united states district court - jw leaks · 2013-09-10 · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 by jehovah‟s witnesses,...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

OPPOSITION TO MOTION

CASE NO.: CV 13-01955-JSW

Jason Cobb 828 Weeks St E Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-323-9155 [email protected] Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON COBB

Plaintiff,

vs.

JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ALFRED

ALTAMIRANO, ELLEN ALTAMIRANO,

JENNIFER ALTAMIRANO, DEBORAH APPEL,

RICHARD ASHE, CAMERON BOWMAN,

ERNEST BREDE, LUIS CONTRERAS, PAUL

DEMOSTHENES, BILL DOUGLAS, EDDIE

ESTRADA, BJ FADEM, LEON FAIR, DONALD

FERRIS, AMANDA FREEL, SUSAN

GREENBERG, GEORGE HARPER, ROBERT

JONSEN, JEFF KITAGAWA, JEFFREY KLINE,

PAUL KOEHLER, TARA LAPPIN, LARRY

LAVERDURE, ALLAN LEE, LAWRENCE LEE,

MICHAEL MARCHI, DONALD MAYNOR,

BILL MACKEON, STEVE MISTERFELD, RON

NERIO, DAN NILGES, PETER OHTAKI,

ALICIA PERDUE, JEROME PIERCE, BRUCE

RADITICH, ALAN SHUSTER, DONALD

SHOWERS III, DENNIS SINCLITICO, JR.,

ANTHONY SMITH, LEONARDO TREVINO,

STEPHEN WAGSTAFFE, GLENN WATSON,

KERRY WOODHAMS, PAUL YAMAGUCHI,

PRISCILLA YOUNG, THE CITY OF MENLO

PARK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY‟S OFFICE OF

SANTA CLARA COUNTY, DISTRICT

ATTORNEY‟S OFFICE OF SAN MATEO

COUNTY, MORGAN, LEWIS AND BOCKIUS,

LLP, SAN MATEO COUNTY, STANFORD

UNIVERSITY, SUPERIOR COURT OF

CALIFORNIA FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY,

DOES 1 – 100

Defendants.

Civil Action No: 3:13-cv-01955 JSW

JUDGE: HON. JEFFREY S. WHITE

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS

ALFRED ALTAMIRANO, ELLEN ALTAMIRANO,

JENNIFER ALTAMIRANO, ERNEST BREDE, LUIS

CONTRERAS, PAUL DEMOSTHENES, BILL

DOUGLAS, LARRY LAVERDURE, ALLAN LEE,

LAWRENCE LEE, DONALD MAYNOR, DAN

NILGES, JEROME PIERCE, BRUCE RADITICH,

GLENN WATSON AND PAUL YAMAGUCHI’S

12(B)(1) AND 12 (B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS

DATE: DECEMBER 20, 2013 TIME: 9:00 A.M. COURTROOM: 11

COMPLAINT FILED: APRIL 29, 2013

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2 OPPOSITION TO MOTION


I. INTRODUCTION

The association-in-fact RICO Enterprise identified in this action has exploited the inherent

basis of trust that exists amongst members of the religious organization known as Jehovah‟s

Witnesses to the end of developing a network of persons operating as agents of influence, assets or

useful idiots within varying religious, governmental, legal, financial and secular capacities.

This RICO Enterprise leverages its established relationships and contacts in executing acts of

fraud, misappropriation, coercion and oppression. Additionally, this Enterprise corruptly influences

and conspires with persons beyond its immediate borders depending on the requirements of a given

scheme.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

The complaint identifies varied persons who constitute a rogue faction within the religious

organization known as Jehovah‟s Witnesses. Such persons include Alfred Altamirano, Ellen

Altamirano, Richard Ashe, Ernest Brede, Paul Demosthenes, Bill Douglas, Allan Lee, Lawrence Lee,

Donald H Maynor, Jerome Pierce, Bruce Raditich and Anthony Smith, amongst others.

Contrary to the ideals and practices of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, as a religious organization, these

individuals have participated directly or indirectly in the management and operation of the Enterprise

described herein. In collectively executing the Enterprise‟ scheme to oppress and neutralize Plaintiff,

defamation, false accusations, coercion, and extortion have been their weapons of choice. Such tactics

are intended to destroy Plaintiff‟s reputation and credibility in order to undermine confidence in the

statements he has made regarding unlawful activity specific to the non-profit corporation employed

by the English Menlo Park Congregation of Jehovah‟s Witnesses that is indicative of a far reaching

pattern of racketeering activity, within the United States and abroad, that threatens to continue.

As a religious organization, Jehovah‟s Witnesses sincerely employ varied legitimate endeavor

non-profit corporations in the United States and around the world. Particularly since 2000, Jehovah‟s

Witnesses have maintained a distinction between the corporations they employ and their religious

organization.

The bible-based governance model used by this religious organization allows for individuals

therein to be entrusted with varying levels of responsibility and authority. Persons in such positions

manage and direct others within their oversight. In accord with bible standards, Christians are to be

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



obedient and follow the direction of those taking the lead in the congregation and organization as an

expression of their submission to God.

In this instance, said governance model has been exploited by corrupt persons therein and

insidiously used to provide the core infrastructure for the association-in-fact RICO Enterprise

identified in this action as well as C 12-01372-JSW.

The Enterprise ringleaders include Don Alden Adams, President of the Watchtower Bible and

Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., his brother Joel C. Adams, Vice President of the Christian

Congregation of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc. and Allen E. Shuster, Treasurer of the Regional Building

Committee of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc., amongst others.

Don Alden Adams is the chief architect of the fraudulent scheme that is being perpetrated by

these ringleaders to the detriment of honest and sincere congregation members throughout the United

States and abroad.

Don Alden Adams has misused the position of responsibility entrusted to him by the

Governing Body of Jehovah‟s Witnesses as a means to direct varied persons within the “chain of

command” inherently created by the organizational structure employed by Jehovah‟s Witnesses to

knowingly and/or unwittingly commit acts in furtherance of the scheme.

Under the direction of the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc.

(Don Alden Adams, President), The Christian Congregation of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc. (Joel C.

Adams, Richard Ashe, Allen E. Shuster) has issued policy letters advising bodies of elders serving in

local congregations of Jehovah‟s Witnesses in the United States of a standing partnership with JP

Morgan Chase Bank. Pursuant to such, whenever local elders (e.g.: Ernest Brede; C 13-01955-JSW)

engage representatives of the Regional Building Committee of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc. (e.g.: Allen

E. Shuster, Leonardo Trevino) to the end of planning and executing Kingdom Hall (church building)

renovation/building projects they are to open a building expense account specifically with Chase

Bank even if the non-profit corporation employed by a given local congregation of Jehovah‟s

Witnesses has standing accounts with other financial institutions. In some cases, per the Enterprise‟

scheme, local Regional Building Committee representatives (e.g.: Leonardo Trevino, Regional

Building Committee #7) have submitted inflated bids for Kingdom Hall building projects, that

intentionally constitute excessive benefit transactions to the enrichment of corporate insiders, that

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



local congregations are then directed to finance through “voluntary” donations by their body of elders

(e.g.: Ernest Brede). When local congregations fail to raise sufficient funds to pay the amount

required per the RBC bid, they are directed to obtain a loan from the Christian Congregation of

Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc. to finance the building project.

Within the scheme, “corporate insiders” include compromised officers/members of the

non-profit corporations employed by local congregations of Jehovah‟s Witnesses throughout the

United States and compromised officers/members of the non-profit corporations sincerely employed

by Jehovah‟s Witnesses, including the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania, Inc., the

Christian Congregation of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc., the Regional Building Committee of Jehovah‟s

Witnesses, Inc. and the Religious Order of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc.

The first phase of the scheme involves Enterprise insiders being strategically positioned to

assume operational control of existing non-profit corporations, used by individual congregations,

under the guise of religious activity, typically pursuant to acts of “church discipline.”

Per organizational directives, congregation elders generally serve as the directors/officers of

the non-profit corporations used by individual congregations. When the cited Enterprise ringleaders

target a new congregation/corporation for assimilation into its scheme, they will direct elders from

one congregation to move to the targeted congregation to execute a takeover from within, which

involves arbitrarily removing certain elders from positions of responsibility without scriptural cause

who are not disposed to participate in the Enterprise‟ scheme.

Alternatively, traveling representatives of the Christian Congregation of Jehovah‟s Witnesses,

Inc., called circuit overseers, will visit local congregations with directives to arbitrarily remove and

replace certain elders in furtherance of the Enterprise‟ scheme.

This is what occurred in the Menlo Park Congregation in 2010 thus prompting the filing of

C 10-03907-MEJ (aka Cobb v. Brede I) and C 12-01372-JSW (aka Cobb v. JP Morgan Chase I)

The newly reconfigured elder body then proceeds to have new directors/officers voted into the

corporation, a mere formality since congregation members have a scriptural obligation to follow the

direction of the elder body as such is viewed as an expression of God‟s authority.

In assuming control of the elder body, Enterprise ringleaders effectively assume control of the

non-profit corporation used by the congregation. Next, new corporate by-laws are produced

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



designating the Christian Congregation of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc. as the beneficiary and recipient

of all assets, including any real estate property, if not so designated previously, upon dissolution of

the corporation.

At this point, a Kingdom Hall building/renovation project is proposed by the new elder body

to execute the next phase of the scheme. The building project estimate provided by local Regional

Building Committee (RBC) representatives will exceed the actual building and/or maintenance needs,

thus creating a means to “fleece the flock” by having congregation members donate the required

funds to satisfy the inflated estimation. In most cases, local congregations have insufficient funds

on-hand to satisfy the Regional Building Committee‟s excessive estimates and so are directed to

obtain loans from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc. In this way, the Enterprise

ring leaders create ongoing revenue streams as local congregations throughout the United States and

abroad make monthly loan payments to finance the building projects mandated by their local body of

elders under the direction of the circuit overseer, a representative of the Christian Congregation of

Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc. in conjunction with representatives of the Regional Building Committee of

Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc.

Having completed the acquisition of a new non-profit corporation while concurrently

manufacturing a new revenue stream as described, Enterprise ringleaders thereby extend their

network of “non-profit” banking accounts used to systematically reposition and shelter liquid assets.

Liquid assets filtered through this network of accounts fund nontransparent resource pools

that are used at the discretion of the Enterprise ring leaders, to their benefit and that of other corporate

insiders under the guise of religious activity, including financial support of members of the Religious

Order of Jehovah’s Witnesses. This order includes branch members and staff, missionaries, traveling

overseers (circuit overseers), special pioneers and other volunteers. The global designation for such

persons is the Worldwide Order of Special Full-Time Servants of Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Legitimate arrangements to financially support members of the Worldwide Order have been

insidiously leveraged as a means to obscure fraudulent activity including recurring acts of self-dealing

perpetrated by Enterprise ring leaders, per the scheme. Enabling such unlawful conduct by

fraudulently acquiring money from sincere congregation members throughout the United States and

abroad, as described herein, constitutes a surreptitious form of mandated tithing and most directly,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



theft by trick, which contradicts the bible-based beliefs and practices of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, as a

religious organization. Furthermore, the non-profit corporations sincerely employed by Jehovah‟s

Witnesses, as a religious organization, incur liability, pursuant to said acts of inurement and private

benefit, as these corporations are (Internal Revenue Code) Section 501(c)(3) organizations.

Since its inception, the partnership with Chase Bank, orchestrated by Don Alden Adams in

conjunction with Joel C. Adams and Allen E. Shuster, has been systematically used within the

Enterprise‟ pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1943 and 1956. Chase

Bank is aware of this unlawful activity and willingly participates in the cover-up of such, playing a

similar role in this scheme as it did in the so-called Vatileaks Scandal of 2012, first, by not filing

Currency Transaction Reports (CTR) for cash transactions in excess of $10,000.00, as required by the

Bank Secrecy Act, second, by not filing Suspected Activity Reports, (SAR) and third by

systematically impeding subpoenas seeking the relevant banking records pursuant to acts of collusion

with the RICO Enterprise ringleaders cited herein. (See Complaints for federal civil actions

C 12-01372-JSW and C 13-01955-JSW).

The cited acts of religious affinity fraud, theft and extortion would never be tolerated by the

Governing Body of Jehovah‟s Witnesses who are righteous, God-fearing men. Consequently, the

Enterprise ringleaders have exerted great effort to cover-up their pattern of racketeering activity

specifically to hide their wrongdoing from the Governing Body who delegate administrative matters

to the legal entities sincerely employed by Jehovah‟s Witnesses, as a religious organization.

Defendants now present their 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss asserting that this court

lacks jurisdiction and that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

III. PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT

A. LEGAL STANDARD

In considering a motion to dismiss a complaint for alleged failure to state a claim, the court

must view the factual allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and those

allegations must be presumed to be true. Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 283 (1986). See also

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)

As the Supreme Court stated in Scheuer, 416 U.S. at 236:

When a federal court reviews the sufficiency of a complaint, before the reception of any

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



evidence either by affidavit or admissions, its task is necessarily a limited one. The issue is not

whether a plaintiff will ultimately prevail but whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to

support the claims. Indeed it may appear on the face of the pleadings that a recovery is very remote

and unlikely but that is not the test. Moreover, it is well established that, in passing on a motion to

dismiss, whether on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or for failure to state a

cause of action, the allegations of the complaint should be construed favorably to the pleader.

Courts are reluctant to dismiss a case on technical grounds and, consistent with the federal

rules, prefer to decide cases on their merits. See, e.g., Kauffman v. Moss, 420 F. 2d 1270, 1276 (3d

Cir.) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 181 (1962))

The standard of review in this instance is greatly influenced by the fact that Plaintiff is

appearing pro se.

As the court is aware, pro se litigants are “held to less stringent standards than formal

pleadings drafted by lawyers…” Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). Consequently, the court is to

consider even more carefully whether any set of facts consistent with the complaint could be proven,

and if so, to deny the motion to dismiss.

As stated in Weilburg v. Shapiro, “Dismissal of a pro se complaint without leave to amend is

proper only if it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint could not be cured by

amendment” (Weilburg v. Shapiro, 488 F.3d 1202, 1205 (9th Cir. 2007).

B. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM AGAINST DEFENDANT JENNIFER

ALTAMIRANO AS TO HIS FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (14TH AMENDMENT: FREE EXERCISE, EQUAL

PROTECTION, DUE PROCESS)

The complaint alleges a conspiratorial alliance involving both private and state actors

engaging in a fraudulent course of action under color of law that is violative of Plaintiff‟s civil rights.

As one of the conspirators, Defendant Jennifer Altamirano‟s conduct, as well as that of Defendants

Cameron Bowman, Bill Douglas, Amanda Freel and all other cited conspirators, is reached by

42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985(3) according to Supreme Court interpretations which establish that

private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in a challenged action, are acting "under color" of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



law for purposes of § 1983 actions. - Orville E. DENNIS v. Sidney SPARKS, 449 U.S. 24 (101 S.Ct.

183, 66 L.Ed.2d 185); Sandra ADICKES, Petitioner, v. S. H. KRESS & COMPANY, 398 U.S. 144

(90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142)

In Adickes, the court held that an action against private parties accused of conspiring with a

judge is not subject to dismissal. The court added “that a private person acts 'under color of' a state

statute or other law when he, like the official, in some way acts consciously pursuant to some law that

gives him aid, comfort, or incentive, cf. Griffin v. Maryland, 378 U.S. 130, 84 S.Ct. 1770, 12 L.Ed.2d

754 (1964); Flemming v. South Carolina Elec. & Gas Co., 224 F.2d 752 (C.A.4th Cir. 1955), appeal

dismissed, 351 U.S. 901, 76 S.Ct. 692, 100 L.Ed. 1439 (1956); or when he acts in conjunction with a

state official - United States v. Price, supra.

Furthermore, the Banes Civil Rights Act codified in California Civil Code § 52.1 mirrors the

provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) but is even more encompassing in that it reaches misconduct

violative of a person‟s constitutional rights whether performed under color of law by a private/state

actor or not. Therefore, this statute can be included by amendment to the extent called for.

C. PLAINTIFF’S SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR SERBIAN COLLUSION [AND]

SERBIAN FRAUD (1) FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF CAN BE

GRANTED AGAINST DEFENDANTS DEMOSTHENES, A. LEE, L. LEE, NILGES, AND

YAMAGUCHI, AND (2) FAILS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

1. THE SUPREME COURT HOLDING IN SERBIAN IS IRRELEVANT BECAUSE

PLAINTIFFF FAILS TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD

The term and legal concept of Serbian Fraud, born of Supreme Court interpretations of the

Constitution, is a distinctive brand of fraud. As such it is not comparable to common law fraud nor is

it constrained by the technical parameters of actual fraud.

Serbian Fraud, in the most basic sense, amounts to constructed fraud, an established legal

concept in the state of California. California Civil Code § 1573 describes “fraud” as “any breach of

duty which,…gains an advantage to the person in fault…by misleading another to his prejudice.”

Section 1573 then proceeds to codify the concept of constructed fraud stating that “any such act or

omission as the law specially declares to be fraudulent, without respect to actual fraud” constitutes

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



fraud.

The counts of Serbian Collusion/Fraud contained in the complaint identify acts of fraud, as

defined in California Civil Code § 1573, and acts of racketeering perpetrated by the defendants in the

guise of religious activity. Therefore Plaintiff references the religious tribunal hearings to the extent

necessary to articulate how they were strategically used in furtherance of the scheme.

In Serbian the Court defined the meaning and scope of Serbian Collusion/Fraud when

specifying “fraud and collusion” as grounds for civil court review in instances “when church tribunals

act in bad faith for secular purposes.” Consequently, pleadings must establish that the alleged fraud or

collusion was motivated by “bad faith for secular purposes.” (SERBIAN ORTHODOX DIOCES V.

MILIVOJEVICH, 426 U. S. 696 (1976))

As stated above on page 4 at lines 9 – 28, when targeting a congregation/corporation for

acquisition, the Enterprise arbitrarily reconfigures the existing elder body serving in that congregation

being sure to insert complicit elders therein before proceeding to the next phase of the scheme.

Pursuant to Serbian Collusion on the part of Don Alden Adams, Joel C Adams, Richard Ashe,

Paul Koehler, Steve Misterfeld, Allen Shuster and Leonardo Trevino in conjunction with RICO

Defendants Brede, Contreras, Laverdure, Raditich and Yamaguchi, the 2010 tribunal hearing (aka

Serbian Collusion and Serbian Fraud - Count 1) was conceived, convened and conducted in bad faith

with a view to a secular purpose, namely the furtherance of the Enterprise‟ racketeering scheme as

described herein. (See complaint pages 82 – 84, paragraphs 405 – 413)

During the hearing on 2/27/2010, Steve Misterfeld and Paul Koehler stated that they would

recommend the removal of the entire elder body serving in Menlo Park in their written report to the

Christian Congregation of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc. (aka “The U.S. Branch” of Jehovah‟s

Witnesses). However, during the meeting to review said report on 2/28/2010, Misterfeld/Koehler

verbally and materially represented to Plaintiff and his fellow elders that, upon further review, this

recommendation had been revoked. When they presented a favorable written report to Plaintiff and

his fellow elders on 2/28/2010, there was no mention of said recommendation. Furthermore,

Misterfeld/Koehler both lamented even considering the proposed discipline.

In relying on these material representations, Plaintiff and his fellow elders saw no need to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



appeal the proposed recommendation for their removal as elders since such had been revoked.

In May 2010, Plaintiff received written notice from the Christian Congregation of Jehovah‟s

Witnesses, Inc. advising that a recommendation for the removal of the body of elders serving in

Menlo Park had been received from Steve Misterfeld and Paul Koehler and, in being approved by the

U.S. Branch, that their removal would be effective July 1, 2010.

This unexpected letter was received, by design, after the time to appeal the recommendation

had expired. Had Plaintiff and his fellow elders timely appealed the recommendation for their

removal, per organizational protocol, this would have initiated an internal escalation and secondary

review of the tribunal hearing, by individuals outside of the ring of conspiracy, which explains the

purpose of the deception perpetrated by Misterfeld and Koehler et al., at the direction of the

Enterprise ringleaders cited herein.

When receiving the letter advising of their removal, Plaintiff and his fellow elders sent three

letters of appeal to the Christian Congregation of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, Inc. that were all denied as

Richard Ashe and Allen Shuster, employees of this corporation and members of its Service

Department, which receives/filters all written correspondence for the U.S. Branch of Jehovah‟s

Witnesses, were in place to intercept and suppress each letter completing the premeditated effort to

deny Plaintiff and his fellow elders an impartial hearing and any subsequent recourse by appeal, in

furtherance of the scheme.

The 2012 tribunal hearing (aka Serbian Collusion and Serbian Fraud – Count 2) was likewise

conceived, convened and conducted in bad faith with a view to a secular purpose, namely obstruction

of justice (Omnibus Clause), undue influence and extortion.

Regarding the appeal hearing in June 2012 that affirmed that Plaintiff would be

disfellowshipped (excommunicated) as one of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, the primary line of discussion

established that the threat federal civil action C 12-01372-JSW presented to the Enterprise was the

key issue motivating that decision.

At the end of the hearing, Defendant Paul Demosthenes asked Plaintiff how many other legal

actions that he was involved in had members of the congregation named as Defendants. Plaintiff

confirmed that there was only one, C 12-01372-JSW. Paul Demosthenes nodded while looking

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



intently at Plaintiff, making extended eye contact, before advising that a person could be reinstated as

one of Jehovah‟s Witnesses in a few months, a year, or longer establishing that Plaintiff‟s future

prospects for reinstatement depended on his withdrawal of the action in question (See complaint page

90 at paragraphs 444 and 445).

Federal civil action C 12-01372-JSW sought damages according to proof and thus constituted

a property interest as a matter of law. - Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc. v. Crown Ins. Co., 792 F.2d

341 (3rd Cir. 1986), the Court reasoned that a cause of action “is a form of „property‟[.]” Id. at 354;

see also Logan v. Zimmerman Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 428 (1982) (“[A] cause of action is a species

of property protected by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause.”); see also Cal. Civ. Code §

953: A thing in action is a right to recover money or other personal property by a judicial proceeding.

Consequently, by coercing Plaintiff to withdraw from this action, to divest himself of this form of

property, under the deceptive guise of religious activity, the Defendants defrauded Plaintiff within the

meaning of California Civil Code § 1573 and also injured him in his property within the meaning of

18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

Furthermore, this coercive pressure pursuant to acts of collusion on the part of the RICO

defendants, at the direction of the Enterprise ringleaders, is violative of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (Omnibus

Clause), 42 U.S.C. 1985(3) – by virtue of the alleged conspiracy with state actors – and the Banes

Civil Rights Act codified in California Civil Code section 52.1 as well due to Plaintiff‟s First

Amendment right to petition free from intimidation, coercion and retaliation.

2. ASSUMING ARGUENDO THAT PLAINTIFF ASSERTS A FRAUD CAUSE OF

ACTION, THERE IS NO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION WITHIN THE

CONTEXT OF SERBIAN ORTHODOX DIOCESE V. MILIVOJEVICH

The Defendants are attempting to frame this entire situation and set of circumstances in the

light of an ecclesiastical controversy to the end of leveraging the Free Exercise Clause as a convenient

means of escape from being held accountable for their actions.

The scheme to perpetrate the removal of Plaintiff and his fellow elders was predicated on the

doctrine of abstention. In Watson v. Jones, the United States Supreme Court developed a framework

for the judicial review of perceived ecclesiastical disputes. The Court held that “whenever the

questions of discipline, or of faith, of ecclesiastical rule, custom, or law have been decided by the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



highest church judicatory to which the matter has been carried, the legal tribunals must accept such

decisions as final, and as binding on them . . . .”

Plaintiff is not asking the court to overturn or reverse the decisions of the religious tribunal

hearings thus the basis for the abstention defense does not exist.

As stated, Plaintiff references the tribunal hearings in his effort to detail the pattern of

racketeering activity, as required by law, pursuant to his RICO claim. In pleading Serbian

Collusion/Fraud, Plaintiff preemptively mitigates and counters Defendants‟ anticipated reliance on the

Doctrine of Abstention while concurrently amplifying the Court‟s constitutional basis and obligation

to review matters based on the allegations.

Supreme Court interpretations establish that the Free Exercise Clause “embraces two concepts

– freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second

cannot be.” - Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 304 (1940)

In Reynolds v. U.S. (1878) the Court distinguished between religious belief and religious

conduct or action, stating that congress was “deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but

was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive to good order.”

In Reynolds the court added that recognizing the religious defense would “permit every citizen

to become a law unto himself” thus rendering the government‟s efforts to maintain order ineffectual.

In Employment Division v. Smith (1990) the court stated “We have never held that an

individuals‟ religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law

prohibiting conduct that the state is free to regulate…the record of more than a century of our free

exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in

Minersville School Dist. Bd. Of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940): Conscientious

scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual

from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs.”

In summation on this point, the Court added “The only decisions in which we have held that

the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated

action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction

with other constitutional protections, such as freedom of speech and of the press, (Cantwell v.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Connecticut, 3l0 U.S. at 304, 307). The present case does not present such a hybrid situation, but a

free exercise claim unconnected with any communicative activity or parental right. Respondents urge

us to hold, quite simply, that when otherwise prohibitable conduct is accompanied by religious

convictions, not only the convictions but the conduct itself must be free from governmental

regulation. We have never held that, and decline to do so now.”

The application of neutral points of law creates neither a direct or indirect burden on the

beliefs and practices of Jehovah‟s Witnesses, for the simple fact that collusion, conspiracy, deceit,

fraud and predicate RICO acts, as alleged in the case of the Defendants, are not embraced within the

beliefs and doctrines of Jehovah‟s Witnesses. Therefore, Plaintiff‟s allegations and the court‟s review

of such in no way establish a point of scrutiny for Jehovah‟s Witnesses as a religious organization.

Rather, the allegations establish a point of scrutiny and accountability for the Defendants, as

individuals, whose egregious behavior, conduct and actions constitute a deviation from law, both

secular and divine.

D. PLAINTIFF FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS AS TO HIS

THIRD AND FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL

RICO STATUTE AND CONSPIRACY AS TO THE SAME

1. PLAINTIFFF FAILS TO ESTABLISH A RICO ENTERPRISE

In Boyle v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2237 (2009), quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), the Court

highlighted the statute's specific description of possible enterprises stating that „“an "'enterprise'

includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or

group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.‟‟ The court added "This

enumeration of included enterprises is obviously broad, encompassing 'any . . . group of individuals

associated in fact.' The term 'any' ensures that the definition has a wide reach, and the very concept of

an association in fact is expansive." Boyle, 129 S. Ct. at 2243

The Court concluded by saying "the RICO statute provides that its terms are to be 'liberally

construed to effectuate its remedial purposes.'" Id. (quoting Organized Crime Control Act of 1970,

Pub. L. No. 91-452, § 904(a), 84 Stat. 922, 947).

In referencing these background principles, the Court expounded the necessary elements of an

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



association-in-fact enterprise. Such an enterprise must have a structure. Specifically, it "must have at

least three structural features: a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and

longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose." However the Court

saw "no basis in the language of RICO" for requiring a particular type of organizational structure.

In short, Boyle holds that the RICO statute defines an "enterprise" broadly, such that the

"enterprise" element of a 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) claim can be satisfied by showing a "structure," that is,

a common "purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity

sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose." Id. at 2244; see id. at 2245

Based on the current legal standard, an association-in-fact RICO Enterprise has been

articulated. While many of them lack the requisite knowledge and intellect to discern such, the

Defendants described in the complaint as “Deviant Members of the Religious Organization Known as

Jehovah‟s Witnesses” in themselves constitute an association-in-fact RICO enterprise. This

foundational and central component of the Enterprise, its nucleus, obviously possesses the three

structural features cited above: a purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise,

and longevity sufficient to permit these associates to pursue the enterprise's purpose. (See Complaint

pages 2 – 4, paragraphs 4 – 10; also pages 61 - 71, paragraphs 310 – 360)

2. PLAINTIFFF FAILS TO ESTABLISH A PATTERN OF RACKETEERING

ACTIVITY

In his complaint Plaintiff pleads obstruction of justice pursuant to the provisions of the

Omnibus Clause.

The omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. § 1503, provides: Whoever . . . corruptly or by threats or

force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors

to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, shall be (guilty of an offense).

The omnibus clause is to be read broadly to include any conduct interfering with the fair

administration of justice if that conduct was undertaken with a corrupt motive. United States v. Saget,

991 F.2d 702 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 950 (1993); United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843

(9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, sub. nom. Phillips v. United States, 454 U.S. 1157 (1982).

Defendant Jennifer Altamirano levied false charges of battery against Plaintiff on September

15, 2012 which led to the filing of case B1262610 in Santa Clara County. This was a planned act of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



retaliation in response to Plaintiff blowing the whistle on the racketeering activity perpetrated by the

Enterprise. Defendants Altamirano and Douglas provided reports to the police falsely accusing

Plaintiff of a crime and also directed other persons in the group, including Mr. Forks, a percipient

witness, to do the same in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 (omnibus clause), 1510, 1511, 1512 and

1513.

One week later, Mr. Forks, was approached by Defendants Altamirano and Douglas and

threatened to keep silent regarding the actual facts and to refrain from attending any hearings and

providing true testimony regarding the alleged incident of 9/15/2012. Having been intimidated and

threatened, when deposed in October 2012, Mr. Forks incorrectly stated that he did not “see anything”

and had no basis to refute Jennifer Altamirano‟s allegation of battery against Plaintiff. Thereafter, he

did not attend the domestic violence hearing of 11/28/2012 (San Mateo County) due to being

intimidated by Defendants Altamirano and Douglas. The credibility of Mr. Forks‟ accurate testimony

during the trial for case B1262610 was viciously attacked pursuant to him having been unduly

influenced to lie under oath during the October 2012 deposition, which affected the outcome of the

trial to Plaintiff‟s detriment leading to further pecuniary damages to his property interests as stated

above.

Defendant Ernest Brede also committed acts of witness tampering in the case of another

material witness, Ms. Johnson. In speaking with Ms. Johnson on the phone and later in person to

discuss the alleged incident of 9/15/2012, Defendant Brede misused his position and influence in the

congregation to direct her to attend a meeting he had arranged at the Menlo Park Kingdom Hall

(Church building) concerning Defendant Altamirano‟s false allegations of battery against Plaintiff to

ensure that “everyone was on the same page.” Defendant Brede‟s endeavored to unduly influence

Ms. Johnson‟s statements and testimony to corroborate Defendant Altamirano‟s false allegations, as

had occurred in the case of Defendant Altamirano‟s other witnesses, all members of the Menlo Park

Congregation of Jehovah‟s Witnesses. When Mrs. Johnson declined she was targeted for mistreatment

and eventually changed congregations to obtain relief.

During the trial for case B1262610, Ms. Hernandez, a percipient witness, had been influenced

by Defendants Altamirano, Brede and Douglas to affirm the false report she gave to the police on

9/15/2012 by lying under oath specifically to support the equally perjurous testimony given by

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



Defendants Altamirano and Douglas during the trial. Furthermore, said testimony was supplemented

by falsified material evidence misrepresenting the alleged crime scene of 9/15/2012 with specific

intent to support their collective lie.

The egregious acts on the part of Defendants Altamirano, Brede and Douglas, including but

not limited to perjury, suborning perjury, tampering with evidence, witness tampering and conspiring

to falsely convict Plaintiff constitute violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 (omnibus clause), 1510, 1511,

1512 and 1513, which are all predicate RICO acts, and in themselves establish the requisite pattern of

racketeering activity (two related acts in ten years).

3. PLAINTIFFF FAILS TO PLEAD VIABLE OR RECOVERABLE RICO DAMAGES

The egregious acts on the part of Defendants Altamirano, Brede and Douglas, including but

not limited to perjury, suborning perjury, tampering with evidence, witness tampering and conspiring

to falsely convict Plaintiff constitute violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503 (omnibus clause), 1510, 1511,

1512 and 1513, which are all predicate RICO acts. As a result of these predicate acts, Plaintiff has

been injured in his property by virtue of bail expenses ($3600.00), legal expenses for case B1262610

(Defendant Cameron Bowman - $5000.00; Defendant Amanda Freel - $2000.00) and monthly

probation fees ($70.00) amongst other expenses. See, e.g., Burger v. Kuimelis, 325 F. Supp. 2d 1026,

1035-36 (N.D. Cal. 2004) (citing cases). Also Diaz v. Gates, 420 F.3d 897, 900 (9th Cir. 2005).

A person seeking employment will typically undergo a background check to confirm if they

have a criminal record. Therefore maliciously accusing and conspiring to falsely convict a person of a

crime undermines the marketability and viability of that person as an employee, which creates a

competitive disadvantage for the person when seeking employment within the job market. Such an

egregious act amounts to intentional interference with contract and interference with prospective

business relations, which are established torts under California law, and thus constitutes an injury to a

person‟s property interests. Diaz v. Gates, 420 F.3d 897, 900 (9th Cir. 2005).

Plaintiff incorporates by reference the arguments and case law citations contained in his recent

filing entitled “Plaintiff’s Statement of RICO Injury” (Document 155; Filed 8/30/13) as such

contains his complete response in this regard.

E. PLAINTIFFF’S FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DEFAMATION (SLANDER)

FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED AGAINST

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff has alleged defamation in-line with pleading standards for the state of California. The

damages sought as detailed in the prayer for relief account for these offenses. If the court desires these

to be enumerated for each claim such can be accomplished by amendment.

F. PLAINTIFFF’S SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD AGAINST DEFENDANTS

FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED

Plaintiff has stated causes of action consistent with the meaning of “fraud,” under state law, as

codified in California Civil Code §§ 1573 and 3294 per references herein.

G. PLAINTIFFF’S SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CIVIL CONSPIRACY

AGAINST DEFENDANTS FAILS TO STATE A CLAIM FOR WHICH RELIEF CAN BE

GRANTED

Plaintiff‟s allegations contain the requisite substantive acts as discussed herein and within the

complaint thus the basis for a civil conspiracy claim has been established.

H. THE COURT SHOULD DECLINE TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL

JURISDICTION OVER THE STATE LAW CLAIMS

Plaintiff‟s first claim for relief appropriately identifies varied state actors who willfully

violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights, which “expressly gives the District Court Jurisdiction, no

matter how imperfectly the claim is stated.” - Harmon v. Superior Ct of the State of California, 307 F

2d 796, CA 9(1962)

Furthermore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff‟s claims, including his

claims for civil RICO, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, and under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

Plaintiff‟s state law claims arise out of the same case or controversy as their federal law

claims, as all claims in this action, arise out of a common nucleus of operative facts. Thus, this Court

also has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff‟s state law claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1367

IV. CONCLUSION

Plaintiff respectfully requests that Defendants‟ motion to dismiss the complaint be denied.

Dated: September 23, 2013

/S/ Jason Cobb

________________________________

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

When All Case Participants are Registered for the Northern District‟s CM/ECF System

I hereby certify that I electronically filed the following document:

PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS ALFRED ALTAMIRANO, ELLEN ALTAMIRANO, JENNIFER ALTAMIRANO, ERNEST BREDE, LUIS CONTRERAS, PAUL DEMOSTHENES, BILL DOUGLAS, LARRY LAVERDURE, ALLAN LEE, LAWRENCE LEE, DONALD MAYNOR, DAN NILGES, JEROME PIERCE, BRUCE RADITICH, GLENN WATSON AND PAUL YAMAGUCHI’S 12(B)(1) AND 12 (B)(6) MOTION TO DISMISS

With the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Northern District

of California, San Francisco Division by using the Northern District‟s CM/ECF System on

August 30, 2013, and that service was effected on all ECF-registered parties in the action and,

upon all others not so-registered but instead listed below, by sending a true copy thereof via

electronic mail:

Deborah Appel

PO Box 620403

Woodside, CA 94062

[email protected]

Rick Canvel

Supple & Canvel, LLP

2320 Marinship Way, #301

Sausalito, CA 94965

[email protected]

/S/ Jason Cobb

________________________________

united states district court - jw leaks · 2013-09-10 · 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 by jehovah‟s witnesses,...

Documents