.com

4 Responses to “Charity Scams – Fake Charities”

1. 
   1
   eduardoalarcon Says:
   January 15th, 2008 at 12:00 pm

   Web page: http://www.maine.gov/tools/whatsnew/index.php?topic=SEC-LegalDocs&id=27515&v=Default

   State of Maine
   Office of Securities
   21 State House Station
   Augusta, Maine 04333-0121

   IN RE: NOTICE OF INTENT
   06-073

   JAMES L. CLIFFORD
   ALLEGATIONS
   1. James L. Clifford (“Clifford”) (CRD # 1419478) is an individual who has been licensed in Maine as a sales representative or agent since at least 1985. His last known address is 955 Eastern Avenue, Holden, Maine 04429.
   2. From December 4, 1997, to the present, Clifford has worked as a sales representative or agent at the Brewer, Maine, branch office of Investors Capital Corp. (“ICC”).
   3. Pearl P. Schoppe (“Ms. Schoppe”) was a life-long resident of Orono, Maine, and the valedictorian of the 1936 graduating class of Husson College in Bangor, Maine.
   4. In May of 1996 Ms. Schoppe established a living trust (the “Schoppe Trust”) with herself as trustee and with two of her relatives designated as trustees upon her death. The original trust document directed that upon Ms. Schoppe’s death, after payment of any of Ms. Schoppe’s debts, expenses and taxes, and certain distributions, the remainder of the trust property was to be held in trust for Husson College with income distributions to fund a scholarship program.
   5. Ms. Schoppe was conservative with her investments. She essentially bought only certificates of deposits and fixed annuities.
   6. In October of 1998, Ms. Schoppe, then age 80, amended the trust document to, among other things, change the trustee upon her death to Clifford. The amendment also changed the provision regarding the distribution of the remainder of her trust property. As amended, instead of the property being held in trust for Husson, the trust instrument dictated that the property was to be “distributed to the National Heritage Foundation F.B.O. Pearl P. Schoppe Foundation.”
   7. The charitable purpose stated by Ms. Schoppe on the National Heritage Foundation application was “Assist students of the Greater Bangor/Brewer, Orono/Old Town, ME area who need financial aid to attend Husson College. To be paid out interest only 80% of interest to go to students, 20% of the interest to go back into the Foundation so foundation will continue to grow.”
   8. Ms. Schoppe died on January 19, 2000.
   9. On March 7, 2000, in Singer Island, Florida, Clifford and John T.”Dock” Houck, II, CEO of National Heritage Foundation, (“NHF”) completed the paperwork for “National Heritage Foundation Inc. FBO Pearl Schoppe FNDTN” to purchase a $150,000 variable annuity from Conseco Variable Annuity Insurance Company through ICC, using funds from the Schoppe Trust.
   10. On May 11, 2000, Clifford sent an additional $50,000 from the Schoppe Trust’s checking account to Conseco to add to the variable annuity.
   11. The subaccounts chosen by Clifford and Houck were largely more-risky growth funds, when Ms. Schoppe’s stated intent and investment history dictated the use of more conservative income-producing investments.
   12. The variable annuity sold by Clifford to the foundation was unsuitable for the charitable purposes expressed by Ms. Schoppe. There was no tax benefit and no value to having a death benefit on the life of Mr. Houck to offset the higher costs and reduced liquidity of the investment.
   13. Clifford received $12,600 in commissions on these transactions. In addition, Clifford has paid himself trustee fees exceeding $42,000.00 from the trust assets despite the fact that he appears to have provided little if any valuable services to the trust.
   14. Since the purchase of the variable annuity in March of 2000, Husson College has received no scholarship money from the Pearl P. Schoppe Foundation.
   15. Under federal law, variable annuities are securities and the offer and sale of variable annuities is regulated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) under the Securities Act of 1933 and Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
   16. The NASD is a national securities association registered with the SEC under §15A and in accordance with the provision of §19(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
   17. NASD Rules are filed with the SEC and promulgated under §19(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. NASD rules apply to “all members and persons associated with a member. Persons associated with a member shall have the same duties and obligations as a member” under the association’s rules. NASD Rule 0115.
   18. ICC is a member of NASD and Clifford is a person associated with ICC.
   19. NASD Rule 2310 requires that a member have reasonable grounds for believing that a recommended purchase is suitable for a customer based on the facts disclosed by the customer including the customer’s investment objectives.
   20. By virtue of his training and experience, Clifford knew the requirements of NASD Rule 2310. Through his customer relationship with Ms. Schoppe, Clifford knew her investment objectives and the charitable purpose for which she established the Pearl P. Schoppe Foundation. Thus, Clifford intentionally or knowingly failed to comply with NASD Rule 2310. 32 M.R.S.A. §10313(1)(B).
   21. By using funds of the Schoppe Trust to purchase an unsuitable investment, Clifford engaged in unlawful or unethical conduct in the securities business. 32 M.R.S.A. §10313(1)(G).
   22. Pursuant to 32 M.R.S.A. §§10313 and 16702, the Securities Administrator may, after notice and opportunity for hearing, issue an order to revoke the license of a licensee or impose a bar on a licensee if the Securities Administrator finds that the order is in the public interest and that the licensee: (1) has engaged in unlawful, unethical or dishonest conduct in the securities business; or (2) has intentionally or knowingly violated or failed to comply with a rule under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
   NOTICE
   Notice is hereby given that the Securities Administrator intends to issue an Order to Revoke Clifford’s Agent License and Censure Him or Bar Him from Association under 32 M.R.S.A. §§10313(1) and 16702(1).
   If Clifford wants to request a hearing in this matter, he must do so in writing within thirty (30) calendar days of the date of this Notice of Intent. 32 M.R.S.A. §§10708, 16702(1).

   Date: November 28, 2006 /s/ Michael J. Colleran
   ` Michael J. Collera
   Securities Administrator
   Date: November 28, 2006 /s/ Bonnie E. Russell
   Bonnie E. Russell
   Assistant Securities Administrator
   Date: November 28, 2006 /s/ Willis P. Smedberg
   Willis P. Smedberg
   Investigator/Examiner
   Last Updated: December 20, 2006 4:42 PM

   Posted by: Eduardo Alarcon
   19319 Inverness Dr.
   Spicewood, TX 78669
   (512) 217-6655
   Eduardo.alarcon@sbcglobal.net

2. 
   2
   eduardoalarcon Says:
   May 6th, 2008 at 5:51 pm

   The National Heritage Foundation/Congressional District Programs and their salesmen are under investigation by Federal and State agencies.
   If you have any questions please feel free to contact the owner of the NHF, JOHN HOUK, at (561) 301-3891 or dock@nhf.org.
   Posted by:
   Eduardo Alarcon
   19319 Inverness Dr.
   Spicewood, TX 78669
   (512) 217-6655
   eduardo.alarcon@sbcglobal.net

3. 
   3
   Eduardo Alarcon Says:
   February 23rd, 2010 at 4:24 pm

   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
   FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
   ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
   JOHN R. BEHRMANN, NANCY P. A–
   BEHRMANN and
   DOLORES F. ANDERSON,
   Plaintiffs,
   Civil Action No.
   -,
   JOHN T. HOUK, II, MIRIAM M. HOUK, ( ft(J 1 / \
   JOHN T. HOUK III, JANET H.
   RIDGELY AND JULIE L. HOUK,
   Defendants.
   COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND
   Plaintiffs, John R. Behrmann and Nancy P. Behrmann (collectively
   referred to as the “Behrmanns”) and Dolores F. Anderson (“Ms. Anderson”), through
   their undersigned counsel, allege for their Complaint against each of the named
   Defendants as follows:
   I. Parties, Jurisdiction and Venue
   1. Plaintiff John R. Behrmann (“J. Berhmann”) is an individual over
   the age of twenty one (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of
   Pennsylvania. At all times material to this Complaint he has been married to Nancy P.
   Behrmann.
   2. Plaintiff Nancy P. Behrmann is an individual over the age of
   twenty-one (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of Pennsylvania. At all
   times material to this Complaint she has been married to J. Behrmann.
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 1 of 30
   3. Plaintiff Ms. Anderson is an individual over the age of twenty-one
   (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of South Carolina.
   4. Defendant John T. Houk II (“Houk”) is an individual over the age
   of twenty-one (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia. At all
   times material to this Complaint Houk has been married to Miriam M. Houk. He is also
   the father of John T. Houk III and Janet H. Ridgely, and is the father-in-law of Julie L.
   Houk. At all times material to this Complaint Houk acted as a representative and agent
   of National Heritage Foundation, Inc. (“NHF”), Miriam M. Houk, John T. Houk III,
   Janet H. Ridgely and Julie L. Houk within the scope of his authority, and he acted in
   active concert, complicity and collaboration with each of the other Defendants.
   5. Defendant Miriam M. Houk is an individual over the age of
   twenty-one (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia. At all times
   material to this Complaint she has been married to Houk. She is also the mother of John
   T. Houk III and Janet H. Ridgely, and she is the mother-in-law of Julie L. Houk. At all
   times material to this Complaint Miriam M. Houk acted as a representative and agent of
   NHF, Houk, John T. Houk III, Janet H. Ridgely and Julie L. Houk within the scope of her
   authority, and she acted in active concert, complicity and collaboration with each of the
   other Defendants.
   6. Defendant John T. Houk III is an individual over the age of
   twenty-one (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia. At all times
   material to this Complaint he has been married to Julie L. Houk. He is also the son of
   Houk and Miriam M. Houk, and he is the brother of Janet H. Ridgely. At all times
   material to this Complaint John T. Houk III acted as a representative and agent of NHF,
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 2 of 30
   Houk, Miriam M. Houk, Janet H. Ridgely and Julie L. Houk within the scope of his
   authority, and he acted in active concert, complicity and collaboration with each of the
   other Defendants.
   7. Defendant Janet H. Ridgely is an individual over the age of
   twenty-one (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia. She is the
   daughter of Houk and Miriam M. Houk, and she is also the sister of John T. Houk III. At
   all times material to this Complaint Janet H. Ridgely acted as a representative and agent
   of NHF, Houk, Miriam M. Houk, John T. Houk III and Julie L. Houk within the scope of
   her authority, and she acted in active concert, complicity and collaboration with each of
   the other Defendants.
   8. Defendant Julie L. Houk is an individual over the age of twentyone
   (21) years who is a citizen and resident of the State of Virginia. She is the wife of
   John T. Houk III, and she is the daughter-in-law of Houk and Miriam M. Houk. At all
   times material to this Complaint Julie L. Houk acted as a representative and agent of
   NHF, Houk, Miriam M. Houk, John T. Houk III and Janet H. Ridgely within the scope of
   her authority, and she acted in active concert, complicity and collaboration with each of
   the other Defendants.
   9. This Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over the claims for
   relief alleged in this Complaint under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1332(a) as the action
   involves citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds Seventy Five
   Thousand Dollars ($75,000.00), exclusive of interest and costs.
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 3 of 30
   10. Venue is proper in this judicial district under the provisions of 28
   U.S.C. §1391 (a) as at least one of the Defendants resides in the Eastern District of
   Virginia.
   II. General Allegations
   11. Plaintiffs incorporate each of the allegations contained in
   Paragraphs 1-10 of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
   12. NHF is a Georgia not-for-profit corporation that was formed by
   Houk in 1994 for, among other purposes, soliciting contributions from those persons (such
   as the Plaintiffs) who wish to develop, evaluate, implement and monitor charitable giving
   plans, programs and strategies for the benefit of worthy organizations and causes. At all
   times material to this Complaint, the Houk family has maintained the corporate offices of
   NHF within the State of Virginia.
   13. At all times material to this Complaint, Mariam M. Houk, John T.
   Houk III and Julie L. Houk served on the Board of Directors of NHF. At all times material
   to this Complaint, Houk’s family members constituted a majority of, and controlled, NHF’s
   Board of Directors.
   14. At all times material to this Complaint, Houk served as Chief
   Executive Officer of NHF; Miriam M. Houk served as Chief Operating Officer of NHF;
   John T. Houk III served as President of NHF; and Janet H. Ridgely served as Vice
   President of NHF. These were the only officer positions for NHF. Accordingly, all NHF’s
   officers were members of Houk’s immediate family.
   15. At all times material to this Complaint, NHF was held out to the
   public (including Plaintiffs) by the Defendants and their agents as a nonprofit, public
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 4 of 30
   charity exempt from federal income tax under IRC §501(c)(3). At all times material to this
   Complaint, the Defendants and their agents asserted collectively and publicly that the
   purpose of NHF was to assist the progress of scientific, charitable, educational and
   religious activities by consolidating and centralizing the administration of charitable
   donations and projects.
   A. Background Relating to the Behrmanns
   16. Beginning in late 1996, J. Behrmann was introduced to Houk.
   Houk represented and assured J. Behrmann that – through NHF ~ Houk could materially
   assist the Behrmanns in developing, evaluating, implementing and monitoring a tailored
   charitable giving plan, program and strategy that advanced and satisfied the Behrmanns’
   charitable giving goals.
   17. Houk held himself and NHF out to J. Behrmann in interstate
   telecommunications between Virginia and Pennsylvania (where the Behrmanns reside), and
   in materials transmitted through interstate mail, as possessing specialized and superior
   education, training, knowledge, skill and experience in respect of the development,
   evaluation, implementation and monitoring of efficient and effective charitable giving
   plans, programs and strategies. At all times material to this Complaint, the Behrmanns
   were solicited, invited, importuned and induced by Houk and his agents in these interstate
   communications to repose special trust and confidence in Houk and the other Defendants in
   respect of these charitable giving matters.
   18. As a result of these importuning, inducements and representations,
   the Behrmanns reasonably and justifiably chose to repose special trust and confidence in
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 5 of 30
   Houk and the other Defendants, and the Behrmanns continued to do so until NHF filed for
   bankruptcy relief in January of 2009.
   19. More particularly, Defendants (through Houk and his agents)
   aggressively solicited, invited, importuned and induced the Behrmanns to establish a donor
   advised fund (“DAF”) — which became known as Highbourne Foundation (“Highbourne”)
   – at NHF, and to make substantial contributions of cash and property to Highbourne/NHF.
   20. In the period between approximately December of 1996 and
   December of 2007, Defendants and their agents were successful in causing the Behrmanns
   to: (i) establish Highbourne as a DAF at NHF, and (ii) make cash and/or property
   charitable contributions in the approximate aggregate amount of $1.09 million to the
   Highbourne DAF. Defendants and their agents accomplished this result via: (i) express and
   implied representations, assurances, promises and commitments published to J. Behrmann
   and his agents and representatives in interstate telecommunications and mailings, and (ii)
   material omissions of material matters that in equity and good conscience should have been
   disclosed to the Behrmanns to ensure that the balance of that published to the Behrmanns
   was not materially misleading.
   21. More particularly, at the inception of the relationship with NHF
   (in approximately December of 1996) Houk and his agents advised, counseled and
   encouraged the Behrmanns, via interstate telecommunications and materials transmitted in
   interstate mailings, to establish Highbourne as a DAF at NHF so that Highbourne could be
   used as a vehicle through which the Behrmanns could make efficient and effective
   charitable, tax-deductible contributions to various worthy organizations and causes
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 6 of 30
   identified by the Behrmanns. Defendants (through Houk and his agents) expressly and
   impliedly represented and advised the Behrmanns that:
   A. Defendants possessed superior knowledge, skill, knowledge and
   training, and that the Defendants services and abilities would be used exclusively to
   promote and advance the Behrmanns’ goals of developing, evaluating, implementing and
   monitoring an efficient and effective charitable giving plan, program and strategy for the
   benefit of worthy causes and organizations identified by the Behrmanns.
   B. The strategy of making contributions through a DAF established at
   NHF would enable the Behrmanns to make one or more contributions of cash and/or
   property to Highbourne/NHF that would be tax-deductible in the year of the Behrmanns’
   contribution(s) to Highbourne/NHF;
   C. The Behrmanns’ contributions would be judiciously held, invested,
   managed and utilized by Highbourne/NHF in a manner that: (i) would advance and
   promote the Behrmanns’ charitable giving goals, and (ii) would not imperil the
   Behrmanns’ contributions and their availability for donation to worthy organizations and
   causes identified by the Behrmanns; and
   D. Upon making one or more contributions, the Behrmanns would
   hold the exclusive right/power to advise NHF as to subsequent donations that the
   Behrmanns wished to have made by Highbourne/NHF to worthy charitable organizations
   and causes identified by the Behrmanns.
   22. Based upon Defendants’ representations, promises, commitments,
   advice and counsel (communicated through Houk and his agents), the Behrmanns
   reasonably and justifiably: (i) entered into a contractual relationship with NHF, (ii)
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 7 of 30
   established Highbourne as a DAF within NHF in approximately December of 1996, and
   (iii) made a series of cash and property contributions to Highbourne/NHF in the period
   between approximately December of 1996 and December of 2007 in the aggregate
   amount of approximately $1.09 million.
   23. From and after December of 2006, the Behrmanns reasonably and
   justifiably relied upon Defendants to provide them with timely, accurate, truthful and
   comprehensive notice of: (i) any change in the roles, duties and allegiances of any of the
   Defendants, (ii) any change in the representations, promises, commitments, advice and
   counsel in respect of effecting contributions to Highbourne/NHF, (iii) any basis for
   concern or inquiry relating to NHF or relating to contributions made to Highbourne/NHF,
   and/or (iv) any adverse developments that might negatively impact the Behrmanns’
   charitable giving strategy being implemented through Highbourne/NHF. At no time did
   any of the Defendants or their agents provide the Behrmanns with any notice or warning
   of any of these.
   B. Background Relating to Dolores F. Anderson
   24. Beginning in approximately 2002, Ms. Anderson (through her
   representatives and agents) was introduced to Houk. Houk represented and assured Ms.
   Anderson’s representatives and agents that – through NHF — Houk and his agents could
   materially assist Ms. Anderson in developing, evaluating, implementing and monitoring a
   tailored charitable giving plan, program and strategy that advanced and satisfied Ms.
   Anderson’s charitable giving goals.
   25. Houk held himself and NHF out to Ms. Anderson in telephone
   calls between Virginia and South Carolina (where Ms. Anderson and her representatives
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 8 of 30
   and agents reside), and in materials transmitted through interstate mail, as possessing
   specialized and superior education, training, knowledge, skill and experience in respect of
   the development, evaluation, implementation and monitoring of efficient and effective
   charitable giving plans, programs and strategies. At all times material to this Complaint,
   Ms. Anderson was solicited, invited, importuned and induced by Houk and his agents in
   these interstate communications to repose special trust and confidence in Houk and the
   other Defendants in respect of these charitable giving matters.
   26. As a result of these importuning, inducements and representations,
   Ms. Anderson reasonably and justifiably chose to repose special trust and confidence in
   Houk and the other Defendants, and Ms. Anderson continued to do so until NHF filed for
   bankruptcy relief in January of 2009.
   27. More particularly, Defendants (through Houk and his agents)
   aggressively solicited, invited, importuned and induced Ms. Anderson (through her
   representatives and agents) to establish a donor advised fund (“DAF”) — which became
   known as Dodie Anderson Foundation (“DAFoundation”) ~ at NHF, and to make
   substantial contributions of cash and property to DAFoundation/NHF.
   28. In the period between approximately November of 2003 and
   December 31, 2003, Defendants and their agents were successful in causing Ms. Anderson
   to: (i) establish DAFoundation as a DAF at NHF, and (ii) make an initial cash and/or
   property charitable contribution in the aggregate amount of $1,068,430 to the
   DAFoundation DAF. Defendants and their agents accomplished this result via: (i) express
   and implied representations, assurances, promises and commitments published to Ms.
   Anderson (through her representatives and agents) in interstate telecommunications and
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 9 of 30
   mailings, and (ii) material omissions of material matters that in equity and good conscience
   should have been disclosed to Ms. Anderson to ensure that the balance of that published to
   Ms. Anderson was not materially misleading.
   29. More particularly, at the inception of the relationship with NHF
   (in approximately December of 2003) Houk and his agents advised, counseled and
   encouraged Ms. Anderson (through her representatives and agents), via interstate telephone
   calls and materials transmitted in interstate mailings, to establish DAFoundation as a DAF
   at NHF so that DAFoundation could be used as a vehicle through which Ms. Anderson
   could make efficient and effective charitable, tax-deductible contributions to various
   worthy organizations and causes identified by Ms. Anderson. Defendants (through Houk
   and his agents) expressly and impliedly represented and advised Ms. Anderson (through
   her representatives and agents) that:
   A. Defendants possessed superior knowledge, skill, knowledge and
   training, and that the Defendants services and abilities would be used exclusively to
   promote and advance Ms. Anderson’s goals of developing, evaluating, implementing and
   monitoring an efficient and effective charitable giving plan, program and strategy for the
   benefit of worthy causes and organizations identified by Ms. Anderson;
   B. The strategy of making contributions through a DAF established at
   NHF would enable Ms. Anderson to make one or more contributions of cash and/or
   property to DAFoundation/NHF that would be tax-deductible in the year of Ms.
   Anderson’s contribution(s) to DAFoundation/NHF;
   C. Ms. Anderson’s contributions would be judiciously held, invested,
   managed and utilized by DAFoundation/NHF in a manner that: (i) would advance and
   10
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 10 of 30
   promote Ms. Anderson’s charitable giving goals, and (ii) would not imperil Ms.
   Anderson’s contributions and their availability for donation to worthy organizations and
   causes identified by Ms. Anderson; and
   D. Upon making one or more contributions, Ms. Anderson would
   hold the exclusive right/power to advise NHF as to subsequent donations that Ms.
   Anderson wished to have made by DAFoundation/NHF to worthy charitable organizations
   and causes identified by Ms. Anderson.
   30. Based upon Defendants’ representations, promises, commitments,
   advice and counsel (communicated through Houk and his agents), Ms. Anderson
   reasonably and justifiably: (i) entered into a contractual relationship with NHF, (ii)
   established DAFoundation as a DAF within NHF in approximately December of 2003,
   and (iii) made a series of cash and property contributions to DAFoundation/NHF in the
   period between approximately December 2003 and mid-July of 2007 in the aggregate
   amount of $1,911,259.
   31. From and after December of 2003, Ms. Anderson reasonably and
   justifiably relied upon Defendants to provide her with timely, accurate, truthful and
   comprehensive notice of: (i) any change in the roles, duties and allegiances of any of the
   Defendants, (ii) any change in the representations, promises, commitments, advice and
   counsel in respect of effecting contributions to DAFoundation/NHF, (iii) any basis for
   concern or inquiry relating to NHF or relating to contributions made to
   DAFoundation/NHF, and/or (iv) any adverse developments that might negatively impact
   Ms. Anderson’s charitable giving strategy being implemented through
   11
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 11 of 30
   DAFoundation/NHF. At no time did any of the Defendants or their agents provide Ms.
   Anderson with any notice or warning of any of these.
   C. The NHF Bankruptcy Filing and Proceedings
   32. In September of 2008, a Texas state court jury returned a $6.2
   million verdict against NHF and in favor of Juan and Silvia Mancillas. As a
   consequence, on January 24, 2009, NHF was forced to file a chapter 11 bankruptcy case
   in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
   33. Following the bankruptcy filing, J. Behrmann initiated a telephone
   call to Houk, and was assured by Houk that Highbourne/NHF would not be impacted.
   Following the bankruptcy filing, the Behrmanns and Ms. Anderson learned facts – for
   the first time – from which they were alerted that they had been seriously victimized by
   Defendants over the years. For example, from internet reports and other publications that
   were accessed following NHF’s bankruptcy filing, it was learned that the following
   collection of important matters had not been appropriately, timely, fairly and
   comprehensively disclosed to them by the Defendants prior to the bankruptcy filing:
   A. Houk founded the original National Heritage Foundation, Inc. in
   1968. In approximately 1982, the IRS filed suit to revoke the original entity’s charitable
   status for violations of the federal tax laws. Houk and the entity were accused of multiple
   counts of mismanagement; Houk was ousted as the CEO; and the original organization
   changed its name to National Foundation, Inc.
   B. In the wake of his firing by the original National Heritage
   Foundation entity, Houk was discharged from at least two follow-on positions (at St.
   Paul’s College in Southern Virginia and Palm Beach Atlantic College in West Palm
   12
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 12 of 30
   Beach Florida). In both instances, Houk declared that the differences that precipitated his
   discharge were his views on how fund-raisers — such as Houk ~ should be compensated
   by these educational institutions.
   C. Houk incorporated the current version of NHF in 1993. Since that
   time, NHF has been engaged in ongoing battles with the Internal Revenue Service in
   respect of the legitimacy of NHF’s practices as a charitable organization (offering NHF
   contributors various allegedly tax deductible options).
   D. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Houk has operated NHF
   much like a family business for the benefit of the Houk family. Houk is NHF’s chief
   executive. Also on the NHF payroll is Houk’s wife, Marian M. Houk (Chief Operating
   Officer), his son, John T. Houk III (President), his daughter, Janet H. Ridgely (Vice
   President) and daughter-in-law, Julie Houk (Vice President). These persons have
   collectively been very handsomely compensated by NHF and its affiliates in amounts
   beyond that which was justifiable.
   E. At all times material to this Complaint, the Houk family has
   controlled the NHF Board of Directors. For some undisclosed time the Houk family has
   occupied all of the NHF officer positions. Houk’s explanation for the Houk family’s
   dominance and control of NHF is that he does not want to repeat his mistakes of the past.
   F. NHF has been operated by the Houk family so as to engage in
   business transactions with business entities in which Houk holds a direct or indirect
   interest. For example, NHF has paid rent in respect of a building owned by Houk, has
   lent money to Charity Admin, a for-profit Houk-family entity (which was subsequently
   13
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 13 of 30
   written off) and later purchased services from yet another Houk family business, To the
   Point.
   G. From NHF’s offices (and using its personnel and resources) the
   Houk family has dominated, controlled and operated another dubious IRC §501(c)(3)
   entity known as Congressional District Programs, Inc. (“CDP”). CDP engages in
   soliciting persons to become “Program Managers.” Program Managers are individuals
   who – for a fee paid to CDP – become a Program Manager for CDP and solicit funds
   from others to be donated to CDP. These donations are allegedly tax deductible. The
   Program Managers thereafter submit disbursement requests to CDP for disbursements in
   the Program Manager’s “field of interest” as well as for the Program Manager’s expenses
   (such as entertainment and travel). NHF and CDP maintain overlapping directors,
   officers and staff. No information has ever been provided to the Plaintiffs respecting the
   allocation of costs and expenses of operation between NHF and CDP. Notably, in the
   days immediately preceding NHF’s bankruptcy filing Houk caused NHF to transfer
   approximately $1 million to CDP.
   H. At all times material to this Complaint, the Houk family directors
   and officers of NHF have been confronted with material, undisclosed conflicts of interest
   during the course of performing their duties for NHF. The only conflicts disclosure
   required by NHF (in its bylaws) is disclosure to the NHF Board of Directors which is
   dominated and controlled by the Houk family.
   I. NHF has been operated by the Houk family in a manner which
   caused NHF to engage in highly dubious and risky activities and practices, including
   (without limitation) extending $14 million in unsecured loans to a nonpublic company
   14
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 14 of 30
   operated by an individual who served as an unlicensed investment adviser to NHF and a
   vendor of NHF’s software. This loan has fallen into default and has not been repaid.
   J. NHF has been fairly accused of engaging in imprudent business
   and investment practices, and that it published financial statements that were false and/or
   misleading (including NHF’s investments in one or more “mutual funds”).
   K. NHF elected not to establish, implement and monitor appropriate
   measures and procedures to prevent material, unauthorized payments by its employees,
   and at least one substantial unauthorized payment was made by a NHF employee.
   L. NHF and Defendants expressly and impliedly represented that the
   contributions effected by Plaintiffs (through their respective DAFs, Highbourne and
   DAFoundation) would be used for legitimate charitable purposes ~ about which
   Plaintiffs would have sole advisory input. Defendants’ concealed that Plaintiffs’
   contributions: (i) were being used as collateral for NHF’s institutional indebtedness, (ii)
   could be used by NHF to repay its institutional indebtedness, and/or (iii) could be robbed
   by NHF of their intended purpose of benefitting worthy charitable organizations and
   causes.
   34. During the course of NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings, NHF
   confiscated and liquidated all of the funds and property then contained in
   Highbourne/NHF and DAFoundation/NHF. NHF applied the proceeds to settle and pay
   indebtedness then owed by NHF to an institutional lender and/or other NHF creditors.
   35. In the case of Highbourne/NHF approximately $650,000 was
   confiscated, and in the case of DAF/NHF approximately $1,010 million was confiscated.
   None of these funds and property taken during the bankruptcy proceedings of NHF were
   15
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 15 of 30
   contributed to worthy charitable causes as had been promised, represented, warranted and
   committed by NHF and the Defendants prior to the bankruptcy filing.
   36. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ material
   misrepresentations/omissions, and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’
   material breaches of duties owed to Plaintiffs, the initial and all subsequent contributions
   to Highbourne/NHF and DAFoundation/NHF were made by Plaintiffs. But for these
   material misrepresentations/omissions, and material breaches of duty, the Plaintiffs
   would not have made the initial and subsequent contributions.
   37. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ material
   misrepresentations/omissions, and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’
   material breaches of duties owed to them, Plaintiffs have suffered substantial damages,
   losses and injuries in an amount not less than the value of the cash and property
   confiscated from Highbourne/NHF and DAFoundation/NHF during NHF’s bankruptcy
   proceedings. In addition, since the confiscation by NHF during its bankruptcy
   proceedings, Plaintiffs have been required to fund worthy causes with their personal
   funds.
   38. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’
   mismanagement of NHF and other misconduct, NHF and its officers, directors, and
   agents have engaged in “excess benefit transactions” which have exposed the officers,
   directors, and agents (and those that have benefitted) to very substantial excise tax
   liabilities under IRC §4958, and by reason of such prohibited transactions, have caused
   NHF to violate the proscription against private inurement set forth in IRC §501(c)(3).
   16
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 16 of 30
   39. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’
   mismanagement of NHF and other misconduct, Defendants’ have jeopardized NHF’s
   ability to maintain its tax exempt status under IRC §501(c)(3) based upon: (i) the
   operation of NHF for a private (Houk family) purpose rather a public purpose (the
   “private benefit” proscription), and/or (ii) the inurement of NHF’s net earnings to the
   private benefit of the Houk family (the “private inurement” proscription). In the event
   that NHF’s IRC §501(c)(3) status were rescinded the Behrmanns and Ms. Anderson
   likely will be confronted with substantial additional tax liabilities that they otherwise
   would not confront. And the earnings from their DAFs which had been planned for
   funding charitable purposes will now be reduced or eliminated and will cause them
   financial expense in satisfying those charitable purposes which had been designated to be
   satisfied from the DAFs.
   40. As a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’ material
   misrepresentations/omissions, and as a direct and proximate consequence of Defendants’
   material breaches of duties owed to them, Plaintiffs have been required to retain and pay
   legal counsel reasonable fees and expenses to seek suitable judicial relief. The legal fees
   and expenses incurred by Plaintiffs are substantial and can be expected to mount
   materially into the future as this litigation continues.
   IV. First Claim for Relief
   (Breach of Implied Agreement and Understanding)
   41. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-40
   of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
   17
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 17 of 30
   42. For good and valuable consideration, Plaintiffs entered into
   implied agreements and understandings with Defendants under which Defendants agreed,
   on a continuing basis, to provide competent and loyal professional services to assist
   Plaintiffs in developing, implementing, evaluating and monitoring an efficient and
   effective charitable giving strategy that fulfilled Defendants’ manifest goals.
   43. Defendants further impliedly agreed and covenanted to provide
   Plaintiffs with timely and appropriate notice of: (i) any change in the roles, duties and
   allegiances of any of the Defendants, (ii) any change in the advice and recommendations
   in respect of making contributions to NHF through Plaintiffs’ DAFs, (iii) any basis for
   concern or inquiry relating to NHF or relating to contributions made to NHF through
   Plaintiffs DAFs, and/or (iv) any adverse developments that might negatively impact the
   Plaintiffs’ charitable giving strategy being implemented through Plaintiffs’ DAFs at
   NHF.
   44. Plaintiffs fully and timely performed all of their obligations and
   duties under these implied agreements and understandings. In particular, Plaintiffs made
   their initial and subsequent contributions to their DAFs at NHF.
   45. Defendants (individually and/or through one or more of the other
   Defendants) materially breached their agreements and understandings with Plaintiffs by
   (i) engaging in robust and concealed self-dealing, and (ii) failing to appropriately, timely,
   fairly and comprehensively publish to Plaintiffs the substantial risks and dangers of
   initiating and continuing charitable giving plans, programs and strategies through NHF.
   Among other things, and without any effort at being exhaustive, Defendants failed to
   18
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 18 of 30
   appropriately, timely, fairly and comprehensively publish to Plaintiffs the profoundly
   material and salient matters described in Paragraph s 33, 38 and 39 of this Complaint.
   46. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
   material breaches of their agreements and understandings, Plaintiffs have sustained
   substantial damages, injuries and losses in an amount not less than the value of the cash
   and property confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy
   proceedings.
   47. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
   initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
   or has otherwise occurred.
   V. Second Claim for Relief
   (Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations)
   48. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-47
   of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
   49. For valuable consideration, Plaintiffs entered into binding
   contractual relationships with NHF.
   50. Each of the Defendants was knowledgeable about the contractual
   relationships that existed between NHF and each of the Plaintiffs. At core, this
   contractual relationship involved NHF’s commitment to faithfully and competently
   administer and execute Plaintiffs’ charitable giving plans, programs and strategies in a
   manner consistent with that which had been represented to Plaintiffs.
   51. Each of the Defendants (individually and/or through one or more
   of the other Defendants) intentionally interfered with the contractual relationships
   19
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 19 of 30
   between NHF and each of the Plaintiffs by causing NHF to breach its contractual
   commitments to Plaintiffs. In particular, Defendants caused NHF to use and consume
   Plaintiffs contributions to their DAFs at NHF in a manner that was wholly inconsistent
   with that which had been represented, promised and committed to Plaintiffs.
   52. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
   intentional interference with Plaintiffs contractual relationships with NHF, Plaintiffs have
   sustained substantial damages, injuries and losses in an amount not less than the value of
   the cash and property confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s
   bankruptcy proceedings.
   53. Defendants’ intentional interference with Plaintiffs’ contractual
   relations with Defendants were attended by circumstances of malice and willful, wanton
   and/or reckless misconduct.
   54. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
   initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
   or has otherwise occurred.
   VI. Third Claim for Relief
   (Negligence)
   55. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-54
   of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
   56. Defendants (individually and/or through one or more other
   Defendants) expressly and impliedly undertook to provide competent and loyal
   professional services to Plaintiffs on a continuing basis. These services were to include
   appropriate, timely and comprehensive advice and counsel in respect of developing,
   20
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 20 of 30
   evaluating, implementing and monitoring an efficient and effective charitable giving
   strategy through NHF that would fulfill Plaintiffs’ manifest charitable giving goals.
   57. Defendants were grossly negligent in the performance of these
   services and duties for the Plaintiffs, and the performance by Defendants was materially
   below the standard expected of other similarly situated charitable giving professionals
   engaged in providing such services to donors across the country.
   58. The negligence of Defendants in the performance of their services
   and duties was attended by circumstances of malice and willful, wanton and/or reckless
   misconduct.
   59. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
   carelessness, negligence and inattention, Plaintiffs have sustained substantial damages,
   injuries and losses in an amount not less than the value of the cash and property
   confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings.
   60. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
   initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
   or has otherwise occurred.
   VII. Fourth Claim for Relief
   (Negligent Misrepresentation and Omission)
   61. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-60
   of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
   62. In the course of their dealings with Plaintiffs, Defendants
   (individually and/or through one or more other Defendants) negligently published
   material misrepresentations to Plaintiffs. In addition, Defendants negligently omitted to
   21
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 21 of 30
   disclose to Plaintiffs material facts which in equity and good conscience should have
   been disclosed to Plaintiffs in order to insure that the other matters that were published to
   Plaintiffs were not materially misleading.
   63. Among the facts and matters negligently misrepresented to
   Plaintiffs by Defendants are those described in Paragraphs 21 A, 21C, 29A and 29C of
   this Complaint. Among the material facts and other matters negligently omitted from
   those disclosed by Defendants to Plaintiffs are those described in Paragraph 33 (including
   subsections A through L), 38 and 39 of this Complaint.
   64. The negligent misrepresentations and omissions by Defendants
   described herein were attended by circumstances of malice and willful, wanton and/or
   reckless misconduct.
   65. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
   negligent misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs have sustained substantial
   damages, injuries and losses in an amount not less than the value of the cash and property
   confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings.
   66. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
   initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
   or has otherwise occurred.
   VIII. Fifth Claim for Relief
   (Material Breaches of Fiduciary Duties)
   67. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-66
   of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
   22
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 22 of 30
   68. Defendants (individually and/or through one or more other
   Defendants) expressly and impliedly invited and importuned Plaintiffs to repose special
   trust and confidence in them professionals possessing superior knowledge, training, skill
   and abilities in developing, evaluating, implementing and monitoring for Plaintiffs’
   exclusive benefit appropriate charitable giving plans, programs and strategies. The
   Defendants agreed to assume responsibility to act for the benefit of the Plaintiffs in this
   undertaking.
   69. As a result of Defendants’ representations and invitation, Plaintiffs
   reasonably and justifiably chose to repose special trust and confidence in Defendants, and
   continued to do so until NHF filed for bankruptcy relief in January of 2009. More
   particularly, Plaintiffs trusted Defendants to services, counsel and assistance in
   developing, evaluating, implementing and monitoring an appropriate charitable giving
   plans, programs and strategies that satisfied Plaintiffs’ manifest goals.
   70. Defendants assumed the solemn and non-delegable obligations and
   responsibilities associated with being fiduciaries for the benefit of Plaintiffs.
   Accordingly, Defendants owed Plaintiffs solemn and non-delegable fiduciary duties to
   Plaintiff- including, without limitation, the duties of: (i) professionalism, (ii) good faith
   and fair dealing, (iii) appropriate, timely, full and fair disclosure, (iv) competence and
   prudence, (v) utmost fidelity, and (vi) ethical behavior and conduct.
   71. Defendants materially breached their fiduciary obligations and
   duties owed to Plaintiffs as more fully described above.
   23
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 23 of 30
   72. The numerous material breaches of fiduciary duties by Defendants
   were attended by circumstances of malice and willful, wanton and/or reckless
   misconduct.
   73. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
   material breaches of the fiduciary duties, Plaintiffs have sustained substantial damages,
   injuries and losses in an amount not less than the value of the cash and property
   confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings.
   74. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
   initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
   or has otherwise occurred.
   IX. Sixth Claim for Relief
   (Civil Conspiracy)
   75. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-74
   of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
   76. Defendants entered into one or more express or implied
   agreements/understandings pertaining to the establishment and funding of of DAFs at
   NHF (which would later be exploited for Defendants’ individual benefits) via the use of
   material misrepresentations, material omissions and breaches by NHF and one or more of
   the Defendants of contractual, tort and fiduciary obligations as is more fully described
   above.
   77. One or more lawful acts were performed to accomplish this illicit
   and wrongful goal.
   24
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 24 of 30
   78. The civil conspiracy described herein was attended by
   circumstances of malice and willful, wanton and/or reckless misconduct on the part of
   Defendants.
   79. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
   participation in this civil conspiracy, Plaintiffs have sustained substantial damages,
   injuries and losses in an amount not less than the value of the cash and property
   confiscated from Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings.
   80. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
   initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
   or has otherwise occurred.
   X. Seventh Claim for Relief
   (Virginia Consumer Protection Act)
   81. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-80
   of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
   82. The transactions complained of in this Complaint are “consumer
   transactions” within the meaning of the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, particularly
   Virginia Code §59.1-198. Plaintiffs were offered and sold specialized services by
   Defendants to be used primarily for personal, family and/or household purposes.
   83. Defendants were “suppliers” within the meaning of Virginia Code
   §59.1-198 because they solicited, sold and engaged in consumer transactions with the
   Plaintiffs.
   25
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 25 of 30
   84. In connection with such consumer transactions, Defendants
   engaged in prohibited practices proscribed by Virginia Code §59.1-200. These
   prohibited practices included:
   A. Misrepresenting that the services provided to Plaintiffs by NHF
   and the Defendants had qualities, characteristics and benefits that they did not possess, all
   in violation of Virginia Code §59.1-200A(5);
   B. Misrepresenting that the services provided to Plaintiffs by NHF
   and the Defendants possessed a particular standard, quality or grade that they did not
   possess, all in violation of Virginia Code §59.1-200A(5); and
   C. Publishing to Plaintiffs and their agents and representatives false
   promises, misrepresentations, and deceptive and fraudulent communications in
   connection with these consumer transactions, all in violation of Virginia Code §59.1-
   200A(14).
   85. As a direct and proximate result and consequence of Defendants’
   unlawful acts, conduct, communication and practices which violated the Virginia
   Consumer Protection Act, Plaintiffs have sustained substantial damages, injuries and
   losses in an amount not less than the value of the cash and property confiscated from
   Plaintiffs’ respective DAFs during NHF’s bankruptcy proceedings.
   86. The conduct of the Defendants in respect of these unlawful acts,
   conduct, communication and practices was willful within the meaning of Virginia Code
   59.1-204A, and thus each of the Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from each of the
   Defendants, jointly and severally, treble their actual damages.
   26
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 26 of 30
   87. Under the provisions of Virginia Code 59.1-204B, Plaintiffs are
   also entitled to an award against each of the Defendants of Plaintiffs’ reasonable
   attorneys’ fees and court costs.
   88. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
   initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
   or has otherwise occurred.
   XI. Eighth Claim for Relief
   (Declaratory Relief)
   89. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-88
   of this Complaint as if set forth in full here.
   90. Under the terms of Article VIII of the NHF Bylaws, Defendants
   are entitled to indemnification from NHF in respect of the claims alleged herein against
   Defendants “only in accordance with the Georgia Nonprofit Corporation Code and
   subject to the conditions thereof.”
   91. Pursuant to Section 18-3-851 (a) and 18-3-85 l(d)(2) of the Georgia
   Nonprofit Corporation Code, none of the Defendants are entitled to indemnification from
   NHF as directors of NHF because they: (i) failed to act in good faith, and (ii) improperly
   received one or more personal benefits from the relationships, conduct and transactions
   complained of in this Complaint.
   92. Pursuant to Section 18-3-856(a)(I) of the Georgia Nonprofit
   Corporation code, none of the Defendants are entitled to indemnification from NHF as
   offers of NHF because they: (i) failed to act in good faith, and (ii) improperly received
   27
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 27 of 30
   one or more personal benefits from the relationships, conduct and transactions
   complained of in this Complaint.
   93. Pursuant to Section 18-3-856(a)(2) of the Georgia Nonprofit
   Corporation code, none of the Defendants are entitled to indemnification from NHF as
   offers of NHF because there liability arises out of conduct that involved intentional
   misconduct, and receipt of improper personal benefit.
   94. Plaintiffs are now fully entitled to a judicial declaration under the
   provisions of 28 U.S.C. §2201(a) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 57, Plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial
   declaration that none of the Defendants is entitled to indemnification from NHF. Further,
   Plaintiffs are entitled to a judicial declaration that none of the Defendants is entitled to
   advancement of litigation expenses by NHF and/or a judicial declaration that any
   litigation expenses advanced by NHF must be promptly and personally repaid by any
   Defendant(s) who received any such advance of litigation expenses from NHF.
   95. All conditions precedent and subsequent to Plaintiffs’ right to
   initiate and maintain this claim for relief against Defendants has been performed, waived
   or has otherwise occurred.
   PRAYER FOR RELIEF
   WHERERORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court enter judgment
   in their favor and against Defendants, jointly and severally, for the following relief:
   A. Appropriate and comprehensive compensatory damages (including
   appropriate rescission amounts, if any), special damages, consequential damages and
   incidental damages, in an amount sufficient to fully compensate Plaintiffs for the full
   extent of their damages, injuries and losses;
   28
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 28 of 30
   B. Appropriate punitive or exemplary damages;
   C. Treble Plaintiffs’ actual damages as provided in the Virginia
   Consumer Protection Act;
   D. Reasonable attorneys’ fees/expenses;
   E. Pre-judgment interest, moratory interest, post-judgment interest,
   expert witness fees and all costs of suit;
   F. The judicial declarations sought and applied for in the Eighth
   Claim for Relief; and
   G. Such other and further relief as may be appropriate and just under
   the prevailing circumstances.
   JURY DEMAND
   Plaintiffs respectfully demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
   Dated: January £2-, 2010.
   TYLER, BARTL, RAMSDELLjSkCOUNTS,
   P.L.C.
   By:.
   Gregory H. Coi^nt^ ” \jc& H&T71
   700 WashingtonStreet, Suite216

   Posted by:
   Eduardo Alarcon
   19319 Inverness Dr.
   Spicewood, TX 78669
   (512) 217-6655
   eduardo.alarcon@sbcglobal.net
   Alexandria, Virginia 22314
   Telephone: (703) 549-5000
   Facsimile: (703)549-5011
   Email: Gcounts@tbrclaw.com
   29
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 29 of 30
   G.W. MERRICK & ASSOCIATES, LLC
   Glenn W. Merrick
   Daniel J. Schendzielos -.J^ u / -7 “7 \
   5445 DTC Parkway, Suite 912 v^ 1b / /1
   Greenwood Village, Colorado 80111
   Telephone: (303)831-9400
   Facsimile: (303) 771-5803
   E-mail: gmw@tiwmerrick.com
   ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
   30
   Case 1:10-cv-00064-AJT-TRJ Document 1 Filed 01/22/2010 Page 30 of 30

4. 
   4
   geo Says:
   October 2nd, 2011 at 4:08 am

   Caution thief Mike hotel near the walking street to get 150 meters (Pattaya, Thailand, August 2011) http://www.mikehotel.com/
   Every year (cella is 6 years old) I was in Pattaya in August month and I stay at the same hotel (MIKE HOTEL has 150 feet of the street walking street) me and my family, so two or three rooms three rooms this year because the family grows. The hotel staff knows us very well and it is in general 25 to 28 days. That you located the situation and the geographical area we do not particularly trust the chests made available for a lot of good reason. my son was hiding his money in his bag about 1500 euros and 35,000 baht, well wrapped in a towel to hide his habit as he stole the 35,000 baht, but not the euro. We watched the video recordings at the reception and there are only two of the four maids who’s back in the room. We call the police we are asking the proof of 35,000 baht currency were shown and it is done call on the field the cleaners to the police station in Pattaya it was 22 pm, but could do nothing because it is denying the facts of the police officer who was the tourist police as a translator told us that Anyway they argued that all of them. we had to leave the hotel the next morning course at the reception we were charged last night (no gifts, (and if you have more money to pay the hotel?), that we who will be in prison) and as a bonus as my wife had gone to look for another hotel with our room key without meaning to stick it on my groom behind me as I had told them that I bring back the key (we are not all dishonest [1 = 50 baht a key comparison which was stolen]) fortunately we all had the phone for my wife then return the key (to tell you that I would have no I dropped it became the thief)
   If I made this post was for you warn of what awaits you at Mike Hotel for theft in any case, I noted that feelings among Thais vis a vis the tourists do not exist (not tourist! translation: maytchay naktongtiao rao tcheu BAHT-MAN may ?.
   They have stolen 35,000 baht may be = 850 euros in change, but I will put this post on every forum that deals directly or indirectly to the tourist

Leave a Reply