Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 1
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
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Sanjeev Lath,
INDIVIDUALLY in part and
DERIVATIVELY in part, on
behalf of nominal defendant,
Oak Brook Condominium Owners’
Association.
Plaintiff,
v.
Cheryl Vallee, Perry Vallee,
William Quinn Morey, Gerard
Dufresne, Christos Klardie,
Vickie Lynn Davis
Grandmaison, Patty Taylor,
Betty Mullen and Scott Walker
Sample, Warren Mills
INDIVIDUALLY
AND
Oak Brook Condominium Owners’
Association, a New Hampshire
Non-profit Corporation. a.k.a
Oak Brook Associates as
NOMINAL defendant
AND
John Bisson, Esq., Counsel
for Oak Brook Condominium
Owners’ Association and
Counsel for Scott Walker
Sample.
Defendants.
Case No:.1:16-CV-463-LM
PLAINTIFF LATH’S
NOTICE OF STANDING AND
PROXIMATE CAUSE IN THE
R.I.C.O.CLAIMS.
MAIL FRAUD PURSUANT TO 18
U.S.C 1341.
HEARING REQUESTED
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 2
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
INTRODUCTION
The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO)
provisions outlaw acquiring or conducting the affairs of an
enterprise, engaged in or whose activities affect interstate
commerce, through a patterned commission of various other
predicate offenses. The elements under the more commonly
prosecuted conduct prong are: (1) conducting the affairs; (2) of
an enterprise; (3) through a pattern; (4) of racketeering
activity. Rezner v. Bayerische Hypo-Und Vereinsbank AG, 630 F.3d
866, 873 (9th Cir. 2010), citing, Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co.,
Inc., 473 U.S. 479, 496 (1985); United States v. Shamah, 624
F.3d 449, 454 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v. Burden, 600 F.3d
204, 216 (2d Cir. 2010).
Plaintiff Lath submits this Notice of standing and the
injuries sustained, because of Defendants’ conduct relating to
mail fraud under 18 USC 1341. See Williams v. Mohawk Indus.,
Inc., No. 04 13740, 2005 WL 1355512, at *7 (11th Cir. Jun. 9,
2005).
LATH’S STANDING IN RICO CLAIMS
If the action is derivative, only the corporation itself or
a shareholder suing on its behalf can sue. See Roeder v. Alpha
Indus., 814 F.2d 22, 29 (1st Cir. 1987); Rand, 794 F.2d at 849.
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 3
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
A standing analysis under RICO asks whether a plaintiff is
entitled to bring legal action against the named defendant.
Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 370 F.3d 602, 612-13 (6th Cir.
2003). Lath is a unit owner and a member of Oak Brook Condominium
Owners’ Association, which in turn is “a condominium management
association organized under RSA 292” (See Declaration of Oak
Brook ¶ 31). See also the original declaration filed by the
declarant in 1983 with the Secretary of state (“Secretary”) for
the State of New Hampshire. The Association is registered with
the Secretary as a “Non-Profit Corporation – Domestic.”
PREDICATE ACTS- MAIL FRAUD UNDER 18 U.S.C.§1341
Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., Inc., 473 U.S. 479(1985), an
actionable RICO injury must be caused by the predicate acts
alleged, because the essence of a RICO claim is the commission
of predicate acts within the conduct of an enterprise. See ID.
at 497 (stating “[a]ny recoverable damages occurring by reason
of a violation of section 1962(c) will flow from the commission
of the predicate acts”); Claire’s Stores, Inc. v. Abrams, No. 86
C 9851, 1989 WL 134959 at *5(N.D. Ill. Oct. 16, 1989).
A RICO plaintiff’s failure to allege that a specifically
identified predicate act proximately caused his injury is
grounds for dismissal at the pleading stage. See Vicon Fiber
Optics Corp. v. Scrivo, 201 F. Supp.2d 216, 219 (S.D.N.Y. 2002);
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 4
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
Hamm, 187 F.3d at 952 (stating that the plaintiff must be
injured by the conduct constituting the racketeering activity,
“that is RICO predicate acts, and not by other conduct of the
defendant”). The statute provides a civil remedy for one “injured
in his business or property” by a RICO violation (18 U.S.C.
l964(c). “An allegation of personal injury and pecuniary losses
occurring therefrom are not sufficient to meet the statutory
requirement of injury to ‘business or property.’ (Bast v Cohen,
Dunn & Sinclair, PC, 59 F.3d 492, 495 (4th cir. l995) See also
(McMurtry v Brasfield, 654 R. Supp, l224-25 (E.D..Va.l987)
(plaintiffs lacked standing to sue for emotional distress and
similar personal injuries.)
A) 18 USC 1341: MAIL FRAUD AS A CRIMINAL STATUTE
----THE LAW----
18 U.S.C. 1341 states in pertinent part, “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... for the purpose of executing such scheme
or artifice or attempting so to do... shall be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 4 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 5
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
18 U.S.C. 1346 defines “artifice to defraud” as, to “includes
a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right
of honest services.”
A violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 requires “proof that the
accused (1) participated in a scheme or artifice to defraud, and
(2) caused a use of the mails, (3) for the purpose of executing
the scheme.” United States v. Manarite, 44 F.3d 1407, 1411
(9th Cir.), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1158, 115 S.Ct. 2610, 132
L.Ed.2d 854 (1995); see also United States v. Green, 745 F.2d
1205, 1207 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 925, 106 S.Ct.
259, 88 L.Ed.2d 266 (1985); United States v. Bohonus, 628 F.2d
1167, 1172 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 447 U.S. 928, 100 S.Ct.
3026, 65 L.Ed.2d 1122 (1980).
---OAK BROOK CONDOMINIUM OWNERS’ ASSN.—AN “ENTERPRISE”---
In United States v. Sorich, 523 F.3d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 2008)
the Court described the private sector type of honest services
fraud, as that in which “an employer is defrauded of its
employee’s honest services by the employee or by another”.
The defendants defrauded Lath of honest services, to be
received by the Condominium Office, by a deprivation of Lath’s
intangible rights. See United States v. Leahy, 445 F.3d 634, 655
(3d Cir. 2006). The Defendants have further used their position
either as a managing employee, or as a member of the board to
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 5 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 6
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
maintain exercise and control over the “enterprise”1 and further
their fraudulent activities thru this enterprise.
Oak Brook Condominium Owners’ Association is an enterprise
within the definition of 18 U.S.C. §1961(4). Ex-2 is the current
registration which shows Oak Brook Condominium Owners’
Association in “Good Standing” and designated as a Non-Profit
Domestic Corporation, bearing an ID 30792. Ex-3 is the NH
Department of State certification for the year 2000. Oak Brook
is also registered as a Home Owners Association with the
Internal Revenue Service.(Ex-5). Oak Brook Condominium Owners’
Association is also registered as a FHA approved
condominium.(See Ex-4).
Lath must show that a direct relationship exists between
the injury asserted and the injurious conduct alleged. See
Holmes, 503 U.S. at 268-269.Lath intends to show in this Notice
of standing that:
1. There were two or more predicate acts as defined under 18
U.S.C. §1961.
2. Defendants overtly commissioned these acts
3. Lath sustained injury as a direct and proximate result of
these predicate acts.
4. Lath was the intended target.
1 The RICO Act defines an “enterprise” as “any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity.” 18 U.S.C. §1961(4).
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 6 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 7
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
---ELEMENTS OF MAIL FRAUD UNDER 18 U.S.C. 1841---
The essential elements of an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1341
are (1) the existence of a scheme to defraud; (2) the
participation by the defendant in the scheme charged with the
specific intent to defraud; and (3) the use of the United States
mails in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme.
18 U.S.C. § 1346, was enacted in 1988 to incorporate within
the ambit of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes schemes
infringing on a victim’s right to an official’s or employee’s
“honest services” (i.e., an employee’s honest work on behalf of
a company). Further mail fraud statute applies to intrastate
mails as well. United States v. Elliott, 89 F.3d 1360, 1364 (8th
Cir. 1996); United States v. Photogrammertric Data Services,
Inc., 259 F.3d 229, 247 (4th Cir. 2001).
---FRAUD---
“Fraud” is a general term which embraces all the various
means by which one person can gain an advantage over another by
false representations, suppression of the truth, or deliberate
disregard for the truth. Thus, a “scheme to defraud” is any
plan, device, or course of action to deprive another of money or
property (or the intangible right of honest services) by means
of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises
reasonably calculated to deceive persons of average prudence.
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 7 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 8
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
Since the case has not ripened, all actions of the defendants
and the extent of harm other members are unknown at this time.
Lath believes that defendants have maintained their exercise and
control over the Association for decades thru threats of
physical harm, financial abuse of the members (extortion), proxy
abuse etc.
Instance #1:
THE COVENANTS
Orientation information is provided to every new resident
who decides to make Oak Brook, his home. Ex-7. This orientation
booklet was received by Lath in “2013 when you [Lath] purchased
your [Lath’s] unit” (Ex-8, Trial Tr.5:15-21, April 14, 2016,
Case:4562016SC853). The case file is attached hereto as Ex-9.2
At this hearing held before the 9th Circuit Court in
Manchester, NH, Bisson argued that this orientation information,
as being an “implied contract” (Trial Tr. 5:22-25, April 14,
2016), during the trial before the 9th District Court, in the
matter (Lath v. Sample, 456-2015-SC-00853 3, decided April 14,
2016, appealed accepted), stating that “condominium documents….
should be treated like a contract and be binding upon the
parties.”).
2 Case is under appeal with the NH Supreme Court. Case 2016-0596. 3 Dep Tr. pp. 38, Bisson, 62:22-23;63:1-8
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 8 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 9
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
Bisson also testified that Lath had “prior notice of the
policy”4 (referring to the orientation information, Ex-7,
admitted during his deposition). This information was provided
by Grandmaison, as part of her job 5 as the association manager,
6
at orientation meetings.7 This booklet was “everything that a
prospective owner need[ed] to know.”8 In August 2014, Grandmaison
again provided a refresher of this Orientation information in a
newsletter conceding that “residents ask the same questions and
I think these pages will help answer these inquiries.” (Ex-10)
This Orientation information (Ex-1 ,¶1), states “UPS and
other packages will be accepted at the office if you are not
home at the time of delivery.” 9 Grandmaison “materially
misrepresented”, when she testified that, “it was not required
that we ever take packages.”10 The arrangement of the words, or
the circumstances in which they are used, may convey the false
and deceptive appearance. It is well established that “will”
creates a promise and a contractual obligation. See Bryan A.
Garner, A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage 941-942 (2d ed.,
Oxford U. Press 1995).
4 Dep Tr. pp. 38, Bisson, 63:1-7. 5 Dep Tr. pp. 92, Grandmaison, 17:4-12. 6 Dep Tr. pp. 73, Grandmaison, 10:6-7 7 Dep Tr. pp. 92, Grandmaison, 17:4-7 8 Dep Tr. pp. 92, Grandmaison, 17:8-10 9 Dep Tr. pp. 90, Grandmaison, 10:9-11. 10 Dep Tr. pp. 90, Grandmaison, 9:19-20.
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 9 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 10
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
“Will” theories maintain that commitments are enforceable
because the promisor has “willed” or chosen to be bound by his
commitment. See Cohen, The Basis of Contract, 46 Harv.L.Rev.
553, 575 (1933).
Permitting a subjective inquiry into the Grandmaison’s
intent, could also enable her to fraudulently undermine
otherwise perfectly clear agreements, between the association
and Lath. Defendants would be judicially estopped, if they
argued that the “orientation information” was not a legally
binding document.
DEFENDANTS BISSON AND GRANDMAISON’S ALLEGED MAIL FRAUD AND
THEIR PRETEXT
Grandmaison in the email dated November 24, 2016, to the
Board of Directors, made it clear that Lath “is not to come to
[Grandmaison’s] office.” Such were the true intentions of
Grandmaison; i.e to prevent Lath from going to the Condominium
Office.
This wasn’t the first-time Lath was prevented from going
into the office. On or around October 4, 2015, when Lath went to
the office to pay his condominium fee,11 Grandmaison called
Manchester Police Department, accusing Lath of committing the
crime of criminal threatening. Grandmaison, in her call to the
11 Dep Tr. pp. 95, Dep. Grandmaison, 30:1-3.
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 10 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 11
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
police department stated, she was “handicapped” and could not
“escape.” (See Aff. Belware ¶11). Grandmaison testified, she
“didn't feel comfortable” because Lath “raised [his] voice.”12
Grandmaison used “foul language” and chalk the expression, “F-U-
C-K” to “freedom of speech”13, she asked Lath “to leave the
office first and then...to leave the building.”14 While Lath
never “threatened...bodily harm”, Grandmaison, felt
uncomfortable by Lath’s “tone of voice.”15
On October 13, 2015, Lath received a letter from
Association Counsel, Defendant John Bisson alleged Lath being
“abusive and threatening” and prohibited Lath to “communicate by
electronic mail only.” (See Ex-13).
The promisor could insist on enforcement if the contract
continued to be in her interest, but if it were no longer
advantageous, she could avoid the contract, by producing
evidence of a differing subjective intent.Soon after, Lath’s
packages were “refused” by Office staff because of instruction
to do so, by Vickie Grandmaison, Scott Sample and Bill Morey 16.
a. On October 10, 2015 Lath received a USPS slip
indicating package is “at clubhouse”. When Lath went to
the club house to pick the package Defendants and its
12 Dep. Tr. pp. 95 Grandmaison, 31:1-23. 13 Dep. Tr. pp. 95 Grandmaison, 32:1-15. 14 Dep. Tr. pp. 96 Grandmaison, 33:11-12 15 Dep. Tr. pp. 96 Grandmaison, 34:1-23 16 Dep. Tr.pp.152 , Vachon,22:17-18; Dep. Tr. pp. 304, Dep. ValleeC,16:4-9.
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 11 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 12
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
agents conceded that Lath’s package was not there. (See
Ex-16).
b. On October 19, 2015, another package was denied by
Defendants and its agents. (See Ex-17).
c. In October, a UPS package slip stated that it was
“left at office.” When Lath went to retrieve the package,
it was not there. (Ex-15).
Lath was never provided any notice for such change, and
prior to October 2015, Lath’s packages were being accepted by
office staff. “The practical interpretation given to their
contracts by the parties to them while they are engaged in their
performance, and before any controversy has arisen concerning
them, is one of the best indications of their true intent, and
courts that adopt and enforce such a construction are not likely
to commit serious error.” See Baird v. Baird,48 Colo. 506-518,
111 Pac. 79.
Despite this “promise” to accept packages, that were made
during the orientation and again in August 2014, and
irrespective of the fact, that Lath’s packages were being
accepted until October 2015, Grandmaison, testified, “it was
never required that we [office] ever take packages”17. Packages
17 Dep Tr. pp. 90, Grandmaison, 9:19-20.
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 12 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 13
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
were customarily received at “18 Northbrook Drive”, where
Grandmaison worked. 18 Chery Valee, the Vice-President
19,refused
Lath’s packages as well, and besides Lath’s packages, Cheryl
Vallee has refused packages,” quite a few years ago.” 20 Vallee
conceded that she “can’t even remember his name.”21
Cheryl Vallee “personally didn’t refuse his packages” as
she “wasn’t working then.” 22. Besides Lath’s mail and packages,
Defendant Cheryl Vallee hasn’t “refused packages for anyone
else.”23
Grandmaison without any notice to Lath, started to refuse
packages because she’s “not a post office.” 24 as it was “Oak
Brook’s clubhouse.” Grandmaison as the “promisor herself had
warranted the use of force by her prior exercise of will.” See
C. Fried, Contract as Promise 16 (1981). Grandmaison cannot
complain about “having to sign for packages”, being used against
her, since she intended that such force could be used, when her
employer made such a promise to Lath, during orientation, in
August 2013. Grandmaison stated on the contrary that “There was
not even a policy in the rules and regulations stating about the
packages. It was saying that we had the ability to sign. It was
18 Dep Tr. pp. 73, Grandmaison, 10:14-16. 19 Dep Tr. pp. 302, ValleeC, 5:19-20. 20 Dep Tr. pp. 304, ValleeC, 15:9-10 21 Dep Tr. pp. 304, ValleeC, 15:7-13. 22 Dep Tr. pp. 304, ValleeC, 15:18-20 23 Dep Tr. pp. 304, ValleeC, 16:4-5. 24 Dep Tr. pp. 91, Grandmaison, 15:20-21
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 13 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 14
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
not required that we sign.”25 Grandmaison contravened the
covenant concerning packages, by stating, “It doesn’t say on
there that it is required that I accept the packages.”26
Grandmaison in her correspondence to the board, made it clear
that, “he [Lath] is not to come into my [Grandmaison] office.”
The pretext used was that Lath “accused the association of
stealing your [Lath] packages, so that’s why they’re not
accepted anymore.” 27 Defendants have used any tactic to prevent
Lath and his family to enter the office. In 2014, Lath’s father,
Indra Kumar Lath was “stopped…at the sign in desk” and the
employee at the office indicated “the problems he [Lath] is
bringing to Oakbrook.” (See Ex-18, Aff. Indra Lath).
Attorney John Bisson Esq., a licensed attorney in “general
civil practice with an emphasis in real estate and
condominiums”28, conceded that he did “not believe that they [Oak
Brook] are incorporated as a voluntary association. They may
have been -- they certainly are registered as a condominium with
the consumer protection division of the Attorney General's
office, but that's different from being registered with the
25 Dep. Tr. pp. 91, Grandmaison, 16:1-4. 26 Dep. Tr. pp. 91, Grandmaison, 16:15-16 27 Dep. Tr. pp.38, Bisson, 64:3-5; 64:12-13; Dep. Tr. pp. 114, Grandmaison, 108:4-5; Dep. Tr. pp. 304 , ValleeC, 14:14-19. 28 Dep. Tr. pp. 24, Bisson, 5:21-22.
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 14 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 15
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
Secretary of State's office.”29 Bisson has often used bald
accusations and assertions, to justify the actions of the
Defendants and its agents. For e.g.,
a. During the deposition, Bisson testified Defendant
Scott Sample was not his client. Bisson stated he
represented Sample in his “capacity as an agent of Oak
Brook. I [Bisson] don’t represent him on other matters.”30
Bisson continued to assert that he “represent him only as
a result of the fact that he was employed at Oak Brook.”31
On the contrary, on January 18, 2016, in response to a
claim filed by Bisson with Liberty Mutual (Policy #
BOP8329361, Ex-25), Adjuster Peter C. Sealy, denied
Bisson’s claim stating “Peerless Insurance Company...will
not participate in the defense of Scott Sample and / or
Oak Brook Condominium Assn. or pay any settlements or
judgments on its behalf.” (See Ex-19). Despite Bisson’s
contention, he filed his appearance in this matter (Ex-
21).
29 Dep. Tr. pp. 26, Bisson, 14:10-15.
30 Dep. Tr. pp. 26, Bisson, 13:5-9.
31 Dep. Tr. pp. 26, Bisson, 13:5-9.
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 15 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 16
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
b. Bisson also filed his appearance in the stalking
petition brought by Gail Labuda, 32 a member of the Board
of Directors (Ex-22) and is listed as Sample’s witness in
a criminal matter pending against Sample, before the 9th
Circuit Court Manchester NH. (Ex-23). Sample assaulted
Lath on May 26.2016. (Ex-24).
c. Despite Adjuster Christina Hubbell from Liberty
Mutual denying coverage for “Association or any other
individuals or parties with a defense against the NHR33
complaint”, Bisson filed his appearance in that matter as
well. (Ex-26).
The pretext of refusing to accept Lath’s mail becomes clear
with the following instance. For e.g. Consider USPS package
advice 9405510200830887761710 (Ex-27). This package was
attempted to be delivered on October 28, 2016 as the slip
indicates. The package label (Ex-28) indicated, “customer pick-
up, clubhouse refuses to accept.” Lath did not report this
incident to Manchester Police until October 30, 2016 (Case 15-
018277). Defendant did not know about this report, until
November 09, 2016 anyways, as the redacted report obtained by
the defendant, indicates the date this report was printed, in
32 Case 456-2015-CV-00394, Labuda v. Lath, 9
th Circuit Court, Manchester NH
03102. 33 NHR- New Hampshire Commission for Human Rights.
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 16 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 17
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
the right-hand corner of the document.34 A third party request,
such as this, would mandate the police department to redact
Lath’s personal identifiable information.
On November 05, 2016, Cheryl Vallee refused to accept
another package of Lath, when Lath asked his friend and
neighbor, Barbara Belware, to pick up the package. Vallee “did
not leave the office to verify that Lath’s package was in the
mail room” but rather stated, “We do not have his package, how
do I know where they are?” Ex-31 (Aff. Barbara Belware). In a
request to post master, Stan Pressler of West Annex, Manchester,
Pressler confirmed the “package was scanned at the post office.”
(Ex-32).
EMPLOYEE DOROTHY VACHON’S ROLE IN MAIL FRAUD AND HER
PRETEXT
Dorothy Vachon was an employee at Oak Brook, had worked for
almost “five years” 35, as a receptionist,
36who reported to
Vickie Grandmaison.37 Vachon lives at “712 Northbrook Drive,
34 This document (Ex-29), was submitted by the Defendant during the discovery
phase of Case 216-2016-CV-327, Lath v. Oak Brook et.al., in response to
Request 18 (Ex-30). 35 Dep. Tr. pp. 148, Vachon 6:17-18.
36 Dep. Tr. pp. 148, Vachon 6:19-20.
37 Dep. Tr. pp. 148, Vachon 6:14-17.
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 17 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 18
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
Manchester, New Hampshire 03102.”38 Vachon is also Lath’s
neighbor.39
Vachon’s mailbox indicates two names, Dorothy Vachon and
Maurice Bourque. While Maurice Bourque is not her roommate,
Vachon still receives mail in her mailbox.40 Vachon also
testified that she does not own any other property besides unit
712.41
On August 16 2016, only two weeks before this testimony
offered by Vachon, she filed an affidavit at the Registry of
Deeds with the Hillsborough County, being the trustee for the
estate of Maurice L Bourque, which is subsequently recorded in
Book 8882, Page 1186 with the Registrar. (See Ex-34). In her
Affidavit, Vachon contends she is the “present trustee of the
Maurice L. Bourque Revocable Trust of 2013” (See Aff. At ¶ 1)
and “at the time of this conveyance as evidenced by the deed
recorded at Book 8579, Page 2387 of the Hillsborough County
Registry of Deeds.” (See Aff. At ¶ 4). The 2013 Quit claim deed
referenced in Vachon’s affidavit does not bestow this estate
upon Vachon. (See Ex-35).
Further Dorothy Vachon, alongside her husband, Gerard
Vachon executed a mortgage for property located at 721 Brent
38 Dep. Tr. pp. 148, Vachon 6:8-10.
39 Dep. Tr. pp. 161, Vachon 8:7-8
40 Dep. Tr. pp. 162, Vachon 9:1-16.
41 Dep. Tr. pp. 161, Vachon 11-12:23-1
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 18 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 19
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
Street in Manchester on August 20, 2015.(See Ex-36). In fact,
Dorothy Vachon engaged in multiple real estate transactions,
with and without her husband within the past few decades. See
Ex-37A and Ex-37B.
INTENT TO COMMIT FRAUD
“Mail fraud also requires the intent to defraud someone of
money or property.” See United States v. Thomas, 32 F.3d 418,
419 (9th Cir.1994); see also McNally v. United States, 483 U.S.
350, 356, 107 S.Ct. 2875, 2879-80, 97 L.Ed.2d 292 (1987); United
States v. Lewis, 67 F.3d 225, 233 (9th Cir.1995); United States
v. Bruchhausen, 977 F.2d 464, 467-68, 469 (9th Cir.1992).
The false or fraudulent representation was made, thru the
failure to disclose and/or notify that Defendants will not be
accepting Lath’s mail anymore. A material fact is one which
would reasonably be expected, to be of concern to a reasonable
and prudent person in relying upon the representation or
statement in making the decision.
Lath made an accommodation request, to Oakbrook office on
December 25, 2016, (Ex-38 ¶ 7) asserting that “In October
without any notice or warning, the Office Staff refused to
accept my mail. (See Tr. Dep. Grandmaison pp. 113, 101:8-17).
Grandmaison testified:
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 19 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 20
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
“I wouldn't have even looked at the package. As soon as I
asked who was it for and they would it was for Mr. Lath, I
said I cannot accept any of his packages due to the
circumstances, so whatever kind of packages. Now, I am
aware that the post office would leave your packages in the
clubhouse if nobody was in the office or UPS would leave
them in the clubhouse if no one was there so it's not
guaranteed that every single package was refused.” Id.
Mail for other similarly situated owners and residents were
and are being accepted. Lath indicated that he was “expecting
important medications.” (Ex-38 pp. 2 ¶ 4). 42Having received no
response, Lath sent a follow up request for an update on January
19, 2016.
On November 22, 2016, during the annual meeting Lath
interjected to ask Bisson (who facilitated the meeting), for an
alternate accommodation. The answer was published in the
meeting minutes (Ex-39) which reverberated Defendant’s previous
claims that “signing for packages and storage [of] packages is
not required, it is curtesy and the management has every right
to refuse to sign for packages” (Ex-39)
Defendant Bisson finally responded to Lath’s request on
January 20, 2016, stating, “Finally, you have accused the
Association’s staff of interfering with your mail delivery,
which the management team denies. ln the future, if the postal
service requires a signature for a delivery for you, the
Association’s staff will not sign for you. Thus, you should make
42 Lath suffers from Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome and has a tumor of
the brain See Ex-52
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 20 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 21
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
appropriate arrangements with the U.S. Postal Service.” (See Ex-
40, Bisson’s letter).
This is exactly what Lath did. He got a postal box at the
Hooksett, NH post office. See Ex-41 and Ex-42. (See also Tr.
Dep. Grandmaison, pp.98, 42:12-19, “I believe the attorney had
asked...communication should be through e-mail...”).
Grandmaison did not want Lath in her office. The scheme was
primarily to harass lath and put financial burden upon Lath.
Thru false representations made by the defendants, in the
promise to Lath, that packages will be accepted at the office,
the defendants deliberately disregarded the truth by stating
that the management is not required to sign for packages. This
was the plan devised amongst the Defendants, and their agents,
to deprive Lath of his mail, being delivered via an intrastate
mail carrier, such as USPS and sometimes thru private carriers
such as Fedex.
Defendants story changed, when they use the pretext that
Lath made accusations of office stealing his mail, as the reason
for their denial. Such deceitful statements of half-truths or
the concealment of material facts, or the expression of an
opinion that management, show a furtherance of this scheme,
which was not honestly entertained by the said Defendants, and
therefore constitute fraudulent statements.
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 21 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 22
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
The arrangement of words conveyed a deceptive appearance.
Further, the defendant was under a contractual obligation to
accept these packages, thru the orientation information, and
despite this legal obligation, Defendants failed to notify Lath.
The defendant’s intent manifested into “a willful act by the
defendant with the intent to deceive or cheat, usually [, but
not necessarily,] for the purpose of getting financial gain for
one’s self or causing financial loss to another.” United States
v. Howard, 619 F.3d 723, 727 (7th Cir. 2010); United States v.
Phipps, 595 F.3d 243, (2010)(“Mail and wire fraud are both
specific intent crimes that require the Government to prove that
a defendant knew the scheme involved false representations”);
United States v. Stalnaker, 571 F.3d 428, 436 (5th Cir. 2009).
DEFENDANTS’ GAIN FROM THE SCHEME IS IMMATERIAL
Defendants intended to defraud Lath of right to honest
services of receiving mail, where he lives. Lath does not have
to prove that the Defendants actually gained from this scheme of
fraud. The two phrases in the statute – “any scheme or artifice
to defraud” and “or for obtaining money or property by means of
false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises” are
not used in the disjunctive. See United States v. Monostra, 125
F.3d 183, 187 (3d Cir. 1997).
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 22 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 23
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
Congress added the second phrase to “simply [to make] it
unmistakable that the statute reached false promises and
misrepresentations as to the future as well, as other frauds
involving money or property.” See Monostra, 125 F.3d at 187
(quoting McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 359 (1987).
Defendant Bisson’s letter made it clear that Lath ought to “make
appropriate arrangements with the U.S. Postal Service.” (See
Bisson’s letter dated January 20, 2016.)
The scheme “need not be fraudulent on its face.” However,
it must involve “fraudulent misrepresentations or omissions
reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence
and comprehension.” United States v. Pearlstein, 576 F.2d 531,
535 (3d Cir. 1978). Lath relied and has been relying on the
management to accept packages.
More recently, it was discovered that the word “FAG” was
written Lath’s mailbox. See Ex-43.
It is “immaterial that the alleged victims may have acted
gullibly, carelessly, naively or negligently, which led to their
being defrauded.” United States v. Newmark, 2010 WL 850200 (3d
Cir. 2010). Despite Defendant’s assertion that Lath may have
made alternate arrangements, is immaterial.43
43 Dep. Tr. Grandmaison, pp. 114, 108:8-11
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 23 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 24
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 OVERRARCHING SCHEME
[T]he relevant inquiry is not whether the defendant acted
knowingly in making any misstatement, but whether she did so
with respect to the overarching fraudulent scheme-that is, the
particular “illicit enterprise” charged.” See United States v.
Dobson, 419 F.3d 231, 237 (3d Cir. 2005).
Grandmaison stated she “did not feel comfortable, if they
chose to [accept Lath’s mail], that was up to them.” Dot or
Dorothy Vachon, 44 and Cheryl Vallee
45, were never told to refuse
Lath’s packages. They “chose to”46 and “it was up to them.”
47
Vachon however testified that “Vickie Grandmaison and Scott
Sample. Bill Morey” told Vachon to refuse packages for Lath.48
To show an intent to defraud, we require a willful act by
the defendant with the specific intent to deceive or cheat,
usually for the purpose of ... causing financial loss to
another.” United States v. Sloan, 492 F.3d 884, 891 (7th
Cir.2007).
NOTICES OF OTHER CLAIMS IN RICO STANDING
Lath will submit to this Honorable Court separate Notices for
Defendants’ engagement in collection of unlawful debt,
obstruction of justice, collection of unlawful debt, violation
44 Dep. Tr. Grandmaison, pp.113-104:18-5 45 Dep. Tr. Grandmaison , pp.113, 103:21-23 46 Dep. Tr. Grandmaison pp.113, 103:21-23 47 Dep. Tr. Dep. Grandmaison pp.113, 103:21-23 48 Dep. Tr. Vachon pp.152, 22:11-17
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 24 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 25
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
of constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has repeatedly
emphasized that courts are vested with extensive equitable
powers to fashion appropriate remedies to redress unlawful
conduct.
In Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1
(1971), the Supreme Court stated:
“Once a right and a violation have been shown, the scope of
a district court’s equitable powers to remedy past wrongs
is broad, for breadth and flexibility are inherent in
equitable remedies.”
Defendants and its agents have engaged in predatory
practices, including using the “enterprise” to funnel their
unlawful monetary gains. Separate motions will be submitted to
this Honorable Court to show with adequate proof how the
defendants have achieved this goal for the past few decades.
Dated: November 28, 2016
Sanjeev Lath
/s/ Sanjeev Lath
Plaintiff, Pro se
P.O. Box 16192
Hooksett NH 03102
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 25 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 26
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
I certify that a copy of this document and all attachments
has been submitted to Attorney Gary Burt via his email
[email protected] for the following defendants, Cheryl Vallee,
Perry Vallee, William Quinn Morey, Christos Klardie, Vickie Lynn
Davis Grandmaison, Patty Taylor and Scott Walker Sample, Warren
Mills .
/s/ Sanjeev Lath
Plaintiff, Pro se
P.O. Box 16192
Hooksett NH 03102
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this document and all attachments
has been submitted to Attorney Sabin Maxwell via his email
[email protected] for the following defendant Betty
Mullen
/s/ Sanjeev Lath
Plaintiff, Pro se
P.O. Box 16192
Hooksett NH 03102
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 26 of 27
[NOTICE OF MAIL FRAUD] - 27
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
I certify that a copy of this document and all attachments
has been submitted to Gerard Dufresne of SHC Corporation bearing
his email [email protected]
/s/ Sanjeev Lath
Plaintiff, Pro se
P.O. Box 16192
Hooksett NH 03102
Case 1:16-cv-00463-LM Document 32 Filed 11/28/16 Page 27 of 27
