Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 1 of 63
1
2
Trudy Sobocienski, Pro Se
3657 Teak Crest Dr., Las Vegas, NV 89147
907-306-5745 | tsobocienski@gmail.com
3
4
United State District Court
DISTRICT OF ALASKA
5
6
7
8
9
Trudy Sobocienski,
Plaintiff;
Case No.
vs.
AMENDED COMPLAINT
10
11
12
Diana Haeker, Gloria Karmun, Peggy
Fagerstrom, Chuck Fagerstrom, Charles
Fagerstrom, Barbara Amarok, Edna
“Becka” Baker, Marie Tozier, Austin
Ahmasuk,
13
14
15
and,
Nugget Publishing Corporation,
16
17
18
Defendants.
COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT
19
Plaintiff sues Defendants in this civil action for their violations of 18 U.S.C. Section
20
1961 et seq. (“Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act” or “RICO”). As
21
the court is well aware, RICO addresses corrupt abuse and misuse – usually covert – of
22
23
organizations, entities, businesses, institutions or even governments or government
24
agencies, such that superficially legitimate entities actually operate for criminal
25
purposes irrelevant to the entity’s purpose. Plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury; that
26
27
28
PAGE 1 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 2 of 63
1
injury is fairly traceable to actions of the defendant; and the injury will likely be
2
redressed by a favorable decision.
3
Plaintiff has standing to bring forth this case and alleges:
4
5
1. Defendants conspired as an unlawful enterprise with the intent to take control of the
6
Alaska Native Village Corporation, Sitnasuak Native Corporation (SNC) and to
7
further their self-dealing schemes. Sitnasuak Native Corporation is incorporated in
8
Alaska and was created through the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.
9
2. SNC is a private corporation with over 2,800 shareholders and over $170 million in
10
11
annual revenues. Most of those revenues are derived from federal contracts with
12
the United States Department of Defense – through Sitnasuak’s factories that are in
13
located in Puerto Rico. Sitnasuak Native Corporation has businesses in California,
14
Virginia, and Alaska in addition to the Puerto Rico operations.
15
3. Plaintiff was elected to the Sitnasuak Native Corporation Board of Directors May
16
17
18
19
20
21
2014.
4. Defendants conspired and carried out various predicate acts directly injuring
Plaintiff and continues to injure Plaintiff today and into the future.
5. Plaintiff served as an elected board member of Sitnasuak Native Corporation
between 2014-2018. Plaintiff was one of the “Sitnasuak Six” who were the target
22
23
of the Racketeering enterprise. The Defendants had a common goal to disparage
24
certain board members not only to shareholders, but to the general public within and
25
outside of Alaska. Defendants jointly and severally, shared a common goal to take
26
27
28
PAGE 2 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 3 of 63
1
control of the assets and governance of Sitnasuak Native Corporation through illegal
2
means to achieve that goal.
3
6. Defendants were successful in disparaging board members and gaining control of
4
5
the Board of Directors, after years of racketeering activity.
6
7. Defendants have become so emboldened that not only have they used corporate
7
assets to benefit themselves financially; but also submitted certified statements to
8
the U.S. Government that were intentionally and maliciously fraudulent.
9
8. Defendants concealed records of their illegal activities that included their false and
10
11
misleading statements against Plaintiff – including omission of key facts in public
12
forums, anonymous mailers to shareholders, and on public platforms within
13
Facebook Group pages, including but not limited to Nome Rant (recently changed
14
to Nome Chatter), Sitnasuak Shareholders Demand Accountability and
15
Transparency, and in the Nome Nugget Newspaper, and on www.nomenugget.com
16
17
18
and/or www.nomenugget.net.
9. Defendants
unlawfully
withheld
documents
that
included
material
19
misrepresentations about Plaintiff. Defendants unlawfully concealed that they were
20
responsible for the ‘anonymous mailer’ that disparaged Plaintiff to over 1,000 SNC
21
Shareholders during an active private corporation, in which Plaintiff was an active
22
23
candidate.
24
10. State of Alaska Division of Banking and Securities maintains jurisdiction over
25
Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) created village and regional
26
corporate elections.
27
28
PAGE 3 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 4 of 63
1
Parties
2
11. Plaintiff Trudy Sobocienski resides in Las Vegas, Nevada since September 1, 2020.
3
Prior to becoming a resident of Nevada, Sobocienski resided in Fort Mohave,
4
5
Arizona between December 5, 2018, and August 31, 2020. Between December
6
2017 – December 2018, Sobocienski resided in Valley Center, California.
7
Sobocienski was born in Nome, Alaska in 1970 and was an Alaska resident until
8
2017. (Sobocienski lived in Beaverton, Oregon for less than a year from the fall of
9
2006 to spring of 2007). Plaintiff was elected May 2014 to serve the board of
10
11
12
13
14
directors for Sitnasuak Native Corporation. She had served as a board member in
2008 and the President/CEO 2009-2010.
12. Defendant Diana Haeker was the journalist at the Nome Nugget Newspaper during
the timeframe outlined in this complaint. (In 2018, she became 51% owner of
15
Nugget Publishing Corporation, the company over the Nome Nugget Newspaper).
16
17
13. Defendant Gloria Karmun was employed as “Production” for the Nome Nugget
18
Newspaper during the timeframe of this complaint. Gloria Karmun is a shareholder
19
of the Sitnasuak Native Corporation and was an active candidate running for the
20
Board of Directors between 2014-2018.
21
14. Defendant Peggy Fagerstrom was an employee of the Nome Nugget Newspaper
22
23
during until 2017. Peggy Fagerstrom is a shareholder of the Sitnasuak Native
24
Corporation.
25
Defendant Charles E. Fagerstrom.
26
27
28
PAGE 4 OF 62
She is Defendant Chuck Fagerstrom’s wife and the mother of
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 5 of 63
1
2
15. Defendant Chuck Fagerstrom is the ex-employee of Sitnasuak Native Corporation.
Chuck Fagerstrom is a shareholder of Sitnasuak Native Corporation.
3
16. Defendant Charles E. Fagerstrom is the middle-aged son of Defendants Peggy and
4
5
Chuck Fagerstrom. Defendant is a shareholder of Sitnasuak Native Corporation.
6
Charles was a seated board member until 2018 when he resigned in a settlement
7
agreement with Sitnasuak Native Corporation for sending false and misleading
8
information to shareholders to affect the corporate election.
9
17. Defendant Barbara Amarok is a shareholder and a seated board member during the
10
11
12
13
14
timeframe of these acts.
18. Defendant Edna “Becka” Baker is a Sitnasuak shareholder and was elected to the
Board of Directors of Sitnasuak Native Corporation in 2016.
19. Defendant Marie Tozier is a shareholder of Sitnasuak and was a candidate for the
15
board during the timeframe of these acts.
16
17
20. Defendant Austin Ahmasuk is a shareholder of Sitnasuak Native Corporation and
18
Plaintiff in a separate lawsuit against the State of Alaska Division of Banking and
19
Securities, currently under deliberations at the Supreme Court of Alaska.
20
21. All Defendants are residents of Alaska. Nugget Publishing Corporation (Nome
21
Nugget Newspaper) is incorporated in the State of Alaska and in good standing
22
23
within the Division of Corporations.
24
JURIDICTION AND VENUE
25
22. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
26
Section 1331. Jurisdiction is also proper pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1965, which
27
28
PAGE 5 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 6 of 63
1
allows for nationwide jurisdiction pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
2
Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. sections 1961-1968.
3
23. The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action based on diversity of
4
5
citizenship pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332(a)(2).
6
24. Jurisdiction is also proper under Bivens v. Six Unknown Name Agents, 403 U.S.
7
388 (1971), in so far as the actions violate the Fourth, Ninth, Fourteenth
8
Amendments of the Constitution.
9
25. Complaint meets 550 U.S. 544, 547, (2007) which requires the allegations set forth
10
11
must cross the line from conceivable to plausible. Plaintiff’s makes a claim that
12
relief can be granted, the Defendants capacity to be sued in this Complaint, that
13
Plaintiff has the standing to bring forth Complaint, that the U.S. District Court of
14
Alaska, is the lawful jurisdiction and venue hear and rule on this litigation, and that
15
this litigation is filed within the legal Statute of Limitations.
16
17
Plaintiff’s Preservation of Rights
18
26. Plaintiff asserts her right to add defendants and additional claims through the
19
discovery process of this civil suit, and preserves her rights related to serve summons
20
nationwide, if required by the ends of justice. Related to Preservation of Rights,
21
Plaintiff preserves her rights under Personal Jurisdiction and Service of Process. 18
22
23
U.S.C. Section 1965(d) allows process to be served “in any judicial district in which
24
such person resides, is found, has an agent, or transacts his affairs.” Accordingly,
25
courts have approved nationwide service of process under both Section 1965(b) and
26
Section 1965(d).
27
28
PAGE 6 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 7 of 63
1
27. In Cory v. Aztec Steel Building, Inc., the Tenth Circuit analyzed the cases addressing
2
nationwide service of process under Sections 1965(b) and (d) and concluded that
3
the better reasoned approach is to apply Section 1965(b), holding: “When a civil
4
5
RICO action is brought in a district court where personal jurisdiction can be
6
established over at least one defendant, summonses can be served nationwide on
7
other defendants if required by the ends of justice.”
8
9
Statute of Limitations
Statute of Limitations – 18 U.S.C. Section 1964 – Racketeering (RICO) Act
10
11
28. The U.S. Supreme Court has found that civil RICO actions are subject to a four-year
12
statute of limitations, which accrues to the Plaintiff when she discovered or “should
13
have discovered” the injury. If at any date after the injury has been discovered, and
14
if a “new and independent injury” is incurred from the same violation, the right to
15
sue accrues at the time the Plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the latter
16
17
injury. Importantly, “fraudulent concealment” by the defendant “equitably tolls”
18
the running of the statute of limitations, on if the Plaintiff is reasonably diligent” in
19
trying to discover their civil RICO claims.
20
Capacity of Defendants
21
29. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 17 (b)(A) Capacity to Sue or Sued is defined
22
23
as “a partnership or other unincorporated association with no such capacity under
24
the State’s law may sue or be sued in its common name to enforce a substantive
25
right existing under the U.S. Constitution or laws”. The Ninth Circuit Court of
26
Appeals ruled in Southern California Darts Association (SCDA) v. Zaffina that
27
28
PAGE 7 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 8 of 63
1
SCDA was an unincorporated association (defined as a “voluntary group of persons,
2
without a charter, formed by mutual consent for the purpose of promoting a common
3
objective)” and therefore had the capacity to sue Zaffina in Federal Court…”
4
5
30. 18 U.S. Chapter 95 §1962 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) and (f) states that RICO violations are
6
(a) a culpable “person” who (b) willfully or knowingly (c) commits or conspires to
7
the commission of “racketeering activity” (d) through a “pattern” (e) involving a
8
separate “enterprise” or “association in fact” that (f) effects interstate or foreign
9
commerce.
10
11
31. Defendants acted unlawfully as an illegal Racketeering enterprise violating 18 U.S.
12
Chapter 95 Section 1962 - as an ‘association in fact’, and further defined in Federal
13
Rules of Civil Procedure 17(b)(A) definition – “an unincorporated association with
14
no such capacity under the State’s law may sue or be sued in its common name to
15
enforce a substantive right existing under the U.S. Constitution or laws”.
16
17
Capacity of Plaintiff
18
32. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires that Plaintiff, “Must file a claim
19
that contains “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief
20
that is plausible on its face” or otherwise stated as, “a claim on which relief can be
21
granted”.
22
23
33. Plaintiff’s claim is that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. section 1964 – Racketeering
24
(RICO) Act – “Any person injured in her business or property by reason of violation
25
of Section 1962 of this chapter (18 U.S.C. section 1962) may sue therefore in any
26
27
28
PAGE 8 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 9 of 63
1
appropriate U.S. District Court and shall recover threefold the damages she sustains
2
in and the cost of the suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees”.
3
34. The RICO statute provides that any person who has been injured by violation of the
4
5
6
statute may recover damages from each person who caused the injury.
35. Plaintiff presents facts that are within 18 U.S.C. section 1964; as such that proves
7
Plaintiff meets the requirements within Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
8
FACTS REGARDING THE NOME NUGGET NEWSPAPER,
WWW.NOMENUGGET.COM AND WWW.NOMENUGGET.NET
9
10
36. Defendants malicious scheme came to fruition stemming from an “expository”
11
Nome Nugget Newspaper “article” in which Plaintiff is the key subject linked to the
12
highly inflammatory issues “reported” directly about her. This was published April
13
14
15
16
17
18
14, 2016: http://www.nomenugget.com/news/jury-finds-nome-woman-committedfraud-breech-fiduciary-duty-civil-lawsuit.
37. Plaintiff
suffered
irreparable
harm
because
the
internet
platforms
www.nomenugget.net and www.nomenugget.com were fraudulently manipulated
by using “black hat” tactics to secure the highest page ranking in Google Search
19
20
Engine Results when entering “Trudy Sobocienski” into the Google Search query.
21
38. Defendants linked “Trudy Sobocienski” to that article purposefully and maliciously,
22
so the article appears at or near the top of the search results when anyone searches
23
for Trudy Sobocienski on google.com.
24
39. Defendants violated Plaintiffs first amendment rights by omitting material facts
25
26
27
28
throughout a series of articles written by Diana Haecker on Sitnasuak election and
board issues that injured Plaintiff.
PAGE 9 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 10 of 63
1
40. Defendants snuffed out Plaintiff’s voice and violated her first amendment right of
2
Freedom of Speech, which includes the right to take part in the resultant public
3
discourse ignited by the article published April 14, 2016 about the Plaintiff.
4
5
6
41. Defendants violated Plaintiff’s rights by using “black hat” tactics to optimize the
URL which hosts the damaging article about the Plaintiff.
7
42. Defendants set up a Search Engine Optimization plan and manipulated the articles
8
page rank, in part, by linking “Trudy Sobocienski” as the text connector to the article
9
for Google Search Engine Optimization Results.
10
11
12
43. Defendants used the internet platform provided by the Nome Nugget Newspaper
that caused significant injury to Plaintiff.
13
44. Concrete injury has been ongoing and continues today because potential employers
14
use Google Search and regardless of the truth, the fact is that Plaintiff’s name is
15
optimized by Defendants and linked to the above listed “article”.
16
17
45. The meta and micro-data in the source code of that “article’s” URL page has Trudy
18
Sobocienski and Sobocienski written within it over 40 times. This is a tactic to
19
connect “Trudy Sobocienski” in search engine results to this URL page.
20
46. Additionally, page ranking on Google Search uses page authority as a major factor
21
in its algorithm to sort and prioritize search engine result information.
22
23
24
25
26
47. Google Search for marketing is the only Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
practices Plaintiff thought existed.
48. Plaintiff now knows that is also Google Scholar Search. This is a separate form of
SEO available to add page authority and therefore rank higher on mainstream
27
28
PAGE 10 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 11 of 63
1
Google Search Engine Results. Google Scholar SEO requires that a document be
2
published on a ‘scholastic’ website.
3
49. Plaintiff found the ‘article’ posted on www.studylib.net - a scholastic website.
4
5
50. This scholastic website is a tactic that secures worldwide prime real estate - as page
6
ranking on Google Search. The higher the page rank in search engine results, the
7
more valuable the real estate.
8
9
51. The source code for the URL links to internal pages, some that do not exist, created
anchor text, and has thousands of manufactured backlinks – all of which are
10
11
12
13
14
purposeful SEO tactics to rank higher on Google Search – when “Trudy
Sobocienski” is entered in the search engine as the query criteria.
52. On the flip side of these SEO methods used, are also other methods to hide
information from Google Search.
15
53. Defendants caused directly or indirectly to hide Nome Nugget articles where
16
17
members of the Racketeering enterprise were the subject of said article(s) from
18
Google
19
http://www.nomenugget.com/news/snc-sues-remove-three-board-members,
20
robot.txt was included in the coding such as “no follow” and “no index”. Effectively
21
Search
results.
For
example,
in
the
article,
this tells Google Search not to ‘crawl’ or ‘index’ that URL. This means that it is not
22
23
24
25
26
likely to show up in Google Search Results – not with the names of the subjects of
this article.
54. Further, Defendants violated Section 508 of the American with Disabilities Act by
writing code within said URL(s) that hides certain elements and/or makes certain
27
28
PAGE 11 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 12 of 63
1
elements invisible. For example: manipulating the colors such as ‘white font’ on a
2
white page – effectuating an invisible “appearance”.
3
55. Plaintiff communicated with the Nome Nugget Newspaper and the Newspaper’s
4
5
attorney Erin Lily, requesting a variety of options to correct the information, de-
6
index the article from Google Search, anything and everything Plaintiff could think
7
of for a possible compromise.
8
56. Early on, Defendant Diana Haecker confirmed she would publish a follow up article.
9
Plaintiff requested and desperately pleaded for the Newspaper to make clear that the
10
11
‘rest of the story’ was given attention in the newspaper publication, on the
12
publications website, and in Google Search Results. Or removed from Google
13
Search results by de-linking Plaintiff’s name from Search Engine Optimization
14
15
methods within the article (.URL page) coding.
57. Defendant refused to bring equal attention to the ‘rest of the story’ of Plaintiff’s
16
17
outcome of the Deloycheet, Inc. v. Sobocienski et al. This concealment and silence
18
have and continues to injure Plaintiff. Plaintiff has concrete evidence of the injury
19
Plaintiff suffered in proximity to the Defendants actions and non-actions.
20
58. August 2018, Defendant did add a notation at the bottom of the article (on the
21
website).
22
23
59. However, material facts continue to be omitted, which continues to injurie Plaintiff.
24
This notation states that the Deloycheet v. Sobocienski case was settled by
25
Sobocienski paying $40,000.
26
27
28
PAGE 12 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 13 of 63
1
60. This statement instead creates a public perception of admission of liability on the
2
part of the Plaintiff, which is clearly opposite of what is stated in the Settlement
3
Agreement.
4
5
FACTS ON THE SUBJECT OF CONCRETE INJURY AND PROXIMATY TO
DEFENDANTS ACTIONS AND INACTION
6
61. Concrete injury to Plaintiff took place December 2017, 12 months after the
7
8
9
Settlement Agreement was put into place.
62. Plaintiff was selected to work for a Tribe in San Diego County as the Executive
10
Director of the Tribes Economic Development Corporation.
11
contract was signed, relocation expenses were negotiated. Plaintiff moved from
12
An employment
Laughlin, Nevada to San Diego County December 2017. Plaintiff’s contract was
13
14
$105,000 a year salary plus bonuses. Plaintiff received $11,000 for relocation.
15
Plaintiff signed a one-year lease on a rental home, financed furniture, and moved
16
her husband and young daughter to California.
17
63. Within less than 2 weeks, Plaintiff was forced to resign. Plaintiff was given a pre-
18
written statement from the Tribes Human Resource Executive.
Plaintiff was
19
20
required to reimburse the $11,000 asap. Plaintiff asked the HR Executive her
21
dismissal was due to her background investigation. The HR Executive responded
22
that they did not even conduct a background investigation. The just read the article
23
in the Nome Nugget Newspaper.
24
64. Plaintiff was tied to a one-year lease with no income and throughout the rest of that
25
26
27
28
year, was never able to secure employment. Not only has Plaintiff suffered, but her
husband and daughter has suffered tremendously.
PAGE 13 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 14 of 63
1
65. When the one-year lease was up, Plaintiff, her husband and daughter had to move
2
into her parents’ home in Arizona. Plaintiff, her husband, and daughter lived with
3
her parents between December 2018 – September 2020 - when they were fortunate
4
5
enough to secure their own housing in Las Vegas, NV.
6
66. Plaintiff was hired in Bullhead City, AZ as an Association Executive for a Realtor
7
Association. Again, Plaintiff was injured in that place of employment directly
8
because of the Nome Nugget article found on Google Search.
9
67. Plaintiff was only employed for a few months before that relationship was severed
10
11
by the Association Board. In this role, Plaintiff’s salary was $42,500 annually.
12
68. January 2020, Plaintiff was hired in a temporary position as a Remote Camp
13
Manager. This position is temporary, and Plaintiff worked a total of 16 weeks
14
throughout 2020 in the temporary position.
15
69. Plaintiff continues to apply for hundreds of positions from housekeeping,
16
17
bartending, waitressing, Paralegal/Legal Assistant, Executive Assistant, and
18
Manager roles. Plaintiff continues to suffer by virtue of not being considered for
19
employment in any role.
20
70. Plaintiff attended Strayer University – Jack Welch Management Institute between
21
September 2016-September 2020 part-time and online. September 2020, Plaintiff
22
23
received a Master’s in Business Administration Degree.
24
71. Plaintiff, even with a MBA, cannot secure so much as a job interview. Due to the
25
worldwide internet audience that the Nome Nugget Newspaper affirms, Plaintiff
26
27
28
PAGE 14 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 15 of 63
1
does not foresee any hope for her future, without intervention of the U.S. District
2
Court of Alaska.
3
72. Plaintiff exhausted every other option she could – including even Trademarking her
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
name, Trudy Sobocienski, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office,
which is a current and active trademark that she owns.
73. The Nome Nugget Newspaper “About Us” section states:
“The Nome Nugget serves northwestern Alaska and is read worldwide on the
Internet. The Nome Nugget is an independent, weekly newspaper, locally owned by
married couple Diana Haecker and Nils Hahn. It is written, photographed, and
produced in Nome, and printed in Anchorage. The Nome Nugget’s total circulation
is approximately 6,000 with an estimated four readers per paper for a total of 24,000
readers per paper edition. In Nome and the 15 surrounding communities, distribution
is accomplished through 20 Nome outlets, and in village stores and grocery markets
in the region. Stores in Kotzebue and throughout the NANA region carry our
newspaper. The Nome Nugget is delivered per subscription to readers in every state
of the nation. In addition, The Nome Nugget distributes approximately 600
newspapers in the Anchorage area through local stands and at the airport. The Nome
Nugget is the adjudicated paper of record for the Second Judicial District. On a
weekly basis, 4,000 readers take advantage of the downloadable online version
of The Nome Nugget at www.nomenugget.net. Our online version is in a
downloadable PDF format with all ads placed as they appear in the newspaper. In
this remote area of our world, the best way to reach people is through newspaper
advertising. Nome is the logistical and economical hub for the surrounding 15
Bering Strait and Norton Sound communities that are off the road system. The
villages are Little Diomede, Shishmaref, Wales, Brevig Mission, Teller, Solomon,
Council, White Mountain, Golovin, Elim, Koyuk, Shaktoolik, Unalakleet, St.
Michaels and Stebbins.”
21
FACTS REGARDING “ANONYMOUS MAILER”
22
23
74. Defendants committed the predicate act of mail fraud on May 2017, by mailing the
24
attached “anonymous mailer” to over 1,000 SNC shareholders. SNC shareholders
25
live across the United States and globally. The material misrepresentations about
26
Plaintiff and the distribution of those material misrepresentation caused Plaintiff to
27
28
PAGE 15 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 16 of 63
1
be significantly injured.
2
estranged from the people of her communities which injured her professionally,
Plaintiff has been ostracized, hated, and ultimately
3
isolated her from her cultural ties, and bestowed havoc, chaos, no sense of safety
4
5
and security for her immediate and longer-reaches of family. Plaintiff has suffered
6
and will continue to suffer. Her only recourse hinges on being granted relief from
7
the Court.
8
75. Defendants sent an anonymous proxy solicitation to over 1,000 Sitnasuak
9
shareholders in violation of State of Alaska Banking and Securities laws. The
10
11
anonymous proxy solicitation misled shareholders by omitting material facts about
12
Plaintiff while Plaintiff was a candidate, running as an incumbent in the private
13
corporate election, which was scheduled for June 3, 2017.
14
76. Two images included in the anonymous mailer that fraudulently misrepresents facts
15
about Plaintiff are the Deloycheet Press Release, (April 5, 2016) and Jury Verdict
16
17
Form. The citation from the Press Release states: “received from Deloycheet, Inc”.
18
This “Press Release” was never posted on the Deloycheet, Inc. website and never
19
emerged anywhere else but the anonymous mailer.
20
77. Defendants knowingly misrepresented material facts about Plaintiff. This mailer
21
was mailed May 2017. Plaintiff settled with Deloycheet, Inc. in December 2016.
22
23
24
78. Defendants maliciously chose outdated and wrong information from an entire year
before to defraud the shareholders and injure the Plaintiff.
25
26
27
28
PAGE 16 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 17 of 63
1
79. Over 1,000 people received this mailer through the United States Postal Service.
2
Return Address of the Mailer: SNC Shareholders for Free Speech, General Delivery,
3
Nome Alaska 99762.
4
5
80. Charles Fagerstrom, who was a seated Sitnasuak Board member at the time of the
6
mailing, admitted that he was responsible for this mailer. He resigned from the
7
Board of Directors and agreed not to run for the board for the following two
8
elections.
9
81. Defendants fraudently affected this and additional Sitnasuak corporate elections,
10
11
disparaged seated board members with personal attacks, false claims of unethical
12
behavior, and self-dealing. Defendants named the people they targeted as the,
13
“Sitnasuak Six”.
14
82. The anonymous mailer violated SNC shareholder mailing list use policies. The
15
mailing list of shareholders is a significant source of protected information and an
16
17
asset of the corporation.
18
83. Defendants used this corporate asset illegally to further their racketeering activities.
19
84. Specific false statements of material fact that injured Plaintiff in the Anonymous
20
21
Mailer include:
•
Complete omission (concealment) of the fact that the Deloycheet v. Sobocienski
22
23
lawsuit was settled December 9, 2016. There was no judgement entered and
24
both State and District of Alaska cases were dismissed, per the settlement
25
agreement which states:
26
27
28
PAGE 17 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 18 of 63
1
•
2
“Whereas the parties are engaged in litigation in the Alaska State Court lawsuit,
Deloycheet, Inc. v. Trudy Sobocienski et al, Case No. 3AN-13-08319CI (“The
3
State Court Action”);
4
5
•
Whereas the Parties are also engaged in litigation in United States Bankruptcy
6
Court for the District of Alaska in Deloycheet Inc. v Trudy Mae Sobocienski,
7
Case No. A16-90012-HAR (“the Bankruptcy action”); and,
8
•
Whereas, the Parties seek to resolve the State Court Action AND the Bankruptcy
9
Action, without any admission of liability or wrongdoing by either party, and
10
11
forego the expense and time required to continue litigation.
12
85. The anonymous mailer distributed through the U.S. Postal Service to over 1,000
13
SNC Shareholders May 2017, fraudulently claims the following misrepresentations:
14
86. “After the jury verdict Director Sobocienski filed for bankruptcy. We believe filing
15
for bankruptcy does not dismiss the fact that the jury found her liable…. In addition,
16
17
the State of Alaska Banking and Securities found SNC in violation for not reporting
18
Director Sobocienski’s previous employment with Deloycheet, Inc. in the 2014 and
19
2015 Annual Meeting Shareholder packets”.
20
87. Both of these statements falsify material facts by concealing key information to
21
purposefully disparage Plaintiff and caused her injury.
22
23
88. Defendants also crafted these two statements in a fraudulent effort to link two
24
separate events, to fraudulently give the appearance of collusion between Plaintiff
25
and Sitnasuak Native Corporation to conceal Plaintiff’s past employer (Deloycheet,
26
Inc) from the proxy statements in years.
27
28
PAGE 18 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 19 of 63
1
2
89. Defendants committed fraud, distributed through the mail, constituting the predicate
act of mail fraud; which injured Plaintiff.
3
4
5
FACTS SPECIFIC TO STATE OF ALSKA DIVISION OF BANKING AND
SECURITIES INVESTIGATIONS AND OUTCOMES
90. In 2014, After Plaintiff, Trudy Sobocienski, was elected to the Sitnasuak Board of
6
Directors, Defendant Barbara Amarok filed a request for investigation with the State
7
8
9
of Alaska Banking and Securities alleging Plaintiff did not disclose her prior
employment with Deloycheet, Inc.
The investigation found that Plaintiff did
10
disclose Deloycheet as a former employer and followed state regulations and laws.
11
91. In 2015, Defendant Barbara Amarok filed another Request for Investigation by the
12
State of Alaska Division of Banking and Securities; alleging Plaintiff did not
13
14
disclose her prior employment with Deloycheet, Inc. The State of Alaska Division
15
of Banking and Securities conducted a second investigation of Trudy Sobocienski.
16
Again, the Division of Banking and Securities found that Trudy Sobocienski
17
disclosed her prior employment and complied with all State regulations and laws.
18
92. In 2016, as the seated Sitnasuak Native Corporation board member, Barbara
19
20
Amarok, filed a Request for Investigation against Sitnasuak Native Corporation with
21
the State of Alaska Banking and Securities Division alleging that SNC did not
22
disclose Sobocienski’s prior employment with Deloycheet, Inc. to shareholders in
23
the proxy statements.
24
93. Defendant Barbara Amarok did not go through the internal processes as a board
25
26
member who a fiduciary duty to the corporation. More outrageously, Defendant
27
28
PAGE 19 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 20 of 63
1
Amarok never disclosed to the corporation that she filed the complaint. She
2
concealed this fact, which came to light as one result of an internal investigation.
3
94. Defendant Barbara Amarok never disclosed in her Request for Investigation or
4
5
anywhere else, that Defendant Chuck Fagerstrom at time was the President of
6
Sitnasuak Native Corporation and he personally initialed his approval of the
7
disclosures to being published in the proxy statements and sent to shareholders in
8
2014 and 2015.
9
PRAYER FOR RELIEF BASED ON CLAIMS
10
11
95. Plaintiff sues the Defendants, as individuals jointly and severally, for operating an
12
illegal criminal enterprise that violated Plaintiff’ rights and caused irreparable
13
injury, until such time as relief is granted and Plaintiff can be restored and made
14
whole again.
15
96. The Defendants have systemically and continuously, over the last six (6) years or
16
17
more, conducted predicate acts through their ‘association in fact’ arrangement that
18
became this corrupt enterprise that violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
19
Organization (“RICO”) Act, all of which acts, and associations are continuing in
20
nature. Plaintiff demands the following relief:
21
a. Injunctive relief that a forensic computer expert takes immediate possession of
22
23
the servers, computers, cell phones, tablets, and other electronic devices
24
necessary that have been used for operating the racketeering enterprise
25
communication. The forensic expert will act as the Court’s expert, at the
26
Defendant’s expense, and reports made to the Court as a neutral actor.
27
28
PAGE 20 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 21 of 63
1
b. For Injunctive Relief that a forensic computer expert inspects and review the
2
digital files on above-mentioned electronic devices that qualify as
3
communication, records, business, or documents that was used in the furtherance
4
5
of illegal Racketeering Enterprise acts.
6
c. For the RICO violations, an award of trebled damages consistent with 18 U.S.C.
7
section 1964(c), compensatory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees,
8
pre-judgement interest, post-interest, costs, and an award that this Court deems
9
just and proper.
10
11
d. An order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2017(b) that Defendants be disqualified
12
from holding any office within any Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
13
Corporation board, local, state or U.S. governance position.
14
e. Plaintiff prays for in excess of $1 million USD in compensatory damages and in
15
excess of $5 million USD in punitive damages, not including the trebled
16
17
18
19
20
damages for the RICO causes of action, against Defendants, each and every one
of the jointly, and several.
f. Attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action
pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.
21
g. Injunction for dissolution of Nugget Publishing Corporation, the parent
22
23
company of the Nome Nugget Newspaper and the Nome Nugget Newspaper, as
24
provided in 18 U.S.C. 1964 addressing relief for Plaintiff in injuries caused by
25
a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization.
26
h. Any other relief the Court deems just or proper.
27
28
PAGE 21 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 22 of 63
1
FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 8(a)(2)
2
97. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) states that Plaintiff, “Needs to cross the line
3
from conceivable to plausible”. As such, Plaintiff brings forth the following facts:
4
5
98. On or about April 7, 2017, Sitnasuak Native Corporation issued to its 2,800+
6
shareholders a “Notice of Annual Meeting & Proxy Statement”. The Notice of
7
Annual Meeting advised shareholders that Sitnasuak’s Forty-Fourth Annual
8
Meeting of Shareholders would take place on June 3, 2017 in Anchorage, Alaska.
9
The proxy materials stated that four directors would be elected at the Annual
10
11
Meeting, including the Plaintiff.
12
99. In early May 2017, over 1,000 Sitnasuak shareholders received an anonymous
13
mailer from “SNC Shareholders for Free Speech” (hereinafter “Anonymous
14
Mailer”).
A copy of the Anonymous Mailer is attached to the Complaint.
15
(EXHIBIT A)
16
17
100.
The Anonymous Mailer falsely insinuates that the current leadership of
18
Sitnasuak and its Board of Directors are engaged in various bad acts and violations
19
of shareholder rights.
20
101.
The Anonymous Mailer also urges shareholders to vote for incumbent Directors
21
Helen Bell and Barbara Amarok in the 2017 election, while disparaging candidates
22
23
24
Jason Evans and Trudy Sobocienski, both of whom were also current members of
the Sitnasuak board of directors.
25
26
27
28
PAGE 22 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 23 of 63
1
2
102.
Among its other allegations, the Anonymous Mailer asserts that the current
leadership of Sitnasuak and its board of directors have engaged in the following
3
actions or inactions:
4
•
Disrespectful actions to Elders and shareholders
6
•
Lack of response to shareholder concerns
7
•
Unethical voting processes
8
•
Punishment of shareholders that speak out
•
Unfair hiring practices
5
9
10
11
103.
The Anonymous Mailer falsely suggested that the leadership and board
12
(majority) do not “serve in the best interest of ALL shareholders.” The Anonymous
13
Mailer falsely insinuates that discretionary proxy voting and independent proxy
14
solicitations are inappropriate and unethical voting practices.
15
16
104.
The Anonymous Mailer urged shareholders not to select discretionary voting on
17
the Board-solicited proxy. The Anonymous Mailer urges shareholders not to
18
participate in an independent proxy solicitation.
19
20
105.
The Anonymous Mailer asserts that the Sitnasuak board member and candidate,
Jason Evans, “is the mastermind of using discretionary proxy votes to change the
21
22
outcome of the popular vote by shareholders”. The Anonymous Mailer also falsely
23
states that independent proxy solicitations “were used to change the outcome” of
24
three prior elections – 2016, 2015, and 2014.
25
26
27
28
PAGE 23 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 24 of 63
1
2
3
106.
Nowhere does the Anonymous Mailer inform shareholders that discretionary
proxy voting and independent proxy solicitations are permitted by Alaska law and
Sitnasuak’s election rules.
4
5
107.
By material omission, the Anonymous Mailer presents misleading information
6
as to Plaintiff Trudy Sobocienski’s legal dispute with another Alaska Native
7
Corporation. The Anonymous Mailer fails to disclose that the jury verdict in that
8
case is of no effect due to a negotiated settlement and lack of judgement.
9
108.
A copy of the Anonymous Mailer was submitted to the Alaska Division of
10
11
Banking and Securities (the “Division”), along with a photocopy of page 12 of a
12
Division publication entitled, “INFORMATION FOR SHAREHODLERS OF
13
ANCSA CORPORATIONS” (the “Anonymous Proxy Statement”), a copy of which
14
is attached to Complaint.
15
109.
Upon the photocopy of this Page 12 submitted to the Division appear
16
17
handwritten marks and words, including the word, “none” handwritten and circled
18
beside the following lines:
19
The name and address of each participant, including each proxyholder, who has
20
joined or proposes to join in the solicitation;
21
A statement indicating whether any of the participants in the solicitation has an
22
23
arrangement or understanding with an entity for future employment by the
24
corporation or future financial transactions to which the corporation will or may
25
become a party, and a description listing the terms of and the parties to each
26
arrangement or understanding;
27
28
PAGE 24 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 25 of 63
1
If action is to be taken on the election of directors, a description of each nominee of
2
the participant who has consented to act if elected; each description must include; if
3
applicable.
4
5
110.
Subsequent to its distribution to shareholders, the Anonymous Mailer was
6
discussed at multiple meetings of the Sitnasuak Board of Directors. No director
7
disclosed his or her involvement with the Anonymous Mailer or the Anonymous
8
Proxy.
9
111.
On or about June 27, 2017, the Sitnasuak Board of Directors voted to investigate
10
11
12
13
14
the Anonymous Mailer and Anonymous Proxy. Although the vote passed, Charles
Fagerstrom, Edna “Becka” Baker, and Barbara Amarok voted, “no”.
112.
Sitnasuak Director Charles Fagerstrom drafted the Anonymous Mailer and
served as the primary point of contact with the printing company hired to distribute
15
it.
16
17
18
19
20
113.
Directors Edna “Becka” Baker and Barbara Amarok were aware of and
participated in drafting the Anonymous Mailer.
114.
On July 31, 2017, the Sitnasuak Board of Directors approved resolutions
disciplining Directors Charles Fagerstrom, Edna “Becka” Baker, and Barbara
21
Amarok, call for their resignations from the Sitnasuak Board of Directors, and
22
23
24
authorizing legal action for judicial removal of these directors if they refused to
resign.
25
26
27
28
PAGE 25 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 26 of 63
1
2
FACTS ABOUT RICO ENTERPRISE MEMBERS
115.
Defendant Gloria Karmun was a candidate running for the board of directors
3
for Sitnasuak Native Corporation and an active employee of the Nome Nugget
4
5
Newspaper with a title of “Production” at the time the false and misleading
6
articles, ads and letters to the editor were published. Additionally, Defendant
7
Gloria Karmun is the Aunt of Defendant Marie Tozier.
8
116.
Defendant Peggy Fagerstrom is the wife of Defendant Chuck Fagerstrom, the
9
disgruntled ex-employee of Sitnasuak Native Corporation.
Defendant Peggy
10
11
12
13
14
Fagerstrom is the mother of middle-aged son, Defendant Charles E. Fagerstrom and
was an active employee of the Nome Nugget Newspaper.
117.
Defendant Chuck Fagerstrom (former SNC President and father of Charles E.
Fagerstrom) violated the State of Alaska Banking and Securities laws as depicted in
15
the attached enforcement orders and follow-on State of Alaska Court case for non16
17
18
19
20
payment/non-compliance with the terms of those enforcement orders.
118.
Charles E. Fagerstrom (son of Chuck and Peggy Fagerstrom) violated State of
Alaska Banking and Securities law for his unlawful actions to affect Sitnasuak
Native Corporation elections. Charles E. Fagerstrom was also sued by the State of
21
Alaska Division of Banking and Securities in Alaska Superior Court in Anchorage,
22
23
Alaska for non-payment/non-compliance of the enforcement order he signed.
24
Defendant Charles E. Fagerstrom was sued by Sitnasuak in 2018 for election
25
tampering while he was a seated board member. Charles E. Fagerstrom admitted in
26
signing the State of Alaska Division of Banking and Securities Enforcement Order
27
28
PAGE 26 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 27 of 63
1
to mailing false and misleading statements to over 1,000 shareholders against
2
Plaintiff and others in the attached anonymous mailer.
3
119.
Defendant Barbara Amarok was sued by Sitnasuak Native Corporation for
4
5
election violations. Barbara Amarok filed complaints against Plaintiff in 2014 and
6
2015 with the Alaska Division of Banking and Securities alleging proxy disclosure
7
violations. Both investigations cleared Plaintiff from any wrongdoing. Defendant
8
Barbara Amarok, as a seated board member, filed a complaint against Sitnasuak
9
Native Corporation for proxy violations in 2016. Sitnasuak Native Corporation was
10
11
found to have violated proxy disclosures and complied with the terms of the State
12
of Alaska. *** Defendant Barbara Amarok never disclosed that co-Defendant
13
Chuck Fagerstrom was the President of Sitnasuak Native Corporation at the time of
14
the disclosure violations by Sitnasuak Native Corporation and that Chuck
15
Fagerstrom himself, was the executive that approved the content and distribution of
16
17
18
proxy disclosures to shareholders when these violations took place.
120.
Defendant Edna R. “Becka” Baker was sued by Sitnasuak Native Corporation
19
for election violations, as a seated board member. Defendant Edna R. “Becka”
20
Baker is the half-sister of Plaintiff’s husband, Columbus Sobocienski. Defendant
21
Edna R. “Becka” Baker was sued by Columbus in an emergency guardianship
22
23
hearing in 2011. Columbus was forced to file a claim to demand access into the
24
assisted living facility to visit Columbus’ father, Stanley Sobocienski, before his
25
death in 2011. The court sided with Columbus, which allowed him access to see his
26
father before he died.
27
28
PAGE 27 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 28 of 63
1
2
121.
Defendant Marie Tozier was sued by Sitnasuak Native Corporation for election
tampering. Defendant Marie Tozier received an enforcement order from the State
3
of Alaska Banking and Securities Division for election violations.
4
5
122.
Defendant Austin Ahmasuk violated State of Alaska Banking and Securities law
6
and was issued an enforcement order to cease and desist and pay a fine. The Alaska
7
Civil Liberties Union is representing Defendant Austin Ahmasuk in a freedom of
8
speech case against the State of Alaska Division of Banking and Securities for
9
beforementioned enforcement order against him. This case is being deliberated by
10
11
the Alaska Supreme Court currently.
CONTINUATION OF RACKETEERING ENTERPRISE
12
13
14
Defendants motive was larger than just injuring Plaintiff.
123.
Defendant Charles E. Fagerstrom was re-elected to the board of directors for
15
Sitnasuak in 2018. He is the son of Peggy and Chuck Fagerstrom. The State of
16
17
Alaska Division of Banking and Securities published enforcement orders against
18
both Charles and Chuck Fagerstrom because both men violated the Alaska Native
19
Corporation election rules in their efforts to gain control of the corporation.
20
21
124.
Within months of Charles serving on the board with his co-conspirators who –
after years of defaming others – had the majority vote on the board; he was selected
22
23
24
25
26
to be the Chief Executive Officer for the Corporation with a salary over $300,000.
125.
Charles Fagerstrom does not have a background in the highly regulated U.S.
Small Business Administration 8(a) program. He also does not have experience in
any C-level role at a For-Profit Corporation of any sort. He did not meet the
27
28
PAGE 28 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 29 of 63
1
minimum qualifications for the published job description.
2
Corporation does have a Shareholder Hire Preference policy. Another shareholder
Sitnasuak Native
3
with much more than the basic qualifications for the CEO position had submitted
4
5
his application and was interviewed. He was passed over, by an unqualified person
6
who 1) violated corporation election rules – per the State of Alaska Division of
7
Banking and Securities and 2) did not meet the qualifications.
8
126.
The Sitnasuak Board majority restructured the Executive Management Team by
9
removing Officer-level positions and instead engaged with former Sitnasuak CEO,
10
11
12
13
14
Richard Strutz, to teach Charles how to do his job. Strutz contract is over $200,000.
127.
Sitnasuak Native Corporation has a leadership program in place. This major
change to accommodate the board majorities friend and award him a salary of over
$300,000 without being qualified removed the opportunity for other shareholders
15
that likely would have submitted their application for consideration if the board
16
17
18
19
20
21
disclosed to shareholders that they open to a ‘training’ program for that CEO
position.
128.
Defendant Marie Tozier, who was found to have violated election rules by the
State of Alaska with the intent to affect the outcome of the private corporation Sitnasuak’s, election.
Tozier was a Defendant sued by Sitnasuak Native
22
23
24
25
26
Corporation for her participation in the scheme. This group paid over $25,000 to
Tozier’s attorney to pay for the lawyer fees in lawsuit she was a defendant in in 2018.
129.
Defendant Gloria Karmun, now 1st Vice Chair of Sitnasuak is Marie Tozier’s
Aunt. This Sitnasuak board majority recently authorized to pay over $25,000 for
27
28
PAGE 29 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 30 of 63
1
Marie Tozier’s legal bills from the Sitnasuak v. Fagerstrom, Baker, Amarok, and
2
Tozier State of Alaska lawsuit.
3
130.
Chuck Fagerstrom used his influence in the community and cemented the illegal
4
5
enterprise arrangement that carried out these illegal acts. A hand-written note
6
authored by Chuck Fagerstrom is attached. This racketeering scheme irreparably
7
harmed Sobocienski, in part by weaponizing the local newspaper to distribute their
8
storyline that led to this illegal enterprise to achieve its goal of gaining control of
9
the corporation assets to carry out their self-dealing scheme.
10
11
12
13
14
15
131.
Defendant
Diana
Haeker
authored
half-truths
through
concealment,
perpetuating the false storyline to achieve to goal of the conspiracy.
132.
Chuck Fagerstrom went so far as creating a villainous name for the board
members he wanted ousted, shamed, and harmed. He quipped them as “The
Sitnasuak Six” where Plaintiff was named as one of “The Sitnasuak Six.”
16
17
133.
The Defendants, as long-time employees of the Nome Nugget had the
18
opportunity and used the only local newspaper as a platform for their false and
19
misleading statements to shareholders.
20
Factual Allegations about Defendant Barbara Amarok
21
134.
While serving as a Director in 2014 and 2015, Amarok filed a request with the
22
23
Alaska Division of Banking and Securities to investigate newly elected board
24
member and Plaintiff, Trudy Sobocienski. Sobocienski was invested both years and
25
it was found by the Division that she complied with all proxy disclosure regulations
26
and Alaska law. In 2016, Amarok filed a request with the Alaska Division of
27
28
PAGE 30 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 31 of 63
1
Banking and Securities to investigate Sitnasuak. Amarok indicated in her Request
2
for Investigation that she had not raised the issues in her request with Sitnasuak prior
3
to filing her request. In other words, rather than notifying Sitnasuak of her concerns,
4
5
as a seated board member, and providing Sitnasuak with an opportunity to correct
6
any alleged error, Amarok asked a government agency to investigate the company
7
that she owed a fiduciary duty to.
8
135.
Amarok attached to her Request for Investigation, a confidential legal
9
memorandum from Anchorage attorney Bob Hume to Sitnasuak and address to
10
11
Sitnasuak’s Chairman Robert Evans. That legal memorandum included attorney-
12
client privileged information. Amarok had no authority to disclose this attorney-
13
client communication to anyone.
14
136.
The Division subsequently advised Sitnasuak that a shareholder had requested
15
an investigation into whether Sitnasuak violated state regulations.
Sitnasuak
16
17
cooperated with the Division of Banking and Securities investigation and conducted
18
an internal review. Sitnasuak informed the Division that it had found that it violated
19
state securities regulations requiring disclosure of a candidate’s (Trudy Sobocienski)
20
past employer in the Board’s proxy statements in 2014 and 2015. Sitnasuak entered
21
into a consent order with the Division to resolve the issue.
22
23
137.
Amarok omitted in her request for investigation against Sitnasuak, that Chuck
24
Fagerstrom had been serving as the President in 2014 and 2015. Chuck Fagerstrom
25
signed his initials approving on behalf of Sitnasuak the information that was
26
distributed in the proxy disclosures. By 2016, when Amarok filed the request for
27
28
PAGE 31 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 32 of 63
1
investigation, Chuck Fagerstrom had been dismissed from Sitnasuak Native
2
Corporation.
3
138.
Because of Amarok’s serious misconduct, Sitnasuak disciplined Amarok by
4
5
taking away her seat on the Elder’s Committee and removing her from the board of
6
directors for Sitnasuak Financial Services, LLC (a subsidiary board).
It also
7
discontinued compensating her for service on the board. Sitnasuak was particularly
8
troubled that she had filed a Request for Investigation with the Division without first
9
bringing potential violations to the Board so that violations could be voluntarily
10
11
remedied without the cost and expense of an administrative investigation. Sitnasuak
12
advised Director Amarok that it was disappointed that she repeatedly breached her
13
fiduciary duties to always act in the best interest of the corporation, which caused
14
Sitnasuak to incur substantial costs and she made herself an unacceptable risk with
15
the fact that she may continue to breach her fiduciary duties in the future.
16
17
Factual Allegations Applicable to Defendants Gloria Karmun, Marie Tozier, Austin
18
Ahmasuk
19
139.
20
For at least three years, Defendants repeatedly violated Alaska securities laws in
an illegal campaign against discretionary proxy voting.
21
140.
On September 4, 2014, an advertisement was published in the Nome Nugget
22
23
Newspaper urging shareholders to “Just Say No!” to discretionary proxy voting. A
24
copy of the advertisement is attached.
25
statement about what a discretionary proxy is and accused Sitnasuak Director (and
26
27
28
PAGE 32 OF 62
The advertisement made misleading
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 33 of 63
1
Plaintiff) Trudy Sobocienski and Jason Evans of unethical behavior. Marie Tozier’s
2
name is included on the advertisement as a proponent of the message.
3
141.
This advertisement contained several statements that were false and misleading.
4
5
Discretionary voting does not allow the proxyholder to ‘bestow votes on whomever’
6
as suggested in the advertisement. Shareholders authorize the proxyholder to vote
7
for candidates listed on the discretionary proxy card. The advertisement dated
8
September 4, 2014 therefore misrepresents the nature of the limited discretionary
9
proxy card that Sitnasuak provides to shareholders upon request.
10
11
142.
The advertisement contains false and misleading statements about Sitnasuak’s
12
election process. The advertisement states that “Sitnasuak directors feel it is okay
13
to disregard the most basic tenant of ethics in pursuit of self-promotion”. The
14
advertisement gives absolutely no factual context or basis for this statement but
15
leaves the reader with the impression that directors had violated their ethical duties
16
17
to Sitnasuak, where there was no such violation. This advertisement stated that
18
Jason Evans and Trudy Sobocienski disregarded ethical duties in failing to disclose
19
Sobocienski’s ongoing civil lawsuit with Deloycheet, Inc. But Alaska securities
20
regulations only require disclosure of criminal lawsuits that have been reduced to
21
judgements, and do not require disclosure of an ongoing lawsuit. The advertisement
22
23
falsely accuses Sitnasuak directors of acting for their own personal gain but does
24
not give any factual support for this accusation, thereby misleading the reader to
25
think the directors had conflicts of interest. The advertisement misleads the reader
26
to conclude that Jason Evans, not Sitnasuak shareholders, selected Sobocienski as a
27
28
PAGE 33 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 34 of 63
1
director. The advertisement omitted that many shareholders directed their votes to
2
Sobocienski and misrepresent the limited distraction proxy voting that allowed like-
3
minded shareholders to authorize Director Evans to vote for Sobocienski.
4
5
143.
Sitnasuak instituted an investigation to find the parties responsible for the
6
advertisement published in the Nome Nugget on September 4, 2014. Defendant’s
7
Marie Tozier, Gloria Karmun and Austin Ahmasuk were specifically listed as
8
proponents, it was easy to conclude their involvement.
9
144.
Barbara Amarok only admitted to reaching out to another shareholder requesting
10
11
that shareholder to sign her name to the advertisement; which the shareholder did.
12
Sitnasuak sanctioned Amarok for her involvement with the false and misleading
13
information. The Board determined that Amarok had a fiduciary duty to bring her
14
concerns to the board of directors about prior Sitnasuak elections instead she
15
privately encouraged others to publish false and misleading proxy solicitation.
16
17
18
19
20
21
Amarok was reprimanded by the board of directors and warned that repeated
misconduct could result in more serious consequences.
145.
On January 12, 2017 Marie Tozier published an advertisement in the Nome
Nugget that encourage Sitnasuak shareholders to “Vote your OWN proxy!” and
“Stand up and say NO to SNC Directors that ask you to vote a discretionary proxy”.
22
23
IN addition, the advertisement state that it was “Paid for by Sitnasuak Shareholders
24
for Positive Change”. Alaska Division of Banking and Securities investigated this
25
proxy solicitation and concluded it violated Alaska securities laws because tozier
26
had not filed any proxy statement with the Division with the information required
27
28
PAGE 34 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 35 of 63
1
by 3 AAC 08.355 before publishing this proxy solicitation in the newspaper. Tozier
2
consented to these findings and imposition of $500 civil penalty suspended for a
3
period of one year so long as she did not commit another violation of the Alaska
4
5
6
Securities Act during that time. The Divisions Consent Order is attached.
146.
On August 18, 2017, the Facebook group, “Write in Barb Amarok and Marie
7
Tozier” was created. The Facebook site for the group states that Sitnasuak’s Board
8
removed Amarok and Tozier from the proxy statement and solicitation materials.
9
The group has created a graphic used as its cover photo that includes the statements:
10
•
Barb Amarok and Marie Tozier were on the first 2017 SNC Proxy
12
•
Barb Amarok led the election with more than 52,000 votes
13
•
Marie was also in the lead with 32,000 votes
14
•
The majority of the board made the motion to remove Barb Amarok and Marie
11
15
Tozier from the second 2017 proxy.
16
17
147.
This graphic includes false and misleading statements. The ‘majority of the
18
board’ did not make a motion to remove Amarok and Tozier. Rather the Board
19
approved a slate of candidates to appear on a new proxy card. Because a majority
20
of the directors present at the meeting voted to approve a slate of candidates that did
21
22
not include Amarok and Tozier as candidates, and because a majority of directors
23
present at the meeting voted against a subsequent motion to add Amarok and Tozer
24
to the board proxy, their names did not appear on the proxy.
25
26
148.
Moreover, the statement that say individual candidate had a ‘lead’ with respect
to the election during the vacated June 3, 2017 annual shareholder meeting is also
27
28
PAGE 35 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 36 of 63
1
false and misleading. Due to the lack of a quorum at the meeting on June 3, 2017,
2
no election occurred. The outcome of the election was never determined as all the
3
votes were not cumulated and cast.
4
5
149.
Amarok and Tozier subsequently distributed this false and misleading graphic
6
in a direct mailing to Sitnasuak Shareholders, committing a predicate act of mail
7
fraud.
8
RICO ENTERPRISE – ASSOCIATION-IN-FACT
9
150.
Association-In-Fact must have at least three structural features: a purpose,
10
11
12
13
14
relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient to
permit these associates to pursue the enterprise’s purpose.
151.
Defendant Chuck Fagerstrom, former President of Sitnasuak Native Corporation,
violated the terms of his severance agreement/package. Chuck Fagerstrom signed
15
and received approximately $68,000 by agreeing not to disparage the corporation or
16
17
file lawsuits against the corporation related to his release of employment as the
18
President of the Corporation in 2015. Chuck Fagerstrom embarked on a retaliatory
19
campaign against the majority members of the Sitnasuak board – which he
20
villainized with the name, “The Sitnasuak Six”. Plaintiff was included as one of the
21
“Sitnasuak Six” and continues to be injured by Defendant illegal actions.
22
23
Chuck Fagerstrom created a petition shortly after the settlement agreement was
24
executed in the lawsuit Sitnasuak Native Corporation v. Amarok, Baker, Fagerstrom,
25
Tozier. It was presented to the Sitnasuak Board of Directors at a board meeting by
26
a non-party shareholder.
27
28
PAGE 36 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 37 of 63
1
The non-party shareholder turned over the petition to the Board of Directors and
2
along with it, a handwritten note outlining the plans of the RICO Enterprise. On
3
this handwritten note, it says, “BB thinks HH and JK will get all the important
4
5
committees”. BB being “Becka” Baker. HH being Haven Harris, and JK being Joel
6
Kraft. Haven Harris and Joel Kraft were newly appointed board members to backfill
7
to vacant seats; one created as a result of the settlement agreement terms demanding
8
Charles E. Fagerstrom’s resignation.
9
Another statement handwritten in the note says, “Everyone must sacrifice”.
10
11
152.
Peggy Fagerstrom is the wife of Chuck Fagerstrom and mother of Charles
12
Fagerstrom. During the years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 Peggy Fagerstrom was
13
employed at the Nome Nugget Newspaper.
14
153.
Defendant Charles E. Fagerstrom “Buzz” or “Buzzy” is the middle-aged son of
15
Peggy and Chuck Fagerstrom. He was elected to the Sitnasuak Native Corporation
16
17
Board of Directors 2015. He resigned from the Board of Directors to comply with
18
the terms of a settlement agreement with Sitnasuak Native Corporation April 2018.
19
The settlement agreement stemmed from Alaska State Case 3AN-17-08648 CI –
20
Sitnasuak Native Corporation v. Charles E. Fagerstrom, Edna R. “Becka” Baker,
21
Barbara Amarok, and Marie Tozier.
22
23
Charles E. Fagerstrom was re-elected to the Sitnasuak Board of Directors September
24
2018 after sitting out of two annual elections per the terms of the settlement
25
agreement.
26
27
28
PAGE 37 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 38 of 63
1
February 2019 marked five months into this enterprise operating as the majority of
2
the Sitnasuak Native Corporation board majority. Defendants now has the reins of
3
power and corporate assets under their thin veil.
4
5
February 2019, Charles E. Fagerstrom resigned from the Sitnasuak Native
6
Corporation board of directors a second time.
7
February 2019, Charles E. Fagerstrom was selected by his co-conspirators as the
8
Chief Executive Officer of Sitnasuak Native Corporation. Defendant Charles E.
9
Fagerstrom has an annual salary over $300,000. He was a Defendant in the
10
11
12
13
14
15
Sitnasuak Native Corporation lawsuit 3AN-17-08648 CI.
154.
Defendant Edna “Becka” Baker is the sister-in-law to Plaintiff Trudy
Sobocienski.
01/05/2011, Defendant was sued by Columbus Sobocienski. The first case is 3AN11-00034PR in the “Matter of Sobocienski, Stanley” Guardianship &
16
17
Conservatorship of Adult. Columbus Sobocienski sought relief to be granted access
18
to the assisted living facility where he understood his father, Stanley Sobocienski,
19
was placed by Defendant Edna R. “Becka” Baker. Columbus Sobocienski was
20
21
denied access to the Providence Assisted Living Facility at the direction of Edna R.
“Becka” Baker (stepdaughter of Stanley Sobocienski). Columbus Sobocienski
22
23
24
prevailed in this emergency hearing and was granted access to see his father before
he died.
25
26
27
28
PAGE 38 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 39 of 63
1
On 1/31/2011, case number 3AN-11-00217PR “In the Matter of Sobocienski,
2
Stanley” was filed against Edna Baker by Columbus Sobocienski. This action was
3
an estate dispute.
4
5
Defendant Edna R. “Becka” Baker, was appointed personal representative of the
6
estate. Defendant Edna R. “Becka” Baker retained Tim Byrnes, an Anchorage
7
Alaska-based lawyer to represent her in her capacity as the Personal Representative
8
of Stanley Sobocienski’s Estate. However, Tim Byrnes represented the Nome
9
Commercial Company in a real estate dispute against Stanley Sobocienski in 2009.
10
11
The real estate was in fact a package license to sell liquor. State of Alaska Superior
12
Court Case 2NO-09-00159CI.
13
Defendant Edna “Becka” Baker was employed by the State of Alaska Division of
14
Elections as the Regional Election Supervisor, based in Nome, Alaska. She held
15
herself out to be a subject matter expert in election-related regulations in the
16
17
community and in her speeches at shareholder Annual Meetings.
18
07/30/2008 Edna Baker (aka Becka Baker) was a Defendant in U.S. District Court
19
for the District of Alaska in case number 3:07-cv-0098. This lawsuit was against
20
Baker in her ‘official’ capacity as the State of Alaska Division of Elections Regional
21
Election Director where allegedly she (and others) violated the Voters Rights Act
22
23
against Alaska Native People.
24
07/22/2013 - 3:13-cv-00137-SLG Toyukak et al v. Mallott et al was filed in U.S.
25
District Court for the District of Alaska where Edna Becka Baker was again a
26
defendant for violating Alaska Native people rights under the Voters Rights Act.
27
28
PAGE 39 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 40 of 63
1
Defendant Edna R. “Becka” Baker ‘retired’ from the State of Alaska Division of
2
Elections shortly thereafter.
3
05/2016 Edna “Becka” Baker was elected to the Sitnasuak Board of Directors in
4
5
2016. In 2018, after the conspirators finally succeeded in taking the reins as the
6
majority of the board, Defendant was selected as the Treasurer on the Executive
7
Committee. She was a Defendant in the Sitnasuak Native Corporation lawsuit 3AN-
8
17-08648 CI.
9
155.
Defendant Barbara Amarok served on the Sitnasuak Board of Directors for many
10
11
years.
She is an active participant in the Racketeering Enterprise.
For her
12
commitment to their illegal schemes, she was selected as the Chairman of the Board
13
of Directors for Sitnasuak Native Corporation with an annual salary over $60,000.
14
She was a Defendant in the Sitnasuak Native Corporation lawsuit 3AN-17-08648
15
CI.
16
17
156.
Defendant Marie Tozier is a shareholder of Sitnasuak Native Corporation and
18
was a candidate running for the Sitnasuak Native Corporation board of directors in
19
2016, 2017, and 2018. Sometime between 2018 - 2020, the new majority of the
20
Sitnasuak Board – who gained control of the assets and governance of Sitnasuak
21
Native Corporation through their illegal activities as a racketeering enterprise 22
23
passed a motion and paid Defendant Marie Tozier’s personal legal expenses. These
24
racketeering associates converted over $20,000 of Sitnasuak Native Corporation
25
assets to their co-conspirator for the purposes of legal fees accrued from a lawsuit
26
27
28
PAGE 40 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 41 of 63
1
where Sitnasuak was the Plaintiff. She was a Defendant in the Sitnasuak Native
2
Corporation lawsuit 3AN-17-08648 CI.
3
157.
Defendant Gloria Karmun is a shareholder of Sitnasuak Native Corporation and
4
5
was a candidate running for the Sitnasuak Board of Directors in 2014, 2015, 2016,
6
2017, and 2017. During those same years, she was employed as “Production” for
7
the Nome Nugget Newspaper.
8
Defendant Marie Tozier. She was elected to the Board of Directors 2017 and was
9
Defendant Gloria Karmun is the Aunt of co-
selected by her co-conspirators as the 1st Vice Chair on the Executive Committee of
10
11
12
13
14
Sitnasuak Native Corporation.
158.
Defendant Austin Ahmasuk is a Sitnasuak shareholder and is represented by the
Alaska Civil Liberties Union in The Supreme Court for the State of Alaska Case No.
S-17414 (Superior Court No 3AN-18-06035CI).
15
16
17
Ahmasuk v. State of Alaska Division of Banking and Securities is based on an
18
Enforcement Order the State of Alaska Banking and Securities Division found
19
against Austin Ahmasuk for violating Alaska State Securities Law in Sitnasuak
20
21
Native Corporation elections by having his solicitations published in the Nome
Nugget Newspaper as Letters-to-the-Editor. Austin Ahmasuk’s mother was a long-
22
23
24
25
26
time employee and journalist for the Nome Nugget Newspaper until her death.
159.
Diana Haeker was the journalist during the years 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017
for the Nome Nugget Newspaper. Her name is listed on the byline of the articles
cited in this complaint.
27
28
PAGE 41 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 42 of 63
1
07/16/2018, Diana Haecker became 51% owner of the Nugget Publishing
2
Corporation, which is the publishing company operating as “The Nome Nugget
3
Newspaper”.
4
5
160.
Nugget Publishing Corporation is a business in good standing with the State of
6
Alaska, entity number 25828D. The Nome Nugget Newspaper was the platform of
7
which allegations in this Complaint were published and distributed, through mail
8
and wire.
9
161.
Members of this ‘association in fact’ among other laws, violated Alaska Statute
10
11
(AS) 45.55 – the Alaska Securities Act. These violations resulted in the following
12
State of Alaska Department of Commerce, Community, and Economic
13
Development Division of Banking and Securities Enforcement Orders:
14
15
162.
Order No. 16-97-S – Charles Fagerstrom (Chuck) – Order to Cease and Desist,
Imposing Civil Penalties and Consent to Order – “On or about March 2, 2016,
16
17
Respondent anonymously distributed proxy solicitation to shareholders, which
18
states, “Director G.K. – Gloria Karmun was the shareholders choice, and would have
19
retained her seat if the Discretionary Proxy votes were not used.” (referencing the
20
2014 election when Trudy Sobocienski won that seat) …On or about April 28, 2016,
21
Respondent anonymously distributed a third proxy solicitation to shareholders
22
23
which states, “Say no to ISIS style leadership on the board of directors…”
24
Respondent violated 3 AAC 08.315(a) with material misrepresentations. Chuck
25
Fagerstrom signed the consent order May 27, 2016.
26
27
28
PAGE 42 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 43 of 63
1
2
3
163.
Order No. 160227-2-S – Marie Tozier – Consent Order – “On January 12, 2017,
Respondent published an advertisement in the Nome Nugget that encouraged SNC
shareholders, ‘Vote your OWN proxy!’ and ‘Stand up and say, ‘NO to SNC
4
5
Directors that ask you to vote a discretionary proxy’ the advertisement stated it was
6
– paid for by Sitnasuak Shareholders for Positive Change”. Respondent violated 3
7
AAC 08.355 by failing to file with the Administrator required disclosures related to
8
proxy solicitation. Marie Tozier signed the Order June 28, 2017.
9
2017
10
11
164.
Order No. 17-40-S – Charles Fagerstrom (Chuck) – Notice of Final Cease and
12
Desist Order to Pay Suspended Civil Penalty and Assessing Civil Penalties – On
13
June 28, 2016 Respondent entered into Consent Order No. 16-97-S with a $1,500
14
civil penalty and an addition $1,500 suspended for five years, provided that
15
Respondent comply with all provisions of the Alaska Securities act and associated
16
17
18
regulations. If Respondent failed to comply with any term or condition of the Order,
the suspended portion of the civil penalty would be immediately due.
19
20
On February 2, 2017, Respondent sent a Letter-to-the-Editor published in the Nome
21
Nugget that violated Consent Order 16-97-S and 3 AAC 08.315(a), 3 AAC 08.355
22
23
24
25
26
and AS 45.55.139. Chuck Fagerstrom never signed a Consent Order and did not pay
the civil penalty as of the Administrators execution of the order on July 12, 2017.
165.
Order 17-49-S – Austin Ahmasuk – Temporary Cease and Desist Order effective
immediately, assessing civil penalties, with notice of hearing rights and notice of
27
28
PAGE 43 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 44 of 63
1
final cease and desist order. On February 9, 2017, the Nome Nugget published a
2
letter-to-the-editor written by Respondent that stated, “Discretionary proxies have
3
allowed single persons to use discretionary proxies to dramatically alter the
4
5
outcome of an election for their singular goal. You know who they are they are
6
members of the SNC 6.”
7
It was determined that the Respondent violated certain provisions of the Alaska
8
Securities Act, Alaska Statute, (AS) 45.55, es seq. including:
9
Respondent did not file the letter to the editor, determined to be a written proxy
10
11
solicitation, with the State Administrator violating 3 AAC 08.355.
12
Respondent’s Letter-to-the-Editor to the Nome Nugget Newspaper is a “proxy
13
solicitation” as defined in 3AAC 08.0365(16) because it is a communication to
14
shareholders under circumstances reasonably calculated to result in the procurement,
15
withhold, or revocation of a proxy.
16
17
Respondent violated 3AAC 08.306 by failing to file his proxy solicitation
18
concurrently with the Administrator when he distributed it to shareholders.
19
Respondent violated 3 AAC 08.315 (a) by materially misrepresenting that
20
discretionary proxies have allowed a single person to alter the outcome of an
21
election because the cumulation of votes, permitted by law and SNC rules, does not
22
23
“alter the outcome of the election” as the outcome has not been determined until the
24
votes are cumulated and cast.
25
The Order was signed only by the Administrator on March 13, 2017.
26
27
28
PAGE 44 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 45 of 63
1
2
166.
Order No. 17-154-S – Charles E. Fagerstrom (Chuck’s son, “Charles” or
“Buzz”) – “On or about the week of May 2017, Respondent mailed a letter to over
3
1,000 SNC shareholders. The return address box on the Letter identified the sender
4
5
as “SNC Shareholders for Free Speech”. The letter did not identify Respondent or
6
any other person as being the sender. Respondent violated 3 AAC 08.315(a) with
7
material representations and 3 AAC08.355(2) anonymously distribution proxy
8
solicitations, and 3AA 08.355(4) by failing to file with the Administrator the
9
required disclosures relating to proxy solicitations. Charles signed the Consent
10
11
12
13
14
order and stated, “I admit to violations of the Alaska Securities Act” on March 15,
2019.
Non-party Enforcement Orders - relevant to the facts of the case
167.
Order No. 16-229-S – Barbara Mazonna – Temporary Cease and Desist Order
15
Effective Immediately, Assessing Civil Penalties with Notice of Hearing Rights and
16
17
Notice of Final Cease and Desist Order.
18
“On April 27, 2016, another SNC shareholder posted a copy of a discretionary proxy
19
postcard dated March 15, 2016 on Facebook. That same day, in response to the
20
shareholder’s post, Respondent posted a comment, which read: ‘The shareholders
21
VOTED G.K. (Gloria Karmun) and others in. These people named above used
22
23
Discretionary votes to place T.S. (Trudy Sobocienski) on (the Sitnasuak Board of
24
Directors). It was not true voting by the shareholders. It was made by this select
25
few known as the Sitnasuak Six. It is not difficult to understand. It was not the
26
27
28
PAGE 45 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 46 of 63
1
shareholders choice! You read about T.S. (Trudy Sobocienski) in the Nome Nugget
2
recently. Why does the Sitnasuak Board of Directors support such a person?”
3
Respondent violated 3 AAC 08.315(a) by materially representing that the election
4
5
of T.S. Trudy Sobocienski to SNC’s Board of Directors was not “true” voting, and
6
that T.S. was not the shareholders’ choice, as discretionary proxies and the
7
cumulation of votes are permitted by law and SNC rules.
8
I.
9
10
11
168.
PREDICATE CRIMINAL
SECTION 1001
ACTS
VIOLATING
18
U.S.C.
The Defendants could be charged and convicted of multiple, related violations
of law which form a pattern and practice and which violations are each potentially
12
punishable by more than one year in jail constituting false statements to officials of
13
14
the U.S. Government in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1001 which provides:
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any manner within
the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of
Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully (1) falsifies,
conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2)
makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or
representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing
the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement
or entity shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or
if the offenses involve international or domestic terrorism, imprisoned not
more than 8 years or both
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
169.
Defendants falsified, concealed, and misrepresented statements to the federal
22
23
24
government as stated in below in the Predicate Criminal Acts of Conspiracy to
Defraud the U.S. Government.
25
26
27
28
PAGE 46 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 47 of 63
1
2
170.
Defendants violated Alaska Securities Laws with false and misleading
statements shown in the State of Alaska Division of Banking and Securities
3
Enforcement Orders.
4
5
171.
Defendant Diana Haecker is quoted in the following CoastAlaska news article
6
falsely concealing material facts and other misleading statements regarding
7
Defendant Austin Ahmasuk Alaska Supreme Court Case, currently under
8
deliberation by the Supreme Court Justices. The article is as follows:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
172. “ACLU asks Alaska Supreme Court to extend free speech rights to shareholders
in Native corporation board elections” By Jacob Resnick, CoastAlaska - Juneau January 19, 2020
The American Civil Liberties Union of Alaska says the state’s financial regulator is
chilling voices critical of Native corporations. Now, the Alaska Supreme Court is
set to hear a legal challenge that could decide how much power the state has to
police shareholders’ speech.
The Nome Nugget ‘s editor Diana Haecker has worked at the paper since 2003. She
received a letter to the editor in early 2017 about Sitnasuak Native
Corporation’s upcoming board elections.
It was not an endorsement of any one candidate, the newspaper — as a rule — does
not print those.
“We don’t want to end up with 50 letters to the editor endorsing the same candidate,”
she said.
Instead, this letter criticized the election process which has been the subject of
ongoing controversy and even lawsuits.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
“To me voicing an opinion on process is exactly what letters to the editor are all
about,” she said. “You voice your opinion and so I didn’t think twice about it,
because to me that falls under the First Amendment rights of free speech.”
But the state of Alaska’s financial regulator sees it differently. The Division of
Banking & Securities regulates Alaska’s native corporations including shareholder
elections. It is empowered to police online and written speech in a way designed to
ensure fairness and transparency.
PAGE 47 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 48 of 63
1
2
3
4
5
One of those ways is to require shareholders to file disclosures before making
statements that could sway shareholders in an election.
After receiving a complaint from a member of the Native corporation’s board, the
state investigated and fined letter writer Austin Ahmasuk $1,500 and ordered him
not to do it again.
6
Defendant Diana Haecker concealed the fact that there were a multiple of letters
7
8
written by Defendant Austin Ahmasuk which she published that favored the
9
Defendants (her co-conspirators). These letters disparaged people serving on a
10
private corporate board of directors and stated false information about the legality
11
of discretionary proxies. These letters-to-the-editor were not limited to ‘process’ as
12
she falsely claimed.
13
II.
14
15
16
17
173.
PREDICATE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL MAIL
FRAUD STATUTE, 18 U.S.C. 1341
The Defendants could be charged and convicted of multiple, related violations
of law which form a pattern and practice and which violations are each potentially
punishable by more than one year in jail constituting mail fraud.
18
174.
Defendants acted in criminal violation of the federal mail fraud statute under 18
19
20
U.S.C. section 1341, which states:
27
175. Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to
defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter,
give away, distribute, supply. Or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit
or spurious coin, obligations, security, or other article, or anything represented to be
or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of
executing such scheme or artifice attempting so to do, places in any post office or
authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or
delivered by the Post Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or
thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier,
or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly cause to be
28
PAGE 48 OF 62
21
22
23
24
25
26
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 49 of 63
1
2
3
4
5
6
delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereof, or at the place
at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it was addressed, any
such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20
years, or both.
If violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported,
transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially
declared major disaster or emergency, such persons shall be fined not more than
$1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years or both.
7
8
9
10
11
176.
Defendants devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice meant to defraud
utilizing false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, to gain control of Sitnasuak
Native Corporation and carry out their self-dealing.
177.
In order to achieve or attempt to achieve the fraud described in this complaint,
12
Defendants sent an Anonymous Mailer to over 1,000 Sitnasuak Shareholders with
13
14
false and misleading information – including omission of material fact to disparage
15
board members, discretionary proxy voting, to gain favor and thereafter control of
16
the corporation assets, governance, and executive management.
17
178.
Defendant Nome Nugget Newspaper was the platform the RICO enterprise used
18
to promote and distribute their manifesto by direct or indirect actions of the
19
20
Racketeering Enterprise.
Defendant Nome Nugget Newspaper is distributed
21
through the mail and by wire – on the world wide web. False statements of material
22
facts were published in the Nome Nugget Newspaper as falsified “expository”
23
information in articles, letters-to-the-editor, and paid advertisements disparaging
24
board members serving at a privately held corporation.
25
26
27
28
179.
Violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1341 is a felony punishable by 30 years of
imprisonment and a fine of $1,000,000 USD.
PAGE 49 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 50 of 63
1
III.
2
PREDICATE CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL WIRE
FRAUD STATUTE, 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1343
3
180.
The Defendants could be charged and convicted of multiple, related violations
4
5
6
7
8
of law which form a pattern and practice and which violations are each potentially
punishable by more than one year in jail constituting wire fraud.
181.
Defendants further acted in criminal violation of the federal wire fraud statute
which states:
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
182. Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to
defraud, or for obtain money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises, transmits, or causes to be transmitted by means of wire,
radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings,
signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or
artifice, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized,
transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a
presidentially declared major disaster or emergency, or affects a financial institution,
such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30
years, or both.
16
17
183.
Defendants devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice meant to defraud
18
and or obtain money or property from illicit payments with false and misleading
19
statements to gain control of Sitnasuak Native Corporation assets and governance
20
to further their self-dealing activities.
21
184.
Defendants transmitted or caused to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or
22
23
television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, writings, signs, signals,
24
pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice when they
25
transmitted telephone and cellular telephone calls, documents, facsimiles, emails,
26
instant messages, and any other form of communication.
27
28
PAGE 50 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 51 of 63
1
2
185.
Violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1343 is a felony punishable by 20 years of
imprisonment and a fine of $1,000,000 USD.
3
IV.
4
5
186.
PREDICATE CRIMINAL ACTS
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
OF
ANTICIPATORY
Defendants could be charged and convicted of multiple, related violations of law
6
which form a pattern and which violations are each potentially punishable by more
7
8
9
10
than one year in jail constating spoliation of evidence to avoid a subpoena.
Sometimes called “anticipatory obstruction of justice”, 18 U.S.C. section 1519
requires that:
11
Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or
makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent
to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of
any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United
States or any case filed under title 11, or in relation to or contemplation of any
such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20
years, or both.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
187.
Defendants committed acts of obstruction of justice by concealing who was
involved with the “Anonymous Mailer”.
188.
Defendants committed acts of obstruction of justice by concealing to the State
of Alaska Supreme Court in Ahmasuk v. State of Alaska, that there was more than
21
one letter-to-the-editor published in the Nome Nugget Newspaper by Austin
22
23
Ahmasuk that included false and misleading information.
V.
24
PREDICATE CRIMINAL ACTS
DEFRAUD THE UNITED STATES
OF
CONSPIRACY
TO
25
26
27
28
189.
As a result of the illegal predicate acts of this Racketeering Enterprise, they
gained control of Sitnasuak Native Corporation’s assets, governance, and executive
PAGE 51 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 52 of 63
1
management. Defendants then continued their illegal acts and did so on a much
2
larger stage.
3
190.
Defendants conspired and defrauded the United States Government as
4
5
6
described herein.
191.
Defendants could be charged and convicted of multiple, related violations of law
7
which form a pattern and practice and which violations are each potentially
8
punishable by more than one year in jail constituting of conspiracy to defraud the
9
United States. 18 U.S.C. section 371 provides:
10
11
12
13
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United
States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for
any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to affect the object of the
conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five
years, or both.
14
15
16
17
192.
Defendants continued their participation in the racketeering enterprise by
violating 18 U.S. Code § 371.
193.
Defendants illegally concealed that Charles Fagerstrom was the CEO of
18
Sitnasuak Native Corporation in www.sam.gov filing and that Sitnasuak Native
19
20
21
22
23
Corporation was the highest owner SBA 8(a) certified subsidiary Aurora Industries,
LLC.
194.
Charles E. Fagerstrom has admitted to violating the State of Alaska Banking and
Securities Act, which was omitted in federal government filings. Alaska Banking
24
and Securities Enforcement Order 17-154-S.
25
26
27
28
PAGE 52 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 53 of 63
1
2
195.
2 CFR Appendix XII to Part 200 - Award Term and Condition for Recipient
Integrity and Performance Matter states:
3
4
5
6
Proceedings About Which You Must Report
Submit the information required about each proceeding that:
Is in connection with the award or performance of a grant, cooperative agreement,
or procurement contract from the Federal Government; Reached its final disposition
during the most recent five-year period; and Is one of the following:
7
8
A criminal proceeding that resulted in a conviction, as defined in paragraph 5 of this
award term and condition;
9
10
11
12
13
14
A civil proceeding that resulted in a finding of fault and liability and payment of a
monetary fine, penalty, reimbursement, restitution, or damages of $5,000 or more;
An administrative proceeding, as defined in paragraph 5. of this award term and
condition, that resulted in a finding of fault and liability and your payment of either
a monetary fine or penalty of $5,000 or more or reimbursement, restitution, or
damages in excess of $100,000; or
Any other criminal, civil, or administrative proceeding if:
15
16
17
18
19
20
It could have led to an outcome described in paragraph 2.c.(1), (2), or (3) of this
award term and condition;
It had a different disposition arrived at by consent or compromise with an
acknowledgment of fault on your part; and
The requirement in this award term and condition to disclose information about the
proceeding does not conflict with applicable laws and regulations.
21
196.
April 2019 - Defendants illegally concealed material fact to defraud the U.S.
22
23
Federal Government. Sitnasuak Native Corporation subsidiary, Aurora Industries
24
was awarded an $87 million sole source federal contract with the U.S. Department
25
of Defense.
26
27
28
PAGE 53 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 54 of 63
1
2
197.
Defendants executed this fraud against the U.S. Government by concealing that
Sitnasuak Native Corporation is the highest owner – parent company - of Aurora
3
Industries, LLC., a Small Business Administration 8(a) certified company.
4
5
198.
Aurora Industries, LLC was the small business concern awarded a $87 million
6
sole source contract with the U.S. Department of Defense to manufacture Personal
7
Protective Equipment (PPE masks).
8
199.
This fraud violated FAR 52.204-17, Ownership or Control of Offeror, which
9
states: Corporate Relationships - Registrants in the System for Award Management
10
11
(SAM) respond to Corporate Relationship questions in accordance with FAR
12
52.204-17, Ownership or Control of Offeror and FAR 52.204-WW. This
13
information is sent to FAPIIS.gov for display as applicable. Maintaining an active
14
registration in SAM demonstrates the registrant responded to the questions”. Aurora
15
Industries
has
over
$10
million
in
federal
contracts.
16
17
18
19
20
(https://www.fapiis.gov/fapiis/viewcorpreldetail.action).
200.
https://www.fapiis.gov/fapiis/fapiisreports_input.action is a public information
website and asks the following questions: “Question: Does your business or
organization (represented by the Unique Entity ID (DUNS) number on this specific
21
Entity Management section of SAM record) have current active Federal contracts
22
23
and/or grants with total value (including any exercised/unexercised options) greater
24
than $10,000,000? ***Contractor Response: Based on the responses provided
25
while registering in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov), this entity has
26
27
28
PAGE 54 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 55 of 63
1
no criminal, civil, or administrative proceedings to report in accordance with FAR
2
52.20-7, FAR 52.209-8, or 2 C.F.R. 200 Appendix XII”.”
3
201.
Around that same time, members of the Racketeering Enterprise, upon
4
5
6
7
8
information and belief set out to defraud the U.S. Government by falsely claiming
that Sitnasuak Native Corporation was a Federally Recognized Tribal Government.
202.
Sitnasuak Native Corporation is a for-profit Alaska Native Village Corporation,
created from the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act.
9
203.
Federally Recognized Tribal Governments are tax-exempt entities with
10
11
12
13
14
government-to-government rights.
204.
The U.S. Department of Treasury was under rapid fire to distribute $8 billion
CARES Act funding to Federally Recognized Tribal Governments throughout the
United States. Nome Eskimo Community located in Nome, Alaska is in fact, is the
15
correct the federally recognized Tribal Government, not Sitnasuak Native
16
17
18
19
20
Corporation.
205.
Defendants filing that falsely claims Sitnasuak Native Corporation as a “Tribal
Government
is
available
at:
https://sam.gov/SAM/pages/public/entitySearch/entitySearchCoreReview.jsf.
21
206.
Defendants falsely stated the following:
22
23
24
25
Check the registrant's Reps & Certs, if present, under FAR 52.212-3 or FAR
52.219-1 to determine if the entity is an SBA-certified HUBZone small business
concern. Additional small business information may be found in the SBA's
Dynamic Small Business Search if the entity completed the SBA Supplemental
Pages during registration.
26
27
28
Government Type
Tribal Government
PAGE 55 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 56 of 63
1
Entity Structure
Other
Entity Type
Tribal Government
Purpose of Registration
Federal Assistance Awards
Federally Recognized Native American Entity
Alaskan Native Corporation Owned Firm
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
9
10
Acquisition and Maintenance of an Interest in and Control of an Enterprise Engaged in
a Pattern of Racketeering Activity: 18 U.S.C. section 1961(5), 1962(b)
11
12
13
14
207.
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
208.
All Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two (2)
15
or more of the RICO predicate acts that are itemized in the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C.
16
17
18
19
20
section 1961(1)(A) and (B) and did so in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C.
section 1962(b) (prohibited activities).
209.
Non-sovereign Defendants are each “persons” within the meaning of the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
21
210.
Defendants operate as an “enterprise” within the meaning of RICO, of which
22
23
24
25
26
effect interstate and foreign commerce
211.
By virtue of the predicate acts described in this Complaint, including without
limitations: engaging in monetary transactions improperly derived from unlawful
activity, Defendants transferred, received, furthered, and supplied income that was
27
28
PAGE 56 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 57 of 63
1
derived, both directly and indirectly from a pattern of racketeering activity in which
2
each of them participated as a principal and used and invested, both directly and
3
indirectly, such income and the proceeds of such income in establishing, operating
4
5
6
7
8
and furthering terrorist and other illegal enterprises in violation of 18 U.S.C. section
1962(a).
212.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants violation of 18 U.S.C. section
1962(a) Plaintiff suffered the loss of valuable property, financial services, and
9
support, and suffered other business and pecuniary damages.
10
11
213.
Plaintiff further allege that all Defendants did commit two or more of the
12
offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premediated
13
intentionally to threaten continuity, i.e., a continuing threat of their respective
14
racketeering activities, also in violation of the RICO law 18 U.S.C. section 1962(b)
15
supra.
16
17
214.
Plaintiff demands that judgement be entered against Defendants, each and every
18
one of them, jointly and severally, including an award of trebled damages as
19
consistent with 18 U.S.C. section 1964©, compensatory and actual damages,
20
reasonable attorneys’ fees, prejudgment interest, post-interest, costs, and an award
21
that this Court deems just and proper.
22
23
24
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
Conduct and Participation in a RICO Enterprise through a Patter of Racketeering
Activity: 18 U.S.C. Section 1961(5) and 1962(c)
25
26
27
28
PAGE 57 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 58 of 63
1
2
215.
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
3
216.
All Defendants did associate with a RICO enterprise of individuals who were
4
5
6
7
8
associated in fact and who engaged in, and whose activities did affect, interstate and
foreign commerce.
217.
Likewise, all Defendants did conduct and/or participate, either directly or
indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of said RICO enterprise through a pattern of
9
racketeering activity, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. sections 1961(4), (5), (9), and
10
11
12
13
14
1962(c).
218.
All Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two or
more of the RICO predicates acts that are itemized in the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C.
sections 1961(1)(A) and (B) and did so in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C.
15
section 1962 (c) (prohibited activities).
16
17
219.
Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit two or more of the
18
offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated
19
intentionally to threaten continuity, i.e., a continuing threat of their respective
20
racketeering activities, also in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. section
21
1962(c) supra.
22
23
220.
Plaintiff demands that a judgement be entered against Defendants, each and
24
every one of them, jointly and severally, including an award of treble damages as
25
consistent with 18 US.C. section 1964(c), compensatory and actual damages,
26
27
28
PAGE 58 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 59 of 63
1
reasonable attorney’s fees, pre-judgement interest, pot-interest, costs, and an award
2
that this Court deems just and proper.
3
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
4
5
Conspiracy to engage in a Pattern of Racketeering Activity: 18 U.S.C. section 1961 (5),
6
1962(d)
7
221.
8
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
9
222.
All Defendants did conspire to acquire and maintain an interest in a RICO
10
11
12
13
14
enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
section 1962(b) and (d).
223.
All Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in the commission of two or
more of the predicate acts that are itemized in 18 U.S.C. sections 196(1)(A) and (B),
15
in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962 (d).
16
17
224.
Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit two or more of the
18
offenses itemized above in a manner which they calculated and premeditated
19
intentionally to threaten continuity, i.e., a continuing threat of their respective
20
racketeering activities, also in violation of 18 U.S.C. section 1962(d) (prohibited
21
activities).
22
23
225.
Plaintiff demands that judgment be entered against Defendants, each and every
24
one of them, jointly and severally, including an award of trebled damages as
25
consistent with 18 U.S.C. section 1964(c), compensatory and actual damages,
26
27
28
PAGE 59 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 60 of 63
1
reasonable attorney’s fees, pre-judgement interest, post-interest, costs, and an award
2
that this Court deems just and proper.
3
FOURTH CASE OF ACTION
4
5
First Amendment Violation (Bivens v. VI Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau
6
of Narcotics)
7
226.
8
Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges each and every allegation of the foregoing
paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
9
227.
Defendants acted in their official capacity and personally, abridge and violated
10
11
Plaintiff’s First Amendment right of freedom of speech and association by
12
significantly disallowing the public and Plaintiff discord to discuss in full robust
13
communication and debate because all the Defendants concealed, misrepresented,
14
and omitted material facts AND distributed those illegal statements fraudulently
15
through mail and wire.
16
17
18
19
20
228.
These violations are compensable under Bivens v. VI Unknown Named Agents
of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
229.
By reason of the wrongful conduct of the Defendants, each and every one of
them, jointly and severally, Plaintiff has suffered harm in the form of having her
21
First Amendment rights violated, her business and property rights have been
22
23
24
25
26
violated, and her freedom of speech and association have been severely comprised,
guaranteed to Plaintiff under the U.S. Constitution.
230.
As a direct and proximate result of the intentional and willful actions of
Defendants, each and every one of them, jointly and severally, in their individual
27
28
PAGE 60 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 61 of 63
1
and official capacities, Plaintiff demands judgement be interested against the
2
Defendants, including an award of compensatory and actual damages, punitive
3
damages, equitable relief, reasonable attorney’s fees, pre-judgment interest, post-
4
5
interest and costs, and an award in the amount to be determined by this Court.
6
Plaintiff demands declaratory and injunctive and other equitable relief against all of
7
the Defendants to cease their illegal acts.
8
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
9
231.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgement against Defendants, each and
10
11
every one of them, for the following:
12
1. Injunctive relief that a forensic computer expert takes immediate possession of
13
the servers, computers, cell phones, tablets, and other electronic devices
14
15
necessary to have been used for operating the racketeering enterprise
communication. The forensic expert will act as the Court’s expert, at the
16
17
Defendant’s expense to the Court as a neutral actor.
18
2. For Injunctive Relief that a forensic computer expert inspects and review the
19
digital files on above-mentioned electronic devices that qualify as
20
communication, records, business, or documents that was used in the furtherance
21
of illegal Racketeering Enterprise acts.
22
23
3. For the Bivens violations, an award of compensatory and actual damages,
24
punitive damages, equitable relieve, reasonable attorney’s fees, pre-judgement
25
interest, post-interest and costs, and an award that this Court deems just and
26
proper.
27
28
PAGE 61 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 62 of 63
1
4. For the RICO violations, an award of trebled damages consistent with 18 U.S.C.
2
section 1964(c), compensatory and actual damages, reasonable attorneys’ fees,
3
pre-judgement interest, post-interest, costs, and an award that this Court deems
4
5
6
7
8
just and proper.
5. An Order for Defendants to expeditiously produce, by a date certain, any and all
non-exempt records.
6. An order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 2017(b) that Defendants be disqualified
9
from holding any office within any Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act
10
11
Corporation board, local, state or U.S. governance position.
12
7. Plaintiff prays for in excess of $1 million USD in compensatory damages and in
13
excess of $5 million USD in punitive damages, not including the trebled
14
damages for the RICO causes of action, against Defendants, each and every one
15
of the jointly, and several.
16
17
18
19
20
8. Attorney’s fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred in this action
pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.
9. Any other relief the Court deems just or proper.
Dated December 11, 2020.
21
22
Respectfully Submitted,
23
24
25
Pro Se, Trudy Sobocienski®
26
27
28
PAGE 62 OF 62
Case 2:20-cv-01703-KJD-VCF Document 7-1 Filed 12/11/20 Page 63 of 63