Complaint Flores-Clarkson V Koster Et Al ECF2 Publish

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M -BH Document 1 Filed 04/08/11 Page 1 of 70 PageID 1
CLERK US DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DIST. OF TX
FILED
IN UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
2011 APR –8 PM 2:38
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
DEPUTY CLERK _________
R. Lance FLORES, and

Vicki CLARKSON,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Scott Anthony KOSTER,

Kerim S. EMRE,
Thomas P. HARLAN,
Mark Alan GELAZELA a.k.a. Mark Zella,
William Chandler REYNOLDS,
Steven E. WOODS, CIVIL ACTION
Richard HALL,
Winston Jerome COOK,
ALICORN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC,
IDLYC HOLDINGS TRUST LLC (USA),
IDLYC HOLDINGS TRUST (New Zealand),
BMW MAJESTIC LLC, № 3-11CV-726-M
COOK BUSINESS SERVICES LLC,
BEREA INC, and
John/Jane DOE(s) 1-8,

Defendants,
and PLAINTIFFS’
IBALANCE LLC, ORIGINAL
GODSPEEDS ENDEAVORS LLC, COMPLAINT
GODSPEEDS, INITIATIVE LLC,
GODSPEEDS, ENTERTAINMENT,
SPIN ENTERTAINMENT,
Vladimir PIERRE-LOUISE,
Christine WONG-SANG, and
TULIN EMRE a.k.a. Tulin Tulay Reid, Solely
for the Purpose of Equitable Relief,
Nominal Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

CONTENTS
§ I PARTIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1 PLAINTIFFS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.1 Plaintiff, Rudolph Lance Flores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.1.2 Plaintiff, Vicki Clarkson.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2 DEFENDANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.1 Presently, Defendants Steven E. Woods, Mark A. Gelazela, BMW
MAJESTIC LLC, IDLYC HOLDINGS TRUST LLC, AND IDLYC
HOLDINGS TRUST and Nominal Defendant IBALANCE LLC are named as
defendants or relief defendants in a complaint filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Los Angeles Division, on
February 24, 2011, Case No. SACV11-00314, by the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission in what appears, at this time, to be an unrelated
case of similar nature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.2 Scott Anthony Koster individually and d/b/a Interlink Global
Messaging. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.2.3 Kerim S. Emre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2.4 Thomas P. Harlan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.5 Mark Alan Gelazela.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.2.6 William Chandler Reynolds.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.7 Steven E. Woods a.k.a. Steve Woods.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.8 Richard Hall.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.9 Winston Jerome Cook. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
1.2.10 Alicorn Capital Management, LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.11 Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC (IDLYC-USA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.12 Idlyc Holdings Trust (N Z). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.2.13 BMW Majestic LLC,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.14 Berea Inc... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.15 Cook Business Services LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.16 John/Jane Doe(s).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.3 NOMINAL DEFENDANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1.3.1 Vladimir Pierre-Louise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
ii
1.3.2 Christine Wong-Sang; President. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.3 Godspeeds Entertainment.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.4 Godspeeds Initiative LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.5 Godspeeds Endeavors LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.3.6 IBalance LLC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.7 SPIN Entertainment a.k.a. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.8 Tulin EMRE a.k.a. Tulin Tulay Reid.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.3.9 Defendants’ Conveyance, and Misappropriation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
§ II JURISDICTION– VENUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.1 DIVERSITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.2 PERSONAL JURISDICTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.3 VENUE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
§ III BACKGROUND & SUMMARY OF THE FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS. . . . . 15
3.1 THE INTERNET AGE GANGSTER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
3.2 THE INSURMOUNTABLE CIVIL PROSECUTION OF THE

MODERN MOB AND THEIR SUCCESS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.3 THE FIRST FRAUD SCHEME.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4 THE SECOND FRAUD SCHEME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3.4.1 The Syndicate’s international private placement program. . . . . . . . 22
§ IV STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.1 FIRST SOLICITATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 12/2/2009 - EMRE SOLICITS AND OFFERS FINANCIAL

SOLUTIONS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.3 12/10/2009 - 1ST FRAUD SCHEME (Alicorn/Idlyc/BMW Majestic). . . . . 36

4.3.1 The Solicitation & Alicorn Introduction – Koster/Idlyc Offer. . . . . . 36
4.4 8/30/2010 - KOSTER DESCRIBES THE BREADTH OF HIS

COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.4.1 Koster Describes His Enterprise. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.4.2 Koster’s Public Acclamation and Promotion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.5 12/11/2009 - PROFIT-SHARING AGREEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
iii
4.6 12/14/2009 - FIRST REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.7 12/15/2009 - SYNDICATE’S COMPULSION TO SOLICIT FUNDS.. . . 42
4.8 FALLACY & DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICE – 1ST Fraud Scheme –

The Alicorn/Idlyc/BMW Syndicate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.8.1 Modus Operandi.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.8.1.1 Fraudulent Inducement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.8.1.2 A Catalyst for the Fraud. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.9 12/14/2009 — 12/30/2009 KOSTER INITIATES A PATTERN OF

CAMOUFLAGED ARTIFICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.9.1 The First Straw Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.9.2 Second Straw Man.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.10 1/7/2010 - PAYOUT AND DEPOSIT SCHEDULE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.11 1/13/2010 - EMRE TAKES A 16.7% CUT OF FLORES’ PSP

EARNINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.12 1/13/2010 - FRAUD BEGINS WITH DELAYS, DECEIT, AND MORE

ARTIFICES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.12.1 1/13/2010 - DEFENDANT’S LONG SILENCE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.12.2 1/13/2010 — 1/25 2010 - LEGAL NOTICE: LEGAL RIGHT TO
RELY ON INTEGRITY AND HONESTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.13 1/26/2010 - THE THIRD MAN OF STRAW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.13.1 1/26/2010 - FIRST SELF-JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DELAY.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.13.2 2/3/2010 - NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS OF ACCUMULATING
DAMAGES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.13.5 DEFENDANTS CREATE A FACADE TO ELUDE PROOF. . . . 55
4.13.6 ESTABLISHING PSEUDO-LEGITIMATE RESOURCES. . . . . 55
4.14 2/4/2010 - DEFENDANTS’ FALSE PROOF OF PERFORMANCE.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.14.1 Notice of Delivery of Promised Proof of Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.15 2/4/2010 - KOSTER DELIVERS THE THIRD STRAW MAN. . . . . . . . 57
4.16 3/5/2010 - DEFENDANTS ARE INFORMED OF THE MOUNTING

DAMAGES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.17 DEFENDANTS’ BEGIN LONG CAMPAIGN OF DELAY AND
iv
DECEIT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
4.17.2 DEFENDANTS CONTINUALLY ARE INFORMED OF
DETERIORATING CONDITIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.18 3/15/2010 — 3/16/2010 - KOSTER & ATTORNEY CLAIM WITNESS

TO PERFORMANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.18.1 The April 2nd Scheduled Payout & Default.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.18.2 Defendants Exhibit Conscious Indifference to Silence, Concealment
& Non-disclosure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.19 EXTRINSIC FRAUD ATOP DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE.. . . . . . . . 63
4.20 3/26/2010 - KOSTER DECLARES 100% CONFIRMATION ARRIVAL

OF FUNDS IN U.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.21 3/26/2010 - DEATH KNELL TOLLS FOR PSP PARTNER. . . . . . . . . . 64
4.22 SYNDICATE/KOSTER BLAME HSBC FOR DELAYS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.23 3/26/2010 - KOSTER MAKES 2ND CONFIRMATION AND ADDS

ANOTHER HEDGE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.24 3/26/2010 - CANCELLATION EDICT FOR VOICING LEGAL ACTION

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.25 3/30/2010 — 4/14/2010 - 91ST DAY IN DEFAULT - 116TH

TRANSACTION DAY – DISCLOSURE REQUEST – TERMINATED
PARTNER SPEAKS OUT ABOUT IDLYC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.25.3 Koster’s Reinforce Previous Threat of Retaliation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.25.5 188TH DAY NOTICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.25.6 Koster acknowledges film project damages – suggests move to
commodities trade. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.26 4/22/2010 - KOSTER REPORTS SEC INVESTIGATOR SAYS

IDLYC CHECKS OUT – FUNDING IS IMMINENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.27 4/24/2010 - FLORES INFORMS IDLYC PRINCIPALS & KOSTER

OF THEIR INTRINSIC FIDUCIARY DUTY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.28 6/24/2010 - LEGAL NOTICE GIVEN - LEGAL DEFINITION -

DEFINING AND GOVERNING FIDUCIARY DUTY ARISE OUT OF THE
LAW OF EQUITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.29 EMRE’S REQUEST FOR IRS W9 FORM. PAYMENT SCHEDULE

UPDATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
v
4.30 May 5TH - COME TO JESUS TIME FOR MARK & CHANDLER
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.30.1 Non-disclosure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.30.2 Acquiescence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.31 KOSTER OFFERS GOLD BUY/SELL VALUE EQUIVALENCY

SUBSTITUTION FOR IDLYC PERFORMANCE IN DEFAULT. . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.32 4/29/2010 - PLAINTIFFS’ APRIL 29TH DEMAND FOR

PERFORMANCE & PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.32.1 FLORES APRIL 29TH DEMAND FOR PAYOUT
PERFORMANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.33 6/13/2010 - FLORES’ JUNE 13TH DEMAND FOR PERFORMANCE &

PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.33.2 Flores clearly sets forth the deficiencies in the Defendants’ actions,
and breach of their fiduciary duties.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.33.3 Defendants, having the opportunity, never respond.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.33.4 Non-disclosure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.34 6/29/2010 - CLARKSON’S CALL FOR VERIFICATION OF KOSTER’S

PURPORTED DEMAND LETTER TO IDLYC. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.34.1 CLARKSON’S 1ST REQUEST FOR A COPY OF KOSTER’S
PURPORTED IDLYC DEMAND LETTER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.34.2 6/30/2010 - CLARKSON’S 2ND CALL FOR A COPY OF KOSTER’S
PURPORTED IDLYC DEMAND LETTER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
4.34.3 6/30/2010 - CLARKSON’S 3ND REQUEST FOR A COPY OF
KOSTER’S PURPORTED IDLYC DEMAND LETTER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.34.4 KOSTER FAILS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS CONCEALING
THE INTERNAL ACTIVITIES OF THE SYNDICATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.34.5 Knowledge of Fiduciary Duty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.34.7 Defendants Fully Informed of Governing Laws. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.34.8 Non-disclosure & Silence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
4.35 6/30/2010 - KOSTER BMW MAJESTIC PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY -

USING THEIR OWN STRAW MAN. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
4.36 7/5/2010 – KOSTER WITHHOLDS EVIDENCE FROM FEDERAL

SEC INVESTIGATOR.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
4.37 7/8/2010 - LEGAL NOTICE TO KOSTER & HARLAN - FLORES

URGES KOSTER NOT TO WITHHOLD EVIDENCE FROM SEC. . . . . . . . . . 91
4.38 7/8/2010 - RESPONSE TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE - ADMITS
vi
TO WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE FROM FEDERAL INVESTIGATION... . . 92
4.39 7/9/2010 – 2ND LEGAL NOTICE TO KOSTER OF FEDERAL CRIMES

& OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
4.40 7/29/ 2010 - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DAMAGES AND HARM BY

SILENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.40.2 Flores July 29TH Msg., 222ND Day of Transaction - Notice of Damages
& Non-Performance.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.41 7/29-8/16/2010 – 2ND FRAUD SCHEME – GENESIS (Berea/Hall Gold

Buy/Sell). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.41.1 Conditions & Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.41.2 Plaintiffs Plan for Use of Gold Buy/Sell Funds for Critical Short-
Term Damage Recovery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.41.4 Contract Executed under Coercion and Duress. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.42 8/18/2010 - FLORES’ SIGNATURE WITHDRAWAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.43 8/24/2010 - KOSTER ESTABLISHES EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY TO

SIGN THE 1ST WIND-UP AGREEMENT - EVIDENCE OF AUGUST 16TH
DOCUMENT FORGERY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
4.44 8/25/2019 - NINE MONTH DEFAULT/FAILURE TO PERFORM

NOTICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
4.45 9/1/2010 10:43 AM - SCHEDULE FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

CALL W/GOLD TRADE COMPANY PRINCIPAL RICHARD HALL. . . . . . . 102
4.46 9/1/2010 12:01 AM - 2ND FRAUD SCHEME - DURING CONFERENCE

KOSTER INITIATES AN EXTORTION KICKBACK PLOT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.46.1 9/1/2010 12:01 AM - Richard Hall/Gold Buy/Sell Telephone
Conference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
4.46.2 9/4/2010 8:24 AM Flores Raises Issues with Koster Concerning the
Eugene Fletcher’s Control of the Payout Stream Raised During the
Teleconference. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
4.47 9/6/2010 11:10 AM – 2ND FRAUD SCHEME - THE SHAKEDOWN

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.47.1 Koster Reveals the Shakedown and the Eventual Take it or Loose
Everything Deal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
4.47.2 9/9/2010 - Childs Defines Procedures for the Richard Hall Gold Buy/sell
Instrument Transactions – Koster to Fund Escrow Account. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
vii
4.48 9/6/2010 - 2ND FRAUD SCHEME - JOHN CHILDS EMERGES AN
ACTOR IN THE SHAKEDOWN.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.48.1 John Childs Acknowledges Emre Had No Entitlement to Fee -- But
Would Aid in the Kickback for Emre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
4.48.3 9/7/2010 6:20 AM - John Childs Continues Extortion Sham Asserting
Claim to a Nonexistent Emre Agreement He Had Already Acknowledge Didn’t
Exist. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.48.4 9/7/2010 10:17 AM - Koster Continues Extortion Sham†4 Referring
to a Nonexistent Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
4.48.5 9/7/2010 11:05 AM, John Childs Advances a New Extortion and
Strikes out to Kill the Richard Hall/berea Gold Transaction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.48.6 9/22/2010 9:54 PM CST - Flores Gives Notice to Koster and Emre
That Emre Has No Wavier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
4.49 10/11/2010 - KOSTER ANNOUNCES READY TO EXECUTE GOLD

TRANSACTION - IDENTIFIES THE THREE PARTNERS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
4.50 10/19/2010 5:45 PM, - 2ND FRAUD SCHEME - THE RANSOM NOTE
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
4.50.2 10/19/2010 6:11 PM CST - Flores Responds to the Extortion
Demand.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
4.51 10/20/2010 6:49 PM CST - FLORES GIVES NOTICE OF BREACH OF

FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, INTERSTATE FRAUD, AND EXTORTION
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
4.52 10/21/2010 3:00 PM – CHILDS IDENTIFIES EMRE AS AUTHOR OF

EXTORTION DOCUMENT AND IN THE FRAUDULENT
REPRESENTATION OF CLARKSON AND IMPLICATES EMRE IN THE
EXTORTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
4.53 10/21/2919 - KOSTER WANTS A STOP OF LEGAL NOTICES “FOR

EVERYONE TO SEE”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
4.54 10/25/2010 - PLAINTIFFS DEMAND STATUS TERMS AND TIME-

LINE OF GOLD TRANSACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
4.55 PLAINTIFFS MAKE IMPASSIONED DEMAND FOR

PERFORMANCE ON THE GOLD BUY/SELL SETTLEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.56 11/2/2010 - CLARKSON’S NOVEMBER 2ND MSG. – DEMAND FOR

VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTATION OF GOLD TRANSACTION. . . . . . . . . . . 119
4.57 10/28/2010 - WINSTON J. COOK IS LOCATED AND QUARRIED

ABOUT IDLYC AND GOLD TRANSACTION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
viii
4.58 11/10/2010 - NOVEMBER 10TH/11TH FLORES/CLARKSON
DIALOGUE - INITIATION OF LITIGATION (copied to Scott A. Koster). . . . 121
4.59 11/11/2010 1:23 PM - KOSTER RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 11TH

CLARKSON/FLORES INITIATION OF LITIGATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122
4.60 KOSTER IMPLICATES RICHARD HALL, and TWO PARTNERS IN

CONVERSION, THEFT, AND CONSPIRACY OF PLAINTIFFS’ ONE-
THIRD (⅓) INTEREST IN THE GOLD TRANSACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.60.1 Koster Threatens and Acts to Attempts and Intentionally Tortuously
Interferes with the Gold Transaction Agreement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
4.61 11/11/2010 1:23 PM - KOSTER DECLARES HE CAN PROVE AND

DEFEND EVERYTHING IN A COURT OF LAW – LITIGATE OR GO AWAY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125
4.61.2 FEDERAL COURT DARE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
4.61.5 Koster Cannot Now Present Evidence and Seek a Defense. . . . . . 127
4.62 11/11/2010 - FLORES CALLS OUT KOSTER AND CONFRONTS

“EVERYTHING CAN BE PROVEN AND DEFENDED IN A COURT OF
LAW” CLAIM. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
4.63 11/12/2010 – KOSTER’S PATHOLOGICAL LYING AND

PSEUDOLOGIA FANTASTICA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
4.63.2.1 The Big Lie. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
4.64 I ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH STATEMENT AN

INDICATION OF PSEUDOLOGIA FANTASTICA... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
4.65 11/15/2010 - GARY GRAB’S LETTER - NOTICE OF INTENT TO JOIN

& PARTICIPATE IN SUIT AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION FROM
KOSTER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
4.65.1 Flores’ Tuesday, November 16TH Message Inquiring On Koster’s

Legal Counsel and Clarifying Legal Status of He and Clarkson.. . . . . . . . 134
4.65.2 Emre Is Given Opportunity to Provide Proof of the Gold Buy/sell
Legitimacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134
4.66 11/16/2010 4:26 PM - KOSTER RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS

ATTORNEYS’ DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. . . . . . . . . 135
4.66.2 11/16/2010 4:26 PM - Documents Produced Show Breaches of
Fiduciary Duties, Bad Faith, and Fraud by Koster, Hall and Cook. . . . . . . . . 136
4.67 11/17/2010 1:13 AM - DISCOVERY OF AUGUST 16TH & OCTOBER 18TH
ix
DOCUMENT FORGERIES IN SECOND DOCUMENT SET DELIVERY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
4.67.2 The August 16TH document forgery is fully described at ¶ , pg. ,
although the August 16TH document forgery was not discovered until Koster
delivered all three of the above documents over the wires by Internet e-mail to
Flores on November 17, 2010 at 1:13 AM.
4.67.3 The October 18TH Document Forgery. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
4.68 11/22/2010 - INTERNAL FINDINGS OF PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
4.69 12/1/2010 - DELIVERY OF TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE

PRACTICES ACT NOTICE & EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
4.70 1/21/2011 - THOMAS HARLAN EXTOLLS HIS PROFESSIONAL

EXPERIENCE AND ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT AND REVIEW OF
TEXAS DTPA NOTICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
4.70.5 EXPIRATION OF TIME TO RESOLVE TEXAS DTPA. . . . . . . 144
4.71 OPEN-ENDED CONTINUITY INVOLVING DISTINCT THREAT

OF LONG-TERM ILLEGAL AND ABUSIVE ACTIVITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
§ V CAUSES OF ACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.1 1ST CAUSE OF ACTION – FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT

AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster, Kerim S. Emre, Thomas P. Harlan, John
Childs, Mark Alan Gelazela, William Chandler Reynolds, Steven
E. Woods, ALICORN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC,
IDLYC HOLDINGS TRUST LLC (USA), IDLYC HOLDINGS
TRUST (NEW ZEALAND), BMW MAJESTIC LLC AND/OR
THEIR AGENTS. John/Jane Doe(s) (the “Syndicate
Defendants”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
5.2 2ND CAUSE OF ACTION – COMMON LAW FRAUD

AGAINST: All Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
5.3 3RD CAUSE OF ACTION – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

AND DECEIT
AGAINST: All Defendants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
5.4 4TH CAUSE OF ACTION – FRAUD BY NON-DISCLOSURE

AGAINST: All Defendants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
5.5 5TH CAUSE OF ACTION – AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD

AGAINST: All Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
x
5.6 6TH CAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF CONTRACT
AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster, Thomas P. Harlan, Kerim S.
Emre, and Alicorn Capital Management LLC.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151
5.7 7TH CAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY. . . . . . . 152

Defendants owed the Plaintiffs the following fiduciary duties.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
5.7.4 Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the
Plaintiffs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
5.8 8TH CAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY &

BREACH OF CONFIDENTIAL OR SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP
AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster, Richard Hall, Winston Jerome Cook,
Kerim S. Emre, John Childs, Thomas P. Harlan, ALICORN
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, BEREA LLC, and COOK
BUSINESS SERVICES LLC. (the “Gold Transaction
Defendants”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
5.9 9TH CAUSE OF ACTION – CONVERSION

5.10 10TH CAUSE OF ACTION – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH

EXISTING CONTRACTS
AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

PROSPECTIVE CONTRACT
AGAINST: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
5.12 12TH CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATIONS OF THE DECEPTIVE

TRADE PRACTICES ACT
AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster, Kerim S. Emre.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
5.13 13 TH CAUSE OF ACTION – PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

AGAINST: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
5.14 14TH CAUSE OF ACTION – PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL

AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster, Richard Hall, Winston Jerome Cook,
Kerim S. Emre, John Childs, Thomas P. Harlan, ALICORN
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, BEREA LLC, and COOK
BUSINESS SERVICES LLC. (the “Gold Transaction
Defendants”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
5.15 15TH CAUSE OF ACTION – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
xi
5.16 16TH CAUSE OF ACTION – CIVIL CONSPIRACY

5.17 17TH CAUSE OF ACTION – SECURITIES FRAUD (15 U.S.C. §78t(a) &
15 U.S.C. §78(j)(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5)
AGAINST: All Syndicate Defendants. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
5.18 18TH CAUSE OF ACTION - UNJUST ENRICHMENT /

CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
AGAINST: All Defendants.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
§ VI OTHER PLEADINGS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6.1 AGENCY & AUTHORITY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
6.2 RATIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
6.3 PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL/ALTER EGO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
6.4 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY & INTENTIONAL

INTERFERENCE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177
6.5 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR:

RACKETEERING (INVOLVING, inter alia, WIRE FRAUD, EXTORTION,
FORGERY, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE AND MONEY LAUNDERING)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
6.6 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR: FRAUD AND

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THIS FRAUD. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
6.7 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR: FRAUDULENT

CONCEALMENT OF FACTS UNDER DEFENDANTS’ CONTROL. . . . . . . 181
6.8 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR: BREACH OF

FIDUCIARY DUTY, INCLUDING THE DUTY TO DISCLOSE. . . . . . . . . . . 182
6.9 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR: JOHN/JANE

DOE(S) CONCERT OF ACTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
6.10 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR: INCLUSION

OF NOMINAL DEFENDANTS UNJUST ENRICHMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
6.11 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD: VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(b) OF THE
xii
EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 10-5.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
6.12 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD: VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 17(a) OF THE

SECURITIES ACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185
6.13 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD: VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5(a) AND 5(c) OF

THE SECURITIES ACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
6.14 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD: VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 1 5(a)(1) OF THE

EXCHANGE ACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188
6.15 CLAIM AGAINST THE NOMINAL DEFENDANTS AS

CUSTODIANS OF INVESTOR FUNDS AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT. . . 189
6.16 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD: ESTOPPEL BY SILENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190
6.17 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE. . . . . . . . 191
6.18 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD PRECLUSION FROM CLAIMING A BAR BY

LIMITATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
7.1 COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
7.2 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

7.2.1 DTPA RELIEF & DAMAGES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194
7.3 PRE- /POST- JUDGMENT INTEREST & ATTORNEYS’ FEES. . . . . 195
§ VIII REQUEST FOR ORDER PROHIBITING DESTRUCTION

OR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
§ IX PRAYER.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
xiii
R. Lance Flores Vicki Clarkson
Lead Attorney
3314 Pleasant Drive 2416 - 36 Street SW
Dallas, Texas 75227 USA Calgary, AB T3E 2Z5
Tel. (Dallas): +1 (214) 272-0349 Tel. (Calgary): +1 (403) 244-9980
Tel. (Fax): +1 (210) 519-6528 Tel. (Fax:) +1 (403) 246-3331
Attorney for the Plaintiff Attorney for the Plaintiff
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW, the Plaintiffs R. Lance Flores and Vicki Clarkson to file their Original
Complaint against Defendants Scott Anthony Koster individually and d/b/a Interlink
Global Messaging, Kerim S. Emre, Thomas P. Harlan, Mark Alan Gelazela a.k.a. Mark
Zella and d/b/a SPIN Entertainment, William Chandler Reynolds, Steven E. Woods a.k.a.
Steve Woods, Richard Hall, Winston Jerome Cook, Alicorn Capital Management LLC,
Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC (USA), Idlyc Holdings Trust (New Zealand), BMW Majestic
LLC, Berea Inc, Cook Business Services LLC, John/Jane Doe(s) 1-8, (collectively the
“Defendants”), and against Nominal Defendants Vladimir Pierre-Louise, Christine
Wong-Sang, Godspeeds Entertainment, Godspeeds Initiative LLC, Godspeeds
Endeavors LLC, IBalance LLC, SPIN Entertainment a.k.a. Mark Alan Gelazela a.k.a.
Mark Zella, Tulin EMRE a.k.a. Tulin Tulay Reid. In support thereof Plaintiffs allege the
following:
1
§ I PARTIES
1.1 PLAINTIFFS
1.1.1 Plaintiff, Rudolph Lance Flores (“Flores”), d/b/a Mockingbird Films
International (“MFI”), is an individual, a Texas resident, U.S. citizen, with his
principal place of business operation and activity in the City of Dallas, Dallas County,
Texas, USA.
1.1.2 Plaintiff, Vicki Clarkson (“Clarkson”), d/b/a Clarkson’s Classics, is an
individual, an Alberta resident, Canadian citizen, with her principal place of business
operation and activity in the City of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
1.2 DEFENDANTS
1.2.1 Presently, Defendants Steven E. Woods, Mark A. Gelazela, BMW
MAJESTIC LLC, IDLYC HOLDINGS TRUST LLC, AND IDLYC HOLDINGS
TRUST and Nominal Defendant IBALANCE LLC are named as defendants or relief
defendants in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Los Angeles Division, on February 24, 2011, Case No. SACV11-
00314, by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission in what appears, at
this time, to be an unrelated case of similar nature.
1.2.2 Scott Anthony Koster individually and d/b/a Interlink Global Messaging
(“Koster” or “Scott Koster” or “Scott A. Koster”), is the sole managing member of
Alicorn Capital Management, LLC. Koster is a resident of Mille Lacs County,
Minnesota, whose business address is 14391 80TH Street, Milaca, Minnesota 56353,
§I 2 20110202 O rgC m plnt F lores-C larkson v K oster et al.w pd

business phone numbers (763) 389-2018, (612) 916-7007, and Fax# (925) 407-8440.
Koster along with Gelazela and Woods subscribed investors for a bank guarantee
scheme through Alicorn Capital Management LLC, Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC, and
BMW Majestic LLC, with the cooperation, aid and abetment of, inter alios, Reynolds,
Harlan and Emre, created a private placement platform and bank guarantee funding
program. At times material to this Complaint, Koster was the Senior Partner with
exclusive control of a profit-sharing partnership (“PSP”) and defacto Investment
Advisor, and/or associated with an Investment Advisor, within the meaning and
contemplation of the securities laws of the United States, and through the course of
Koster’s acts, he is trustee ex maleficio arising from his wrongdoings and misdeeds.
Koster proximately caused damages and injuries thereby to the Plaintiffs as alleged
herein.
1.2.3 Kerim S. Emre (“Emre”), at times material to this Complaint was account
manager, agent and intermediary for Koster and Alicorn Capital Management LLC.
Emre’s last known address is 206 Baltimore Ave., Huntington Beach, CA 92648,
business telephone numbers are 714-408-8777, 714-408-4695, Fax # 951-231-9804.
Emre was the primary agent and contact to Koster’s/Alicorn’s Profit-Sharing
Partnership. Emre, as well, performed as account manager, defacto Investment
Advisor, and/or associated with Investment Advisor Koster, within the meaning and
contemplation of the securities laws of the United States, and through the course of
Emre’s fraudulent acts he is trustee ex maleficio arising from his wrongdoings and
misdeeds. Emre, proximately caused damages and injuries thereby to the Plaintiffs as
alleged herein.

1.2.4 Thomas P. Harlan (“Harlan”), at times material to this Complaint, Harlan
was Koster’s legal council who advised Koster throughout the racketeering enterprise
scheme and worked hand-in-hand creating the written instruments used in the fraud
process. Harlan is an attorney licensed to practice law by the State Bar of Minnesota
and is one of the founding shareholders of Madigan, Dahl & Harlan, P.A. (herein after
the “Firm”). He may be served at his last known address at Madigan, Dahl & Harlan,
P.A., Campbell Mithun Tower, 222 South Ninth Street South, Suite 3150, Minneapolis,
Minnesota 55402, Tel: 612-604-2589 (direct); 612-604-2000 (main), 612-604-2599 (fax),
harlan@mdh-law.com.
As well, at all times material to this Complaint, Harlan was one of the primary
actors in Koster’s Alicorn’s Profit-Sharing Partnership. Harlan performed as legal
advisor in the events related to the ALICORN-IDLYC-BMW MAJESTIC Syndicate
investment transaction and the ALICORN-BEREA/HALL Gold Buy/Sell transaction.
Thus, Harlan was the Investment Legal Advisor associated with Koster, within the
meaning and contemplation of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct and the
securities laws of the United States. Through the course of Harlan’s fraudulent acts he
is trustee ex maleficio arising from his wrongdoings and misdeeds. Harlan,
proximately caused damages and injuries thereby to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.
1.2.5 Mark Alan Gelazela (“Gelazela”) a.k.a. Mark Zella a.k.a SPIN
Entertainment. Gelazela’s last known address is 26 Marlwood Lane, Palm Beach
Gardens, FL 33418, but appears to be an actor-producer-screenwriter and resident of
Marina del Rey, California Ph. 310-770-2115, and at times material to this Complaint
Gelazela was:

1.2.5.1 Managing Member and the Registered Agent of Idlyc Holdings Trust
LLC, USA (IDLYC) 01/07/2010, FL – FEI/EIN # 271651047, located at 3677
Jasmine Ave., #10, Los Angeles CA 90034, USA;
1.2.5.2 Founder/Agent/Producer-Actor-Screenwriter of Godspeeds
Entertainment, 8577 SW 137 Ave., Miami, FL 33183 USA, (310) 770-2115, (310)
722-9351 Fax: 310-921-3800;
1.2.5.3 Registered Agent and a Managing Member of Godspeeds Initiative
LLC, 26 Marlwood Lane, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418, (310) 770-2115;
1.2.5.4 Registered Agent and a Managing Member of Godspeeds Endeavors
LLC located at 26 Marlwood Lane, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418, (310)
770-2115. Godspeeds Endeavors LLC is co-managed by Idlyc Holdings Trust of
New Zealand, 9 Melody Lane, Ruakura Road, Hamilton, New Zealand;
1.2.5.5 Managing Member of IBalance LLC, located at 26 Marlwood Lane,
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418;
1.2.5.6 Principal of SPIN Entertainment (SPIN) located at 3677 Jasmine Ave.,
#10, Los Angeles CA 90034, USA, (310) 770-2115.
At times material to this Complaint, Gelazela along Woods subscribed investors
for a bank guarantee scheme through Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC (USA), Alicorn
Capital Management LLC and BMW Majestic LLC. By Gelazela’s fraudulent acts he
is trustee ex maleficio arising from his wrongdoings and misdeeds, and proximately
caused damages and injuries thereby to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

1.2.6 William Chandler Reynolds (“Reynolds”) at times material to this
Complaint, Reynolds was a Managing Member of Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC, USA
(IDLYC); 01/07/2010, FL; FEI/EIN # 271651047, 3677 Jasmine Ave, # 10., Los
Angeles CA 90034, USA whose last known address is 26 Marlwood Lane, Palm Beach
Gardens, FL 334185. At times material to this Complaint Reynolds was the registered
agent of IBalance LLC, located at 26 Marlwood Lane, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
33418. At times material to this Complaint Reynolds’ was and continues as trustee ex
maleficio arising from his wrongdoings and misdeeds. Reynolds, proximately caused
damages and injuries thereby to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.
1.2.7 Steven E. Woods a.k.a. Steve Woods, (“Woods”) is a resident of Branson,
Missouri and the owner and principal of BMW Majestic LLC. Woods is not registered
as, or associated with, a broker-dealer. Woods, last known business address is 300
Terrace Rd, Branson Missouri 65616. Woods may be served through his registered
agent, Gary Allman, for BMW Majestic LLC located at Ste. 100, 101 State Drive,
Hollister, MO 65672, (417) 334-8101, Fax (417)334-8165,
garyallman@bransonlawyers.com. At times material to this Complaint Woods owned
and controlled BMW Majestic LLC (“BMW”) and subscribed investors for a bank
guarantee scheme through BMW with the cooperation and aid of, inter alios, Gelazela,
Reynolds, Koster and Emre who forma a purported private placement platform and
bank guarantee funding program. By Woods’ fraudulent acts he is trustee ex maleficio
arising from his wrongdoings and misdeeds. Woods, proximately caused damages and
injuries thereby to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

1.2.8 Richard Hall at times material to this Complaint was the CEO of Berea
Inc., #500, 3330 Cumberland Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30339 and may be served through the
Corporation’s Agent, Hendrickx Toussaint , #500, 3330 Cumberland Blvd., Alanta, GA
30339 - Tel: (770) 933-6269). At times material to this Complaint, Hall and other
corporate officers of Berea Inc. supervised the Alicorn PSP Gold Buy/Sell transaction
and subscribed investors in the profit sharing of the gold purchases and its sale,
financed by the investors for use of their bank guarantee, and initiated the removal of
the Plaintiffs one-third (⅓) interest in that transaction according to Koster. By Hall’s
collaborative fraudulent acts, he is trustee ex maleficio arising from his wrongdoings
and misdeeds. Hall, proximately caused damages and injuries thereby to the Plaintiffs
as alleged herein.
1.2.9 Winston Jerome Cook at times material to this Complaint was the CEO of
Cook Business Services LLC, 5710 Melanie Trail, Atlanta, GA, 30349-2853 – Tel. (770)
969-2217. At times material to this Complaint, Cook of Cook Business Services LLC
managed or supervised the Alicorn PSP Gold Buy/Sell transaction investors in the
profit sharing of the gold purchases and its sale, financed by the investors through the
debt funds owed to the Plaintiffs from non-performances and damages of the
ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW tranaction for use of their bank guarantee, and initiated the
removal of the Plaintiffs one-third (⅓) interest in that transaction according to Koster.
By Cook’s collaborative fraudulent acts, he is trustee ex maleficio arising from his
wrongdoings and misdeeds. Cook, proximately caused damages and injuries thereby
to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

1.2.10 Alicorn Capital Management, LLC (“Alicorn”), Scott A. Koster CEO, no
Agent listed, is a Minnesota limited liability company and the management company
for the subject financial transaction by and between, inter alia, the Idlyc Holdings
Trust LLC. Alicorn has its principal place of business located at 14391 80TH Street,
Milaca, Minnesota 56353, business phone numbers 763-389-2018, 612- 916-7007 and
Fax # 763-389-2018. Alicorn, inter alios, proximately caused damages and injuries
thereby to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.
1.2.11 Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC (IDLYC-USA), a Florida limited liability
company with its principal place of business in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida, is
partially owned and controlled by Gelazela. It is not registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in any capacity and it has not registered any offering of
securities under the Securities Act nor any class of securities under the Exchange Act.
Gelazela created this entity in the United States so that he could open a domestic bank
account under the “IDLYC” name. IDLYC-USA, inter alios, proximately caused
1.2.12 Idlyc Holdings Trust (N Z) is a New Zealand foreign trust for which
Gelazela is the settlor and a trustee. It is not registered with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission in any capacity and it has not registered any
offering of securities under the Securities Act nor any class of securities under the
Exchange Act. IDLYC Holdings Trust, inter alios, proximately caused damages and
injuries thereby to the Plaintiffs as alleged herein.

1.2.13 BMW Majestic LLC, (“BMW”) is a Missouri limited liability company with
its principal place of business in Branson, Missouri, is owned and controlled by Woods.
BMW Majestic LLC is registered as a Missouri restaurant and entertainment
company, and is not registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission in any
capacity and it has not registered any offering of securities under the Securities Act
nor any class of securities under the Exchange Act. Woods signed up investors for the
bank guarantee scheme through BMW.
1.2.14 Berea Inc., #500, 3330 Cumberland Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30339 and may be
served through the Corporation’s Agent, Hendrickx Toussaint , #500, 3330
Cumberland Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30339 - Tel: (770) 933-6269).
1.2.15 Cook Business Services LLC; (“CBS”) service may be had to company’s
registered agent Winston Jerome Cook at 5710 Melanie Trail, Atlanta, GA, 30349-2853
– Tel. (770) 969-2217).
1.2.16 John/Jane Doe(s), co-conspirators whose numbers are precisely not yet
known. Plaintiffs are not aware of nor can verify the true names and/or complete
capacities, and/or addresses of Does in the events related to the Complaint. Plaintiffs
therefore sue said aggregated and enumerated Doe Defendants by such fictitious
names because of Defendants’ torts, including but not limited to, non-disclosure,
fraudulent omission, negligent and intentional misrepresentations, and concealment of
material information which the Defendants had a duty to provide. Plaintiffs will seek
leave of this court to amend this complaint to include the true names and/or capacities
and/or service addresses of the defendants sued herein as Does, inclusive, when the
same have been ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereby allege,

that each of the defendants that are designated herein as a “Defendant Doe(s)” acted
in concert with each and every other defendant, intended to, and did, participate in
and cause the events, acts, practices and courses of conduct alleged herein, or,
alternatively, acted as the principal or agent of the other defendants or in the course
and scope of said employment or agency, and by and through the course of their
fraudulent acts, they are trustee ex maleficio, thus share obligation, obligatio ex
maleficio, arising from their wrongdoings and misdeeds, they proximately caused
1.3 NOMINAL DEFENDANTS
1.3.1 Vladimir Pierre-Louise; CFO/Secretary, Berea Inc., #500, 3330
Cumberland Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30339; Agent: Hendrickx Toussaint - Tel: (770)
933-6269).
1.3.2 Christine Wong-Sang; President, Berea Inc., #500, 3330 Cumberland
Blvd., Atlanta, GA 30339; Agent: Hendrickx Toussaint - Tel: (770) 933-6269).
1.3.3 Godspeeds Entertainment, 8577 SW 137 Ave., Miami, FL 33183 USA,
(310) 770-2115, (310) 722-9351 Fax: 310-921-3800.
1.3.4 Godspeeds Initiative LLC, 26 Marlwood Lane, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
33418, (310) 770-2115.
1.3.5 Godspeeds Endeavors LLC located at 26 Marlwood Lane, Palm Beach
Gardens, FL 33418, (310) 770-2115. Godspeeds Endeavors LLC is co-managed by
Idlyc Holdings Trust of New Zealand, 9 Melody Lane, Ruakura Road, Hamilton, New
Zealand.

1.3.6 IBalance LLC, located at 26 Marlwood Lane, Palm Beach Gardens, FL
33418.
1.3.7 SPIN Entertainment a.k.a. Mark Alan Gelazela a.k.a. Mark Zella located
at 3677 Jasmine Ave., #10, Los Angeles CA 90034, USA, (310) 770-2115.
1.3.8 Tulin EMRE a.k.a. Tulin Tulay Reid; 206 Baltimore Ave., Huntington
Beach, CA 92648, business telephone numbers are 714-408-8777, 714-408-4695, Fax #
951-231-9804.
1.3.9 Defendants’ Conveyance, and Misappropriation. Since December 18, 2009,
the Defendants transferred some of their illicit proceeds to others in the course of
their frauds.

§ II JURISDICTION– VENUE & CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
All conditions precedent to the Plaintiffs’ suit have been performed or have
occurred.
2.1 DIVERSITY. Jurisdiction of this Court is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332
since there is complete diversity, as well as supplemental jurisdiction over certain
pendant common law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. The elements of diversity
jurisdiction are satisfied as the parties in this case are citizens of different states.
Plaintiff Flores is domiciliary of Texas while Plaintiff Clarkson is a Canadian citizen of
Alberta, who desires to prosecute this action in the same venue, while Defendants are
domiciliary of different States. Accordingly, the parties to this action are completely
diverse. With regard to the amount-in-controversy requirement, Plaintiffs' amount-in-
controversy requirement is determinable to a "legal certainty" by prima face evidence
presented to the Court that Plaintiffs meet the threshold amount.1 Accepting the amount
pled as true, Plaintiffs' jurisdictional allegations satisfy the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §
1332.
2.2 PERSONAL JURISDICTION. Pursuant to Texas Long-Arm Statute the Court
sitting in diversity, may exercise personal jurisdiction over the nonresident Defendants
since the long-arm statute of Texas, the forum state, confers personal jurisdiction over
the Defendants. The exercise of such jurisdiction by The State of Texas is consistent with
1
See St. Paul Reinsurance Co., 134 F.3d at 1253.
§ II 12 20110202 O rgC m plnt F lores-C larkson v K oster et al.w pd

due process. The Due Process Clause permits the Court to exercise personal jurisdiction
over the nonresident Defendants because the Defendants have purposefully and willfully
availed themselves of the benefits and protections of the State of Texas by establishing
“minimum contacts” with the State through selective and continuous and substantial
communications to Flores in Dallas County. Thusly, the exercise of jurisdiction by this
Court over Defendants does not offend "traditional notions of fair play and substantial
justice."2
The issue of personal jurisdiction is prima facie evident there is no need for
evidentiary hearing as the court must accept as true all uncontroverted allegations in the
complaint, and any factual conflicts must be resolved in favor of the Plaintiffs.3
The Defendants’ nonresident contacts4 were so extensive over in the period material
to this case, that the Defendants should have had reasonably expected, and, in fact, did
expect,5 to be hauled into a federal court in Texas.6
2
“… the exercise of jurisdiction over that defendant does not offend “traditional notions of fair play
and substantial justice.” Latshaw, 167 F.3d at 211 (quoting International Shoe Co. v. State of W ashington,
326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945).
3
Bullion v. Gillespie, 895 F.2d 213,217
4
See Busch v. Buchman, Buchman & O'Brien, Law Firm, I 1 F.3d 1255, 1258 (5th Cir. 1994)
(citing cases); also, Quilling v. Stark, № 3-05--4-CV-1976-L, 2006WL 1683442 at*2 N.D. Tex. Jun. 19,2006).
5
e.g., Failing to affirmatively respond or to resolve Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act notice
(¶ 4.70.4, pg. 144); by actions essentially daring Plaintiffs to challenge Defendants through litigation, in
order to force their fiduciary duty to disclose, &c., (¶ 4.61, pg. 125); and, refusing to negotiate settlement
until Plaintiffs provided a case number from a complaint. Thomas P. Harlan: “I will await to see the
complaint regarding the issues that you are alleging and the damages that you seek.” et seq. Exhibit 121.
Koster was already informed that Plaintiff had intended to file in the U.S. Dist. Ct. Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, thus, by their acknowledgment and silence they acquiesced to this Court’s
jurisdiction.
6
W orld-W ide Volkswagen, 444 U.S. at 297, 100 S.Ct. at 567; see Haisten, 784 F.2d at 1397.

2.3 VENUE. The venue is proper in that the vast majority of the events giving
rise to the claims iterated herein occurred in Dallas County, Texas. The balance of
the business relationship has been established in Calgary, Alberta, Canada to which
the Canadian plaintiff asserts her venue preference to be the U.S. District Court,
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division located in Dallas County, Texas.

§ III BACKGROUND & SUMMARY OF THE FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS
This suit involves two separate frauds, theft of money activities, imparting
racketeering acts of, inter alia, coercion, extortion, forgery, obstruction of justice, and
wire fraud, ensuing out of two separate financial investment transactions involving an
international transactional funding process in the order of Twenty-five Billion Dollars
($25,000,000,000 USD) with just over twenty (20) principals.
3.1 THE INTERNET AGE GANGSTER. The Internet has given rise to a modern
form of organized crime that has made significant departures from the conventional gang.
The evolution is comparative to differences between the Russian Mafia and the Italian
Mafia styles of criminal employment. The modern Internet form is even more global
reaching and its behavior is more akin to the Russian Mafia which is more dynamic and
amorphous than is the well-established Italian Mafia which adheres to an astringent
hierarchical organization. This difference makes the Internet-based gangster more
effective and illusive to track without the use of sophisticated digital and network forensic
tools.
This modern criminal gestalt takes full advantage of the ephemeral nature of the
Internet and the commercial and social dependency of the World Wide Web. These
criminal organizations readily integrate whatever international criminal resources
necessary to emerge only for a duration necessary to accomplish an individual criminal
pursuit, then move on. Internet criminal enterprises necessarily make use of legitimate
commercial entities and their financial resources for operating in an emulsified
legitimate/quasi-legitimate/criminal mixture and focus on sophisticated complex
§ III 15 20110202 O rgC m plnt F lores-C larkson v K oster et al.w pd

white-collar crimes almost exclusively. They frequently involve activities like insurance
fraud, credit card fraud, stocks and investment securities using the same tools as its
criminal parentage such as fraud, extortion, forgery, money laundering, wire fraud,
obstruction of justice, or otherwise, the elements of racketeering much more effectively.
Such structures can emerge, evolve and vanish, then reappear to suit the opportunity.
They involve the equivalent of a loosely tied Capo or Wise Guy supporting membership in
the structure. The one exception, is the necessary role of the Consigliere equivalent. This
player is one of the few location bound entities the organization may require. This position
is most often filled by individual lawyers or small partnerships, though on occasion, small
firms with partners having a strong mutual trust between the firm’s attorney and their
clients. The Internet lawyer exerts less influence than the older world Consigliere in the
administration of the business of the organization. Nonetheless, the modern gangster
attorney plays a vitally important role in the legal Petri dish of modern organized crime.
Internet crime control is illusive at best, and there is little doubt that Internet law
primarily addresses privacy7 concerns. This provides a safe haven for the Internet
criminal. The modern fraud criminal’s ability to load or discharge from one safe berth to
another berth has confounded almost every federal Circuit Appellate Court, save the
Ninth Circuit, which has managed to find a very small procedural fissure in the statutory
polder of the Decency Act . The modern Consigliere is well aware of this, and given
difficulty inherent in prosecuting fraud in either the civil or criminal significance, the
attorney maneuvers his client through the quagmire by influencing his client’s strategic
7
The Communications Decency Act (the “Decency Act”)

planning and creating slippery legal instruments that best effects the clients’ deceptive
trade practice and operational tactics. Additional necessary roles provided to the criminal
enterprise, are the protections provided to relationship by attorney/client privilege, public
perception, standing, and visibility in the community. They often serve as the liaison
between the ringleader and influential figures or legitimate individuals and entities.
3.2 THE INSURMOUNTABLE CIVIL PROSECUTION OF THE MODERN MOB
AND THEIR SUCCESS. Internet gangsters and even lone Internet criminals are aware
of the difficulty of mounting a successful suit against them. Likewise, they have even less
fear of state or federal authorities assisting their victims. They know well that
complainants will rarely get past the intake officer of any agency. The indifference to
individual citizen complaints to officials in federal agencies, assures the modern criminal
their crimes will pay off. A recent example, is, after the many red flags that might have
tipped officials off to Bernie Madoff’s fraud, and eight SEC investigations8 over sixteen
years, Madoff was not caught; it took essentially, a national financial catastrophe before
Madoff was caught and prosecuted.
Essentially, without overwhelming proof of the fraud particulars, it is difficult to get
past Rule 9(b), which the crime group’s attorney will surly attack with vigor, knowing full
well that no one will freely hand over evidence. All this makes criminal investigation
difficult, and civil action nearly insurmountable because of the very nature of the fraud
artifice, and the higher pleading standard required for fraud. This particular civil
8
M adoff Chasers Dug for Years, to No Avail
Regulators Probed at Least 8 Times Over 16 Years; Congress Starts Review of SEC Today;
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123111743915052731.html

procedure and agency indifference, is exploited by the illusive crime organization when
these complex and sophisticated networks are involved in litigation.
3.3 THE FIRST FRAUD SCHEME. The first fraud scheme is an international
investment private placement program built around a large complex structure of recently
created, established, and inactive entities. The scheme included the cooperation of other
entities used for funneling monies into the Defendants’ operation and for the distribution
and laundering of funds†6 out of the organization. The enterprise is operated as a single
association-in-fact international syndicate9 (the “Syndicate”); much of the operation
related in the instant cause beginning just prior to December18, 2009 (see figures below).
The Syndicate uses some legitimate financial machinery and instruments to lever large
funds from “prime” banks. The organization then conceals the funds, never paying out the
investors. The network construct of the Syndicate is quite complex like most white-collar
organized crime engaged in racketeering. It is a dynamic part of the operation continually
adding pipelines for the movement and distribution of funds. The following diagram is by
no means complete because of the Plaintiffs’ delayed discovery, but establishes the depth
and complexity of the Alicorn/Idlyc/BMW Majestic Syndicate. Prior to the collaboration
of the Gelazela-Reynolds-IDLYC and Woods-BMW Majestic enterprises with the Koster-
ALICORN group, both Reynolds and Gelazela had created a number of companies and
networks of their own. Koster eventually collaborated with IDLYC and BMW to form the
9
See FN 23; Alicorn/Idlyc/BMW as RICO Association-in-Fact Enteprise

Syndicate with his attorney handling much of the Syndicate’s and Koster’s “issues”. See
illustrations below.
The Minnesota-based Koster developed numerous mechanisms to conceal the vast
majority of his operation with the aid and collusion of Kerim S. Emre, Thomas P. Harlan,
and John Childs. The facts below will establish the operational nature of this unified
collective (the “Collective”) that has evolved its own persona which comports to accord
with, and facilitate, the attainment of their business objectives and forms the
organization’s culture. The Collective exhibits an aggregate collective narcissism10 which
reflects what appears to be an elemental malignant narcissism11 expressed by individual
members. One of the shared characteristics among the Collective’s members, is their
frustratingly pleonastic employment of a doublespeak vernacular they have developed,
and use relentlessly. Koster, Emre, and Childs use their evasive language as a
prevarication, to create intentional misunderstanding, or as a vague response to avoid
Plaintiffs’ questions. They also use this technique in replies or reports in messages that
they wish to infer different meanings than that which was intended by the Plaintiffs. The
second trait shared among Koster, Emre, Harlan, and Childs is their Collective
identification that seems bound by a common emotional investment in the unrealistic
belief of invincibility and their self-absorbed social importance. Koster’s reactive behavior
of heightened arrogance is often expressed in verbal or messaging exchanges with the
Plaintiffs’ concerning their demands for proof and production. It is often a predictor of his
10
Golec de Zavala, A., Cichocka, A., Eidelson, R., Jayawickreme, N. (2009). "Collective Narcissism
and Its Social Consequences". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 97 (6): 1074–96.
doi:10.1037/a0016904. PMID 19968420.
11
Fromm, Erich, The Heart of Man, 1964; see also,

evoked hostility. All of the Collective’s members seem to react with enmity in response to
criticism of the group. The Plaintiffs’ continual demands for adherence to fiduciary duty
appears to challenge the Collective’s integrity and a threat to the group's positive image
to which they react aggressively. Upon disinterested observation and examination of the
pleadings, and the evidence incorporated from the exhibits, the observer will readily
identify and assimilate these attributes as the unvarying and habitual method of the
Collective’s operating procedure.
Koster aided by the Firm’s lawyer, Thomas Harlan, created various instruments that
would lead most of the Collective’s clients to believe they had no recourse if ALICORN
failed to perform, even if the program was riddled with fraud and entrenched corruption.
Koster used Childs as his primary resource for the purchase of financial instruments, and
Childs advanced himself as an independent contractor. Nonetheless, Childs would engage
Koster’s clients as an ALICORN agent, often working closely with Koster’s clients as
would an account manager.
Emre on the other hand, was presented by Koster as a broker who managed the client
account. Emre solicited, advised and managed the account. Moreover, Emre’s primary
function was as the Front Man that ran interference for Koster. Emre maintained a
canopy of anonymity for Koster, and aided in the concealment of the company’s activities.
Though Koster always referred to Emre in the context of Emre’s relationship with the
Plaintiffs as a broker, Emre seemed to resent being “the broker”. As the Syndicate’s
transactions became more involved, and Emre completely managed the Plaintiffs’
account, and other functions for the Syndicate, the more Emre seemed to assume, or to
be given, the more important role of an Underboss in the Syndicate. It was initially

impossible to contact Koster directly. Koster exclusively used conference calls with Emre
which he represented the phone number to be the company’s main number. Later it
would be uncovered, that it had been Emre’s cell phone in which he used three-way-
calling to simulate an office phone network. It wasn’t until Clarkson discovered and
informed Flores (Exhibit 50) about Koster’s cell phone number appearing in an
advertisement (Exhibit 51) unrelated to Koster financial business.
3.4 THE SECOND FRAUD SCHEME. The second fraud consists of a
ALICORN/HALL/BEREA/CBS Gold Buy/Sell program (the
“ALICORN/HALL/BEREA/CBS Enterprise”), which was purportedly substituted for
the performance failure of the first program. It was actually used to dissuade, delay or
otherwise disrupt Plaintiffs investigation and eventual litigation. The second motive for
the delay was to allow time for the moving of assets, and to give members of the Syndicate
time for covering up and purging of physical and other circumstantial evidence.
The substitute schema would evolve into another unlawful taking of the Plaintiffs’
revenues generated from the Richard Hall/Berea Gold Buy/Sell transaction. Both of the
schemes were contrived, and both, nothing less than mala in sese.
Moreover, the second artifice was created as a tool to delay, dissuade or otherwise
prevent the discovery of the larger international scheme that came under intense scrutiny
by the Plaintiffs. Koster and Emre were aware of the Plaintiffs’ intense investigation of
their syndicate operations, and they continued a pattern to impede those investigations.
Koster came into conflict with Flores after Koster stated he was questioned by SEC
authorities and later withheld information concerning wire and telephone communications

with Woods and Gelazela. Flores, admonished Koster on several occasions about Koster’s
intentional obstruction of justice and pressed Koster to cease aiding and abetting the
other members of their Syndicate operation and their commissions of crimes. Flores,
stated to Koster, that Koster had first hand information and other evidence, which he
withheld from the Plaintiffs as well. Flores expressed that he would inform the SEC if
Koster would provide to him the evidence. However, Flores stated he couldn’t approach
the SEC or Justice Department with only heresy. By all accounts, Koster, Harlan, Childs
and Emre were aware of the criminal objectives of the Syndicate. Shortly thereafter, it
became apparent to the Plaintiffs that Koster, Harlan, Emre, and Alicorn were
inextricably intertwined with the activities of Woods, Reynolds, Gelazela, Idlyc and BMW
Majestic.
3.4.1 The Syndicate’s international private placement program incorporated
financial transactional funding12 in the order of Twenty-five Billion Dollars U.S.
($25,000,000,000 USD) with twenty (20) principals according to Koster. The said
transactional funding platform and related financial instruments were created within
an association-in-fact business enterprise in which Defendants Woods, Gelazela,
Reynolds, Koster, Harlan, and Emre presented security for investment funds based
on a stated written bank guarantee on a Deutsche Bank SBLC instrument and
monetization of that SBLC through HSBC Hong Kong.
12
Transactional funding “… Essentially, this is a type of service where investors … are given the
opportunity to use a type of loan called the bridge loan, that allows you to undertake the simultaneous
closings safely and with the backing of money provided by the loan. … With transactional funding and the
bridge loan under it, you are already conducting valid closings that give you the opportunity to make money
out of opportunities in the form of simultaneous closings.” Source: Duncan W ierman - Author:

3.4.2 The Defendants promised returns on the investment trades which were
alleged to have been scheduled trades with subscribed associated buyers. The SBLC
instrument was reportedly transmitted to and receive by HSBC Hong Kong and
returns paid to a New Zealand company and reported to have been paid to certain
U.S. principals. The balance which was due to the Plaintiffs and others, was not paid
and was alleged to have remained in Hong Kong or transmitted elsewhere to avoid
paying investors and thereby effecting a laundering scheme of the Defendants ill-
gotten funds. The Alicorn profit-sharing partnership consisted of about four partners,
of which Flores one, and Clarkson his partner. The Syndicate used Koster’s Alicorn
Capital Management LLC company as a funneling tool overseen by Koster to move
funds into the IDLYC/BMW investment platform. The following Gelazela and
Reynolds corporate networks diagrams, and the schematic of the Syndicate and
ALICORN/HALL/BEREA/CBS Enterprise, illustrate the architecture and process
of the two fraud schemes, becoming eventually concurrent in their operation. The
Defendants used a complex network of their companies and other indirect network
resources to accomplish their theft of money, frauds and alleged criminal activities.
3.4.3 The Syndicate schematic, and the ALICORN/HALL/BEREA/CBS
Enterprise below, is deduced from digital and Internet forensic investigation,
documentary, and other evidence of which some accuracy is dependent on
representations made by the Defendants.

Figure 1 William Chandler Reynolds Corporate Network
Source: CorporationWiki.com
Figure 2 Gelazela – Reynolds Corporate Network Interface

The ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW MAJESTIC Syndicate
&
the ALICORN/HALL/BEREA/CBS Enterprise
Figure 3 Criminal Networks Map

3.4.4 Flores’ purpose for position as a partner was to extend negotiated
commercial primary funding from a well-established international developer, source of
his primary funding, for a slate of motion pictures consisting of five producers, having
responsibility to five production crews, related talent and other resources. Among the
groups affected by the Defendants fraud is the Nez Perce Nation and the Affiliated
Tribes of the Northwest. The groups’ have made great efforts, and commitments
toward the production of the film Blanket of the Sun, a project of one of the producers.
Their efforts and commitments included three thousand participants from the Tribes
and the Nation, use of their sacred lands, period wardrobe and effects, all in the
dedication to this people’s intention to a long forestalled preservation of their culture.
Additionally, the use of funds from the primary funding included initial purchase of
facilities in San Antonio, Texas in which the local government had gone to extensive
efforts to accommodate the development of the production facilities and related
production needs. Flores had alternative sources to secure the funding from the
international developer, however, the Defendants assured Flores they would deliver
their payout in sufficient time for Flores to secure his primary funding, as their
financial product was secured by a written guarantee from a large international bank.
Koster and Emre were well aware and had full understanding of the liabilities and
rigorous requirements for scheduled payments.
3.4.5 Scott Anthony Koster, Mark Alan Gelazela, William Chandler Reynolds,
Thomas P. Harlan, Kerim S. Emre, and Steven E. Woods, inter alios, established the
international Alicorn-Idlyc-BMW Majestic Syndicate, then, after receiving
partnership funds, expropriated all control over the funds, and secreted or otherwise

censored documents and information as well as the dissemination of the information
legally due the Plaintiffs. Defendants through an enterprise of their creation, engaged
in the international scheme extending from the United States across the Pacific to,
among other places, Hong Kong, People's Republic of China (PRC); Manila, Republic
of the Philippines; Australia; Canada; and New Zealand to eventually defraud the
Plaintiffs and others through false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, and
promises.
Koster, by his own accounts, funneled the monies of the profit-sharing partnership
into the large financial transaction, through Idlyc Holding Trust LLC into the control
of Gelazela, Reynolds, Woods and BMW Majestic LLC. A self-styled boss in the
financial industry, Koster saw himself having equal footing with Gelazela, Reynolds
and Woods, and joined the Syndicate conspiracy and intentionally, willfully, and by
design, established his place in the enterprise whose aggregate and components were
mere tools or business conduits of one-another.
3.4.6 Kerim S. Emre by his own account “negotiates direct buys from major
motion picture and television studios” in his position as “VP of Marketing”.13 Gelazela
also goes by his Hollywood alias “Mark Zella”, and purports to be a resident of
Marina del Rey, California actor, producer, and screenwriter. Both Emre and
Gelazela appear to be intimately engaged with the film and television industries and
would be aware of the damages and harm Defendants would, and eventually did, inflict
upon the Plaintiffs. Emre, worked directly with Koster promoting their financial
13
Exhibit 16

products and managing the Plaintiffs’ account. Koster, Gelazela, Reynolds, Woods,
Harlan, and Emre through their Syndicate hatched a labyrinth of fraudulent plans to
form a private placement platform and bank guarantee funding program. The
program extensively used the telephone voice wires and the Internet to execute and
further the scheme to defraud the Plaintiffs.
3.4.7 Flores was contacted by Kerim Emre who represented a company,
inferring the due diligence effort from another and separate project of which Flores
was familiar. Emre offered his "private placement instruments" that would enable
short term payments needed to increase the size of the security instrument to Flores’
funding provider, Prosperity International LLC. The enlargement of the loan was
needed for the increased cash flow requirements for a completed motion picture film’s
prints and advertising.
3.4.8 In the instant case, the Syndicate operated much like the highly publicized
Bernie Madoff who kept investors happy by sending statements showing good, steady
returns to a few people and sending bogus reports out, which prosecutors said were
fiction. Similarly, Koster made assurances, promises, and commitments of the security
and status of the partnership’s financial instrument in an even larger scheme.
Defendants promulgated the solicitation and promotion of their financial products,
advancing the same business model and operational attributes of themselves14 directly
influencing and impinging upon the social fabric and the public good through their
14
“W e [Alicorn Capital Management LLC] can provide a proven track record in all of these fields,
with full disclosure and transparency.” (emphasis added) See, Exhibit 19

fraudulent inducement. (e.g., Exhibit 16, Exhibit 17, Exhibit 18, Exhibit 19, Exhibit 20,
Exhibit 21)
3.4.9 Within weeks after the transaction start of December 18, 2009, Koster
began a pattern of omissions, and misrepresentations refusing to provide proof of his
status reports and denying access to any verifiable documents that would demonstrate
the legitimacy of his claims. When a demand became heated, Koster manufactured a
Straw Man to distract and delay the delivery of proof to the Plaintiffs. Koster in the
end, refused to consider providing verification, saying that doing so would consume his
time and he considered such to be "babysitting" as he had other important business
commitments requiring his full attention.
3.4.10 Plaintiffs relentlessly gave Koster and the Defendants legal notice of civil
and criminal law, including Koster’s duties as a fiduciary, and the liabilities from the
damages that resulted by his flagrant disregard for regulations, statutes, and
obligations. Defendants were given legal warnings based on clearly asserted facts or
legal principle over a period in excess of fifteen months to which Koster responded
only by silence. Legal warning provided well-supported citations of law and precedent
so that Koster, Harlan, and their associates in the Syndicate would be fully informed
and have complete cognisance and understanding of their actions. Koster, Harlan and
Emre, in behalf of themselves and their associates in the Syndicate, remained
arrogant and unresponsive, refusing to alter their otherwise unlawful or illegal
behavior.
3.4.11 After months of continuous inquiries and demands for verifiable
documentation of the transactions concerning the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW

transaction, Koster, Childs and Emre only replied with phone calls and e-mail
intimating that the funds would be delivered, maintaining their position not to produce
any verifiable documents or information. These tactics would persist for both the
IDLYC/BMW transaction, which Koster eventually, some how, dissociated, and the
substituted Richard Hall/Berea Gold Buy/Sell transaction until a recent demand for
production of documents, as fully set forth in the recital of the facts below.
3.4.12 Koster was continually informed of the substantial damages being accrued
as a result of failures to perform and the continued delay of those performances
resulting in lost revenues and losses related to missing critical marketing windows. As
well, Koster had full knowledge of the potential loss to Flores of his original $100MM
funding instrument for which Flores, relying on Emre’s and Koster’s assurances and
statements of the bank guarantees, released his collateral for the primary funding
instrument which was lost at the end of February of 2010. Again, when the PSP
defaulted the second time, Flores lost a second funding source of $165MM in March
because of the Defendants performance default. Though Flores castigated the
Defendants concerning the harm they were inflicting upon communities, crews, casts
production people and other communities by their unconscionable conduct,
Defendants remained unmoved and unconcerned by the damages and harm their
actions had inflicted. To this, Defendants responded that these people would come
crawling back later, intentionally affronting Flores’ personal and professional
responsibility concerns and sensibilities from which the collective damages, and
further ensuing harm and malice of the Defendants, brought about this litigation.

3.4.13 On or about June 14, 2010, Koster purported to have exchanged the Alicorn
PSP performance liability for the partnership’s placement into Richard Hall’s "Gold
Buy/Sell" transaction which “would be levered up” to reach the promised IDLYC
returns. Then on or about August 4, 2010 Mr. Emre stated that the first payment from
Flores’ Gold Buy/Sell participation would occur on August 10, 2010.
3.4.14 It wasn't until September 1, 2010 at or about 12:23 PM CST, that the
intermediary agent or facilitator of the Gold Buy/Sell transaction, Richard Hall, was
introduced on a conference call with Koster, affirming the participation of Flores in
the substituted Gold Buy/Sell transaction. However, the September 1st meeting was
already twenty-two days past the stated transaction date and no buy/sell agreement
had been delivered. Promises were made by Emre and Koster counseled by Harlan,
that the transaction would be resolved to the Plaintiffs’ satisfaction. Nonetheless,
Defendants’ continued their breaches of their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty.
3.4.15 Even after all that had transpired, Koster, aided by Harlan, attempted to
sneak through a measure to take Plaintiffs out of the direct returns of the Gold
Buy/Sell transaction which Defendants promised and Plaintiffs agreed upon.
Defendants stealthily replaced the initial understanding and agreement with only a
loan payoff for an Intermediary who would take the profits instead. In response,
Flores and Gary Grab, attorney at law, representing Clarkson, jointly demanded
production of the Gold Buy/Sell transaction partnership agreement, a copy of the
SBLC instrument, and the Gold Buy/Sell contract. Koster insisted the documents
were being generated by Richard Hall and would be delivered shortly thereafter.
Though copies of several documents were delivered to Flores, no copies of the

requested financial instruments with the information requested by Flores and Grab
were delivered. It is factually apparent, given the evidence at hand, that the acts of the
Defendants, relating to the Gold Buy/Sell transaction (the "Gold Transaction"), were
made with malice aforethought and the willful intent of constructive fraud, by and
through Defendants’ breach of fiduciary duty, their fraud in the factum, fraud in the
inducement, fraud in law, and actual fraud.
3.4.16 Further factual exploration of these events, unveil Defendants’ deceptive
intent and outcome that were intentional, willful and contrived and executed by
interstate wires over the telephone and Internet and is proof of intended detrimental
reliance being among the sine qua non requirements of satisfying the proximate cause
of Defendants fraud.
3.4.17 Plaintiffs have made every effort to resolve this issue to no avail and have
no alternative but to bring this Complaint before the Court for resolution of the issues
presented herein.
WHEREFORE, pursuant to the requisite specificity set forth by FED. R. CIV. P.
9(b) the Plaintiffs further plead:

§ IV STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiffs incorporate by reference from the records, Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Volumes 1, 2,
3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, the Certified Domestic Business Records contained there within,
pursuant to, and in accordance with Fed. R. Evid. 803(6), FRE 801(d)(2), and FRE 803(6)
asserting that, regarding the aforesaid Certified Domestic Business Records, there is
substantive foundation for heresy exception, in that the source of information or method
or circumstances of preparations are trustworthy.15 The facts having their existence in all
of the exhibits are hereby re-averred and re-alleged, for all purposes, and incorporated
herein with the same force and effect as if set forth verbatim herein.
4.1 FIRST SOLICITATION
4.1.1 Shortly before December 2, 2009, FLORES was contacted in Dallas on his
telephone by Mr. Kerim Emre. Emre stated he had become aware that Flores’ was
searching for an additional letter-of-credit (“LOC”) or standby-letter-of-credit
(“SBLC”) to purchase. Flores informed Emre he required the financial instrument be
15
The standard for authenticating computer records is the same as for authenticating other
records. The degree of authentication does not vary simply because a record happens to be (or has been at
one point) in electronic form. See United States v. DeGeorgia, 420 F.2d 889, 893 n.11 (9th Cir. 1969); United
States v. Vela, 673 F.2d 86, 90 (5th Cir. 1982). But see United States v. Scholle, 553 F.2d 1109, 1125 (8th Cir.
1977) (stating in dicta that "the complex nature of computer storage calls for a more comprehensive
foundation"). For example, witnesses who testify to the authenticity of computer records need not have
special qualifications. The witness does not need to have programmed the computer himself, or even need to
understand the maintenance and technical operation of the computer. See, UnitedStates v. M oore, 923 F.2d
910, 915 (1st Cir. 1991) (citing cases). Instead, the witness simply must have first-hand knowledge of the
relevant facts to which he or she testifies. See generally, United States v. Whitaker, 127 F.3d 595, 601 (7th
Cir. 1997) (FBI agent who was present when the defendant's computer was seized can authenticate seized
files) United States v. M iller, 771 F.2d 1219, 1237 (9th Cir. 1985) (telephone company billing supervisor can
authenticate phone company records); M oore, 923 F.2d at 915 (head of bank's consumer loan department
can authenticate computerized loan data). Evidence that a computer program is sufficiently trustworthy so
that its results qualify as business records according to Fed. R. Evid. 803(6) also establishes the authenticity
of the record. Compare, United States v. Saputski, 496 F.2d 140, 142 (9th Cir. 1974).
§ IV 33 20110202 O rgC m plnt F lores-C larkson v K oster et al.w pd

able to supplement an increase of a loan for a motion picture production slate in order
to accommodate the cash flow for a completed film requiring prints and
advertisement.16 During the telephone conversation Emre assured Flores that he and
his business partners, including Scott Koster, could solve Flores’ immediate needs
with a high quality private placement program, allowing Flores to enlarge his loan
instrument and affording the immediate cash flow requirements for the new film slate
addition and insure the March-release of the completed film.
4.1.2 Flores explained to the Defendants the critical nature of changing the
funding mechanism by incorporating their proposed instruments.*3 Flores further
elucidated upon this need to maintain his obligations and responsibilities to the
producers, crews, talent, involved in his slate of films as well as other commitments to
humanitarian documentaries and production commitments to the City of San Antonio,
Texas. Flores stated the Defendants would have to assure him that their financial
product would not interfere with his ability to maintain the funding commitments of
senior funding resources, more specifically, Prosperity International.
4.2 12/2/2009 - EMRE SOLICITS AND OFFERS FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS.
4.2.1 On December, 2, 2009 4:16 PM CST,17 Kerim Emre proposed and offered,
by wire over the Internet, a Forty-million dollar ($40,000,000) SBLC financial
instrument whose lower costs would provide an economic advantage over Flores
16
Increase to accommodate P&A high cash flow needs of the film (“Randall”) that was scheduled
for theatrical release in March of 2010.
17
Unless otherwise noted all time references indicated are North America Central Standard Time
or show offset adjustment to GMT standard time for North American Central Standard Time (CST).

having to spending equity and using his factored Michigan Tax Rebate, saving
$1,128,600 in factoring fees. (Exhibit 3)
4.2.2 On December 3, 2009 9:23 AM, Kerim Emre notified Flores, by wire over
the Internet, that he would have the SBLC paperwork “shortly” and was also trying to
get the escrow paperwork at the same time. Emre provided instruction, advice and
stated his belief that the instrument would satisfy FLORES’ requirements for his
negotiated senior financing from Michael F. Burgess’ (Managing Member) of
Prosperity International LLC. Later on 12/3/2009 at 12:45 PM, 3:16 PM, 4:05 PM and
other times by telephone Kerim Emre inquired on information and metrics needed to
satisfy the amount of the letter-of-credit to satisfy the Prosperity financing
specifications.*3 (Exhibit 4)
4.2.3 On December 8, 2009 at 11:48 AM, 2:00 PM, and 3:34 PM, Kerim Emre, by
wire over the Internet, completed the transaction documents, managed the execution
of the purchase for Flores of an irrevocable and assignable Bank Guarantee (“BG”)
for fifty-five million dollars ($55,000,000.00) from a Top World Bank. Emre stated the
BG would be delivered through a separate agreement from the source of the collateral
providing the BG under the basic terms as follows:

James Long, 2848 Grey Moss Pass, Duluth, GA 30097, Tel. (770)
715-0909
• Amount: $55,000,000.00 (USD) Term: 12 months (renewable12
month periods).
• BG Supplier: Deutsche Bank AG London.
• Method of Delivery: SWIFT MT760.
• Call Option Fee: $38,000 (USD) 20,000 EURO of the Call Option
fee applied to the Bank Service Fee at Payment.
• Cost: 10.25% (Due to [the] supplier within 72 hours of closing)
Includes Issuance Fee • Client to Supply: Irrevocable Corporate
Pay Order Timing to close within 72 hours of confirmation on
delivery of issuance-fee to escrow.
4.2.4 On 12/9/2009 at 3:33 PM, Kerim Emre provided the escrow service
information that would be used for the bank guarantee payment transfers to
Prosperity International LLC (“Prosperity”) and related fees. Later at 6:07 PM,
Emre sent wire instructions that a bank guarantee (“BG”) would be executed as soon
as Prosperity International is ready to fund. Kerim requested bank coordinates where
the BG was to be delivered to Prosperity’s Account and how the Bank Irrevocable
Commercial Payment Order or MT103.23 would issue.
4.3 12/10/2009 - 1ST FRAUD SCHEME (Alicorn/Idlyc/BMW Majestic)
4.3.1 The Solicitation & Alicorn Introduction – Koster/Idlyc Offer. On
December 10, 2009 Kerim Emre called Flores by telephone from a domestic phone
number (951) 719-4819 to solicit and present an additional opportunity in which his
business partner would provide the P&A cash flow for his Canadian picture at Voice
Pictures, Inc.18 (“Voice Pictures”) film “Randall”.
18
Voice Pictures Inc., Goose Pictures Canada Inc. B8, Suite 111, 2526 Battleford Ave. SW .
Calgary, AB T3E 7J4; Wendy Hill-Tout (Principal)

4.3.2 From Friday, December 10, 2010 through December 14th, Kerim Emre and
his business partner Scott A. Koster at Alicorn Capital Management LLC initiated
conference calls by wire from phone number indicated on caller ID as (951) 719-4819 to
discuss their program:
4.3.2.1 Emre and Koster promoted IDLYC as a well established private
placement fund institution whose principal, Mark A. Gelazela, had close personal
relations and strong business ties with Scott Koster and Alicorn. IDLYC
purportedly used a "proprietary strategy pre-negotiated and secure " involving an
active, controlled and complex investment structure whereby PSP’s monies would
be secured by a letter of credit or standby letter of credit issued by Deutsche Bank
and monetize by HSBC Hong Kong in a written guarantee by the Platform in
order to protect the PSP’s funds, stabilize returns and protect against dramatic
trading market fluctuations.
4.3.2.2 Defendants again advanced the IDLYC principals as highly
experienced in international banking having established business relationships
with top banks including HSBC Holdings PLC, Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse
Group. Defendants represented that IDLYC purchased bank guarantees and
other financial instruments, including Mid Term Notes (MTN's) from the banks in
very large blocks on behalf of a large collection of investor/lenders for substantial
discounts. It was stated by Koster that the platform’s program was guaranteed in
writing by Deutsche Bank. Emre and others, as well, would in turn, take a
substantial portion of the weekly proceeds from the beneficiary Flores, in addition
to Emre’s broker fee. The consensus by the Defendants was that the IDLYC

payment would pay for the SBLC and Flores could release his equity from the
Michigan. Flores could then use another instrument to increase the loan size, since
the Deutche Bank letter of credit was purchased and the HSBC Hong Kong funds
were in place. The PSP payout funds arrival should occur on January 4, 2010 and
be distributed by the escrow attorney on or about January 12, 2010, depending on
the wire transfers to and from the escrow account paymaster.
4.3.2.3 Defendants articulated they would place the Plaintiffs’ money in the
PSP and Flores, would in turn, own a proportional interest in the IDLYC PPP
platform which was guaranteed in writing by a secured financial instrument.
Flores asked Koster to provide the due diligence report to him, and Koster
pledged that “his friend Mark”, Mark Gelazela,19 had a successful financial trading
company which Koster had substantial knowledge, experience and had previously
obtained successful results with Mark Gelazela’s transactions for other clients.
4.4 8/30/2010 - KOSTER DESCRIBES THE BREADTH OF HIS COMMERCIAL
ENTERPRISE
4.4.1 Koster Describes His Enterprise. On August 30, 2010 8:43 PM, (Exhibit 72)
Scott Koster wrote to Flores explaining the size and breadth of his business.:
“Lance, I just wanted to take a second, and explain what all else I do throughout
the day … Ive never really talked to you about what I do, outside of you being
involved with me on the IDLYC transaction.
19
Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC (IDLYC); 01/07/2010, FL; FEI/EIN # 271651047
Mailing Address: 3677 Jasmine Ave., Los Angeles CA 90034
a. Mark A. Gelazela, Title MGRM (Registered Agent), 3677 Jasmine Ave., Los Angeles CA 90034 USA
b W illiam Chandler Reynolds, Title MGRM, 26 Marlwood Lane, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418 USA
Idlyc Holdings Trust, Head Office, Melody Lane 9, Ruakura Road, 3216 Hamilton, New Zealand

“Right now, John [Childs] and I have several pending, and delivered financial
instruments to Richard [Hall] and his group [see FN20]. In addition to dealing with
those clients, we have lending files to follow up on, instrument files not going to the
Buy/Sell, two separate BG purchase transactions, and we are starting a new
company [Interlink Global Messaging], to issue SWIFT messages for
HedgeFunds, small banks, brokerages, and individuals who do not otherwise have
the relationships with their own bank to get items delivered. Its like depository of
sorts. In addition to those, we are working with several banks in the Phillipines
[sic] to start getting them to issue instruments directly, rather than having an
investor own the money.
“I know that does not seem like a lot, but pair that with other life tasks and
commitments, the day dissapears [sic] very quickly. Nobody works for themselves
to be swamped all the time, but it seems that each day I become a slave to my job.
Please understand that I am just sitting back and chilling with any of this. I know
this has not come up from you lately, but each time I feel horrible, because you
have not had a chance to see anything outside of this one nightmare of a
transaction. I did not get to where I am today from failed transactions, and I hope
that I get to show that to you soon.
“So with all of that being said, I did not get ahold [sic] of Richard this evening. He
did commit to getting the call knocked out, but we just cannot match schedule's to
do this.
Scott”
4.4.2 Koster’s Public Acclamation and Promotion. Essentially the profile and
public financial offerings of Koster’s Alicorn Capital Management LLC is
comprehensively described on the company’s Internet web site, to wit:
20
Vladimir Pierre-Louise; CFO/Secretary, Berea Inc., and Christine W ong-Sang; President,
Berea Inc.

Figure 4 Alicorn Capital Management - Services (Vol. 6 Exhibit “”)
4.5 12/11/2009 - PROFIT-SHARING AGREEMENT
4.5.1 On 12/11/2009 10:22 AM, Kerim Emre, by wire over the Internet, delivered
“the JV agreement for the trade program.” (Exhibit 5) In essence, the metrics of the
PSP was summarized the PSP Agreement Overview:
“Alicorn Capital Management has a direct working relationship with a PPP

that has a surplus of holdings in the amount of 110,000,000,000.00USD (One
Hundred and Ten Billion Dollars) in Bank Guarantee (BG's) with the
following Financial Institutions; HSBC Hong Kong, Standard Chartered
Hong Kong, Deutsche Bank Hong Kong. Our company has been provided
with the opportunity to obtain these instruments at a discounted fee, to be
taken directly back into the Platforms own programs. The profit for this
program, based on these instruments, is 15% weekly or better, guaranteed
in writing by the platform. This is a limited entry offer. The following buy in
points will allow you the a [sic] return of the corresponding amount based
off of the issuance of a 100MUSD Bank Guarantee.” (emphasis added)

4.5.2 On December 11, 2009 5:40 PM, Kerim Emre sent the following message by
wire over the Internet summarizing the payout terms, PSP payout summary, his fees
and attached the Alicorn Profit-Sharing Agreement and Fee Protection Agreement.
Emre: “Hi Lance, Just to be safe, I am sending you the PDF as a doc file. I
also included the FPA for the trade. You will be getting approximately
1.8M/week, of which 16.7% will be the brokers' fees, which will leave you, in
your pocket, 1.5M based on the 1.8M being paid out.” (Exhibit 6)
4.6 12/14/2009 - FIRST REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE. Throughout the period
from about 12/14/2009 through 12/30/2009 Flores made numerous telephone calls to Emre
at his phone number 951-719-4819 or 951-224-6844 requesting full verification of
associated contracts including information of the partners in the PSP. Flores further
requested that he be copied on the banking and financial transactions related to the PSP
transactions, the IDLYC and partnerships’ revenues. In that period, Flores executed a
non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in order that he could maintain due diligence on the
integrity of Alicorn and IDLYC transactions. Emre insured Flores that full disclosure
and transparency†2 would be afforded to Flores upon execution of the NCND (Non-
Circumvention Non-Disclosure Agreement) and as each contract was completed. Shortly
thereafter the mutual non-disclosure was executed.
4.6.1 On 12/14/2009 11:27 AM, Kerim Emre, by wire over the Internet, sent
wiring instructions for the trade partnership (Exhibit 7) to:
Scott Koster
TCF Bank
19270 Freeport Street, Elk River MN 55330
763-441-1560

Routing Number: 291070001 21
Account Number: 3439447813
4.6.2 On 12/14/2009 3:43 PM, Kerim Emre, by wire over the Internet, sent wire
instructions for Flores to John T Childs. At 1:02 PM, Kerim Emre delivered a non-
circumvention non-disclosure agreement to Flores, in order to receive full disclosure
of the partnership’s structure, finances, transactions and the operations of the PSP.†2
4.7 12/15/2009 - SYNDICATE’S COMPULSION TO SOLICIT FUNDS FOR PSP
4.7.1 On 12/15/2009 2:51 AM, Kerim Emre sent a message by wire over the
Internet to check on funds. At 10:18 AM, Kerim Emre instructed: “… please make
sure that the wire goes directly into to [sic] Scott's account rather than into John's
account. This should speed things up and get us in by the deadline.”
4.7.2 On 12/16/2009 1:26 PM, Kerim Emre, by wire over the Internet, stating that
he was “[g]etting calls from Scott's [Koster] people22 to find out where we are with
sending the wire …”
Later, at 1:49 PM, Kerim Emre wrote: “… they are nagging me at this point about
the transfer …”
At 2:42 PM, Kerim Emre wrote: “As you can see I am getting some grief on this at
this moment. Where are we at? It shouldn't take this long to get the wire
conformation from them? Did they just not send it? ‘I don’t think he understands.
21
Redacted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 “… a party or nonparty making the filing may include
only: … (4) the last four digits of the financial-account number.”
22
See also John Doe(s) defendants, ¶ 1.2.16, pg. 9, supra.

This needed to be done first thing this morning. It is now 2:34 CST.’” [Sender’s name
not cited by Emre; presumably, Koster]
And later at 4:07 PM, Flores responded to Emre with the information and
identification of the first “funds resource for the SBLC …”
At 6:32 PM, Kerim Emre acknowledge Flores’ message; then at 9:48 PM, Kerim
Emre wrote: “… Just wanted to let you know the 80k didn't hit Scott's account today.
Hopefully you can get me the receipt still and it hits his account tomorrow.”
4.7.3 On 12/17/2009 9:42 AM, Kerim Emre, by wire over the Internet, established
a number to send wiring information to the Syndicate: “… (925) 407-8440 is the fax
number we need to use. [Interlink Global Messaging]” At 3:13 PM, Kerim Emre
inquired again about the deposit of funds for the Alicorn PSP; at 4:05 PM, Kerim
Emre wrote again that the funds hadn’t arrived and “they moved ahead without us.”
4.7.4 On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Flores, by wire over the Internet,
informed Kerim Emre that the funds would be delivered that day. At 11:43 AM,
Kerim Emre acknowledges the message and that information would be forwarded;
and at 10:15 PM, Kerim Emre wrote: “… Here is the copy of the wire confirmation
message” confirming the receipt of the funds with bank confirmation attached
(Exhibit 8).
4.7.5 On 12/21/2009 4:48 PM, Kerim Emre, by wire over the Internet, informs
Flores that he updated Flores’ banking coordinates with Global Paymaster, LLC, the
PSP’s paymaster (for PSP escrow account).

4.8 FALLACY & DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICE – 1ST Fraud Scheme – The
Alicorn/Idlyc/BMW Syndicate23
4.8.1 Modus Operandi. The underlying conspiracy to commit fraud. It is
necessary at this point in the enumeration of the Statement of Facts, to set forth the
context of the allegations and the facts because of the complexity and deception that is
intrinsic in fraud claims of this nature, international breadth24 and scope. Essentially
there are two parts to the Syndicate fraud formula. The first part is the conspiracy. Its
construct is formulated acts, expressions, omissions, and concealment, that are
calculated to deceive the Plaintiffs to their disadvantage, after the inducement or the
fraud calculated by inducement is effected. These contrivances lie dormant until a
catalyst is introduced that destabilizes the Syndicate’s commercial operation scheme
through a challenge to the legitimacy of the Defendants’ activities and commercial
endeavor. The second part of the fraud scheme is initiated after they have failed to
perform through their initial breach of fiduciary duty resulting in the unleashing of
their arsenal of fraud constructs.
23
The Alicorn/Idlyc/BMW Syndicate is a group of persons associated-in-fact for the common
purposes of investment contracts and of conducting the fraudulent scheme described in this Complaint,
namely, fraudulently inducing investments that were supposed to be, and were represented to be,
safeguarded and prudently managed. As a result, Syndicate defendants constitute an association-in-fact
enterprise within the meaning of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961(4) and 1962(c). During all relevant times, the Syndicate was engaged in activities affecting
interstate and foreign commerce, and conducting the fraudulent scheme described herein.
24
Scott A. Koster on Thursday February,4, 2010 at 11:20 : “… As I have outlined to your brokers,
there are over 20 principals totalling [sic] greater than 25 Billion USD in transactional funding that is taking
place.” (Exhibit 23) (Later exposition will disclose an international network clients as well as corporations,
agents related to , inter alia, Alicorn, IDLYC, BMW Majestic LLC, incorporating the services of the largest
international banks across the globe)

4.8.1.1 Fraudulent Inducement. The inducement is constructed by 1) locating
legitimate or seemingly legitimate financial products, 2) identifying prospective
clients and propose the financial product by presenting credible entities,
3) offering transaction security through written bank guarantees from credible
sources, 4) requiring legitimate financial industry and government disclosure
conformance of the client through Client Information Summary (“CIS”) containing
confidential information and 5) requiring execution of a stringent Non-Disclosure
so that Defendants can effectuate their standard procedures and policies25 with full
disclosure and transparency of the PSP business’ affairs. The foundation of the
Defendants’ solution begins with the solicitation of clients through personal
business networking connections and relationships,26 thus, substantiating their
assertions using associations with large institutions and their diverse network of
Internet presence demonstrating Defendants’ numerous relationships with
legitimate resources.27
Lastly, the financial offering in the PSP Agreement sets forth guarantees and
security of the transaction (see, Agreement Overview ¶ 4.5.1, pg. 40). This is the
“Inducement” part of Defendants’ fraud by inducement. At this point of the
process, the proposition and offerings appear relatively legitimate and gives no
rise for suspicion of criminal intent.
25
(FN 3, pg. 7)
26
… ; such as Emre’s then ongoing due diligence and offerings by Flores’ business colleagues and
associates involved and working on unrelated projects.
27
e.g. Exhibit 16, Exhibit 17, Exhibit 18, Exhibit 19, Exhibit 20, Exhibit 21

4.8.1.2 A Catalyst for the Fraud. It is the next part of the Syndicate’s formula
that contains extensive fraud. The Plaintiffs’ challenges to the Defendants’ conduct
that is well outside ordinary business and financial industry’s standards and
practices. This would include the demand for proof by bona fide verifiable
documentation of the PSP-IDLYC performance was the catalyst that initiated the
Defendants’ reaction. This was the condition where each time a challenge or
demand for proof was made, the Defendants initiated an extensive plan of deceit
through their actions that follow:
4.9 12/14/2009 — 12/30/2009 KOSTER INITIATES A PATTERN OF
CAMOUFLAGED ARTIFICES
4.9.1 The First Straw Man. Following Flores’ demands for authentication from
the period of 12/14/2009 through 12/30/2009,28 Emre responded by wire over the
Internet on 1/4/2010 1:17 PM, writing: “… Here are the redacted contracts of the
trade that Scott is using for the buy/sell trade we got you in. [sic]…” (emphasis
added).
4.9.1.1 The document proffered as authentic documentation of the PSP and
verification of the IDLYC PPP execution of the Deutsche Bank Hong Kong SBLC
instrument, the HSBC Hong Kong or Standard Chartered Hong Kong
monetization of the SBLC, and the documentation to verify the performance of the
Platform and related transactions was completely defaced by redaction. This
28
¶ 4.5.2, pg. 41

rendered the document unreliable, devoid of authenticity and without any
verifiable substance that the IDLYC PPP was executed or that the PPP was
genuine. (Exhibit 9) Clearly, the document was unaccommodating to the accepted
disclosure understanding and obligations of the Defendants. In an overtly
fraudulent method of responsibility and compliance to producing material
documents of critical and substantive import to Flores, the Defendants produced
with incontrovertible scienter, an unverifiable completely discreditable copy of the
alleged “contracts of the trade” that was intended to mislead with a reckless
disregard for the truth.
4.9.1.2 Plaintiff, in turn, responded by calling Emre demanding disclosure of
the information so that the transaction could be verified by the Plaintiff. No
response to Plaintiff’s demand for verification or correction of Defendants’ of non-
disclosure defects have been forthcoming to date.‡2
4.9.2 Second Straw Man. On 1/5/2010 8:08 PM, the next day, Kerim Emre wrote
by wire over the Internet:
“Bond/BG ISIN number XS0205433377 that the instrument is

going to be issued on.”29
Emre’s response provided an ISIN number which Flores could only verify that a
financial instrument was issued by Deutsche Bank AG London (Exhibit 11) as were
thousands of others issued by the bank. The value of the information was useless as
there was no proof that this financial instrument secured the PPP nor did it offer to
29
Exhibit “J”

whom the instrument had been issued or if it collateralized or attached to the PPP in
any capacity whatsoever.
4.10 1/7/2010 - PAYOUT AND DEPOSIT SCHEDULE.
On 1/7/2010 12:52 PM, Kerim Emre wrote by wire over the Internet:
“ 1. Settlement is Friday. [Friday, January 8, 2010]

2. This Friday will be the first settlement. So there will be 39 more.
3. Money will be wired on Monday. [Monday, January 11, 2010]
4. This wire will hit scotts [sic] paymaster then be distributed from there.
5. Future wires will go direct to JV principals not through Scott.
6. Scott should have a hard copy of the actual BG early to mid week next week that will
be provided to the JV partners.” [notation added] (Exhibit 12)
4.11 1/13/2010 - EMRE TAKES A 16.7% CUT OF FLORES’ PSP EARNINGS.
On 1/13/2010 2:17 PM, Kerim Emre wrote by wire over the Internet:
“… subfee agreement for Global Paymasters. I filled out my information, but I'll
need you to fill out the header, as well as yours so we can be setup for
disbursement. Please sign/date/etc and then send back to me. I will then sign my
portion and and [sic] send it back to you as a PDF. …” (Exhibit 13)
4.12 1/13/2010 - FRAUD BEGINS WITH DELAYS, DECEIT, AND MORE
ARTIFICES
4.12.1 1/13/2010 - DEFENDANT’S LONG SILENCE. On or about 1/13/2010
Flores began numerous inquiries about why there had been no deposit to his bank
account. Koster had reaffirmed (ibid. ¶ 4.9.2, supra) his previous schedule (¶ 4.3.2.2,
supra) for the deposit, however provided no prior notice or explanation when the
deposits for the PSP partners did not arrive. Flores received no verifiable answer nor

credible explanation other that there had been some delay in the transaction due to
the holiday of a banker (the “HSBC HK Banker” also “John Doe 3") in Hong Kong.
After telephone calls placed to Emre, Flores insisted on a direct follow-up with Mark
Gelazela at IDLYC and identification of the HSBC HK Banker with no response.
Defendants were unresponsive until 1/26/2010 when Flores received a forwarded
message from Koster through Emre.
4.12.2 1/13/2010 — 1/25 2010 - LEGAL NOTICE: LEGAL RIGHT TO RELY ON
INTEGRITY AND HONESTY.‡3, ‡4, ‡6, *2 During that period of twelve days that began
about 1/13/2010, Plaintiff restated to Emre that he and Koster had a fiduciary duty
that vests in Plaintiffs (the “Entrustors”), the legal right to rely on the integrity and
honesty of Koster, Emre and their partners as well as the quality of the services
Fiduciaries are required to provide.
4.12.3 Further, Flores reiterated to Emre the jeopardy their performance failure
has placed on his “slate funding”30 and the mounting damages along with the
increasing cost of delaying crews, talent, and affecting location availability. Plaintiff
also informed the Defendants he had suffered irreversible damage to his reputation,
and loss of credibility and trust with the “A” List crews and talent, and that would
extend into the industry including unions, and local government officials who were
working to create incentives for employment and education for their constituents and
the economic welfare of their communities anticipating the arrival of the slate
productions.*3
30
Motion picture production funding from Prosperity International for a slate of productions
scheduled for YR 2010 (this is a temporal bound reference relative to the period in which the terms and
availability of the funding were limited).

4.12.4 With the scheduled funds delivery date nearing two weeks in the arrear and
inquiries seeking explanation, Koster began a credibility damage control campaign by
creating a ruse. Koster embarked on a plan to first create a false trust and a sense of
legitimacy using decoys by where he presents faithless corroboration for his claims.
4.12.5 Defendants’ first device was the use of disguised or altered replicas of
documents. The device’s form may or may not have been initially authentic, but its
intended purpose was to solicit Plaintiffs’ trust and quell Flores’ due diligence
inquiries while intentionally misrepresenting and omitting the true condition and
status of the IDLYC/PSP transactions. As well, the deceit was intended to hide any
information that Flores could use to explore the state of those transactions.
4.12.6 The Defendants second device was staged to fill in the evidentiary voids in
Defendants physical artifices, i.e. Defendants altered or defaced documents. Koster
would next convey unverifiable accounts to the Plaintiffs of his meetings between
himself and inferred administrators of the high-level international banking transaction
events. Koster related to Plaintiff that he had this access by virtue of his unique liaison
with official financial industry operatives. Defendants intended the use of these
reports along with the “sanitized documents” to established a collective inferential
credibility of Defendants’ claims, and to sustain genuineness of the documents Koster
had in his possession and was about to produce to the Plaintiffs.

4.13 1/26/2010 - THE THIRD MAN OF STRAW
4.13.1 1/26/2010 - FIRST SELF-JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DELAY. On
1/26/2010 6:32 PM, Kerim Emre forwarded an e-mail message sent to him that
afternoon from Scott Koster by wire over the Internet to explain the state of the PSP
and IDLYC financial transactions. Koster cites a message allegedly sent to him by
Mark Gelazela “with the trade platform” at IDLYC setting up the first excuse for the
delay of the funds delivery due fifteen days prior to this point.‡6 Gelazela:
"Please express our thanks to all the clients for their continued patience.
As mentioned, all is going well and we presently have received 4
preadvices for 4.6b. of those 4, we have verified and authenticated 2 of
them. We are having some of the hard copies picked up on Monday. It
was supposed to be delivered by the sending bank earlier, but we are
now picking them up ourselves (via qualified couriers). This, and the
banks moving slowly (some of the bank officers at HSBC didn’t arrive
back from vacation till the 16th of Jan), have been the source of the
delay. All of this translates to being able to make small payments next
week with bigger ones to follow the week after that and full payments
two weeks after that, then each week thereafter. Thanks again."
4.13.2 2/3/2010 - NOTICE TO DEFENDANTS OF ACCUMULATING
DAMAGES.*3
On 2/3/2010 at 11:33 PM CST Plaintiff Flores wrote to Emre requesting a report
from Koster on status information which was vital to Flores in handling damages and
liabilities being incurred through Defendants’ failure to perform:
From: "Lance @ MFI" <lance@mockingbirdfilms.com>

To: Kerim Emre <kerim.emre@gmail.com>
CC:
Subject: Status Report?
Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2010 05:33:30 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

Does Scott have a report for us. I've got to do some maneuvering in
order to begin damage control. I need some kind of reliable
information to assess losses, liabilities, etc. and work on some kind of
recovery.
Lance
4.13.3 On 2/3/2010 2:04 PM, one week after Kerim Emre’s 1/26/2010 6:32 PM
message, Emre forwarded an update via e-mail from Scott Koster concerning Bank
Guarantee31 Preadvice32. (Exhibit 14)
Koster: ‘I am putting together a more solid update as we speak. I

am in receipt of the pre-advice for the BG that our group, and
several others that I am a direct party to, are transacting off of [sic].
Please convey to your investor/client my gratitude and appreciation
for being patient through all of this. As you can imagine, we are all
very anxious to be in receipt of conformation [sic] of the first payout.
I appologize [sic] for just now getting back to you. I will be

forwarding this update to John, which will include a
Non-disimination [sic] disclosure, so that I can then forward on the
Pre-advice in a sanitized format for everyone to see that there is true
performance happening here :)’
It is clear that Koster has made a claim that he has some benefit of privileged
information that which he is about to furnish as legitimate and expects “everyone” to
believe so. Koster also extends the emblazonment of a “Non-disimination [sic]
disclosure [document]” which he knows is clearly unnecessary given the
31
A guarantee from a lending institution ensuring that the liabilities of a debtor will be met. In
other words, if the debtor fails to settle a debt, the bank will cover it.
32
Preadvice. Preliminary information about a letter of credit (L/C) sent by the issuing bank to the
advising bank where time is short. It notifies the recipient that the named buyer has opened an L/C of a
specified amount for a named seller (beneficiary), and usually includes the statement "the credit will follow"
or words to the effect. Depending on the jurisdiction, a preadvice may or may not irrevocably commit the
issuing bank to actually issue the said L/C. Therefore, the advising bank generally does not issue an advice
of credit but only notifies the beneficiary of the receipt of preadvice so that he or she (if willing) may proceed
with the processing of the buyer's order. Also called preliminary advice. (source: BusinessDictionary.com)

comprehensive NCND already executed33 by Flores and the purported partners.
Koster states he will provide “a sanitized” copy of the “Preadvice” bank
communication “for everyone to see that there is true performance happening here”
apparently anticipating that notifying “everyone” will prepare Flores and others that
he intends to present another unverifiable document as proof of the legitimacy of the
financial transaction he is managing for the PSP.‡2
4.13.4 On 2/3/2010 2:49 PM, John Childs wrote (Exhibit 15) that he was “expecting
another update tonight or tomorrow morning” and presented an e-mail message from
Scott Koster stating he was going to provide “more recent information” and that he
had attached” a non-disclosure agreement, “so that [Koster] may without worry,
forward on the items that I am in receipt of, to provide to our PSA clients proof of
performance.”†2 Koster then attempts to misrepresent and memorialize the state-of-
mind in an expression of common knowledge to “our clients” by declaring “[a]s all of
our clients are aware, there have been numerous setbacks and holdups,” when
actually, the only awareness was that from personal knowledge, that Koster’s delivery
of the funds were in arrearage, and nothing more. Koster attempts to place his words
into “[his] clients” mouths.
Koster declares he then had a “more solid picture of what has been transpiring;”
that picture being an expected first payout “within a loosly [sic] spelled out timeline”
thus setting up for another delay opportunity.
33
See ¶ 4.5.2, pg. 41

The next claim by Koster disregards the previous reference in an earlier message
which inferred that a group of HSBC HK bankers on very extended holiday (at least a
24 day holiday) caused the delay. Now Koster directs blame upon one banker, the
HSBC HK Banker, whom IDLYC had been working with throughout the process as
causing the delay in the delivery of financial returns. Koster’s inference is that this
single banker out of the hundreds of bankers employed at HSBC Hong Kong was the
sole banker responsible for a financial transaction estimated to exceed a half billion
dollars, went on “vacation from shortly before the [Christmas] holidays, to the 16th of
January.” Further, Koster’s asserted, in common purpose with IDLYC, that this lone
banker from this Two-and-a-Half-Trillion dollar financial institution,34 responsible for
this rather large financial transaction, that had originated before the holiday, and
continued transacting between the 27th of December, 2009 and the 4th of January, 2010,
made no provisions for attendance of this transaction by any other banker, cut off all
communications, and left on a twenty-five day vacation. All this considering the
Instance Type Transmission35 informing HSBC Hongkong and Shanghai Banking
Corporation Limited on December 24, 2009 at 10:08 AM of the sender “redacted”,
acting on behalf of Trask and Affiliates, BMW Majestic, and redacted beneficiary, of
the deliver of the financial instrument via MT 760 issued by redacted issuer.‡6
34
As of 2010, HSBC is the world's sixth-largest banking and financial services group and the
world's eighth-largest company according to a composite measure by Forbes magazine. * It has around 8,000
offices in 91 countries and territories across Africa, Asia, Europe, North America and South America and
around 100 million customers. As of 30 June 2010 it had total assets of $2.418 trillion, of which roughly half
were in Europe, a quarter in the Americas and a quarter in Asia. { * "Special Report - The Global 2000,"
Forbes, April 2, 2008. "HSBC tops Forbes 2000 list of world's largest companies," HSBC website, 4 April
2008 }
35
Exhibit 25

Koster would have the Plaintiffs believe this “resulted in a number of delays and a
lack of communication flow coming our way, through IDLYC. He then claimed “[t]he
funding has been schedualed [sic] to follow approximately one week after the receipt
of the hard copies of the instruments, at which time, myself [Koster], as well as all of
the other principals, will be in receipt of their hard copy as well.‡2
4.13.5 DEFENDANTS CREATE A FACADE TO ELUDE PROOF. Koster
states36 that “[a] direct request by a partner of mine, as well as myself [sic] for proof of
this was directed towards IDLYC, as well as their attorneys.” And now the hedge,
Koster: “To comply with this request, we were required to sign a

Non-dicimination [sic] agreement, outlining that we would not, under
any circumstances, provide this to any parties, outside of those listed on
the agreement. After receiving this agreement, we went back to the
group, and requested the authorization to forward a sanitized version of
this document, to 3rd party individuals who have a direct relationship to
our personal transactions. We provided a list of names, as outlined in the
PSA that each of you have signed with ACM, and have been given
permission to forward these documents on, after receipt of the NDA's
back signed by each PSA contributing member …” (Exhibit 15)
4.13.6 ESTABLISHING PSEUDO-LEGITIMATE RESOURCES. The term for
this deceptive practice is referred to as authentication by association and used by
Koster continually to construct each man of straw. In retrospect, the modus operandi
of the Defendants’ Syndicate, was obviously formulated at the onset or prior to the
instant event as a standing procedure and business formula. It was implemented for
the Alicorn/IDLYC transaction by advancing the established investment and trade
experience as well as Koster’s and Emre’s networked connections to legitimate or
36
Exhibit 15

pseudo-legitimate financial resources. Some of the resources would have known of and
participated in the activities of the Syndicate having full or partial knowledge, or a
variance thereof, in the Defendants’ commercial operations; while others would be
unaware and connected by legitimate means or be legitimately engaged through
misrepresentation of the Defendants.
4.13.6.1 Koster, the authority apparent, of the Syndicate, responded to
challenges to his arrogating and unequivocal authority and the operations of the
PSP, constructed a crudely developed squad of straw men to support his plan to
unleash a contrived deception fallacies plan. Each Straw Man was fashioned to
distract, dissuade, confute or avert challenges to the legitimacy of Koster’s claims
of the PSP financial performances, credibility of his status reports, and demands
for proof for the delays. Koster would use a facsimile of an official document or
form and deface any information that would allow independent verification or
establish any genuineness to the article, continuing to create of one-man-of-straw
after another. Their purpose was simply to frustrate, exasperate, and cause delay.
When Koster’s straw man collapsed after forensic examination by the Plaintiff, he
resorted back to his fallacy messaging, by distracting from the truth, using vague
and inexact wording in his rebuttal. Koster’s argument would always be extremely
deceptive because he carefully crafted his responses, disregarding the possibility
that there was any alternative explanation except his. Reexamination of the
foregoing facts and those that next follow, will reveal Koster’s pattern and use of

disjunctive syllogisms to develop his maze of misleading information and deceptive
business practices.
4.14 2/4/2010 - DEFENDANTS’ FALSE PROOF OF PERFORMANCE.
4.14.1 Notice of Delivery of Promised Proof of Performance†2 On 2/4/2010
6:43 PM, Kerim Emre wrote:
“… Just wanted to keep you in the loop. Scott has received all of the NDAs back from
all of the principals involved. It should be fairly quick that you receive the proof of
performance information that was promised. We are also going to be getting a full
update outside of this soon.” (emphasis added) (see, Exhibit 22)
4.14.2 Flores responded to Koster’s request for a second non-disclosure
agreement and received acknowledgment from Koster by his transmittal, an attached
copy in his 2/4/2010 11:20 PM message, below, and his attachment of the signed NDA.
(Exhibit 24)
4.15 2/4/2010 - KOSTER DELIVERS THE THIRD STRAW MAN.‡2
On 2/4/2010 11:20 PM, Scott Koster wrote by wire over the Internet:
“… you are not being provided this document for any reason, other than to
provide the much needed proof of performance … Our BG has been
delivered to the funder [sic] via swift, as well as the hard copy, but no
release has been given as of Wed FEB 3 rd … As I have outlined to your
brokers, there are over 20 principals totalling [sic] greater than 25 Billion
USD in transactional funding that is taking place. … I am also attaching a
copy of the signed and received NDA as conformation of your signature. ”
(emphasis added) (Exhibit 23)
Flores did not have access to his regular e-mail client but was able to access the
2/4/2010 11:20 PM Koster message, but unable to open the attachment. Several days

later he opened the message’s attachment to examine the document which Koster had
sent for the purpose of providing “the much needed proof of performance.” The
document was another man of straw. It appeared to be a copy of a SWIFT™ 37
acknowledgment received by HSBC Hong Kong, but because the document was so
defaced, it could have been one of any number of messages sent out on the proprietary
bank network. Koster’s transmitted copy of the document identified nothing that
would suggest a scintilla of Koster’s promised proof of performance.†2 The document
did not even identify the sender who presumably controlled the purported Twenty-five
Billion Dollar fund38 of the PSP and its senior-partners.
Plaintiff Flores once again called Emre complaining about the Defendants’ bogus
document without receiving any concession in the form of verifiable evidence related
to the document’s purported proof of performance, to no avail. Flores continued his
inquiry and demands for proof, but Defendants remained silent and never responded
on the matter.‡4
37
SW IFTs are used for the secure electronic messing and transmittal of banking transactions.
SW IFT™ is the trade name of S.W .I.F.T. SCRL. Source for process and technology: SW IFT User
Handbook Online at http://www.swift.com > Support > Documentation.
38
See FN 24, pg. 44.

4.16 3/5/2010 - DEFENDANTS ARE INFORMED OF THE MOUNTING
DAMAGES.*3
On Mar 5, 2010, at 10:13 AM, Lance Flores wrote:
“John - will there be a status report today? I don't care if it is good or bad
news, but today I have to make some draconian decisions to cut my losses
and initiate damage control.
lance”
4.17 DEFENDANTS’ BEGIN LONG CAMPAIGN OF DELAY AND DECEIT
The Plaintiff’s persistent challenges for proof and refusal to accept Defendants’ bogus
representations of verifiable documentation caused the Defendants to withdraw into
silence and reluctance to return calls or respond to Flores’ messages. As well, the
Defendants ended their straw man campaign and did not produce another document to
the Plaintiffs, bogus or otherwise for another nine months. It would not be until
11/16/2010 4:26 PM, after informed of Plaintiffs’ intent to file this Original Complaint and
production request by Flores and Gary Grab, attorney for Vicki Clarkson; even then, the
production did not comply with the production request. During the following nine months
Defendants continued their fraud and deceptive trade practices with delays, diversions,
and more misrepresentations and omissions.
4.17.1 Plaintiff Flores’ telephone inquiries continued without any substantive
results concerning the status and proof of performance. On 2/19/2010 4:48 PM CST,
Kerim Emre responded to Flores’ Friday, February 19, 2010 22:44:41 GMT message

asking for news from Koster with little more to say than “… we'll be hearing
something on Monday rather than today …”
4.17.2 DEFENDANTS CONTINUALLY ARE INFORMED OF
DETERIORATING CONDITIONS. Throughout the course of events since early
December of 2009 Flores had been diligent in informing the Defendants of the state of
reliance upon the Defendants’ candor and fiduciary duty through news and reports of
liabilities and damages they had caused. For example, the candid and timely dialog
relating to the Defendants fraud, and the goodwill losses and economic jeopardy
Defendants had placed upon the Plaintiffs, in the activities with the City of San
Antonio concerning the production facility.39 Defendants were well aware that the
Plaintiffs would endure continued economic burdens and damages resulting from the
intended detrimental reliance they had calculated and induced. This intended reliance
was willful and wholly predicated on their wire frauds. It will be from this vantage that
Defendants fraud formulations would further evolve their complex fraud scheme:
4.17.3 From mid-February, 2010 until about mid-March, consisted of inquiry of
the status and complaints from Flores about the accumulating harm the Defendants’
delay and deceptions were causing the Plaintiffs. Emre insisted he was not assuming
any responsibility as a fiduciary and dismissed the Defendants’ inducements of
written guarantee from the financial resources and Defendants’ promises, inferring
the Defendants shouldn’t have been trusted.†, ‡2, ‡3
39
See Exhibit 26

4.18 3/15/2010 — 3/16/2010 - KOSTER & ATTORNEY CLAIM WITNESS TO
PERFORMANCE.†2, ‡6 There hadn’t been any progress in meaningful information until
after John Childs response to Flores (Exhibit 27) when Koster, whose legal counsel was
Thomas P. Harlan, a lawyer representing himself to be of high qualified and substantial
experience,40 followed on 3/15/2010 12:13 PM and on 3/16/2010 10:24 AM, the next day
stating that he and his attorney had first-hand proof, having visually confirmed
performance and no intentional delays of the Alicorn PSP/IDLYC transaction. Koster
suggested a short-term alternative was possible, but made assurances of his trust and the
viability of the Syndicate’s transaction. (Exhibit 28 at ➀)
Koster:
“… I will call you directly as soon as I talk with the trader. Myself and my
attorney have seen proof with our own eyes of this working, and where the
holdup is, so its [sic] not an issue of nonperformance, or deliberate delays.
As I stated very early on, this is one of the only trade groups that I trust, as
I have seen performance by them in the past.” (emphasis added)
4.18.1 The April 2nd Scheduled Payout & Default. On Thursday, March 18, 2010
1:59 PM, Scott Koster in a message Stated he had received an update from one of his
partners on another instrument who spoke to “the trader”, and it appeared that the
first payout was on track “for the April 2nd [2010]” (Exhibit 29 at ➀) and would be out
of the country and providing current updates by e-mail. Koster noted he had spoken to
the trader that Monday, who stated that “if there were any delays, they would be
40
“I have been involved in hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits, including a number in Texas.”
(Exhibits Vol. 5 - Exhibit “123” at ¶ 1)

SWIFT related delays, and would only hold things up for a few days.” (see, Exhibit 29)
Koster’s assurances fail, no payout ever occurred.
4.18.2 Defendants Exhibit Conscious Indifference to Silence, Concealment & Non-
disclosure. Koster and Harlan had knowledge of the true facts and circumstances,
stated above, and had fiduciary duty including the duty to speak, inform and provide
documentary verification to the Plaintiffs, as that duty of care had arisen in this
instance. However, they did not, and by fraudulent inducement, coerced reliance and
fraudulent intent, instead maintained and continued the various frauds, fully aware of
the consequences of their tortuous acts which they knew would injure the Plaintiffs.
Defendants, but particularly Koster and Harlan, also knew that by concealing
information of grave consequential import, it would likely cause great harm to the
Plaintiffs.
Defendants, specifically Koster, counseled by Thomas Harlan,41 continued their
conscious indifference, concealment and willful silence and deprivation of information
legally due the Plaintiffs. They knew they would be prohibited or otherwise be
estopped from later making certain related arguments, defenses or claiming of certain
related rights later through their silence and non-disclosure.‡2, ‡4
41
Clearly Harlan has substantial legal experience and is aware that a lawyer who commits fraud,
advises his client to do so, or has knowledge that his client has committed fraud or about to commit an act of
fraud, and fails to advise him of the law and consequences, or aids and abets his client in fraud in the
conduct of a business, is subject to discipline for engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or
misrepresentation. (MRPC Rule 8.4., Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct)

4.19 EXTRINSIC FRAUD ATOP DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE.
4.19.1 Defendants used and continued to use that same detrimental reliance as a
weapon to threaten Plaintiffs with contract non-performance should Flores continue
his pressure on Defendants to seek proof of performance or criminal complaint, or
civil litigation. Defendants’ threats were clearly intended to shift responsibility of any
financial transaction failure to the Plaintiffs continued due diligence efforts or legal
action.
4.19.2 Of far greater import, is the malice aforethought and criminal intent in the
Defendants’ fraud scheme. In addition to the continual fraud perpetrated over the
wires on the Internet to this point in time, Koster decisively decided to risk criminal
liability by instituting coercion, duress and intimidation and threatening Plaintiffs and
any who attempted to verify his or the Syndicate’s or the traders’ veracity or validity
by terminating their contracts and throwing them out of the PSP. Koster stated that
he had done so to another partner, he labeled a troublemaker. Additionally, he
threatened the same for anyone making an insinuation about seeking legal criminal or
civil action.
4.19.3 Undoubtedly, Koster felt he was above the law and could unilaterally
terminate all contractual rights or claims of a partner in these circumstances. The
Defendants’ clear intent was to instill the fear of losing everything, in the minds of the
Plaintiffs and others, to assure Defendants control and continued detrimental reliance

of the Plaintiffs on Koster. The Defendants executed these actions through the use of
the public communications wires over the Internet in the furtherance of their fraud.
4.20 3/26/2010 - KOSTER DECLARES 100% CONFIRMATION ARRIVAL OF
FUNDS IN U.S.
4.20.1 On Friday, March 26, 2010 at 12:43 PM, Scott Koster, representing the
Syndicate, sent a message to the Plaintiffs stating:
“Funds have been received here in the US for the purpose of our
program through IDLYC, as well as several others. This has been
100% confirmed to be true directly by the head trader at HSBC HK,
as well as by the CEO's of IDLYC, the two bodies transacting this
program for all of the principals.” (Exhibit 30 at ➀)
Koster asserts that the funds arrived in the United States in the
ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW transaction, based on first and second hand information
from the HSBC Hong Kong “head trader,” but does not specify what bank or to whom
the funds were delivered; neither does Koster identify the head trader at HSBC Hong
Kong who made the “100%” confirmation.†2
4.21 3/26/2010 - DEATH KNELL TOLLS FOR PSP PARTNER. Koster next writes
alleging:
“There have been numerous hangups along the way, to include one
principal making direct death threats to the program managers, then
going to the FBI to try to ruin the whole program after he was
kicked out.” (id. at ➁)

The Syndicate speaking through Koster claims that a principal in the transaction
was kicked out based on allegations of making death threats and going to the FBI.
Through this communication the Syndicate expresses the gravity it places on clients
contacting the U.S. Justice Department (FBI) giving it equal measure with making a
death threat. Whether or not their allegations are true was never verified by the
Plaintiffs. But, by Koster’s example, he makes the point by dragging the ousted
principal’s corpse down the street, to deter the Plaintiffs from making contact,
reporting, or complaining to investigating officials about the actions of the Syndicate.
Here again, the Defendants stretch their extrinsic fraud to nearing the point of
obstruction of justice, but in either case, extrinsic fraud or obstruction of justice it is
fraud perpetrated over the wire, i.e., wire fraud.†3, †2,†7,†8
4.22 SYNDICATE/KOSTER BLAME HSBC FOR DELAYS. Koster speaking for
the Syndicate then blames HSBC Hong Kong for the delay by inferring fraud on the part
of the bank through their intentional delay to unjustly make a profit, yet provide no proof.
Thus, if untrue they have purposely made written defamatory representation that
conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression about HSBC Hong Kong.
“HSBC is has been more than difficult in moving the funding along,
as they continue to collect interest on the funds the longer they hold
them in their hands.” (id. at ➂)
“Our bankers have expressed that funds are eminent nearly every
day for at least a week and a half. We did have an issue after the
Chinese new year, but that was handled and we were not expecting
further delays. We do feel that things are going to finalize shortly,
but certainly understand that your patience is wearing thin. Ours is
as well. Banks historically have a habit of delaying funds as long as

possible to keep their balance sheet as high as possible to get as
much interest as possible before relinquishing control.” (id. at ➄)
4.23 3/26/2010 - KOSTER MAKES 2ND CONFIRMATION AND ADDS ANOTHER
HEDGE. Koster confirms once more “directly” with his first hand information with
another scheduled date for funding. He now adds new conditions to the delivery noting
that the “principals” will receive back their initial investments. None of the proceeds will
be issued to the PSP partners, however. They will receive funds on the next week’s
delivery. ‡6
Koster:
“Currently, we are looking at approximately 2-4 weeks for full funding to

take place. There may be one small funding, which will be the principals
initial investments, and the following week a payout. This is information
that has been confirmed directly, and is not second hand information, or
rumor.” (id. at ➃)
4.24 3/26/2010 - CANCELLATION EDICT FOR VOICING LEGAL ACTION
Koster unveils a direct threat to terminate PSP financial transaction if he finds out
about any utterances of legal (criminal), or civil action; apparently singling out the
Plaintiffs.
Koster:
“Your rights apropos of continuance, are very simple, and clearly stated
within the contract. We do expect everyone to remain professional despite
the hiccups. And for those it applies to, in the event we hear profane
threats of any kind (legal, civil, or physical) we will immediately cancel your
transaction.” (id. at➅)

Clearly Koster was exerting a threat in the form of extrinsic fraud, that is, fraud
that infects the actual judicial process, by which he intended to inhibit the Plaintiffs
from filing complaints through legal challenges or referral to a governmental
investigative agency. Further, it is also evident that it is Koster’s intent to conceal
other frauds, thus, Defendants’ actions of deceit are consequently broadened by
Koster attempted fraudulent concealment by extortion. Koster threatened the
Plaintiffs with the intent to obstruct an investigation or judicial proceeding and
violated the prohibitions or requirements applicable by law. Because Koster
conducted the extortion of the Plaintiffs’ property, their money from the transaction,
over the wires, is another instance of wire fraud.†4, †2,†7,†8
4.24.1 Friday, March 26, 2010 20:52:11 GMT – Later that day at 2:52 PM, Flores
frustrated by another unjustified delay, and incensed by more lies, and Koster’s threat
to thieve Plaintiffs’ earnings, asked for a justifiable “answer” (Exhibit 31).
4.24.2 Monday, March 29, 2010 16:07:36 GMT – Three days later on Monday, at
4:07 PM, after receiving no credible response from the Defendants, Flores sent a
message to Koster: “Scott, I'd like to get through the riddles and vagueness; perhaps
get some clarification (about Koster’s previous message).” (Exhibit 32)
4.24.3 The Defendants refused to produce any verifiable documentation or
information. Defendants, particularly Koster counseled by Harlan, continued their
conscious indifference to Defendants’ fiduciary duty through Silence, Concealment,
Beach of Contract for Nonperformance, Breach of Common Law Duty of Good Faith,
Intentional Misrepresentation, Willful Omissions, Fraud by Concealment legally due

Plaintiffs. Koster and Harlan knew they would be prohibited by equitable estoppel
particularlyPromissory Estoppel, Estoppel by Non-disclosure, Estoppel by Silence,
Estoppel by Estoppel by Misrepresentation, or otherwise be estopped from later
making certain related arguments, defenses or claiming certain related rights later. It
is evident, given the aforementioned facts, Koster and Harlan took into account their
tortious and/or illegal acts, their reckless and wanton disregard of the law, and the
harm they had, or would continue to inflict upon others, and with scienter, weighed the
risks of their deeds.*5,*6*7,*9,*13,*19,‡1,‡2,‡4, (see also, ¶ 4.18.2, 62)
4.24.4 The Elements Of Equitable Estoppel were satisfied and are asserted
against the Defendants in that (1) The Defendants were advised of the facts; (2) The
Defendants intend that their conduct be acted upon by the Plaintiffs, or the
Defendants acted in such a way that the Plaintiffs had a right to believe it was so
intended; (3) The Plaintiffs were ignorant or were previously misinformed of the true
facts by the Defendants; and (4) The Defendants had by their frauds and coercions
forced or induced the Plaintiffs into a detrimental reliance.
4.25 3/30/2010 — 4/14/2010 - 91ST DAY IN DEFAULT - 116TH TRANSACTION DAY
– DISCLOSURE REQUEST – TERMINATED PARTNER SPEAKS OUT ABOUT
IDLYC
In the period from March 30, 2010 to Plaintiff’s April 14th message, Plaintiffs’
continued requests for information in order to plan recovery from damages. They also
sought to reaffirm Koster’s confirmation of the funds and the clarification of his

evasive discussion of additional distribution delays suggested during phone
conversations. Flores urged Koster to initiate legal action seeking an injunction, since
the initial funds had arrived in the United States, against Mark Gelazela and William
Chandler Reynolds to insure the collection of the funds. Koster immediately dismissed
the suggestion stating again that “Mark” was his friend. Koster wanted to give
Gelazela more time to distribute the funds, and would prefer to find another
opportunity later down the road.
4.25.1 On Tuesday, April 13, 2010 7:55 PM (Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:55:42 GMT)
Flores sent a message notifying Koster that the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW transaction
was about 40% in arrearage (no revenue paid out) and Flores wanted a documented
answer from Gelazela. Flores also noted again to Koster, the damages to him from the
transaction nonperformance.*3 Included in the message was a fraud story, a few days
old, posted on the Internet concerning Koster’s friend Gelazela and his partner
Reynolds that occurred in exactly the same time frame as the PSP’s transaction.
(Exhibit 32)
4.25.2 “On 4/13/2010 9:55 PM, Scott Koster wrote:
“… this funding has been delayed, …
Also, regarding the post on ripoff report, there are always two sides to
every story. One client who I brokered in requested a refund, and it was
granted to him pending he signed a release of liability. The poster on ripoff
report screwed himself, in that all of us signed a ncnd, as well as an
agreement to not purposely attempt to disrupt the funding process by going
to external sources prior to exhausting all provisions in the contract.”
Koster responded two hours later that evening, announcing that the PSP was
delayed and not going to be paid from the funds that he and his attorney, Thomas P.

Harlan, had verified the funds had arrived in the United States. In the same message
Koster acknowledged the partner that had written the complaint on the Internet, was
indeed the individual he had removed and terminated from the PSP. Koster remarked
upon the requirement for that individual to execute a release of liability. This
requirement was not in the agreement. Only a demand was required.
Moreover, it was an unlawful coercion to require the partner to execute the release
of liability in order to have his money returned; particularly after Koster had
defaulted on the contract by nonperformance and fraud. In fact, Koster’s act of
holding the partner’s money hostage and extorting a release from liability, was clearly
coercion, or worse, extortion, if the partner was terminated for suggesting legal
action, or reporting Koster’s actions to the U.S. Justice Department.
4.25.3 Koster’s Reinforce Previous Threat of Retaliation. There is little doubt that
Koster’s message was a veiled threat intended to reinforce his previous threat of
retaliation42 for hearing any kind of legal [criminal] or civil action, which he deemed as
profane.
4.25.4 On Wednesday, April 14, 2010 11:42 AM (17:42:59 GMT) Flores sent a
message to Koster to get a “yes or no” answer whether or not the revenue funds were
going to be sent; resolving the next action by Flores to resolve the financial and
damages issues. (Exhibit 35)
4.25.5 188TH DAY NOTICE. Friday, April 16, 2010 5:00 AM, Flores sent a
message to Koster noting that it was over 118 days into the financial transaction, the
42
See ¶ 4.23, supra. at 66 (also, Exhibit 30 at ➄)

last day in the 2 to 4 week period following the payout of the principals and looking to
confirm that the PSP would be paid this day. As in many other messages previously,
Flores again, reinformed Koster of the status of the accumulating damages and harm
Koster and his friend Gelazela were inflicting upon Flores and a host of others.*3
Flores: “… I depended on the agreement and anticipation that the trade

transaction principals would meet contract performance, and shall
experience substantial damages and losses as a result of their lack of
performance. These guys owe us an explanation and should apologize,
moreover, reconcile and perform.
“Notwithstanding the loss of credibility, perceived veracity and reputation

in the industry, I[t] appears I will loose the studio property will cost an
additional $30M-$40M, have lost a couple film projects, and most likely
several more film projects. Having only needed the first couple of the
weekly profit payouts to lever my entire film slate funding via a loan, now
most if not all of this financial venture may just pay for the monetary losses.
My reputation is not likely reparable. I have place a couple of examples in
the post script below.
“Please inform me this morning of the scheduled deposit to the paymaster

so that I may contact my crews, casts, and producers, and attempt to
salvage some of our projects.”
4.25.6 Koster acknowledges film project damages – suggests move to commodities
trade. On 4/16/2010 10:15 AM, Scott Koster wrote acknowledging film project losses
resulting from his failure to perform, aware that Flores is not anticipating litigation
and agency complaints, next suggests moving funds into a Gold Buy/Sell as a direct
principal. Though it seems to just work into Koster’s delay scheme, this message will
play a significant role in clarifying the fraudulent intent and act in an entirely new
program substituted for the IDLYC transaction later on. Koster:
“Lance,
I understand where you are coming from with all of this.

“… 100% see where your coming from, but am also aware of your situation
and past issues prior to coming into this program. With all that being said,
please get in touch with John or Kerim to learn more about the commodities
buy/sell, how that all works, and we can look into timelines and possibilities
to move you away from IDLYC, and into that program, not as a 4th party to
the transaction, but as a direct principal.”
making certain related arguments, defenses or claiming certain related rights later.
forced or induced the Plaintiffs into a detrimental reliance.*3,*5,*6,*7,*9,*11, *12,*13,*19,‡1,‡2,‡4,

4.26 4/22/2010 - KOSTER REPORTS SEC INVESTIGATOR SAYS IDLYC
CHECKS OUT – FUNDING IS IMMINENT . On 4/22/2010 1:10 PM CST, Kerim Emre
wrote restating Koster’s telephone conversation that Koster was told by an SEC
investigator43 that the IDLYC transaction was legitimate, and that he was advised that
the PSP funding was imminent. Neither Emre nor Koster provided any verifiable
documentation of the SEC report, the name of the investigator, or SEC district
investigating IDLYC to Flores.
4.26.1 Following, in later telephone conversations with Koster, Flores maintained
that IDLYC was engaging in fraudulent actions and that Koster had to be aware of
those frauds. Flores continued informing Koster that he had first hand information
and both he and Harlan had an obligation and were required by law to report the
frauds, and that the only reason that Koster and Harlan could possibly have to gain,
not to produce that evidence to the SEC investigator, would be to conceal his, Harlan’s
and Emre’s involvement in the unlawful and/or illegal activities with IDLYC and
BMW Majestic. Koster would not respond, and remained silent on this challenge,
knowing full well they were obstructing justice by interfering with a government
investigation and not being forthcoming with evidence of criminal or regulatory
violations.
43
Koster had mentioned in several telephone conversations with Flores that he was contacted on a
number of occasions by an investigator from the Securities and Exchange Commission looking into the
IDLYC, each time reporting that there appeared no wrongdoing by Mark Gelazela and W illiam Chandler
Reynolds.

4.26.2 Non-disclosure & Silence.‡2 The Defendants refused to produce any
verifiable documentation or information. Defendants, particularly Koster counseled by
Harlan, continued their conscious indifference to their fiduciary duty through silence,
concealment and non-disclosure of information legally due Plaintiffs. Koster and
Harlan knew they would be prohibited or otherwise be estopped from later making
certain related arguments, defenses or claiming certain related rights later. It is
evident, given the aforementioned fact , Koster and Harlan took into account their
risks of their deeds.
4.26.3 Koster would not provide any documentation his advisory of the “imminent”
funding though urged in subsequent telephone conversations with Emre and Koster.
Flores also responds shortly thereafter concerning IDLYC’s non-performance.
(Exhibit 38)
Flores: “… It is well past the moment that they [IDLYC, G ] be given a

dictate the time and date given delivery, since after three months they have
failed and have not produce[d] the contracted deliverable. No more
imminent anything … a few more imminent 2-4 week promises by IDLYC
and it will be Christmas.”

4.26.5 Defendants, specifically Koster and Harlan, continued their acquiescence
to Flores' legal notifications arising after Flores gave legal warning to Defendants
based on clearly asserted facts and specification of related legal principle, where after
Koster and Harlan, did not respond within a reasonable period of time. By
acquiescing, the Defendants lost the legal right to assert the contrary and would be
prohibited or otherwise estopped from later making certain related arguments,
defenses or claiming certain related rights. It is evident, given the aforementioned
facts, Defendants, particularly Koster and Harlan, took into account their tortious
and/or illegal acts, their reckless and wanton disregard of the law, and the harm they
had, or would continue to inflict upon others, and with scienter, weighed the risks of
their deeds.*3,*5,*6,*7,*9,*11,*12,*13,*19,‡1,‡2,‡3,‡4,
forced or induced the Plaintiffs into a detrimental reliance.

4.27 4/24/2010 - FLORES INFORMS IDLYC PRINCIPALS & KOSTER OF
THEIR INTRINSIC FIDUCIARY DUTY. From April 22nd through April 24, 2010,
Flores informed Koster and IDLYC principals through Koster, of their fiduciary duties
and that their clients have a right to information given the real and potential damages to
everyone involved in the transaction.*5,*7,*11,*13,*19,‡2,‡3,‡4, (Exhibit 39)
4.28 6/24/2010 - LEGAL NOTICE GIVEN - LEGAL DEFINITION - DEFINING
AND GOVERNING FIDUCIARY DUTY ARISE OUT OF THE LAW OF EQUITY.‡3
On Thursday, June 24, 2010 6:46 AM, having just been surprised by news of a
fiduciary/principal in the IDLYC/ALICORN transaction which had never been revealed
to the Plaintiffs in telephone conversation with Koster, Flores insisted on a conference to
discuss the matters concerning 1) the Gold Transaction, 2) IDLYC/BMW Majestic trade
matters, 3) investment fund issues dates including demand letters and responses, and
4) SBLC resources. (Vol. 2 Exhibit 44 at ➀)
ADDITIONALLY, Flores Gave Legal Notice Based on Clearly Asserted Facts
and Specification of Related Legal Principle. (See, Vol. 2 Exhibit 44 at ➁, ➂)
4.28.1 On 4/26/2010 11:25 AM, Scott Koster replied (Exhibit NN) to Flores
response to Emre’s “Imminent payout schedule” message of April 22nd. Koster
responded in an interleaved form:
[Flores E-mail Msg. of Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 9:45 AM]

I can find no reason not to fully document the circumstances, conditions,
and history of this transaction and formally memorialize all this information.

[Koster’s response]
I agree.
However, like all of the Defendants’ promises for full disclosure and transparency,
their commitments remained unrealized assurances to fulfill their legal duties to the
Plaintiffs.
4.28.2 Koster and Harlin had knowledge of the true facts and circumstances, states
above, and had fiduciary duty including the duty speak, inform and provide documentary
verification to the Plaintiffs, as that duty of care had arisen in this instance. However, they
did not, and maintained and continued the various frauds, fully aware of the consequences of
their tortuous acts which they knew would injure the Plaintiffs. Defendants, but particularly
Koster and Harlin, also knew that they were concealing information of grave consequential
import to the Plaintiffs, and as well maintained the fraudulent concealment of their fraudulent
acts.*5
4.28.3 Estoppel by Acquiescence. Defendants, specifically Koster, counseled by
Harlin, continued their acquiescence to Plaintiffs’ legal notifications arising after
Flores gave legal warning to Defendants based on clearly asserted facts and
specification of related legal principle, where after Koster, counseled by Harlin, did
not respond within a reasonable period of time. By acquiescing, the Defendants lost
the legal right to assert the contrary and would be prohibited or otherwise estopped
from later making certain related arguments, defenses or claiming certain related
rights. It is evident, given the aforementioned facts, Defendants, particularly Koster
and Harlin, took into account their tortious and/or illegal acts, their reckless and

wanton disregard of the law, and the harm they had, or would continue to inflict upon
others, and with scienter, weighed the risks of their deeds.‡3
4.29 EMRE’S REQUEST FOR IRS W9 FORM. PAYMENT SCHEDULE
UPDATE. From 4/27/2010 11:08 PM though 4/29/2010 Kerim Emre sent request for
Flores W9 IRS form, and exchanged information and acknowledged procedures for his
submission to escrow attorney (paymaster) David B. Kaplan Attorney-at-Law JOLTA
Trust Account, Chase Bank, 270 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Bank Officer: Fery
Sabouri. (Exhibit 41)
4.30 May 5TH - COME TO JESUS TIME FOR MARK & CHANDLER . (Exhibit 43)
On Wednesday, May 5, 2010, Flores sent his Come to Jesus Time message to Koster
exhibiting the frustrations of the Plaintiffs. Clarkson and Flores had discussed the
drafting of a complaint and assembling evidence for submission to the grand jury foreman
under various jurisdictions and to U.S. and Canadian investigative agencies, which
Plaintiffs have done in part thus far, continuing to collect additional evidence. In previous
months, Koster and Emre were made aware, in both telephone conversations and e-mail
communications, that the Plaintiffs were pursuing such actions. Koster was asked to
inform his partners, Gelazela and Reynolds, of their fiduciary duty, as Koster refused to
allow direct access to them.
Nonetheless, the Defendants continued their concealment, deceit, and
unresponsiveness to lawful demands of the Plaintiffs. Clearly Koster and his legal

counsel Harlan, were fully aware of the circumstances, that the Plaintiffs must plead
with particularity.44 As well, Harlan was well aware that the Plaintiffs’ must establish
the necessary “quantum of proof” of the crime/fraud exception in order to penetrate
his attorney-client privilege; a privilege he and his client anticipated would protect the
evidence disclosure of their fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. Faced with
choosing disclosure over continued fraud and fraudulent concealment, Koster, and
Harlan choose the later. Flores’ call, expressed the Plaintiffs’ intentions to proceed
toward litigation, which they did with care, such, apparently mistaken as a bluff.
4.30.1 Non-disclosure. The Defendants refused to produce any verifiable
documentation or information. Defendants, particularly Koster counseled by Harlan,
continued their conscious indifference to their fiduciary duty through silence,
risks of their deeds.‡2 (see also, ¶ 4.18.2, 62)
4.30.2 Acquiescence. Further, Defendants, specifically Koster, counseled by
Harlan, continued their acquiescence to Flores’ legal notifications arising after Flores
44
There are few attorneys that are unaware of W ilson, W ilson, 525 F.3d at 379, and know the
higher pleading requirements for fraud claims. {United States ex rel. W ilson v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc.,
525 F.3d 370, 379 (4 TH Cir. 2008) (quoting Harrison, 176 F.3d at 784). This set of information is often called
the "who, what, when, where, and how" of the alleged fraud.}

gave legal warning to Defendants based on clearly asserted facts and specification of
related legal principle, where after Koster, counseled by Harlan, did not respond
within a reasonable period of time. By acquiescing,‡3 the Defendants lost the legal
right to assert the contrary and would be thereafter prohibited or otherwise estopped
from later making certain related arguments, defenses or claiming certain related
rights. It is evident, given the aforementioned facts, Defendants, particularly Koster
and Harlan, took into account their tortious and/or illegal acts, their reckless and
others, and with scienter, weighed the risks of their deeds.‡2 (see also, ¶ 4.18.2, 62).
4.31 KOSTER OFFERS GOLD BUY/SELL VALUE EQUIVALENCY
SUBSTITUTION FOR IDLYC PERFORMANCE IN DEFAULT
4.31.1 On Friday, April 16, 2010, Scott Koster, sent a message to Flores, copying
John Childs and Kerim Emre stating:
“… With all that being said, please get in touch with John or Kerim
to learn more about the commodities buy/sell, how that all works, and
we can look into timelines and possibilities to move you away from
IDLYC, and into that program, not as a 4th party to the transaction,
but as a direct principal.
I will follow this up with a phone call later today. &c.” (Exhibit 36)
4.31.2 In the period following Koster’s Friday, April 16, 2010 10:15 PM message,
Flores and Koster engage in telephone conversations in which Koster further
explained the process and procedure of Richard Hall’s (and partners’) Gold
Transaction as a settlement for the performance failure of the Plaintiffs’ interest in

the non-performing Alicorn PSP. In those phone conversations Koster reiterated,
proposed, assuring the reliability of the program, and offered the commodity buy/sell
to Flores. Koster made additional promises and reassurances to that which he stated
in his April 16TH message that Flores would be taken out of IDLYC transaction, and
placed into the buy/sell program, not as a 4th party to the transaction, but as a direct
principal.
4.31.3 Promissory Estoppel. Defendant, the promisor, made a a promise, in fact a
gratuitous promise that he should reasonably have expected to induce action or
forbearance of the Plaintiffs by a definite and substantial character on the part of the
Defendant, whom a promise has been made. The Plaintiffs, promisees, justifiably
relied on the Defendants' promise for which Plaintiffs suffered harm and substantial
detriment, that was an economic loss and other damages that ensued to the Plaintiffs
from action or forbearance. Thus, injustice can be avoided only by enforcing the
promise.‡1
4.32 4/29/2010 - PLAINTIFFS’ APRIL 29TH DEMAND FOR PERFORMANCE &
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.
4.32.1 FLORES APRIL 29TH DEMAND FOR PAYOUT PERFORMANCE. On
Thursday, April 29, 2010 15:03:53 GMT Flores wrote to Koster,
Flores: “Don't need any more updates from Mark. His updates are just
manufactured excuses to deceive and delay; Mark has provided no definitive or
substantiated reasons for his delays. He needs to transfer the funds today.
(Exhibit 45 at ➀)

4.32.2 None of the Defendants affirmatively responded by performing on the
delivery of funds.*6
4.33 6/13/2010 - FLORES’ JUNE 13TH DEMAND FOR PERFORMANCE &
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS. (Exhibit 46)
4.33.1 On Sunday, June 13, 2010, Flores gives Koster notice that the PSP has
entered into its 177TH day of the transaction (152ND day in default) specifies that,
Flores: “ * There never has been a definitive explanation of the schedule of

transactions, other than verbal and email promises.
* We've never had any verifiable documentation on any legitimate
[transactions] having taken place -
o except for the initial bank transaction of initial transfer
of funds into the investment,
o telephone inquiries into the status of investment
transactions, and
o email inquiries into the status of investment transactions,
these we can verify;
* this accounts for over 150 inquiries of the status for which there
is no means to verify any legitimate transaction outside the
initial investment, and none by the parties having a fiduciary
responsibility,”
4.33.2 Flores clearly sets forth the deficiencies in the Defendants’ actions, and
breach of their fiduciary duties where Defendants have, after, minimally, one-hundred
fifty (150) inquires from the Plaintiffs, never provided any affirmative responses that
would verify the legitimacy or the Defendants’ transaction as they apply to the PSP.
4.33.3 Defendants, having the opportunity, never respond, to or resolve any of the
points made as of the date of June 13, 2010.
4.33.4 Non-disclosure & Silence. The Defendants refused to produce any

Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Fraud in the Factum, Fraud in the Inducement,
Constructive Fraud, Fraud in Law, Actual Fraud, Fraud by Concealment, Beach of
Contract for Nonperformance, Breach of Common Law Duty of Good Faith,
Intentional Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Bad Faith, Intentional
Misrepresentation, Willful Omissions, Fraud by Concealment legally due Plaintiffs.
Koster and Harlan knew they would be prohibited by equitable estoppel particularly,
Estoppel by Non-disclosure, Estoppel by Silence, Estoppel by Estoppel by
Misrepresentation, or otherwise be estopped from later making certain related
arguments, defenses or claiming certain related rights later.*5,*6,*7,*9,*10,*11,*12,*13,*14,*15,*16,*17,

*18,*19,‡2,‡4,‡6

4.34 6/29/2010 - CLARKSON’S CALL FOR VERIFICATION OF KOSTER’S
PURPORTED DEMAND LETTER TO IDLYC.
4.34.1 CLARKSON’S 1ST REQUEST FOR A COPY OF KOSTER’S
PURPORTED IDLYC DEMAND LETTER. On June 29, 2010 4:44 PM MST,
Plaintiff Vicki Clarkson wrote following her telephone call voice message.
Clarkson: “Below is an outline of what I'm looking for.
“Please provide the tracking numbers for the letters that were sent to
IDLYC. We would all like to understand the exact date that IDYLC has to
refund the money. As per our conversation, 2 weeks ago, IDYLC has 30
days to return the funds to you, what we don't know is what is the final date
they have to return the funds.
( For example, if the letter was received by IDYLC on June 16, then based
on a 30 day refund time frame, we can expect the funds returned to you by
July 16, 2010.)
Please provide the last date IDYLC has to return the funds.
Help me understand why two weeks has gone by and it doesn't sound like
we are any further ahead today than we were in the middle of June. If I'm
missing something, please advise. (Exhibit 45 at ➁)
4.34.2 6/30/2010 - CLARKSON’S 2ND CALL FOR A COPY OF KOSTER’S
PURPORTED IDLYC DEMAND LETTER. On Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:23 PM,
Vicki Clarkson reminded Koster of her request for a copy of his purported demand
letters he claimed to have sent to Mark Gelazela at IDLYC. (Exhibit 45 at ➂)

4.34.3 6/30/2010 - CLARKSON’S 3ND REQUEST FOR A COPY OF KOSTER’S
PURPORTED IDLYC DEMAND LETTER. On Wednesday, June 30, 2010 2:23 PM,
Vicki Clarkson reminded Koster of her request for a copy of his purported demand
letters he claimed to have sent to Mark Gelazela at IDLYC. (Exhibit 45 at ➂)
4.34.4 KOSTER FAILS TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS CONCEALING THE
INTERNAL ACTIVITIES OF THE SYNDICATE. Koster never responded to the
Clarkson request for Koster’s purported demand letters to IDLYC; neither to
Clarkson nor Flores. This information was critical to their financial interests and was
information lawfully due the Plaintiffs; as of the date of the filing of this instant action,
no document of any sort, verifiable or not, related in this section (¶ 4.33.5), has been
produced to either of the Plaintiffs.
4.34.5 Knowledge of Fiduciary Duty.*2 Koster and Harlan had knowledge of the
true facts and circumstances, and had fiduciary duty including the duty to speak,
inform and provide documentary verification to the Plaintiffs, as that duty of care had
arisen in this instance. However, they did not, and instead coerced reliance with
fraudulent intent, and maintained and continued the various frauds, fully aware of the
consequences of their tortuous acts which they knew would injure the Plaintiffs.
Defendants, but particularly Koster and Harlan, also knew that they were concealing
information of grave consequential import to the Plaintiffs, and as well maintained the
fraudulent concealment of their fraudulent acts.*5,*7,*10,*11,*13,*19,‡4

4.34.6 Estoppel by Silence. An estoppel arose when Defendants, specifically
Koster, counseled by Harlin, had an obligation and a duty to speak, and they
intentionally failed, or should have acted, and did not, or otherwise withheld
information for which they had the duty to provide the Plaintiffs. By Defendants'
silence that arises from their obligation their silence was maintained to intentionally
mislead that the Plaintiff would be deceived.
4.34.7 Defendants Fully Informed of Governing Laws. It cannot be claimed that
Defendants, particularly Scott A. Koster and Thomas Harlan were uninformed or
were ignorant of the law of torts, legal and equitable doctrines, the common law,
federal and state statutory law, nor the Defendants lawful duties therein prescribed as
Harlan had himself proclaimed his vast legal experience.45
4.34.8 Non-disclosure & Silence. The Defendants refused to produce any
evident, given the aforementioned fact, Koster and Harlan took into account their
risks of their deeds.‡2
45
FN 40, at 61.

4.35 6/30/2010 - KOSTER BMW MAJESTIC PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY -
USING THEIR OWN STRAW MAN. (Vol. 2 Exhibit 47)
On June 30, 2010 at 11:13:31 AM CST, Koster sent Flores a message (Vol. 2 Exhibit)
“Subject: Update with info on IDLYC/BMW Majestic” explaining the BMW Majestic
role:
4.35.1 [Ex. at ➀➔] On June 14, 2010, Koster received a document
[bmwmajesticUpdateletterJune142010.pdf] from BMW Majestic, presumably from
Woods, the same being received by IDLYC, presumably from Gelazela, and stated by
Koster to be confirmed by “the tracking number” as well as a phone call and e-mail
from Mark Gelazela.
4.35.2 [Ex. at ➁➔] Koster stated, “I had my contract with his [Gelazela’s] bank.
He [Koster’s contact at bank] felt very strongly that they [Gelazela/IDLYC] had both
the ability, and the commitment to all parites [sic] to issue the refunds within the
timeline stated in the document that was sent.” Thus, Koster committed that it was
highly probable that he would receive a refund for the Alicorn PSP.
4.35.3 [Ex. at ➂➔] I feel, as does my attorney [Harlan], that we are at the point of
escelation [sic]. Koster infers that he and Harlan intended to escalate the recovery of
funds by stronger measures, presumably litigation.‡5
4.35.4 [Ex. at ➃➔] Koster commits funding to restoring the
ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW MAJESTIC transaction performance failure with a (Gold)
Buy/Sell transaction.

4.35.5 [Ex. at ➄➔] Koster introduces the purported evidence of BMW Majestic’s
confirmation to refund investment including a 10% fee and return all moneys by June
30, 2010 or sooner . The document appears to be completely fraudulent, showing
issuance without a signatory appearing on no letterhead.
4.35.6 [Ex. at ➅➔] Koster, after stating that he and Harlan were going to escalate
the recovery of funds now make a conflicting statement at ➅ in which they change
position concerning escalation of the funds recovery, stating “… it is not time to
escelate [sic].
4.35.7 Estoppel by Conflict. An estoppel arose when Defendants, specifically
Koster, counseled by Harlan, by changing positions that were conflicting with their
decision to seek, then not seeking recovery of funds through escalation . Thus Koster’s
statements and acts, concerning the decisions of he and Harlan, were in an
inconsistent position, attitude and course of conduct, that contributed to loss or injury
to the Plaintiffs and the proximate cause of the harm to the Plaintiffs.‡5
4.36 7/5/2010 – KOSTER WITHHOLDS EVIDENCE FROM FEDERAL SEC
INVESTIGATOR.
4.36.1 On Tuesday, July 5, 2010 at 19:12:09 GMT -0500 (7:12: 09 PM CST) Koster
sent a message to Flores concerning, inter alia, his interview by a United States
Security and Exchange Commission investigator. (Exhibit 53 at ➀):
Koster:
“I was also contacted again by the SEC investigator, asking if there was
anything new to report, and asked if I had received my refund from the
investment with IDLYC. He did state that there is an active investigation

regarding this whole investment, and that it is larger than just IDLYC.
There were 5+ other firms like IDLYC that were transacting with BMW
Majestic.”
4.36.2 Koster came into conflict with Flores after Koster stated he was questioned
by SEC authorities and later withheld information concerning wire and telephone
communications with Woods and Gelazela. Flores, again admonished, Koster on
several occasions about Koster’s and Harlan’s intentional obstruction of justice and
pressed Koster to cease aiding and abetting the other members of the Syndicate
operation and their commission of crimes. Flores, stated to Koster, that Koster had
first hand information and other evidence, which he withheld from the Plaintiffs.
Koster was well aware of the demands for production of documents, and had failed to
produce that would evidence the activities of the Syndicate, and he was also aware of
the numerous legal notices he had received from Flores and had failed to act upon.
Given this, Koster failed to inform and provide the SEC investigator with that
information and from whom it had been demanded. Flores expressed that he would
inform the SEC if Koster would provide to him the evidence, but he couldn’t approach
the SEC or Justice Department with only heresy. By all accounts, Koster, Harlan and
Emre were aware of the criminal objectives of the Syndicate.
4.36.3 Koster corruptly influenced, obstructed, and impeded, or endeavored to
influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice, thereby may have
violated the crime of obstruction of justice, and the due administration of justice. His
conduct interfered with the judicial process by concealment. The defendant's endeavor

to obstruct justice is sufficient to prove obstruction. Koster’s endeavor may constitute
a lesser threshold of purposeful activity than a criminal attempt.
4.36.4 Acquiescence.‡3 Further, Defendants, specifically Koster and Harlan,
continued their acquiescence to Flores' legal notifications arising after Flores gave
legal warning to Defendants based on clearly asserted facts and specification of
related legal principle, where after Koster and Harlan, did not respond within a
reasonable period of time.
By acquiescing, the Defendants lost the legal right to assert the contrary and
would be prohibited or otherwise estopped from later making certain related
arguments, defenses or claiming certain related rights. It is evident, given the
aforementioned facts, Defendants, particularly Koster and Harlan, took into account
their tortious and/or illegal acts, their reckless and wanton disregard of the law, and
the harm they had, or would continue to inflict upon others, and with scienter, weighed
the risks of their deeds.
4.36.5 Non-disclosure.‡2 The Defendants refused to produce any verifiable
documentation or information. Defendants, particularly Koster counseled by Harlan,

4.36.6 Estoppel by Silence.‡4 An estoppel arose when Defendants, specifically
Koster and Harlan, had an obligation and a duty to speak, and they intentionally
failed, or should have acted, and did not, or otherwise withheld information for which
they had the duty to provide the Plaintiffs. By Defendants’ silence that arises from
their obligation their silence was maintained to intentionally mislead that the Plaintiff
would be deceived.
4.37 7/8/2010 - LEGAL NOTICE TO KOSTER & HARLAN - FLORES URGES
KOSTER NOT TO WITHHOLD EVIDENCE FROM SEC. (Exhibit 54)
4.37.1 [Ex. 54 at ➀➔] On Thursday, July 8, 2010 at 15:42:39 GMT (10:42 AM CST)
Flores sent a message to Koster inquiring, inter alia, urging Koster not to continue
concealing the mail fraud and potential RICO violation of the Syndicate.
Flores:
“Did you give the SEC a copy of that BMW Majestic phony-baloney refund
response letter from their Board of Directors? This has got to be
fraudulent as hell; thus, a act of mail fraud (probably just one among many
wire/mail frauds that have gone on) which could held as one of the minimum
two predicate acts for the feds to move on RICO (racketeering) charges
against BMW.”

4.38 7/8/2010 - RESPONSE TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE - ADMITS TO
WITHHOLDING EVIDENCE FROM FEDERAL INVESTIGATION.†3
4.38.1 On Thursday, July 8, 2010 1:40 PM, Scott Koster wrote within hours of
Flores’ inquiry of Koster’s disclosure of evidence of the fraud and criminal activities
related to the Syndicate.
Flores:
“Did you give the SEC a copy of that BMW Majestic phony-baloney
refund response letter from their Board of Directors? This has got to be
fraudulent as hell; thus, a act of mail fraud (probably just one among many
wire/mail frauds that have gone on) which could [be] held as one of the
minimum two predicate acts for the feds to move on RICO (racketeering)
charges against BMW.” [emphasis added]
Koster:
“I did not. I am meeting with my attorney next week to go over the course
of action from here. I do not want to spend too much money on it, as Im
already out 150k if they lost/spent the money, and are selling their stake
house. I want to see what my attorney can accomplish, prior to going too
much farther into my pocket to deal with it.” [emphasis added]
4.39 7/9/2010 – 2ND LEGAL NOTICE TO KOSTER OF FEDERAL CRIMES &
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.
4.39.1 Fri, 09 Jul 2010 09:27:38 AM CST Flores again sends legal notice to Koster
concerning the apparent civil fraud, felonies including wire fraud, obstruction of
justice†3 and other racketeering related activities which he and the Syndicate may be
engaged.

Flores:
“Just a note about BMW BoD refund response letter. Since it is related to
what may be a felony of felonies involving federal crimes, fraud, mail fraud,
and/or racketeering, inter alia, you may want to rethink the value of
withholding evidence. Having direct knowledge of a federal investigation
and withholding evidence may be construed as obstruction of justice and is a
federal crime. Just a thought ..”
4.39.2 Incorporating by reference the above ¶ 4.36.6, 4.37.1, pg. 91, 92, ¶ 4.36.6,
4.37.1, pg. 91, 92, and ¶ 4.38.1, pg. 92, as if fully set forth hereto, the Plaintiffs aver that
the Defendants and particularly Koster, Harlan, and Emre never responded to the
Plaintiff Flores’ legal notices. The only response from Koster is his admission that he
did withhold evidence from the United States Securities and Exchange investigating
officer, and otherwise did not produce the evidence or information thereto related in
Flores’ notices, and has continued to withhold critical information legally due the
Plaintiffs, as well as the United States government. Plaintiffs aver equitable estoppel,
attaching to the immediate aforesaid incorporated references, the following
thereupon:
4.39.3 Defendants, specifically Koster and Harlan, continued their acquiescence to
Flores' legal notifications arising after Flores gave legal warning to Defendants based
on clearly asserted facts and specification of related legal principle, where after
Koster and Harlan, did not respond within a reasonable period of time. By
acquiescing,‡3 the Defendants lost the legal right to assert the contrary and would be
prohibited or otherwise estopped from later making certain related arguments,
defenses or claiming certain related rights. It is evident, given the aforementioned
facts, Defendants, particularly Koster and Harlan, took into account their tortious

and/or illegal acts, their reckless and wanton disregard of the law, and the harm they
had, or would continue to inflict upon others, and with scienter, weighed the risks of
their deeds.
4.39.4 An estoppel arose when Defendants, specifically Koster and Harlan, had an
obligation and a duty to speak, and they intentionally failed, or should have acted, and
did not, or otherwise withheld information for which they had the duty to provide the
Plaintiffs. Defendants’ silence‡4 was maintained to intentionally mislead, so that the
Plaintiffs would continued to be deceived.
conscious indifference to their fiduciary duty through silence, concealment and non-
disclosure ‡2 of information legally due Plaintiffs. Koster and Harlan knew they would
be prohibited or otherwise be estopped from later making certain related arguments,
defenses or claiming certain related rights later. It is evident, given the
aforementioned fact, Koster and Harlan took into account their tortious and/or illegal
acts, their reckless and wanton disregard of the law, and the harm they had, or would
continue to inflict upon others, and with scienter, weighed the risks of their deeds.
4.39.6 Defendants, particularly Koster and Harlan, had knowledge of the true
facts and circumstances, and had fiduciary duty*2 including the duty to speak, inform
and provide documentary verification to the Plaintiffs, as that duty of care had arisen
in this instance. However, they did not, and instead coerced reliance with fraudulent
intent, and maintained and continued the various frauds, fully aware of the

consequences of their tortuous acts which they knew would injure the Plaintiffs.
Defendants, but particularly Koster and Harlan, also knew that they were concealing
information of grave consequential import to the Plaintiffs, and as well maintained the
fraudulent concealment of their fraudulent acts.
4.39.7 Defendants Fully Informed of Governing Laws.‡3 It cannot be claimed that
Defendants, particularly Scott A. Koster and Thomas P. Harlan were uninformed or
were ignorant of the law of torts, legal and equitable doctrines, the common law,
federal and state statutory and criminal law, nor the Defendants lawful duties therein
prescribed.
4.40 7/29/ 2010 - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DAMAGES AND HARM BY
SILENCE.
4.40.1 The allegations and facts informing Defendants of damages and harm to the
Plaintiffs incurred by and through Defendants’ non-performance, fraud, maleficence
and/or crimes contained in Vol. 2 Exhibit 52 (incorporated by reference) and on pages
49, 51, 59, 60, 69, 71, 169 of this Complaint are hereby re-averred and re-alleged, for all
purposes, and incorporated herein with the same force and effect as if set forth
verbatim herein.
4.40.2 Flores July 29TH Msg., 222ND Day of Transaction - Notice of Damages &
Non-Performance.
On Thursday, July 29, 2010 8:17 AM Flores reminds Koster and Childs of damages
the Defendants are inflicting upon the Plaintiffs. (Exhibit 59)

4.40.3 The Defendants by the two-hundred and twenty-second day of the
ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW investment transaction had been fully informed and aware
of the amount of damages and the harm they had inflicted upon the Plaintiffs. They
cannot argue that they did not have knowledge or were not informed.
4.40.4 By their non-disclosure they had deprived the Plaintiffs of critical
information in which they could have understood the degree of fraud being
perpetrated. Further, the Defendants made misrepresentations of the facts of all the
transactions and processes in the PSP, and investment. The facts provided the
Plaintiffs by the Defendants were misrepresented information that was intentionally
ambiguous. And by Defendants’ silence they maliciously allowed the Plaintiffs’
damages to accumulate thorough that silence when they had a fiduciary duty to speak
with candor and honesty. The Defendants did not. Defendants’ silence and all the
foregoing prevented the Plaintiffs engagement of federal and state law enforcement,
and other agencies which may have been able to cause the cessation of fraud and
criminal activity of the Syndicate. As a result Plaintiffs may have had an opportunity
to recover a portion of the damages.*3,*5,†2,,‡4,‡6
4.40.5 Defendants, cannot be claim, particularly Scott A. Koster and Thomas P.
Harlan, that they were uninformed or were ignorant of the United States and Texas
statutory and common law, nor their lawful or professional duties.

4.41 7/29-8/16/2010 – 2ND FRAUD SCHEME – GENESIS (Berea/Hall Gold Buy/Sell)
4.41.1 Conditions & Agreement. Flores Sets Conditions for Richard Hall Gold
Buy/sell Substitution. In the period between July 29, 2010 to August 16, 2010 Flores,
in telephone conversations with Koster, expressed that he wanted assurances that
Richard Hall and his company including Vladimir Pierre-Louise and Christine
Wong-Sang would provide complete transparency to the Richard Hall Gold
Transaction, accessability to Richard Hall and a committed understanding to maintain
regular communications with verifiable frequent status reports, copies of the assay
information, and that the documents moving the Plaintiffs over to the Gold
Transaction be simultaneously executed by all parties on the same day. Koster stated
that could be done as soon as “Richard had the exit plan in place.”
4.41.2 Plaintiffs Plan for Use of Gold Buy/Sell Funds for Critical Short-Term
Damage Recovery from the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW Non-performance. Plaintiffs’
plan was to initiate the purchase of a Hong Kong bank instrument to secure a loan to
recover what was left of the severely damaged film slate, and financial damages to film
production crews and talent commitments. It was critical that Flores move quickly
with no delays to use the Gold Buy/Sell revenues to recover, and it was essential for
funds to move directly to a Hong Kong bank to secure the collateral for a loan. The
Plaintiff could then bring the balance of the revenue to help Clarkson recover from the
losses in her real-estate business and damages from lost investment opportunities.

4.41.3 Koster Delivers Partnership Termination and Wind-up Agreement and
Mutual Release &c. (Exhibit 63)
On 8/16/2010 3:11 AM, Scott Koster wrote:

“Attached is the document [Partnership Termination and Wind-up
Agreement and Mutual Release &c.] for the movement of you and the
other two parties forward into the instrument as discussed. This will be
the first step. Upon executing this document, we will get the buy/sell
group to explain their process to you, and have you get an
understanding/comfort level in moving forward.”
4.41.4 Contract Executed under Coercion and Duress. Because of the delayed
funding from the Alicorn PSP failure to perform, and because Plaintiffs had incurred
substantial liabilities and damages in reliance on Emre’s and Koster's representations,
the Plaintiffs were forced to endure significant financial distress and emotional
anguish as a result. Koster, Harlan, Childs and Emre were fully aware of those
damages and the harm they had dispensed46 and intended to exploit the Plaintiffs’
anguish as a tool of malice they had forged through detrimental reliance of the
Plaintiffs to Defendants’ extortive ends. Koster and Harlan exploited Plaintiffs’
condition to coerce their submission to an onerous and punitive agreement,47 (the
"First Settlement Agreement").†4
46
See ¶ 4.40, pg. 95
47
"Partnership Termination Agreement and W ind-up Agreement and Mutual Release"

4.42 8/18/2010 - FLORES’ SIGNATURE WITHDRAWAL
4.42.1 On August 18, 2010 2:44:30 PM CST, Flores sent a message informing
Koster of his signature withdrawal from the PARTNERSHIP TERMINATION
AND WIND-UP AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE (the “First Wind-up
Agreement”) resulting from Koster’s failure to respond by counter signing the
agreement on the same day, failing to send an electronic copy by e-mail, returning a
duplicate original of the countersigned document by mail and immediately executing
the gold buy/sell contract between Richard Hall and Flores. The conditions of the
execution had been previously arranged so that the documents moving the Plaintiffs
over to the Gold Transaction be simultaneously executed by all parties on the same
day”, which, Koster stated could be done as soon as Richard had the “exit plan in
place”.48 Flores waited throughout the day of the 16TH and 17TH with no response from
Koster. On August 18, 2010 at 2:44:30 PM CST, Flores notified Koster that he had
withdrawn his signature and for Koster to update Flores with the schedule, so they
could complete the execution of the agreement at that time. (Exhibit 64)
48
See, ¶ 4.41.1, pg. 97 – Conditions & Agreement

4.43 8/24/2010 - KOSTER ESTABLISHES EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY TO SIGN
THE 1ST WIND-UP AGREEMENT - EVIDENCE OF AUGUST 16TH DOCUMENT
FORGERY
4.43.1 On August 24, 2010 11:18:36 AM, Koster explains the document he sent
should have had his signature, which, in fact, it did not.49 Koster indicates that he will
sign the document when he returns and is at his desk.
4.43.2 Koster never delivered the counter-signed document until after he
responded to Flores and Clarkson’s attorney Gary Grab’s demand for production of
Documents letter. The counter-signed document arrived November 17, 2010 at 1:13
AM CST to Flores. It was then discovered by Vicki Clarkson that Flores’ signature
had been forged onto a non-original signature page which didn’t bear the embedded
watermark seal50 of the original document51 whereupon Flores had signed. Not only
had Koster forged Flores’ signature on a fraudulent signature page, but had
backdated the signature date of his signature to reflect that he executed the
agreement on August 17, 2010.
4.43.3 Koster penned the fraudulent signature date to have it appear as though he
had inscribed his signature on August 17TH. In fact, Koster hadn’t signed the
document or given any notion to sign it. It wasn’t until one week after Flores
informed Koster of his signature withdrawal of August 18TH that Koster had even
49
See, Exhibit 63 at ➂ and ➃.
50
Exhibit 108
51
Exhibit 107

given thought to signing the document, as Koster said he would sign the agreement
when he returned “back to [his] desk” on August 24TH .52
Koster had forged Flores’ signature on the fraudulent signature page with a
falsified signature date for Koster’s own signature. There could only be one objective
for Koster to risk the penalty for the criminal act of forgery by wire fraud; his purpose
was to falsely establish Koster’s execution of the document prior to Flores’ signature
withdrawal date. This act establishes more than the tort of civil fraud.
4.43.4 Koster sent documents, falsified by forgery, affecting a monetary
transaction value exceeding millions of dollars, directly in the offer and sale of
securities. He did so through the use of interstate commerce and by use of the public
wire over the Internet. This action is a violation of State and federal crimes including:
felony Forgery,53 †5 and felony federal Wire Fraud,54 †2,†7,†8 that are both elements of
Racketeering†9 (RICO)55.
4.44 8/25/2019 - NINE MONTH DEFAULT/FAILURE TO PERFORM NOTICE
On Wednesday, August 25, 2010 8:07, Flores wrote:
“Scott -
It's now Wednesday, August 25, 2010 , more than nine months after you received
funds.
Are we going to wrap this up today? Please advise immediately as I have a
scheduled appointment.
52
Exhibit 66
53
Texas P. C. § 32.21 Forgery - felony
54
18 U.S.C. § 1343 W ire Fraud
55
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 Civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

I will be unavailable from 2:30 PM CST until 4:00 PM CST for an
electrocardiogram and cardiology clinic appointment.
Lance” (Exhibit 67)
The Defendants refused to produce any verifiable documentation or information.
Defendants, particularly Koster counseled by Harlan, continued their conscious
indifference to Defendants’ fiduciary duty through Silence, Concealment, Beach of
particularly Promissory Estoppel, Estoppel by Non-disclosure, Estoppel by Silence,
making certain related arguments, defenses or claiming certain related rights
later.*6,*7,*10,*11,*13,*19,‡1,‡2,‡4
4.45 9/1/2010 10:43 AM - SCHEDULE FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE CALL
W/GOLD TRADE COMPANY PRINCIPAL RICHARD HALL. On September 1, 2010
10:43:18 AM CST Scott Koster sends an e-mail message to inform Flores of the
conference call with Richard Hall.
Koster:
“Your call is scheduled for 1pm EST today. That is 12pm CST. After these calls are
done, you will have direct access to Richard, to ask any questions you need to. I do not
get involved in that side of the transaction, only the instrument side.”
(Exhibit 73)

4.46 9/1/2010 12:01 AM - 2ND FRAUD SCHEME - DURING CONFERENCE
KOSTER INITIATES AN EXTORTION KICKBACK PLOT
4.46.1 9/1/2010 12:01 AM - Richard Hall/Gold Buy/Sell Telephone Conference. On
September 1, 2010 21:01 CST, Flores joined a conference call on conference line
number 218-844-8230 access code 380262# already in progress.
Toward the end of the teleconference call, Richard Hall inquired about the method
Plaintiffs would prefer their funds were to be transferred:
September 1, 2010, Dallas, Texas, Central Standard Time.
12:45:23 PM Hall: “If you want us to, you know, to Panama it might be
easier, ahh, and faster to receive your funds for each
disbursement if were to transact in Dubia, umm, that way
we avoid the U S altogether …
12:45:33 PM Flores: Okay
12:45:44 PM Hall: But until, it’s up to you guys
12:45:47 PM Flores: Well, if you want to do, ahh (pause) Dubia, (Koster
interruption) Dubia is fine ,
12:45:51 PM Koster: Let me give you an answer to that
12:45:51 PM Flores: Dubia is fine with us (Koster interruption unintelligible)

either way
12:45:51 PM Koster: Regarding the other two partners Lance, ahh
12:45:52 PM Flores: Yeah
12:45:52 PM Koster: You should probably find out where they’re sitting ‘cause I
know beyond a shadow a doubt that ah Doctor Fletcher
has put that very clearly he wants to keep the funds here
in the U S”

Koster, interrupts the dialogue between Hall and Flores and interposes himself
into the conversation becoming adamant about how the other two partners wanted
their funds transferred. Koster became even more emphatic in his interjection stating
that Eugene Fletcher was “beyond a shadow of a doubt” insistent that the funds be
kept in the U.S. to the point that it appeared that Fletcher had taken over the control
and management of the Plaintiffs’ “one-third” interest of the Gold Transaction; i.e. the
Plaintiffs assets, or rights to Plaintiffs share from the Gold Transaction generated
revenues.
In retrospection, Koster, if his statement was truthful, directly implicates Eugene
Fletcher as a co-conspirator in a felony conspiracy of the extortion scheme Koster was
plotting. If Koster had lied in his statement about Fletcher’s involvement and
interference on September 1, 2010 at 12:45:52 PM CST in the teleconference, then he
made a tortious fraudulent statement for his own purpose in an act of wire fraud.†2,†7,†8
4.46.2 9/4/2010 8:24 AM Flores Raises Issues with Koster Concerning the Eugene
Fletcher’s Control of the Payout Stream Raised During the Teleconference. In a
message on September 4, 2010 8:24:17, Flores queries Koster about the due diligence
on Richard Hall’s group and Fletcher’s involvement in taking unlawful and illegal
control of Plaintiffs’ assets.
Flores:
“1. Can we get the Richard's Company information and contracts so we can
complete due diligence and wrap up this transaction, or at least find out
what the timeline is going to be.
2. Why do all the payment transactions have to come through the U.S. when
Dubai is faster?

3. If Eugene insists his funds be issued from the U.S. why is it necessary for
everyone else's funds xfer's be the same?
4. Is Eugene controlling the funds?
5. If Eugene's selection is a requirement, I presume he will be liable for

damages incurred by delays, Homeland confiscations, etc.”
(Exhibit 74 at ➀)
4.47 9/6/2010 11:10 AM – 2ND FRAUD SCHEME - THE SHAKEDOWN.†4
4.47.1 Koster Reveals the Shakedown and the Eventual Take it or Loose
Everything Deal. On Saturday, September 4, 2010 7:11:33 PM, Koster laid out the
extortion kickback for his front man Kerim S. Emre, relating the payoff he wanted as
Kerim’s “initial agreement.” What Koster was referring to as the initial agreement,
was the 16.7% piece of the action, the investment returns, required by the Syndicate,
out of the Plaintiffs’ earnings from the Alicorn PSP investment with IDLYC and
BMW. (Exhibit 74)
The Richard Hall Gold By/Sell transaction was the sentiment for payment of
partial damages and all of the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW investment non-performance
that would be recovered by “levering up” the gold returns until complete payment was
made. Emre had not negotiated a settlement with the Plaintiffs for the damages nor
non-performance and just wanted to stiff the Plaintiffs out of their money and
damages at the time. However, Emre was still liable for those damages, and Koster
was aware of this.

Now, Koster unveils the shakedown for the kickback to Emre. This was the
ulterior motive56 for not transacting out of Dubia. Koster’s purpose in requiring the
money to come stateside prior to Plaintiffs receipt of their funds, was to afford Koster
the opportunity to take control of Plaintiffs’ revenue stream from the settlement
before Flores could refuse to pay the extortion and instead pay for the collateral for a
loan out of Hong Kong. Moreover, another one-third-interest-partner, Arcadia Ivan A.
Santos III (“Ivan Santos”), lives in Manila and is a citizen of the Republic of the
Philippines, and had no interest nor any reason to have his settlement funds going to
the Unites States. There is no other reason for Koster’s control of Plaintiffs’ revenues
from the Gold Transaction. Eventually Plaintiffs discovered Koster’s intent to have
the funds processed stateside, and the conspiracy to extort money from the Plaintiffs.
With control of the revenue stream, Koster would coerce the Plaintiffs and deceive
Ivan Santos into signing “legal looking” documents. The document, that was to be
executed, was little more than a facade for the theft of money by extortion in a 16.7%
kickback scheme to Emre. Koster made little effort to cloak the extortion paid to his
front man. Emre had no contract for any services to the Plaintiffs and was liable for
damages and non-performance from the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW transaction.
However, Koster does make an attempt to cloud his statement implicating Eugene
Fletcher in the scheme but does not fully withdraw his insinuation. Koster claims that
each of the partners has a separate contract for his one-third (⅓) interest57 in the use
of the SBLC, for the Gold Transaction.
56
See, Vol. 3 Exhibit 74 at ➁
57
(id. at ➂)

4.47.2 9/9/2010 - Childs Defines Procedures for the Richard Hall Gold Buy/sell
Instrument Transactions – Koster to Fund Escrow Account. (Exhibit 76)
On Thursday 9/9/2010 11:04 AM, John Childs contacted Flores and former PSP
partners to describe the procedure and specification of the Richard Hall Gold
Transaction requesting a second Client Information Sheet (CIS):
“Gentleman,
To date I have only received the Completed CIS for Ivan. Thanks you Ivan.
In order for me to proceed to the next step with the paperwork, I need the
remaining two CIS packages. Thanks in advance. Upon receipt and
succesful review of all three packages I intend to do the following and in this
order:
* Prepare an FPA (this will insure that the proceeds are distributed
properly to the three of you) and Sub Fee Agreemet (this will ensure that
all brokers are paid properly) for Dr. Fletcher and his team.
* Prepare a Sub Fee Agreement for Ivan. [Arcadia Ivan A. Santos III]
* Prepare a Sub Fee Agreement for Lance.
Once they have been executed and returned to me, I will lodge them with
my paymaster He will distribute the funds accordingly and to their proper
destinations as they come in. Once this is done I will:
* Prepare the contracts for delivery of the SBLC for review and
subsequent execution.
* Scott will request the Asset Management Agreement from Richard Hall
and his group for your review and subsequent execution.
* Scott will fund escrow.
* I will complete the transaction detail report for the SBLC provider.
* The SBLC will be delivered electronicly.
* The Escrow will be released and my lender paid.
* The SWIFT will be requested and delivered Standard Bank of South
Africa (MT798 Envelope / MT760).
* The ISN number will be generated upon successful receipt of the
SWIFT.
* My roll and Alicorn's roll as SBLC provider will be concluded at this
point and you will be in the very capable hands of Richard and his team.
[emphasis and notation added]

4.47.3 The Defendants particularly Koster, counseled by Harlan, Emre and
Childs, continued their conscious indifference to Defendants’ fiduciary duty through ,
Breach of Common Law Duty of Good Faith legally due Plaintiffs. Childs and Koster
counseled by Harlan, knew the consequences of their action to extort the Emre
Kickback from the Plaintiffs and wilfully with malice aforethought, conspired in an act
of Coercion and Tortious Interference with Prospective Contracts over the wires,
elements of Racketeering.*7,*9,*11,*21,†2,†7,†8,†8,†9
4.48 9/6/2010 - 2ND FRAUD SCHEME - JOHN CHILDS EMERGES AN ACTOR
IN THE SHAKEDOWN.†4 (Exhibit 74 at ➃)
4.48.1 John Childs Acknowledges Emre Had No Entitlement to Fee -- But Would
Aid in the Kickback for Emre. Childs acknowledges that Emre had an agreement
FPA (Fee Payment Agreement), only for the PSP ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW deal, not
the substituted Richard Hall Gold Transaction intended as a settlement for the
Plaintiffs’ damages and the lost revenues resulting from the transaction’s non-
performance. However, Childs stated he intended to get the payoff for Emre anyway,
and threaten to make the PSP partners pay Emre for his part in resolving the
Plaintiffs’ restitution. Childs affirms his threat by raising the stakes threatening
further to increase the cost to the PSP partners to One-Million Dollars ($ 1,000,000).
4.48.2 9/7/2010 2:05 PM - Flores Demand for Agreement Verification. (Exhibit 74
annot ➄) On Tuesday, September 7, 2010 2:05 PM, Flores demanded the agreement
information which affected the cost to the Plaintiffs’ settlement transaction:

“John - Please send a copy of the verbal agreement you had with Scott. This
is always why I'm asking for written agreements and verifiable instruments
of transactions … I was told that after the IDLYC/BMW Majestic
boondoggle there would be communications and transparency. I want
everything on the table, clarified, and documented tomorrow; no more
surprises.”
4.48.3 9/7/2010 6:20 AM - John Childs Continues Extortion Sham Asserting Claim
to a Nonexistent Emre Agreement He Had Already Acknowledge Didn’t Exist.
(Exhibit 74 at ➅)
On Tuesday, September 07, 2010 6:20 AM, John Childs sent a message to Flores,
copied to Scott Koster and Vicki Clarkson concerning the “Wrap up” of the gold
commodity buy/sell transaction:
John Childs:
“On the other hand my agreements with Scott, written or otherwise, are
between scott and myself. You have no need and no right to the information
as it/they do not involve yourself, vicki or anyone else.
Your concern is your ability to enter into this transaction. In order to do

that the three of you will need to execute contracts for the delivery of an
SBLC. the LC costs money. I have agreed to do so at no initial markup. I
did so out of respect for scott yourself and others. However, I am in no way
required to arrange the delivery of any debt instrument for free.
If you choose not to honor your agreements or commitments with Kerim

and the other intermediaries then I will have to increase the cost of the
instrument back to its normal price to include commissions for all involved
rather then deferring until a little later down the road.”
4.48.4 9/7/2010 10:17 AM - Koster Continues Extortion Sham†4 Referring to a
Nonexistent Agreement or commitment to take a kickback on the settlement of the
ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW tranaction nonperformance and damages.

On Tuesday, September 7, 2010 at 10:17:32 AM, Koster sends an e-mail message
asking Flores to “stop with the legal talk” and insists on continuing the extortion using
his “Doublespeak” referring to the Plaintiffs’ refusal to pay the extortion kickback as
dodging some kind of legitimate financial obligation:
Koster:
“Lance, please stop with all the legal talk. I'm saying this just to you. Its not
making the situation any easier. The deal I have with john is for he and I to
waive any front load commissions for the instrument...nothing more,
nothing less. He is upset about you dodging the fpa you have with kerim.
(Exhibit 74 at ➐)
“John is an adversary, and not an opponent. However, he does have the

legit ability to kill this, as it was his relationship to the lender that made all
this possible in the first place. (id. at ➑)”
John Childs had already acknowledged58 that Emre had a fee payment agreement
for the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW transacton and nothing more. There was no
reasonable explanation why Emre should be receiving part of the damages settlement.
Koster, Emre and Childs were all fully aware that there was no fee payment
agreement for Emre to receive a kickback from the settlement damages for which,
inter alios, Koster, Emre, and Childs were liable for the non-performance, damages
and they knew they had incurred liability for each of their participation in the
commission of their tortious conduct. Yet, here, once more, they continue their
shakedown for a kickback.
4.48.4.1 Arsonist Analogy: It is well established by Childs that Emre was not
entitled to compensation from the Alicorn settlement for the damages and harm to
58
Supra, at 4.48.1

the Plaintiffs, which Emre had a hand in. Yet, both were determined to get a
kickback out of the settlement for Emre. Such would be akin to the arsonist who
burned one’s house down to cover up a robbery then returning to the resident’s
home after the insurance check arrives to demand a piece of the insurance claim.
4.48.5 9/7/2010 11:05 AM, John Childs Advances a New Extortion and Strikes out
to Kill the Richard Hall/berea Gold Transaction.†4 Fifty-two minutes following
Koster’s 10:17 AM message, Childs sends a message to Flores exhorting his own
kickback extortion of Three-hundred Fifty-thousand Dollars U.S. ($350,000 USD).
(Vol. 3 Exhibit 74 at ➒)
4.48.6 9/22/2010 9:54 PM CST - Flores Gives Notice to Koster and Emre That
Emre Has No Wavier.
On Thursday, September 9, 2010 9:54 PM CST, Flores informs Koster:
“I do not have any waiver agreement with Kerim for damages liability for
IDLYC/BMW Majestic so I do not want to complicate matters; better stay
away from Mark [Wolanin] getting involved in this transaction. I have another
gold buy/sell I can get Mark into in the morning.” (id.)

4.49 10/11/2010 - KOSTER ANNOUNCES READY TO EXECUTE GOLD
TRANSACTION - IDENTIFIES THE THREE PARTNERS
4.49.1 On Monday, October 11, 2010 2:06 PM, Scott Koster announced “ready to
execute … live by end of the week.” (Vol. 4 Exhibit 79 at ➀).
The next day on October 12TH at 6:04 PM Flores inquires about the issue of a
transaction code. (Vol. 4 Exhibit 79 at ➁)
Koster immediately answers at 6:05 PM, stating, “Yes sir, we are getting all docs
put together.” (Vol. 4 Exhibit 79 at ➂)
4.49.2 Flores responds to Koster’s agreement being full of holes and weak, noting
it would be unlikely to be upheld in a court of law.59
4.49.3 On Monday, October 18, 2010, at 11:37:36 Koster sends a message to Flores,
copying Childs and Emre. At this time, there had been no verification of the execution
of the Gold Transaction having been executed as had been stated by Koster earlier
(¶ 4.49.1) on October 11TH. In the message Koster states that the three partners (MFI
a.k.a. R. Lance Flores, Winston J. Cook, and Ivan Arcadio Santos identified in the
attachment have equal ownership thus rights, in the interests of the financial
instrument which Winston J. Cook would execute.60
59
Vol. 4 Exhibit 81
60
See, e-mail and attachment Exhibit 80

4.49.4 On Monday, October 18, 2010 12:03:06 PM CST, Flores responds to
Koster’s 11:37 AM message and amends, signs and sends the Partnership Termination
and Wind-Up &c. document to Scott Koster.61
4.49.5 Just over three hours later at 3:26 PM, Koster sends a message with an
attached document appearing similar to the one he had sent earlier at 11:37 AM that
morning. The 3:26 PM document had, what appeared to be, the signature of Ivan
Santos, however, it had been altered from the original 11:37 AM document at the
signature page, previously showing “Arcadio Ivan Santos III” under the signature,
whereas, the 3:36 PM document sent to Flores, originally was typewritten with “Ivan
Arcadia Santos” at the signature location for Mr. Santos.
4.50 10/19/2010 5:45 PM, - 2ND FRAUD SCHEME - THE RANSOM NOTE.†4, †2,†7,†8
4.50.1 On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 5:45:07 PM, Subject: Your final Piece, John
Childs wrote:
“Lance,
“I have attached a Sub Fee Agreement to this email. This is the final piece
of paperwork that requires your attention as it address' your obligations.
The other partners have their own obligations. That said this does not
affect them nor will theirs you. Please sign it, add your letterhead to the
Header and return it to me. Once I have the entire file completed, I will
disseminate it to all three parties. Thanks in advance for both your time
and consideration in this matter. &c.” (Exhibit 83)
Relentless in the group’s extortion pursuits, Childs delivers the last extortion demand by
sending an attached Sub Fee Agreement, disregarding his acknowledgment and
61
Exhibit 81

knowledge of he, Koster, and Emre, had that there was no agreement for Emre to receive
any payoff, kickback or part of the Plaintiffs’ settlement funds. Childs uses his own
Doublespeak, writing:
“I have attached a Sub Fee Agreement to this email. This is the final piece
of paperwork that requires your attention as it address' your obligations.
The other partners have their own obligations. That said this does not
affect them nor will theirs you. Please sign it, add your letterhead to the
Header and return it to me. Once I have the entire file completed, I will
disseminate it to all three parties. Thanks in advance for both your time
and consideration in this matter.” (Exhibit 74 at ➓) (Sub Fee Agreement,
see Exhibit 75)
Upon examination of the extortion demand delivered by Childs, the extortion kickback
for Emre was sixteen and seven-tenths percent (16.7%) to be taken from every payment
for the performance default and damages reconciliation made to the Plaintiffs’ in the
settlement payment stream. In addition to the kickback, the Sub Fee Agreement
contained a separate agreement written in behalf of Plaintiff Vicki Clarkson who was
neither made aware of what Childs had sent, nor had she given her consent to anyone to
represent her financial interests, nor had she given her power of attorney to anyone to
represent her in any legal capacity, nor had she appointed an agent to act in her behalf to
enter her into any agreement. Not only was the document an extortion instrument, but
also a fraudulent instrument sent by wire, over the Internet.
4.50.2 10/19/2010 6:11 PM CST - Flores Responds to the Extortion Demand.
On Tuesday, October 19, 2010 6:11 PM, Twenty-one minutes following Childs’
delivery of the extortion demand, Flores demands proof of an executed agreement or
contact information of Childs attorney:

“Provide all background information and the signed agreement between
Kerim & Mockingbird Films. Provide all notification information of this
subject matter that was delivered to Mockingbird Films prior to 10/19/2010
5:45 PM message sent to mockingbirdfilms.com mail from John Childs.
Please provide a contact phone number which you can be contacted by my
legal team and I; or provide your legal counsel's name and contact
information.” (Exhibit 74 at 11)
It was on this day that the Plaintiffs after substantial discussion and due
consideration, that Clarkson and Flores decided they would pursue litigation which
Flores had previously outlined in telephone conversations with Koster.
Childs, breached their Defendants’ fiduciary duty through , Breach of Common Law
Duty of Good Faith legally due Plaintiffs. Childs and Koster counseled by Harlan,
knew the consequences of their action and attempt to extort the Emre Kickback from
the Plaintiffs and wilfully with malice aforethought, conspired in an act of Coercion
and Tortious Interference with Prospective Contracts over the wires, elements of
Racketeering.*7,*9,*11,*21,†2,†7,†8,†8,†9
4.51 10/20/2010 6:49 PM CST - FLORES GIVES NOTICE OF BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY, INTERSTATE FRAUD, AND EXTORTION.
On Wednesday, October 20, 2010, Flores responds to Koster concerning Childs’
extortion demand and fraudulent exaction document. Flores again noted that Emre,
Alicorn and Koster had not executed a settlement and release from liabilities related
to the Syndicate’s and their failure to perform and the related damages. Likewise,
Flores gave notice to Koster concerning the recent activities of he, and Childs, that

they had breached their fiduciary responsibility, and engaged in interstate fraud, and
extortion.‡3 (Exhibit 74 at 12)
4.52 10/21/2010 3:00 PM – CHILDS IDENTIFIES EMRE AS AUTHOR OF
EXTORTION DOCUMENT AND IN THE FRAUDULENT REPRESENTATION OF
CLARKSON AND IMPLICATES EMRE IN THE EXTORTION†2,†7,†8
On Thursday, October 21, 2010, Childs sent a message to insure the Plaintiffs that
Emre was the author of the sub fee agreement, that Childs was using to extort the
kickback for Emre, and thus implicating Emre in the extortion conspiracy along with
himself and Koster. This also implicates Emre in the unlawful and illegal
misrepresentation of Vicki Clarkson and fraudulent representation of her in the
extortion document, falsely representing her by failing to inform her and obtaining
her consent.
4.52.1 On 10/21/2010 11:08 PM, Scott Koster wrote:
“Rather than point out where you see the liability is with Kerim, lets [sic]
focus on one thing, which is what is holding us back from moving this
forward [i.e., Emre’s kickback on the non-performance and damages
settlement]” (Vol. 4 Exhibit 84 at ➁)
“Lance, do you agree that because you came into this transaction through
your relationship with Kerim, that Kerim deserves some level of
compensation [payoff] for helping us get all the pieces together for this
instrument [settlement for Defendants’ non-performance, damages and
harm]?” (at ➂)
“… please respond with what you feel is a fair % for Kerim to receive,
and lets start there. I am just doing this as a friend to both of you, but
more so because I want this to move forward.” (at ➃)

4.52.2 Beyond question, Koster was extorting a kickback that would be funneled to
Emre taking some of the action from the settlement. Koster then advanced to Flores
in the message a reasoned solicitation for Flores to make a negotiable offer for Emre’s
payoff.
Koster, Emre and Childs had a meeting of the minds to use the Plaintiffs’ duress
as an advantage in an eleventh hour extortion kickback and payoff scheme to Emre.
4.53 10/21/2919 - KOSTER WANTS A STOP OF LEGAL NOTICES “FOR
EVERYONE TO SEE”
4.53.1 On 10/21/2010 11:08 PM, Scott Koster wrote “… as I have told you in the
past, while I appreciate and understand your legal background, putting all that out
there for everyone to see does nothing but put people on the defensive.” (Vol. 4
Exhibit 84 at ➀)
4.53.2 Harlan and Koster were uncomfortably aware that Flores had been
providing legal notice and warning throughout the course of their fraud actions and

posed potential criminal activity of the Defendants. Given Harlan’s legal training, long
experience, FN 40 and understanding of his professional duties FN 41 it is evident
Defendants Harlan and Koster needed Flores to cease and desist from his lawful
warnings, in order that they might attempt a defense of their tortious actions. Harlan
and Koster with full cognisance and understanding of related and prevailing law and
doctrine, and knowing the risks of Defendants’ acquiesce, thus far, and with
expectation of their need to continue, the anticipated continuance of Flores’ legal
notices and warnings, attempted with scienter, to coerce Flores into ceasing his
disciplined procedure.
4.54 10/25/2010 - PLAINTIFFS DEMAND STATUS TERMS AND TIME-LINE
OF GOLD TRANSACTION
4.54.1 On Monday, October 25, 2010 at 2:30 PM, Flores demanded from Koster
and Childs the status of the Gold Transaction by 5:00 PM that day. (Exhibit 85 at ➀)
4.54.2 In the period between October 25TH and November 1ST Flores called Koster
to have him respond to the Plaintiffs numerous demand for the status and time-line of
the Gold Transaction.
4.54.3 On November 1, 2010 12:54 PM, Koster responded to the Plaintiffs’
messages stating “ I will call you later on today. In and out of meetings for most of
the day regarding local business.” (id. at ➁)
Nevertheless, Koster did not call back nor did he send a message regarding his
failure to call Flores.

4.55 PLAINTIFFS MAKE IMPASSIONED DEMAND FOR PERFORMANCE ON
THE GOLD BUY/SELL SETTLEMENT. The following morning, Tuesday, November
2ND at 3:38 AM, Flores in an e-mail message responded:
“And you never called. So .. the last few words ...
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBS0OWGUidc&feature=related ]” (ibid. at ➂)
4.55.1 Following Flores’ effusive demand for performance on the settlement
Koster responds later that day with several messages establishing excuses for
more delays to come because of gold seller’s increased requirements for a larger
purchase. (id. at➃)
4.55.2 Koster provided the assay results of the barreled gold stating the results
as 93.44% pure. However, he did not provide any verifiable proof. (id. at ➄)
4.56 11/2/2010 - CLARKSON’S NOVEMBER 2ND MSG. – DEMAND FOR
VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTATION OF GOLD TRANSACTION
4.56.1 On Tuesday, November 2, 2010, Clarkson sent a message to Koster
complaining about Koster’s promises about greater transparency and improved
communications from him. Clarkson quarried about the status of the Gold
Transaction, and verifiable evidence:
Clarkson:

“Scott,
“I was under the impression that the communication was going to improve.
Thus far, I haven't seen any changes since the IDYLC deal, none.
“What is the status of the gold buy/sell?
“Kerim advised it would be completed on August 10th, via a telephone

conversation I had with him in early August. Here we are today, the second
of November and we are still no closer to understanding where this deal is
at.
“Do you have any verifiable documents that you can send out? Such as the
SBLC document? Verification that there is one in place?
“In my last conversation with Lance, I was told that contracts were
supposed to be sent out to finalize the buy/sell of the gold. Where are these
contracts, have they been sent? Please advise, what is the hold up?
“Vicki” (Exhibit 86)
4.57 10/28/2010 - WINSTON J. COOK IS LOCATED AND QUARRIED ABOUT
IDLYC AND GOLD TRANSACTION
4.57.1 After numerous inquires to Koster and his refusal to relinquish
information requests for the names and contact information of the PSP partners and
those involved in the Gold Transaction, Flores locates Winston Jerome Cook. Cook
was either a partner or a business associate of Eugene Fletcher.
On October 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM Flores located Cook on the “Facebook” social
network site and made contact. (Exhibit 87)
Flores spoke to Cook late Tuesday afternoon on November 2, 2010. Flores asked
Cook if he had heard or received any funds from IDLYC or ALICORN or heard from
Koster about the investment returns or status of the Gold Transaction; to which Cook

replied, he hadn’t. Flores informed Cook that he believed that Koster, IDLYC and
BMW Majestic were hiding funds and were involved in a fraud scheme. Flores stated
if he didn’t get some immediate clarification and verifiable information he would be
moving onto litigation of the issues. The two exchanged information and discussion
about their businesses and concluded the conversation.
4.58 11/10/2010 - NOVEMBER 10TH/11TH FLORES/CLARKSON DIALOGUE -
INITIATION OF LITIGATION (copied to Scott A. Koster)
Clarkson and Flores discuss the strategy and details of prospective litigation and
decide to move forward after first generating “Settlement Stipulations.” Plaintiffs copy
Koster on one communication to inform him of their intent, that he may plan for settling
on the Plaintiffs’ terms and stipulations.
See Vol. 4 Exhibit 88 – November 10TH/11TH Flores/Clarkson Dialogue - Initiation of
Litigation &c.; Copied to Scott A. Koster by e-mail:
“----- Original Message -----

From: Lance @ MFI
To: VICKI CLARKSON
Cc: Scott Koster
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: Gold Buy/Sell”

4.59 11/11/2010 1:23 PM - KOSTER RESPONSE TO NOVEMBER 11TH
CLARKSON/FLORES INITIATION OF LITIGATION
On Thursday, November 11, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Scott Koster responded to the
Flores/Clarkson intonation of legal proceedings to Cook and subsequent Thursday,
November 11, 2010 12:03 PM copy, in part, of Plaintiffs’ litigation discussion:
4.59.1 “As john told you on the phone, you more than ruffled feathers with your
comments regarding the feds to winston and dr fletcher. This email is icing on the
cake.” (Exhibit 89 at ➀)
4.59.2 “Everything that has been done to this point can be proven and defended in
a court of law. Please tread carefully, as we are very aware of the lies you have told
about your involvement with myself, as well as how you passed money through your
family to get back to you. (id. at ➁)
4.59.3 “Again, issues between you and vicki are between you and vicki. You did not
make anyone aware of her involvement until mid this year. (id. at ➂)
4.59.4 “If you wish to proceed in either this transaction, or just back out, let me
know. After your comments to winston, it was requested by both richard, and the
other two partners to find a replacement for your 1/3rd, as richard does not need that
kind of drama in his world, and neither do the other two. (id. at ➃)”

4.60 KOSTER IMPLICATES RICHARD HALL, and TWO PARTNERS IN
CONVERSION62, THEFT, AND CONSPIRACY OF PLAINTIFFS’ ONE-THIRD
(⅓) INTEREST IN THE GOLD TRANSACTION IN RETALIATION FOR
INVOLVING THE FEDERAL COURT AND EXPOSURE TO DOJ & SEC
Koster: “As john told you on the phone, you more than ruffled
feathers with your comments regarding the feds to winston and dr
fletcher. This email is icing on the cake.” (emphasis added)
(Exhibit 89 at ➀)
“If you wish to proceed in either this transaction, or just back out,
let me know. After your comments to winston, it was requested by
both richard, and the other two partners to find a replacement for
your 1/3rd, as richard does not need that kind of drama in his world,
and neither do the other two. (id. at ➃)” (emphasis added)
4.60.1 Koster Threatens and Acts to Attempts and Intentionally Tortuously
Interferes with the Gold Transaction Agreement. Koster’s suggests in his message,
that following Winston J. Cook and Flores conversation, Cook had apparently
informed Eugene Fletcher of the details of that phone call. Plaintiffs had never met or
been given Fletcher’s contact information and were unable question him about his
insistence in taking control of Plaintiffs’ funds. In his message, Koster infers that the
62
Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion or control over the property of another in denial
of, or inconsistent with, the other's right to the property. AIG Life Ins. Co. v. Federated Mutual Ins. Co.,
200 S.W .3d 280, 285 (Tex.App.Dallas 2006, pet. denied). A claim lies for conversion of money when
identification of the money is possible and there is an obligation to deliver the money in question. Id. The
factual allegations in Plaintiff's amended complaint are sufficient to state a claim for conversion. Defendants
also contend that Plaintiff has failed to allege "demand and refusal." A demand for property and refusal to
return the property may be necessary when the possession is initially lawful, because the refusal is what
makes the possession unlawful, and a cause of action may then accrue. Hofland v. Elgin-Butler Brick Co.,
834 S.W .2d 409, 413 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1992, no writ). A demand and refusal is not necessary for
every conversion cause of action to accrue.

Plaintiffs demands and their decision to litigate aggravated Cook, Fletcher, Koster
and others, and angered some so much, that the group deemed Clarkson and Flores
too unsafe to be involved in the transaction. Further, the group would not tolerate
Plaintiffs constant demands for proof, legal notice, and menace of exposure of the
group’s activities to federal authorities. id. at ➀.
4.60.2 Koster’s threat of “[i]f you wish to proceed in either this transaction, or just
back out, let me know”, is his ultimatum, to either pay the extortion and stay away
from the “feds” or Plaintiffs would pay dearly and loose everything and intentionally
interfere with an existing contract.
This was the consequence of the Plaintiffs discussion and ultimate decision to
proceed to litigation and involve the SEC and Justice Department. This was done
only after Plaintiffs had undertaken extensive investigation, research, and analysis
and could present more than hearsay and supposition to the Court and federal official.
Koster had once more voiced his cooperate and keep away from the “feds” or
loose everything threat,63 and continued his tactic of instilling the fear of losing
everything.64 With his claim of the enlistment of Richard Hall, and two partners,
Winston J. Cook and Eugene Fletcher, “Dr. Fletcher and his team,”65 Koster
becomes more cavalier about extorting a kickback from the Plaintiffs.
63
See ¶ 4.23, supra, at 66
64
¶ 4.19.3, supra, at 63
65
¶ 4.47.2, 4.60.2, supra, at 107, 124

particularly Promissory Estoppel, Estoppel by Non-disclosure, Estoppel by Silence,
Further, the Defendant did so with malice and executed their torts and intentionally
interfered with the Gold Transaction agreement. *6,*7,*10,*11,*13,*19,‡1,‡2,‡4
4.61 11/11/2010 1:23 PM - KOSTER DECLARES HE CAN PROVE AND DEFEND
EVERYTHING IN A COURT OF LAW – LITIGATE OR GO AWAY.
November 11, 2010 at 1:23 PM
Koster:
"Everything that has been done to this point can be proven and defended
in a court of law. Please tread carefully, as we are very aware of the lies you
have told about your involvement with myself, as well as how you passed
money through your family to get back to you.” (emphasis added)
(Exhibit 89 at ➁)
4.61.1 Koster makes a declaration that he can prove and defend “[e]verything,”
which would include, inter alia, his breach of contract, breach of good faith, breach of
fiduciary duty, misrepresentations, bad faith, intentional misstatements, deception,
non-disclosure, willful omissions, tortious interference with prospective contract and
all his duplicitous pursuits; notwithstanding the production of all of the associated

information and documents related to the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW transaction and
the ALICORN/HALL/BEREA/CBS Enterprise Gold Transaction. (Vol. 4 Exhibit 89
at ➁)
4.61.2 FEDERAL COURT DARE. Koster to the date of the filing of this
Complaint, has extended a pattern of breaches of fiduciary duty, concealment of
activities, including alleged criminal activities, and the withholding of information
directly affecting the financial welfare of the Plaintiffs and substantially harming
numerous members of the communities involved in the Plaintiffs’ business activities.
Defendants, but particularly Koster and Harlan are fully aware of the substantial cost,
and emotional distress they would inflict, as well as the difficulty of litigating a fraud
case such as this.
4.61.3 Defendants, but particularly Koster whose legal counsel is Thomas P.
Harlan, had effectively disaffected or conspired with others, or by knowledge of the
activities in the Syndicate or the Gold Transaction were aware of other Defendants
that have dissuaded victims66 from pursuing them in the courts. They have taken their
proven ability to deter action taken against the Syndicate and the Collective into
account, have weighed the risks of potential civil and criminal prosecution, and have
chosen a posture of forcing Plaintiffs into a standoff. Here, Koster, maintains the
standoff in his course of holding hostage the critical information due the Plaintiffs, and
66
e.g., “… I considered the FBI but I was embarressed [sic] and I didn't want to tarnish my own
name by lodging an investigation with the FBI. I talked with other brokers that brought their clients to
Mark and Chandler to see if they had been paid and they were in the same boat … Finally, I contacted a
friend that has conections [sic] in the FBI and asked if he could look into these two guys. He simply said
RUN! If you can get your money... you'd better grab it and RUN! After another month, I asked for proof of
the BG that I had bought and if they couldnt [sic] prove it I wanted my money back or I was going to the
FBI.” Exhibit 133

their earning, essentially daring the Plaintiffs to litigate by his statement,
"[e]verything that has been done to this point can be proven and defended in a court of
law.”
4.61.4 Defendants and Koster had that opportunity to prove and defend
“[e]verything that has been done to this point” at that moment in time. Moreover, each
time Flores or Clarkson demanded production of verifiable documentary evidence,
and each time they asked for disclosure, Defendants should have disclosed and
defended each time. Defendants, specifically Koster, Emre, Harlan, and Childs, could
have taken those opportunities, and this instant opportunity, to provide what they
claim they could do “in a court of law.” Instead, they chose not to do so, and chose to
risk everything on their bluff.
4.61.5 Koster Cannot Now Present Evidence and Seek a Defense as Koster
forewent that opportunity to speak long ago and is estopped from doing so by
equitable estoppel. Koster, et al., foreswore that duty and opportunity to produce
verifiable documentary evidence before the Plaintiffs suffered accumulating
irrevocable damage; this, notwithstanding non-performance of neither the
ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW transaction nor the ALICORN/HALL/BEREA/CBS Gold
Buy/Sell substitution.
4.61.6 The Defendants have far exceeded any reasonable period to respond and
produce, and are barred by equitable tolling to now respond to Plaintiffs’ demands or
effect their fiduciary duty. Defendants, particularly Koster counseled by Harlan,

Harlan knew they would be prohibited or otherwise be estopped‡ from later making
certain related arguments, defenses or claiming certain related rights later.
4.61.7 It is evident, given the aforementioned fact , Koster and Harlan took into
account their tortious and/or illegal acts, their reckless and wanton disregard of the
law, and the harm they had, or would continue to inflict upon others, and with scienter,
weighed the risks of their deeds. *5,*6,*7,*9,*11,*12,*13,*14,*15,*16,*17,*18,*19,*20,*21,†2,†3,†4,†5,†7,†8,†8,†9,†10,†11.
4.62 11/11/2010 - FLORES CALLS OUT KOSTER AND CONFRONTS
“EVERYTHING CAN BE PROVEN AND DEFENDED IN A COURT OF LAW”
CLAIM
4.62.1 On November 11, 2010 2:56 PM CST, Flores affords Koster an opportunity
to correct and/or recant his declaration implicating “Richard [Hall] and two other
partners” in a conspiracy to remove Plaintiffs’ ownership of their one-third interest in
their earnings from the Gold Transaction. Further, Flores asks Koster to point out
any inaccuracies of Flores’ answers or statements to Clarkson’s referral of counsel’s
questions.
Flores:
“If your statement "/it was requested by both richard, and the other
two partners to find a replacement for your 1/3rd /" in your email
response is not true, please state so immediately, and consider such
as legal opportunity to recant that statement. Otherwise, we take
your statement as your acknowledgment that same is, by your
affirmation by silence, a accurate, true and correct declaration of the
facts. Our reliance on your statement may substantially affect those
individuals. (Exhibit 90 at ➀)

“If there is, in my response to the email inquiry by Ms. Vicki
Clarkson, of Calgary, Canada, on Nov 11, 2010 1:03 PM, a statement
that you believe is incorrect, please note exactly the inaccuracy of my
answer to her and/or her counsel's question.” (id. at ➁)
4.62.2 Estoppel by Silence. An estoppel arises because Defendants, specifically
Koster, counseled by Harlin, had an obligation and a duty to speak, and they
intentionally failed, or should have acted, and did not, or otherwise withheld
information for which they had the duty to provide the Plaintiffs. By Defendants'
silence that arises from their obligation their silence was maintained to intentionally
mislead that the Plaintiff would be deceived. Koster and the Collective were given an
opportunity, to restate, recant, or otherwise respond and withdraw Koster’s
statements and implications of Richard Hall, Eugene Fletcher and Winston J. Cook in
the Fraud, Conversion, Conspiracy, Theft, Tortious Interference, Violation of the
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Interference with and Existing Contract, by the use of
the public telecommunication wires to remove the Plaintiffs’ ownership and rights to
the property known as the “one-third” interest in the returns(profits) of the Gold
Transaction.*5,*6,*7,*8,*9,*11,*13,*19,*20,†1,†7,†8,†9,†2,‡4,
4.63 11/12/2010 – KOSTER’S PATHOLOGICAL LYING AND PSEUDOLOGIA
FANTASTICA.
4.63.1 On Friday, November 12, 2010 10:40:04, Koster responds to Flores’
November 11, 2010 2:56 PM message (¶ 4.62) giving Koster an opportunity to recant or
substantiate his claims in his November 11, 2010 at 1:23 PM message (¶ 4.61):

4.63.2 Koster, instead of recanting or affirming Flores’ request to substantiate his
claims, he initiates an ad hominem attack declaring that Flores did not make anyone
aware of Clarkson’s involvement until the middle of the year 2010. It is clear and
incontestable that Koster lied and had made an intentionally false statement. His
perjured statement is wholly contradicted by incontrovertible evidence which shows
Koster, Emre and Childs, all, had full knowledge of Clarkson’s involvement since
December 18, 2009, elucidated below:
4.63.2.1 The Big Lie.
“Had you been upfront [sic] about her involvement from the
get go, I would have more compassion for your situation.”
(Exhibit 91 at ➀)
An examination of a message sent by Kerim S. Emre unequivocally controverts
Koster’s statement. On the day of the Plaintiffs’ engagement with the Alicorn PSP
on Friday, December 18, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Kerim S. Emre (Exhibit 8 at ➁)
forwarded (id. at ➀) a message from John Childs to Flores containing Subject:
Fwd: eFax message from "403 283 3223".
Emre stated, “Here is the copy of the [bank] wire confirmation message!” The
message encloses the e-mail from John Childs (id. at ➂) showing that Childs had
received an internet facsimile message From: eFax "eFax" <message @
inbound.efax.com> (id. at ➃) showing, Subject: eFax message from "403 283 3223"
- 2 page(s), Caller-ID: 403-283-3223 (id. at ➄). The eFax message verifies eFax
message origin as Fax Message [Caller-ID: 403-283-3223] (id. at ➅), the number of
pages and time the eFax message was received (id. at ➐). The eFax is a copy of the

actual telephonic facsimile of the TD Canada Trust FAX confirmation sent on
December 18, 2009 at 3:48 PM MST by Wendy Hill-Tout (id. at ➒) at Voice
Pictures to Scott Koster (id at ➓).
The TD Canada Trust wire payment confirmation clearly shows Vicki A.
Clarkson as the funds sender and Scott Koster as the recipient of the funds.
The evidence shows that all were aware in the Collective,67 as well as Koster, that
Vicki Clarkson was involved in the PSP transaction from the beginning, and had
known of Flores’ partner’s involvement for eleven months when he claimed that
neither he nor the Collective was aware. Bank records will show the transfer to
Koster’s bank account and that he had received a telephonic facsimile of the TD
Canada Trust wire confirmation as well. Koster’s claim that no one else had been
made aware is again false. The evidence is irrefutable, and shows Koster’s claim
was simply a bold face lie.
4.64 I ALWAYS TELL THE TRUTH STATEMENT AN INDICATION OF
PSEUDOLOGIA FANTASTICA.68
“I ALWAYS tell the truth, because it can be proven. Its easy

to remember, and it does not come back to bite you. My
integrity is one of the things that has always set me apart
from other brokers out there, and its what has moved me
67
¶ 3.3, pg. 19.
68
Dike CC, Baranoski M, Griffith EE (2005). "Pathological lying revisited". The Journal of the
American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 33 (3): 342–9. PMID 16186198.
http://www.jaapl.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=16186198.; also, Hardie TJ, Reed A (July 1998).
"Pseudologia fantastica, factitious disorder and impostership: a deception syndrome". Medicine, Science, and
the Law 38 (3): 198–201. PMID 9717367; Newmark N, Adityanjee, Kay J (1999). "Pseudologia fantastica and
factitious disorder: review of the literature and a case report". Comprehensive Psychiatry 40 (2): 89–95.
doi:10.1016/S0010-440X(99)90111-6. PMID 10080254.

forward into the position I am in today with my platforms,
providers, and lenders. Im finding it difficult to continue to
feel compassion about this situation, while it risks to affect my
other clients in an adverse way.” (Exhibit 91 at ➁)
Given Koster’s statement in light of the evidence provided in the Exhibits thus
far, more explanation is unneeded. However, Koster’s statements do shed light
upon the man’s veracity and that of his colleagues. Moreover, it demonstrates the
credibility of Koster’s representations of the truth and facts in these matters, if not
all he may give tongue to in future assertions he may make to the Plaintiffs or in
the course of litigation.
4.64.1.1 Koster embellishes upon his veracity by asserting the credibility of the
financial instrument, Richard Hall’s “group” and can prove the “offering ” is 100%
… something.
“… The paperwork is real, the SBLC offering is real, and I can prove
what my company is offering to you 100%. (id. at ➂)
“… Richards group is also very real. I cannot comment on what they

will be willing to offer. (id. at ➃)
“… I can however request a copy of the buy/sell agreement from Mr.

Cook [Winston J. Cook], which I actually believe John [Childs] has a
copy of.” (id at ➄)
It is noted here, that Koster asserts that Cook and Childs both possess a copy
of the Gold Buy/Settlement; which, since the Plaintiffs or Flores owns a one-third
interest, and Cook and Childs are in control of the financial instruments and have
some control over the Gold Buy/Sell contract, such establishes and conveys a
fiduciary duty upon Cook and Childs, thus begging the questions:

Why hasn’t Cook and Childs fulfilled their duty to
inform the Plaintiffs or at least Flores of their status,
and maintained a communication with the Plaintiffs?
AND
Why have they not produced for the Plaintiffs all the
relevant documents legally due them?
To the date of the filing of this Complaint, neither Mr. Hall’s group has been
proven real nor the “paperwork” have proven to be real except for replication of
their images, but nothing proven of substance.
As far as to the proof of what Koster’s company is offering to the Plaintiffs,
which is “100%”, we leave such determination and inferences as to the composition
of the 100%, to the wisdom of the Court.
4.65 11/15/2010 - GARY GRAB’S LETTER - NOTICE OF INTENT TO JOIN &
PARTICIPATE IN SUIT AND DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION FROM KOSTER
On November 15, 2010 Flores receive correspondence from Gary Grab, Attorney at
Law, counsel for Vicki Clarkson stating:
“Upon reviewing with VC the issues in the above-styled cause of

action and the circumstances related thereto, VC hereby wishes to
hereby confirm its intention to join and participate in the
abovementioned cause of action as a plaintiff … In the event VC does
not receive by close of business (5:00 pm MST) on Tuesday,
November 16, 2010 “verifiable documents” unconditionally
evidencing that certain Gold Buy / Sell transaction entered into with,
inter alia, Scott Koster, Alicorn Capital Management and Kerim
Emre, respectively, hereby expresses its desire to proceed to
litigation and/or to pursue such other remedies available at law.

“… Please be advised that in the event the above mentioned
documents are not provided to VC by close of business (5:00 pm
MST) on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 VC hereby confirms that it
will pursue all available remedies, including, but not limited to,
immediate injunctive relief from the Court and to proceed
expeditiously to discovery and trial.” (Exhibit 92)
4.65.1 Flores’ Tuesday, November 16TH Message Inquiring On Koster’s Legal
Counsel and Clarifying Legal Status of He and Clarkson.
On Tuesday, November 16, 2010 1:43 PM, Flores sent a message to Koster
inquiring about his legal representation, clarification of his misunderstanding that
Vicki Clarkson was suing Flores, and again asking for the production of documents:
“Let me first ascertain that you haven't engaged legal counsel to represent
you. Yes or No. I cannot discuss matters pertaining to this case if you have
engaged an attorney to represent you. It appears you are saying you
haven't engaged representation. Thusly: (Exhibit 93 at ➀)
“Ms Clarkson is not bringing a "case" (a complaint {suit} or legal

proceeding) against me. She could have filed a Petition to Intervene as of
right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) or permissively under Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(2). et seq. (id. at ➁)
“… I am asking you for a production of documents which you have stated on

more than one occasion that could evidence your claims of veracity. That is
all you've been asked to deliver. Clarkson, et al., will press the Plaintiffs into
aggressive action if you do not comply with the request for documents.
I don't understand why, if you have the verifiable documents that you say
which will prove the legitimacy of the transaction. You stated you were
going to provide the information to me. This would quickly bring this matter
to a conclusion. (id. at ➂)”
4.65.2 Emre Is Given Opportunity to Provide Proof of the Gold Buy/sell
Legitimacy.

On Tuesday, November 16, 2:24 PM CST, Flores sent a message informing Emre
of the Plaintiffs’ status and urges Emre to provide proof of the settlement transaction.
“… If you can provide information it would suffice, and we could

move onto the settlement. I don't understand why Scott will not
comply, and most likely, neither will the judge. Scott seems
determined to force this situation into full blown litigation. If you can
provide any proof of the legitimacy of this transaction, I urge you to
do so, and let's just move on.” (Exhibit 94)
4.66 11/16/2010 4:26 PM - KOSTER RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS ATTORNEYS’
DEMAND FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS.
4.66.1 On Tuesday, November 16, 2010, Koster delivered by attachments to his
e-mail the following documents:
• Cook Business Services LLC & Alicorn Capital Management LLC,

ENGAGEMENT LETTER (Vol. 4 Exhibit 98)
• Cook Business Services LLC & Alicorn Capital Management LLC
ESCROW & WIRE INSTRUCTIONS TO BUSCH LAW CENTER (Exhibit 99)
• Cook Business Services LLC FEE PROTECTION AGREEMENT OF
10/14/2010 (Exhibit 100)
• Interlink Global Messaging & Cook Business Services LLC SBLC
TRANSMITTAL SERVICE (Exhibit 101)
• Cook Business Services LLC STANDBY LETTER OF CREDIT
APPLICATION & October 19, 2010 FEE PROTECTION AGREEMENT
(Exhibit 102)
• Winston Cook $10,000,000 USD SBLC TRANSMITTAL VIA MT760
Facilitated by Interlink Global Messaging (Exhibit 103)
• Winston Cook SBLC TEMPLATE & MT760 SBLC TEMPLATE (Vol. 5
Exhibit 104)
• BEREA FINANCIAL CONSULTING & MANAGEMENT
AGREEMENT, COOK BUSINESS SERVICES LLL/Winston J. Cook -
INVESTOR & Berea Inc/Christine Wong-Sang - PRINCIPAL (Exhibit 105)

4.66.2 11/16/2010 4:26 PM - Documents Produced Show Breaches of Fiduciary
Duties, Bad Faith, and Fraud by Koster, Hall and Cook. The documents delivered by
Koster demonstrate management and control over Plaintiffs’ property or property
rights by ALICORN, BEREA, CBS, their principals and agents, clearly establishing
fiduciary duty and obligations. The documents further reveal Flores’ as a beneficiary
of the SBLC. From the documents, it appears the principals and/or individuals having
influence and control of the Gold Transaction removed the Plaintiffs as beneficiaries
form the transactions, whom they had previously requested removal from the
transaction in retaliation for Plaintiffs’ pursuit of litigation and engagement of federal
officials, according to Koster.69 The documents do not show Flores participation in the
final Gold Transaction. Instead it appears Koster, counseled by Harlan, had with the
cooperation of Richard Hall and Winston J. Cook, removed Flores from the actual
benefits of the gold profit part of the Gold Transaction. Rather, they had conspired to
pay the Plaintiffs only a rebate on one-third of the SBLC face value instead of the
revenues of the gold sale.
Moreover, what the documents divulged, is that both Richard Hall and Winston J.
Cook supervised, managed, controlled or otherwise oversaw the entire Gold
Transaction, fully aware that Flores was a client/investor. Hall, and Cook never
provided any status either verbally or by written communication of the proceedings of
the business enterprise. They both had a fiduciary duty as did Koster to inform and
maintain the duty to inform and disclose information critical to the Plaintiffs, but their
69
¶ 4.59.4, pg. 122

fiduciary’s duties go beyond mere fairness and honesty; they obliged Koster, Hall and
Cook to further the beneficiary’s best interests. Thus, the fiduciaries of the
ALICORN/HALL/BEREA/CBS Enterprise’s Gold Transaction are not entitled to the
profits from their bad faith and breach of fiduciary duty.70 Richard Hall, Christine
Wong-Sang, Vladimir Pierre-Louise, Eugene Fletcher, Winston J. Cook, Scott A.
Koster, Kerim Emre, John Childs, Thomas P. Harlan, their related agents, partners,
companies, &c. are not entitled to any of the revenues or earnings ensuing out of the
Gold Transaction.
4.66.3 Richard Hall, Christine Wong-Sang, Vladimir Pierre-Louise, Eugene
Fletcher, Winston J. Cook, Scott A. Koster, Kerim Emre, John Childs, Thomas P.
Harlan breached their fiduciary duties through Silence, Concealment, Beach of
Intentional Misrepresentation, Willful Omissions, Fraud by Concealment, and
Conspiracy to enact their tortious conduct and depriving that which was legally due
Plaintiffs. They are not entitled to any of the earning, profits, or otherwise any
70
International Bankers Life Insurance Co. v. Holloway, 368 S.W .2d 567, 576-77 (Tex. 1963).
Fiduciaries who breach their duty forfeit all right to compensation, even if they did not profit from the
breach of fiduciary duty.
It is beside the point for either Turner or Corbett to say that Kinzbach suffered no damages because it
received full value for what it has paid and agreed to pay. A fiduciary cannot say to the one to whom he
bears such relationship: You have sustained no loss by my misconduct in receiving a commission from a
party opposite to you, and therefore you are without remedy. It would be a dangerous precedent for us to
say that unless some affirmative loss can be shown, the person who has violated his fiduciary relationship
with another may {138 Tex. 574} hold on to any secret gain or benefit he may have thereby acquired. It is
the law that in such instances if the fiduciary "takes any gift, gratuity, or benefit in violation of his duty, or
acquires any interest adverse to his principal, without a full disclosure, it is a betrayal of his trust, and a
breach of confidence, and he must account to his principal for all he has received." United States v. Carter,
217 U.S. 286, 30 Sup. Ct. 520, 54 L. Ed. 775, 19 Am. Cas. 594. See also Ash v. A. B. Frank Co., 142 S. W . 42;
Armstrong v. O'Brien, 83 Texas 635, 19 S. W . 268.

revenues from the Gold Transaction Koster and Harlan knew they would be
prohibited by equitable estoppel particularly Promissory Estoppel, Estoppel by
Non-disclosure, Estoppel by Silence, Estoppel by Estoppel by Misrepresentation, or
otherwise be estopped from later making certain related arguments, defenses or
claiming certain related rights later. By their breach of fiduciary duty, Richard Hall,
Christine Wong-Sang, Vladimir Pierre-Louise, Eugene Fletcher, Winston J. Cook,
Scott A. Koster, Kerim Emre, John Childs, Thomas P. Harlan, forfeit all right to
compensation from the Gold Transaction nor may they benefit from the SBLC
instrument(s) identified or unidentified related in any way to the transaction.71

(*6,*7,*10,*11,*13,*19,‡1,‡2,‡4)
4.67 11/17/2010 1:13 AM - DISCOVERY OF AUGUST 16TH & OCTOBER 18TH
DOCUMENT FORGERIES IN SECOND DOCUMENT SET DELIVERY†7,†8,†8
4.67.1 On Wednesday, November 17, 2010 1:13 AM, Koster, early Wednesday
morning, delivered a second set of documents that included:
(1) {1ST} PARTNERSHIP TERMINATION AND WIND-UP

AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE (August 16TH Original
Signed & Sealed Document – “1ST Wind-up Agreement” Exhibit 107)
(2) {1ST} WIND-UP AGREEMENT SOLO PAGE FORGERY

(August 16TH “1ST Wind-up Agreement Page 4 Document Forgery”)
(Exhibit 108)
(3) {2ND} PARTNERSHIP TERMINATION AND WIND-UP

AGREEMENT AND MUTUAL RELEASE ATTACHMENT "A"
STRUCTURE OF FINANCIAL INSTRUMENT (October 18TH
“2ND Wind-up Agreement Document Forgery”) (Exhibit 109)
71
See, Texas Supreme Court, International Bankers Life Insurance Co., supra, FN 70

4.67.2 The August 16TH document forgery is fully described at ¶ 4.43, pg. 100,
although the August 16TH document forgery was not discovered until Koster delivered
all three of the above documents over the wires by Internet e-mail to Flores on
November 17, 2010 at 1:13 AM.
4.67.3 The October 18TH Document Forgery. Upon examination of the
October 18TH document forgery (Exhibit 109) the Plaintiff discovered that document’s
third page, the signature page had been forged. The original document had Flores’
initials inscribed on the first two pages, and Flores had placed a type written series of
vertical bars, “| ”, in the blank space at the bottom of the second page, which
overflowed two additional vertical bars onto the original third page, the original
signature page.
Plaintiffs discovered the forged signature of Ivan Santos beneath Flores’ signature
on the third page. Next, Plaintiffs noted that, that Flores had not even sent his signed
copy to Koster until 12:03 PM CST (18:03 GMT) on October 18TH which was 1:03 AM,
the 19TH of October in Manila, Republic of the Philippines where Ivan Santos resides.72
Yet, Mr. Santos’ signature shows he signed the same original document on the same
day.
Either Koster forged Santos’ signature, or Koster is the first person to accomplish
the unraveling of the unknown laws of physics, and accomplished backward time travel
to have Santos sign on the same day in Manila.
72
¶ 4.49.4 on page 113; see also Exhibit 81

4.67.4 Koster’s forgeries of both the August 16TH “1ST Wind-up Agreement Page 4
Document Forgery” and the October 18TH “2ND Wind-up Agreement Document
Forgery” affected a monetary transaction value of millions of dollars that was made in
a direct offer and sale of a commodity security. These forged financial contract
instruments were transmitted by the use of the public regulated communications
wires in interstate commerce over the Internet, and may well be violations of State
and federal crimes, and predicate acts, elements of racketeering.(*7,*8,*9,*11,*16,*18,†5,†7,†9,‡6)
4.68 11/22/2010 - INTERNAL FINDINGS OF PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS.
4.68.1 On Monday, November 22, 2010 9:01 PM CST, Scott Koster asked to be
kept informed and have Plaintiffs’ Attorneys copy him on findings of their internal
investigation. (Exhibit 111)
4.68.2 On Monday, November 22, 2010 11:18 PM, Flores wrote to Koster
informing him that:
“… The buy/sell document was requested however never received. Ms.

Clarkson's attorney is still waiting for this document. Please forward
immediately, or advise which of the documents below is representing the
buy/sell … &c.”
4.68.3 Warning to Koster Not to Interfere with Gold Transaction to Deter
Investigation and Discovery Processes – Hall and Company Inextricably Intertwined
with the Activities of the Collective.
On Tuesday, November 23, 2010 1:25 PM, Flores responds to Koster’s
November 22, 2010 9:01 PM message:

“… We will only provide the portions of the finding as the
information is attorney work-product that has substantive import
relating to civil and criminal implications. We will only divulge that
portion that you are or should have been aware of since you have
been the primary actor with access to all of the information for which
we only obtained after disclosing our intention to secure information
through injunction relief through the federal court.
“You are urged to complete the transaction keep it moving forward

and not interfere with that process while we reform the settlement
agreement in light of the evidence at hand and any other forensic
evidence through our discovery and investigations.
“We are unconcerned about Richard Hall, Vladimir Pierre-Louise, or

Christine Wong-Song, /inter alios/, interfering with the transaction
completion as we have clear and convincing evidence that they are
inextricably intertwined with this and other Alicorn financial
transactions and same have evolved a substantial nexus as to operate
as a financial syndicate with common purpose, interest and
objectives …”
4.69 12/1/2010 - DELIVERY OF TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
NOTICE & EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS
4.69.1 On Wednesday, December 01, 2010 11:19 AM, Flores delivered by Certified
Electronic Mail (E-mail) and a printed original of Deceptive Trade Practices Notice &
Findings fr 1ST Examination of the Scott Koster and Kerim Emre. (Exhibit 114)
4.69.2 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference from the Deceptive Trade Practice Act
Notice for IDLYC-BMW Majestic and substitution Gold Buy/Sell Contract (DTPA
Notice and December 1, 2010 Findings from the 1ST Examination of the Evidence
rendered in the records of the Court by Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Volume 5, Exhibit 115 and
Exhibit 116 respectively. The facts and allegations contained in all of the paragraphs
of the aforesaid instruments in Exhibits “115” and “116” are hereby re-averred and

re-alleged, for all purposes, and incorporated with the same force and effect as if set
forth verbatim herein.
4.69.3 The aforementioned TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT
NOTICE & EVIDENTIARY FINDINGS were delivered to Scott Anthony Koster
and Kerim S. Emre by certified email and U.S. Postal Service certified mail on
December 1, 2010.73
4.69.4 Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201 Plaintiffs request Court’s Judicial Notice of
the Deceptive Trade Practice Act Notice for IDLYC-BMW Majestic and substitution
Gold Buy/Sell Contract (DTPA Notice) and December 1, 2010 Findings from the 1ST
Examination of the Evidence
4.70 1/21/2011 - THOMAS HARLAN EXTOLLS HIS PROFESSIONAL
EXPERIENCE AND ACKNOWLEDGES RECEIPT AND REVIEW OF TEXAS
DTPA NOTICE.
4.70.1 On Friday, January 21, 2011 12:56 PM CST, Thomas P. Harlan, wrote to
Flores copying Gary Grab, attorney for Vicki Clarkson, and Vicki Clarkson, the
following:
“ … I have been involved in hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits,

including a number in Texas …
“… Finally, please be advised that while you have sent out the
required noticed under Texas' Deceptive Trade Practices Act, you
have not negotiated in good faith to settle this matter. We are not
going to work with or sign anything remotely like the "Settlement
Agreement" or other items that you have created. We will have a
73
See, Exhibit 116, Texas DTPA Notice Certificate of Service

simple, straightforward settlement agreement that is customarily
used in cases like this. Again, if there is an offer, please put it out
there. We are more than willing to work with you to bring this
matter to a reasonable conclusion.” (emphasis added) (Exhibit 122)
4.70.2 On Friday, January 21, 2011 2:14 PM CST, Flores responded to Harlan’s
12:56 PM message.
Flores:
“Dear Mr. Harlan --

It appears you have made some false presumptions, out of conversation with
your client and a unreliable source perhaps. I have not participated as a broker in
any capacity. The "$10k" which you reference, is no part of the Koster/Alicorn et
al. transaction and pre-discovery fishing will not provide credible facts.
As far as criminal actions, such is not in our sphere to prosecute, and is wholly
in the hands of appropriate authorities to effect responsive actions that which may
be appropriate to the evidence at hand or result from ongoing investigations.
Further related inferences neither warrant nor merit additional response.
Unfortunately, we have experienced agreements with your client, but if you
have something that would be acceptable to the Court, then certainly present it
to us. Our demands have remained the same:
1) We want consideration for damages, knowing well that your client does not
have the wherewithal to make us whole, but we would accept a structured
settlement on a portion of direct and collateral damages would allow us to
create financial mechanisms to recover a portion of the damages your client is
liable.
2) In damage recovery for the IDLYC transaction and the promised
replacement by means of an alternative financial mechanism of equivalent
worth such as Gold Buy/Sell or equivalent. Doesn't get much simpler.
LF”
4.70.3 Neither Harlan nor Koster have ever responded to Flores’ January 21, 2011
2:14 PM message and have since withdrawn into their fraud and theft scheme. Of far
greater import and consequence, that brought about Harlan’s response in behalf of
Koster, is the failure of Koster, Harlan and Emre to resolve the Deceptive Trade

Practice Act Notice for IDLYC-BMW Majestic and substitution Gold Buy/Sell
Contract (DTPA Notice) and December 1, 2010 Findings from the 1ST Examination of
the Evidence with such utter pretermission. The gravamen that embodies this issue,
is the Defendants’ willful and reckless disregard for the law and rights of others, their
unlawful and/or illegal acts, the unconscionable harm they have intentionally inflicted,
and their malice.
4.70.4 As of the filing of this Complaint Koster and Emre have failed to resolve
DTPA notice or attempt to resolve the demands of the December 1, 2010 DTPA
notice, nor have they tendered a settlement offer. Moreover, Harlan clearly stated the
Defendants’ intractable position: “We are not going to work with or sign anything
remotely like the ‘Settlement Agreement’ or other items that you have created.”
(Exhibit 122)
4.70.5 EXPIRATION OF TIME TO RESOLVE TEXAS DTPA. Pursuant to
Section 17.505, Texas Business & Commerce Code, Defendants were served notice of
a Deceptive Trade Practices Act claim against them on Wednesday, December 1, 2010.
The requisite sixty (60) day period for Defendants to resolve this matter has since
tolled without any resolution nor attempt to resolve the claim as required of the
Defendants pursuant to TEX BC. CODE ANN. § 17.505 : Texas Statutes - Section
17.505: NOTICE; INSPECTION:
(a) As a prerequisite to filing a suit seeking damages under Subdivision (1)

of Subsection (b) of Section 17.50 of this subchapter against any person, a
consumer shall give written notice to the person at least 60 days before
filing the suit advising the person in reasonable detail of the consumer's
specific complaint and the amount of economic damages, damages for

mental anguish, and expenses, including attorneys' fees, if any, reasonably
incurred by the consumer in asserting the claim against the defendant …
4.71 OPEN-ENDED CONTINUITY INVOLVING DISTINCT THREAT OF
LONG-TERM ILLEGAL AND ABUSIVE ACTIVITY. The Defendants’ acts establish
an open-ended continuity incorporating the related predicates themselves involving a
distinct threat of long-term illegal and abusive activity, where their acts are part of an
ongoing and regular way of doing business and conducting or participating in an
illegitimate ongoing enterprise, and pose a substantial threat to the public.
Based on the evidence presented in the certified Domestic Business Records
incorporated herein contained in Exhibit Volumes 1-6 and best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge
and upon reasonable belief the foregoing was instituted or sustained through Conspiracy,
Coercion, Extortion, Receiving the Proceeds of Extortion , Forgery, Obstruction of Justice,
and that the Defendants’ frauds and other tortious act were accomplished by the
extensive use of not less than twelve counts, and likely twenty-seven counts of
distinguishable acts of Wire Fraud, and other racketeering activities which Defendants
used in their strategic and tactical operations of the Syndicate and the
ALICORN/HALL/BEREA/CBS Enterprise.

§ V CAUSES OF ACTION
The allegations contained in all of the paragraphs of this Complaint are hereby re-
averred and re-alleged, for all purposes, and incorporated herein with the same force and
effect as if set forth verbatim herein.
5.1 1ST CAUSE OF ACTION – FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT
AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster, Kerim S. Emre, Thomas P. Harlan, John Childs,
Mark Alan Gelazela, William Chandler Reynolds, Steven E. Woods,
ALICORN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, IDLYC HOLDINGS
TRUST LLC (USA), IDLYC HOLDINGS TRUST (NEW ZEALAND),
BMW MAJESTIC LLC AND/OR THEIR AGENTS. John/Jane Doe(s)
(the “Syndicate Defendants”)
5.1.1 The allegations contained in all of the paragraphs of this Complaint are
hereby re-averred and re-alleged, for all purposes, and incorporated herein with the
same force and effect as if set forth verbatim herein.
5.1.2 Defendants made a material representation to Plaintiffs that was false, and
at the time that the representation was made, they knew it was false or they made it
recklessly, as a positive assertion and without knowledge of its truth. More precisely,
Defendants’ induced the Plaintiffs by misrepresentation which lead them to enter into
a transaction with a false impression of the risks, in which, from the onset of the
transaction Defendants never intended to fulfil their fiduciary duties, did breach their
fiduciary duty, with the intent and foreknowledge that their fraudulent inducement
§V 146 20110202 O rgC m plnt F lores-C larkson v K oster et al.w pd

was wholly a tool by which they would later introduce, exercise and continue other
frauds against the Plaintiffs. The Defendants deceitful conduct raises a substantial
public interest to permit tort principles to apply and remedy this wrong where:
(1) all the elements of intentional misrepresentation are present;
(2) that the intentional misrepresentation occurred prior to contract
formation; and
(3) that the fraud relates to a matter extraneous to the contract.
Moreover, Defendants directly made, or by and through their agents made, the
representations with the intent that Plaintiffs act on it, and Plaintiffs did act on it in
reliance on the representation. Ultimately, the said material representation caused
injury and damages to Plaintiffs when Defendants failed to provide the promised
earnings in a timely manner and as promised, and in fact used the fraudulent
inducement to perpetrate other frauds. Such fraud in the inducement was a proximate
cause of Plaintiffs’ damages.
5.2 2ND CAUSE OF ACTION – COMMON LAW FRAUD
AGAINST: All Defendants
5.2.2 Defendants made a material representation to Plaintiffs that was false, and
at the time that the representation was made, they knew it was false or they made it

recklessly, as a positive assertion and without knowledge of its truth and/or had a duty
and obligation to instruct or advise another not to do so. More specifically, Defendants
represented to Plaintiffs that they could acquire funding for the acquisition funding on
time and in a sufficient amount that Plaintiffs would be able to purchase financial
instruments necessary to collateralize Plaintiffs’ loan from the primary loan funding
for their film slate and related ancillary projects. Moreover, they made the
representation with the intent that Plaintiffs act on it, and Plaintiffs did act on it in
reliance on the representation, effectuating a detrimental reliance upon the Plaintiffs
to the Defendants. Ultimately, the said material representation caused injury and
damages to Plaintiffs when Defendants failed to provide the promised funding in a
timely manner and as promised and in fact never paid out the gains, profits, earnings
from Plaintiffs’ investment funds. Defendants’ fraud was a proximate cause of
Plaintiffs’ damages.
5.3 3RD CAUSE OF ACTION – NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND
DECEIT
5.3.2 Defendants made a false representation to Plaintiffs in the course of
Defendants’ business. Namely, that Defendants would timely and on certain terms,

provide funding through secured scheduled trades to Plaintiffs. Defendants did not
provide such funding in a timely manner nor on the terms promised. In making this
false representation, upon which Plaintiffs relied, Defendants did not exercise
reasonable care or competence in obtaining or communicating the information to
Plaintiffs and/or had a duty and obligation to instruct or advise another to do so. Such
negligent misrepresentation was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs’ damages.
5.4 4TH CAUSE OF ACTION – FRAUD BY NON-DISCLOSURE
5.4.2 Defendants concealed from or failed to disclose certain facts to Plaintiffs,
which they had a duty to disclose. These facts were material and Defendants knew
that Plaintiffs were ignorant and did not have equal opportunity to discover them. As a
result of Defendant’s deliberate silence regarding these facts, they intended to induce
Plaintiffs to take some action or refrain from acting. Plaintiffs relied on the
Defendants non-disclosure and were injured as a result of acting without knowledge of
the undisclosed facts.
5.4.3 More particularly, Defendants concealed and/or had a duty and obligation to
instruct or advise another not to conceal from Plaintiffs the following facts prior to
Plaintiffs’ reliance: that Defendants would not or could not provide the requested

funding in the time frame originally promised; that the funding would be provided on
the same terms as the parties’ prior investment agreement; and that Defendants
would be required to meet certain benchmarks or conditions precedent before
receiving funds from their earnings. Such fraud by non-disclosure was a proximate
cause of Plaintiffs’ damages.
5.5 5TH CAUSE OF ACTION – AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD
5.5.2 Each of the Defendants knew about the schemes used to defraud the
Plaintiffs and other PSP partners of the PSP and Gold Transaction as described in the
Complain.
5.5.3 Each of the Defendants actively participated in the schemes to defraud by
knowingly providing encouragement and substantial assistance in perpetration of the
fraud, as described in this Complaint.
5.5.4 As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ encouragement and
substantial assistance in perpetration of the fraud, Plaintiffs suffered injuries,
damages, or losses in an amount to be determined at trial.
5.5.5 Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages because the Defendants conduct
was malicious, willful, wanton, intentional, and outrageous, evidencing evil motive,

reckless indifference to or reckless disregard for the rights of others; and, particularly
Defendants Koster and Emre who failed to resolve the issues and demands set forth
in the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act notices served upon them and
subsequently acknowledged by Thomas P. Harlan representing Koster.
5.6 6TH CAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF CONTRACT
AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster, Thomas P. Harlan, Kerim S. Emre, and
Alicorn Capital Management LLC.
5.6.2 Scott Anthony Koster, counseled by Harlan , and Kerim S. Emre,
individually and on behalf of Alicorn Capital Management LLC, agreed to timely and
with agreed upon terms provide earning, or revenues to Plaintiffs related to the PSP
investment in that the earned revenues would be provided on the same terms as the
parties’ investment agreement and that Defendants were required to meet certain
benchmarks or conditions of the performance. The Defendants breached such
agreement and failed to timely provide such revenues to the Plaintiffs’ from the
earning of the PSP on those terms and otherwise never performed on the Plaintiffs’
investment. Defendants’ breach caused substantial monetary damages to and
ultimately, the accumulation of those, and addition damages and liabilities, and other

harm to Plaintiffs. Such breach of the contract was a proximate cause of Plaintiffs’
damages.

BMW MAJESTIC LLC AND/OR THEIR AGENTS, John/Jane Doe(s).
(the “Syndicate Defendants”)
5.7.2 At times material to this Complaint, the aforementioned defendants
identified in ¶ 5.7 were Investment Advisors, and/or associated with Investment
Advisors, and/or Account Managers and/or Legal Counsel having closely-held
knowledge of, and intimately involved with the activities of the aforementioned
Defendants, within the meaning and contemplation of the securities laws of the United
States and the State of Texas, and therefore owed fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs.
5.7.3 Defendants owed the Plaintiffs the following fiduciary duties, among others,
which they breached: (1) duty of loyalty and utmost good faith; (2) duty of candor; (3)
duty to refrain from self-dealing; (4) duty to act with integrity of the strictest kind; (5)

duty of fair, honest dealing; (6) duty of full disclosure; and (7) duty of loyalty to the
joint concern to, including duties to:
5.7.3.1 Not make false or misleading statements to the Plaintiffs of material
facts pertaining to their investments;
5.7.3.2 Not omit to make material statements which, under the circumstances,
were necessary to make other statements made to the Plaintiffs not misleading or
deceptive;
5.7.3.3 Correct false or misleading statements of material facts pertaining to
the Plaintiffs’ investments that were made by others and which the Defendants
knew to be false or misleading;
5.7.3.4 Use reasonable care and the competence of a skilled Investment
Advisor when performing due diligence inquiries concerning the appropriateness
of the Plaintiffs’ investments in the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW Fund and the PSP
Fund and any and all of those funds’ investments with sub-managers of Funds;
5.7.3.5 Use reasonable care and the competence of a skilled investment advisor
in managing and monitoring the Plaintiffs’ investments in the
ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW Fund and the PSP Fund once made;
5.7.3.6 Ensure that the Plaintiffs’ investments in the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW
Fund and the PSP Fund were suitable for the Plaintiffs’ given their circumstances;
5.7.3.7 Avoid and/or fully disclose conflicts of interests that could effect their
decisions in the management of the Plaintiffs’ investments;

5.7.3.8 Warn the Plaintiffs if and when their investments were subjected to an
undue risk of loss; and
5.7.3.9 Take such remedial steps as were available to them to minimize or
recover the Plaintiffs’ financial losses.
5.7.4 Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Plaintiffs by,
among other things:
5.7.4.1 Falsely stating to the Plaintiffs, and by confirming or acquiescing in the
making of false statements to Plaintiffs by their business partners and consultants,
that the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW Fund employed a proprietary, and scheduled
purchases and sales investment strategy with a written guarantee of the
underwriting Deutsche Bank SBLC and that the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW Fund
was better suited to advance Plaintiffs’ primary funding for film slate;
5.7.4.2 Failing to disclose to the Plaintiffs that any purported investing of their
money by the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW Fund was being conducted solely by the
principals of IDLYC and BMW and not pursuant to any investment strategy being
conducted or monitored by ALICORN, and by failing to disclose to the Plaintiffs
that principals of IDLYC and BMW had complete custody and control of the
money they invested in the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW PSP Fund;
5.7.4.3 Failing to correct statements made to the Plaintiffs by Scott Anthony
Koster, Thomas P. Harlan, Kerim S. Emre, John Childs, Mark Alan Gelazela,
William Chandler Reynolds, Steven E. Woods, Alicorn Capital Management LLC,
Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC (USA), Idlyc Holdings Trust (New Zealand), BMW

Majestic LLC that they knew to be false and misleading, namely, that any
purported investing of the Plaintiffs’ money by the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW
Fund was being controlled solely by Mark Alan Gelazela, William Chandler
Reynolds, Steven E. Woods and not pursuant to any “propriety” investment;
5.7.4.4 Failing to employ reasonable care and competence in performing due
diligence concerning the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW Fund, and in managing or
monitoring the Plaintiffs’ investments in the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW PSP Fund
once they were made;
5.7.4.5 Causing the Plaintiffs to pay substantial management/broker fees of
16.7% of the investment plus 16.7% of the scheduled earnings payments relating to
their investment in the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW PSP Fund when, in fact, neither
the Defendants nor Koster, Emre, Harlan and John Childs were performing any
meaningful management, oversight, monitoring or control over those investments
and the money purportedly invested by the Plaintiffs in the
ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW PSP Fund was simply being transferred to Mark Alan
Gelazela, William Chandler Reynolds, Steven E. Woods, Alicorn Capital
Management LLC, Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC (USA), Idlyc Holdings Trust (New
Zealand), BMW Majestic LLC;
5.7.4.6 Failing to satisfactorily disclose to the Plaintiffs the serious nature,
scope and effect of conflicts of interest arising from their business relationships
with Mark Alan Gelazela, William Chandler Reynolds, Steven E. Woods, Alicorn

Capital Management LLC, Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC (USA), Idlyc Holdings
Trust (New Zealand), BMW Majestic LLC;
5.7.4.7 Failing to warn the Plaintiffs that their investments with the
ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW PSP Fund were subject to undue risk of loss, even in
the face of reports questioning the legitimacy of Mark Alan Gelazela, William
Chandler Reynolds, Steven E. Woods, Scott Anthony Koster, Alicorn Capital
Zealand), BMW Majestic LLC purported investment strategy and the authenticity
of his reported investment returns;
5.7.4.8 Failing, following the public revelations about Mark Alan Gelazela,
William Chandler Reynolds, Steven E. Woods, Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC (USA),
Idlyc Holdings Trust (New Zealand), BMW Majestic LLC criminal conduct, to
disclose to the Plaintiffs the fact that they knew that their investments in the
ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW Fund had been placed entirely in the care and custody
of Mark Alan Gelazela, William Chandler Reynolds, Steven E. Woods, Alicorn
Capital Management LLC, Idlyc Holdings Trust LLC (USA), Idlyc Holdings
Trust (New Zealand), BMW Majestic LLC and failing to take any remedial actions
against their business partners, consultants and counsel, in order to recover or
minimize the Plaintiffs’ financial losses; and
5.7.4.9 Making false or misleading statements to the Plaintiffs about Scott
Anthony Koster, Thomas P. Harlan, Kerim S. Emre, John Childs, Mark Alan
Gelazela, William Chandler Reynolds, Steven E. Woods, Alicorn Capital

Zealand), BMW Majestic LLC and their criminal conduct concerning the true
breadth of the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW PSP Fund’s exposure to loss,
additionally, and for such breach of Syndicate Defendants fiduciary duty, they
“forfeit all right to compensation, even if they did not profit from the breach of
fiduciary duty;”74.
5.7.5 As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ numerous breaches of
their fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs have suffered substantial
monetary damages and severe emotional distress.
AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster, Richard Hall, Winston Jerome Cook, Kerim S.
Emre, John Childs, Thomas P. Harlan, ALICORN CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT LLC, BEREA LLC, and COOK BUSINESS
SERVICES LLC. (the “Gold Transaction Defendants”)
5.8.2 Gold Transaction Defendants owed the Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty as a result
of a formal or informal fiduciary relationship of trust and confidence with Plaintiffs.
74
See International Bankers Life Insurance Co., ibid. at FN 70 pg. 137

Defendants, by refusing to timely provide promised returns on their investment
schemes, and by forcing Plaintiffs into accumulated liabilities and damages, breached
their fiduciary duties to Plaintiffs which resulted in injury to the Plaintiffs and/or
benefit to the Plaintiffs.
5.8.3 Gold Transaction Defendants owed to the Plaintiffs the following fiduciary
duties, among others, which they breached: (1) duty of loyalty and utmost good faith;
(2) duty of candor; (3) duty to refrain from self-dealing; (4) duty to act with integrity of
the strictest kind; (5) duty of fair, honest dealing; (6) duty of full disclosure; and (7)
duty of loyalty to the joint concern.
5.8.4 After initial contact with Richard Hall, the Plaintiffs never received Hall’s
or his associates contact information from either Hall, or Cook, or Koster. Koster
never provided the contact information for Cook. Cook was found by Flores on the
social network “Facebook”, where he contacted Cook and provided him with Flores’
contact information. Hall owed the Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty as he controlled the gold
investment which was the substitution for the PSP performance failure and damages.
Cook, owed the Plaintiffs a fiduciary duty as he controlled the SBLC security
instrument and was well aware of the distribution and control of Plaintiffs earnings
from the Gold Transaction. Koster failed in the performance of his fiduciary duties as
he had since December of 2009, and for such breach of Gold Transaction Defendants
fiduciary duty, they “forfeit all right to compensation, even if they did not profit from
the breach of fiduciary duty.”75
75

5.8.5 As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants Hall’s, Cook’s, and
Koster’s breaches of their fiduciary duties of care and loyalty to the Plaintiffs, the
Plaintiffs have suffered substantial monetary damages and severe emotional distress.
5.9 9TH CAUSE OF ACTION – CONVERSION
5.9.2 Plaintiffs’ have a right of ownership and entitlement to the immediate
possession of investment funds paid to the PSP and all proceeds occurring out of the
funds generated by, earnings, revenues or profits derived by use of the Plaintiffs’s
investment funds from the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW investment transaction and the
Gold Transaction in an amount equal the original amount set forth in the original PSP
agreement, notwithstanding additional damages.
5.9.3 The Plaintiffs’ investment funds were placed in the custody of the Syndicate
Defendants for the specific conditions identified in ¶¶ 4.5.1 - 4.5.2, pg. 41, investing
funds in the PSP that was intended or compensating the PSP partners pursuant to the
terms of set forth in contracts identified above.
5.9.4 Defendants diverted and misappropriated portions of Plaintiffs’ investment
funds for other and different purposes of using the funds for their own personal use

and then embezzled the from the use of the portions appropriated for the Plaintiffs
investment.
5.9.5 The Defendants’ misappropriation of the Plaintiffs’ investment funds
deprived Plaintiffs of their possessory rights to the investment funds.
5.9.6 As a result of the Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover the
value of the converted funds, plus interest calculated from the time of conversion, plus
all earnings, revenues, and profits originally contracted, notwithstanding damages
therefrom.
5.9.7 Plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages because the Defendants’ conduct
was malicious, willful, wanton, intentional, and outrageous, evidencing evil motive or
reckless indifference to the rights of others.
EXISTING CONTRACTS
AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster
5.10.2 Plaintiffs had contracts with Koster, in which Koster, counseled by Harlan,
tortuously interfered76 with the existing Gold Transaction substitution agreement.77
Koster willfully and intentionally interfered with said contracts, which interference
76
¶ 4.60.1, pg. 123
77
¶ 4.41.3, pg. 98

proximately caused actual injuries, damages, or loss to Plaintiffs. More specifically,
Plaintiff’s acts of deception, negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, fraud by
non-disclosure, and breach of fiduciary duty more fully described herein tortuously
interfered with contracts. Such tortious acts caused Plaintiffs damages and harm.
PROSPECTIVE CONTRACT
AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster, Thomas P. Harlan, Kerim S. Emre, John Childs
5.11.2 In addition to the contracts, Plaintiffs had already entered into, there was a
reasonable probability that Plaintiffs would have entered into various contracts or
business relationships with Berea LLC to lever-up the Gold Transaction in order to
complete the restoration of the non-performance of the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW
transaction. Koster, counseled by Harlan, by his independently tortious or unlawful
acts or omissions, including but not limited to acts of deception, negligent
misrepresentation, common law fraud, fraud by non-disclosure, and breach of
fiduciary duty more fully described herein intentionally interfered with these
prospective business relationships and proximately caused Plaintiffs to suffer actual
damage, loss, or harm.

5.12 12TH CAUSE OF ACTION – VIOLATIONS OF THE DECEPTIVE TRADE
PRACTICES ACT
AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster, Kerim S. Emre.
5.12.2 The Defendants’ conduct constitutes a breach of the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, including:
5.12.2.1 Section 17.46(b). More specifically, the Defendants’ actions constitute
breaches of the following provisions of Section 17.46(b):(5)Representing that goods
or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits,
or quantities which they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval,
status, affiliation, or connection which he does not;
5.12.2.2 Section 17.46(b):(7). Representing that goods or services are of a
particular standard, quality, or grade, or that goods are of a particular style and
model, if they are of another;
5.12.2.3 Section 17.46(b):(9). Advertising goods or services with intent not to
sell them as advertised;
5.12.2.4 Section 17.46(b):(12) Representing that an agreement confers or
involves rights, remedies, or obligations which it does not have or involve, or which
are prohibited by law; and

5.12.2.5 Section 17.46(b):(24) The failure to disclose information concerning
goods or services which was known at the time of the transaction if such failure to
disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer into a transaction
into which the consumer would not have entered had the information been
disclosed.
5.12.3 Plaintiffs relied on the Defendants’ false, misleading, and deceptive acts to
its detriment. Such actions and deceptive acts were a producing cause of damages to
the Plaintiffs. The conduct of the Defendants as described herein was committed
knowingly.
5.12.4 Defendants were actually aware, at the time of the conduct, of the falsity,
deception, and unfairness of the conduct about which Plaintiffs complain.
5.12.5 Further, the conduct of the Defendants was committed intentionally. That
is, the Defendants had actual awareness of the falsity, deception, or unfairness of their
acts or practice described herein coupled with the specific intent that Plaintiffs acted
in detrimental reliance on the falsity or deception by the Defendants. Finally, the
Defendants misrepresentations and breaches of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act
were unconscionable. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to treble damages pursuant
to the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

5.13 13 TH CAUSE OF ACTION – PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
BMW MAJESTIC LLC AND/OR THEIR AGENTS. (the “Syndicate
Defendants”)
5.13.2 Plaintiffs plead, in the alternative if necessary, a cause of action against
Syndicate Defendants for promissory estoppel.
5.13.3 Syndicate Defendants made promises to Plaintiffs that include, but are not
limited to, the following:
5.13.3.1 representing to Plaintiffs that it would pay them earnings for their
investment; and
5.13.3.2 representing to Plaintiffs that the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW
transaction PSP would pay regularly scheduled weekly earnings payments
beginning on or about December 4, 2010, to an escrow account and on or about
December 12, 2010, to Plaintiffs’ designated bank account.

5.13.3.3 Syndicate Defendants made these promises in order to induce
Plaintiffs to take and/or forego certain actions. The promises made by the above
Defendants and/or their representatives were reasonably calculated to induce
Plaintiffs to take and/or forego certain actions. Plaintiffs’ reliance upon
Defendants' promises was reasonably foreseeable to the Defendants.
5.13.4 The Plaintiffs, in fact, relied on each and every one of Defendants' promises
and has taken definite and substantial action in reliance on the promises to their
detriment.
5.13.5 Defendants' promises were the proximate cause of significant damages to
Plaintiff, which are in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court. In
order for injustice to be avoided, the Court must enforce the promises made to
Plaintiff by Defendants and/or their agents. Under Texas law, "[t]he elements in a suit
for breach of contract are: (1) a valid contract; (2) the plaintiff performed or tendered
performance; (3) the defendant breached the contract; and (4) the plaintiff was
damaged as a result of that breach.".78 The elements of a promissory estoppel claim
are "(1) a promise, (2) foreseeability of reliance thereon by the promisor, and (3)
substantial reliance by the promisee to his detriment." In addition to these basic
requirements for promissory estoppel, “Texas courts have also established a fourth
requirement of a definite finding that injustice can be avoided only by the enforcement
78
Godwin Gruber, P.C. v. Deuschle, 261 F.Supp.2d 682, 690 (N.D. Tex.), affirmed, 87 Fed. Appx.
338 (5th Cir. 2003) (quoting Aquila Southwest Pipeline, Inc. v. Harmony Exploration, Inc., 48 S.W .3d 225,
235 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 2001, pet. denied))

of the promise,”79 and for such breach of Syndicate Defendants fiduciary duty, they
“forfeit all right to compensation, even if they did not profit from the breach of
fiduciary duty.”80
5.13.6 Under the analysis, a review of Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint establishes
that Plaintiffs have set forth allegations against Defendants that could establish all of
the elements of a breach of contract claim and the alternative claim of promissory
estoppel. If the allegations are proved, Plaintiff should be entitled to recover against
Syndicate Defendants.
5.14 14TH CAUSE OF ACTION – PROMISSORY ESTOPPEL
AGAINST: Scott Anthony Koster, Richard Hall, Winston Jerome Cook, Kerim S.
Emre, John Childs, Thomas P. Harlan, ALICORN CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT LLC, BEREA LLC, and COOK BUSINESS
SERVICES LLC. (the “Gold Transaction Defendants”)
5.14.2 Plaintiffs plead, in the alternative if necessary, a cause of action against
Defendants Scott Anthony Koster, Richard Hall, Winston Jerome Cook, Alicorn
Capital Management LLC, Berea LLC, and Cook Business Services LLC.
79
Clardy M fg. Co. v. M arine M idland Bus. Loans, Inc., 88 F.3d 347, 360 (5th Cir. 1996), cert.
denied, 519 U.S. 1078 (1997) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
80

5.14.3 Defendants Scott Anthony Koster, Richard Hall, Winston Jerome Cook,
Alicorn Capital Management LLC, Berea LLC, and Cook Business Services LLC
and/or their agents made promises to Plaintiff that include, but are not limited to, the
following:
5.14.3.1 representing to Plaintiffs that it would pay them earnings for their
investment; and
5.14.3.2 representing to Plaintiffs that the ALICORN/HALL/BEREA/CBS
Gold Transaction it would pay regularly scheduled monthly earnings payment
from the profit earnings from the sale of gold, to Plaintiffs’ designated bank
account.
5.14.3.3 Defendants Scott Anthony Koster, Richard Hall, Winston Jerome
Cook, Alicorn Capital Management LLC, Berea LLC, and Cook Business Services
LLC. and/or their agents made these promises in order to induce Plaintiffs to take
and/or forego certain actions. The promises made by the above Defendants and/or
their representatives were reasonably calculated to induce Plaintiffs to take and/or
forego certain actions. Plaintiffs’ reliance upon Defendants' promises was
reasonably foreseeable to Defendants.
5.14.4 Plaintiffs, in fact, relied on each and every one of Defendants' promises and
has taken definite and substantial action in reliance on the promises to their
detriment.
5.14.5 Defendants' promises were the proximate cause of significant damages to
Plaintiff, which are in excess of the minimum jurisdictional limit of this Court. In

order for injustice to be avoided, the Court must enforce the promises made to
Plaintiff by Defendants and/or their agents.
5.14.6 Under the analysis, a review of Plaintiffs’ Original Complaint establishes
that Plaintiffs have set forth allegations against both Defendants Scott Anthony
Koster, Richard Hall, Winston Jerome Cook, Alicorn Capital Management LLC,
Berea LLC, and Cook Business Services LLC. that could establish all of the elements
of a breach of contract claim and the alternative claim of promissory estoppel. If the
allegations are proved, Plaintiff should be entitled to recover against Defendants Scott
Anthony Koster, Richard Hall, Winston Jerome Cook, Alicorn Capital Management
LLC, Berea LLC, and Cook Business Services LLC.
5.15 15TH CAUSE OF ACTION – INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
5.15.2 The Plaintiffs reposed a high degree of trust in the Defendants with the
expectation that their substantial investments in the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW PSP
Fund and the substituted ALICORN/BEREA/CBS Gold Transaction settlement, and
that they would be managed and monitored by the Defendants with reasonable care,

competence and due diligence, and that the Defendants would deal with them with the
utmost good faith, fairness and candor.
5.15.3 As set forth herein, the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
owed to the Plaintiffs and have defrauded them, thereby causing them to suffer
substantial financial losses in their productive professional years and at a time when
they are heavily reliant on their investments, for Clarkson’s real-estate and property
development and investment partnership with Flores, and Flores reliance to produce
motion picture productions. As well, they caused Plaintiffs to suffer the mounting
damages along with the increasing cost of delaying crews, talent, and affecting
location availability; and Plaintiffs suffered irreversible damage to their reputations,
and loss of credibility and trust with the “A” List crews and talent, and that would
extend into the industry including unions, and local government officials who were
working to create incentives for employment and education for their constituents and
the economic welfare of their communities anticipating the arrival of the slate
productions. The Defendants have intentionally or recklessly engaged in extreme and
outrageous conduct which was intended or substantially certain to inflict severe
emotional distress upon the Plaintiffs.
5.15.4 As a result of the Defendants’ extreme and outrageous conduct, the
Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer severe emotional distress.

5.16 16TH CAUSE OF ACTION – CIVIL CONSPIRACY
5.16.2 The Defendants combined, agreed and conspired with each other and with
others to commit tortious acts against the Plaintiffs as set forth in all Causes of
Actions in § V hereof.
5.16.3 It was an object and purpose of the conspiracy to conceal material
information from the Plaintiffs and to provide them with false or misleading
information concerning their investment of substantial sums of money in the
ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW PSP Fund and the ALICORN/BEREA/CBS Gold Buy/Sell
Fund, in violation of fiduciary duties owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs. It was
further an object and purpose of the conspiracy to conceal material information from
the Plaintiffs and to provide them with false or misleading material information
concerning the extent to which the Plaintiffs’ were exposed to financial losses related
to fraudulent conduct by the Defendants, as well as the degree to which the
Defendants’ named and unnamed partners and business associates, including
John/Jane Does were involved in that fraud, including wire fraud, and coercion,
extortion, forgery, obstruction of justice, by and through their inextricable

relationships in their association-in-fact enterprises all in violation of fiduciary duties
owed by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs.
5.16.4 In furtherance of the conspiracy, the Defendants engaged in overt actions
and conduct as alleged in §§ III, IV & V hereof.
5.16.5 As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ actions in committing
the tortious conduct as set forth in herein, and because of their combination,
agreement and conspiracy in furtherance of such tortious conduct, the Defendants are
each liable for the damages thereby suffered by the Plaintiffs.
5.17 17TH CAUSE OF ACTION – SECURITIES FRAUD (15 U.S.C. §78t(a) & 15
U.S.C. §78(j)(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5)
AGAINST: All Syndicate Defendants
5.17.2 At times material to this Complaint, the Defendants acted as controlling
persons within the meaning and contemplation of Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. §78t(a)15 U.S.C. §78(j)(b) and SEC Rule 10b-5: All
Defendants).
5.17.3 At times material to this Complaint, Syndicate Defendants held high level
positions in ALICORN, IDLYC, and BMW or were acting as agents of one another as
described in ¶¶ 6.2 and 6.1, supra, and had active and direct participation in and

knowledge of false or misleading statements, as set forth in § IV, made by each other
regarding the ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW and PSP financial transactions hereof.
5.17.4 165. At times material to this Complaint, Koster, Emre, and ALICORN,
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, representing those in association with them in the
Syndicate (“Syndicate Defendants”), were publicly identified and promoted on the
Internet to prospective clients by the Syndicate Defendants as a financial services
company as a pretense for their investment service, investment management and
investment advisory.
5.17.5 The Syndicate Defendants each had the actual power to influence and
control the content and dissemination of false and misleading statements made by
Koster, Emre, Childs, Gelazela, Woods and ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW Fund or the
PSP Fund to the Plaintiffs in order to prevent the dissemination of such false and
misleading statements to Plaintiffs in order to prevent the dissemination of such false
and misleading statements or to cause them to be corrected.
5.17.6 The Syndicate Defendants each had the actual power to influence and
control the content and dissemination of false and misleading statements made by
each other to the Plaintiffs in order to prevent the dissemination of such false and
misleading statements or to cause them to be corrected.
5.17.7 By virtue of their status as controlling persons, the Syndicate Defendants
are liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as a direct and proximate result of
wrongful conduct by the Syndicate Defendants.

5.18 18TH CAUSE OF ACTION - UNJUST ENRICHMENT / CONSTRUCTIVE
TRUST
5.18.2 A fiduciary and/or confidential relationship existed between each of the
Defendants and the Plaintiffs.
5.18.3 The Defendants secured management and performance-based fees from the
Plaintiffs in exchange for investment advisory services which were to be provided with
reasonable care and competence, due diligence and the utmost good faith and fair
dealing toward the Plaintiffs.
5.18.4 Upon information and belief, the Defendants received other valuable
consideration, either directly or indirectly, from their consultants, partners or legal
counsel client or from other sources under their management, control or influence, in
exchange for their referral of investors such as the Plaintiffs or other funds
purportedly controlled or managed by the Syndicate of Syndicate Defendants.
5.18.5 As set forth herein, the Defendants have breached their duties to the
Plaintiffs and have defrauded them.
5.18.6 To prevent unjust enrichment, the Court should impose a constructive trust
upon each of the Defendants in an amount equal to any pecuniary benefits they have

received, whether directly or indirectly, by virtue of the Plaintiffs’ investments in the
ALICORN/IDLYC/BMW Fund or PSP Fund or ALICORN/BEREA/CBS Gold
Transaction Funds or other funds.
§ VI 174 20110202 O rgC m plnt F lores-C larkson v K oster et al.w pd

§ VI OTHER PLEADINGS
6.1 AGENCY & AUTHORITY
6.1.2 At all times material to this lawsuit, upon information and belief, Koster and
Emre, were agents of Woods, Gelazela, and Reynolds, that Harlan was agent for
Koster, ALICORN, and the Syndicate, and vice versa; that Koster was agent for
Richard Hall, BEREA and its principals, and vice versa; that Koster was agent for
Cook and CBS, and vice versa; and that Emre and Childs were agents for Koster, and
vice versa.
6.1.3 Upon information and belief, Koster and Emre had actual authority to act
on behalf of Woods, Gelazela, and Reynolds and vice versa at all relevant times
material to this lawsuit. More specifically, upon information and belief, Woods,
Gelazela, and Reynolds intentionally conferred upon Koster and Emre actual
authority, intentionally allowed Koster and Emre to believe they had actual authority,
or by a lack of due care, allowed Koster and Emre to believe they had authority to act
on their behalf in dealing with Plaintiffs and vice versa. Moreover, Koster and Emre
were acting within the scope of their agency when they committed the torts alleged
herein, or when they reached any verbal agreement with Plaintiffs.

Further, upon information and belief, Koster and Hall had actual authority to act
on behalf of Cook and vice versa at all relevant times material to this lawsuit.
6.1.4 Further, upon information and belief and in the alternative, Koster
counseled by Harlan, and Emre had apparent authority to act on behalf of Woods,
Gelazela, and Reynolds at all relevant times material to this lawsuit. More specifically,
Woods, Gelazela, and Reynolds knowingly permitted Koster and Emre to hold
themselves out as having authority or acted with such lack of ordinary care as to
clothe Koster and Emre with the indicia of authority.
6.1.5 Plaintiffs justifiably relied on the actual or apparent authority of Koster and
Emre and such justifiable reliance caused damages to Plaintiffs.
6.2 RATIFICATION.
6.2.2 Upon information and belief, in the alternative, Koster and Emre ratified
the acts and omissions of Woods, Gelazela, and Reynolds, either by word, act, or
conduct after acquiring full knowledge of the act or omission. Moreover, the approval
or ratification was given with the intention of giving validity to the acts or omissions of
Koster and Emre.
6.2.3 Further, upon information and belief, in the alternative, Hall and Cook
ratified the acts and omissions of Koster, Emre, Childs and either by word, act, or

conduct after acquiring full knowledge of the act or omission. Moreover, the approval
or ratification was given with the intention of giving validity to the acts or omissions of
Koster, Emre, Childs, Hall and Cook.
6.3 PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL/ALTER EGO.
6.3.2 Upon information and belief Koster, Emre, Woods, Gelazela, Reynolds,
ALICORN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC, IDLYC HOLDINGS TRUST LLC
(USA), IDLYC HOLDINGS TRUST LLC (New Zealand), and BMW MAJESTIC
LLC, were mere tools or business conduits of one-another, or were operated as a
single business enterprise; thus, each should be liable for the liability of the other as
alter egos by piercing the corporate veil.
6.4 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY & INTENTIONAL
INTERFERENCE
6.4.2 With the discovery of evidence, information due Plaintiffs by Defendants
during the course of business transactions, within Defendants’ possession of Plaintiffs’

claims against Defendants despite the Plaintiffs’ exercise of reasonable diligence on
their part and required specificity already plead, it is difficult to imagine how
Plaintiffs could plead breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and scienter with more specificity
then they have thus far, before having the opportunity to conduct comprehensive
discovery given the circumstances set forth in the facts.
6.5 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR: RACKETEERING
(INVOLVING, inter alia, WIRE FRAUD, EXTORTION, FORGERY, OBSTRUCTION
OF JUSTICE AND MONEY LAUNDERING)
6.5.2 As Rule 9(b)'s pleading requirements pending further discovery for
allegations of wire fraud pursuant and discovery of co-conspirators (whom the
Plaintiffs have reason to believe laundered monies to conceal the whereabouts of the
Plaintiffs’ and others’ funds) to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act "because of the apparent difficulties in specifically pleading mail and wire fraud as
predicate acts." New England Data Servs., 829 F.2d at 290-91.9 See North Bridge
Assoc., Inc. v. Boldt, 274 F.3d 38, 44 (1st Cir. 2001)(noting that in the RICO context,
where "the specific information [concerning the defendants' use of interstate
telecommunications facilities] is likely in the exclusive control of the defendant, the
Court should make a second determination as to whether the claim as presented

warrants the allowance of discovery and if so, thereafter provide an opportunity to
amend the defective complaint") (citing Feinstein v. Resolution Trust Corp., 942 F.2d
34, 43 (1st Cir.1991)).
6.5.3 The Defendants, directly and indirectly, made use of the means and
instrumentalities of interstate commerce and extensively used the domestic
communication wires in connection with the Defendants acts, practices, and courses of
business alleged herein within the Northern District of Texas, Calgary Alberta,
Canada, and elsewhere.
6.5.4 Plaintiffs have clearly shown violations of State and Federal criminal law
and requisite predicate acts that attach to 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 Civil RICO,
including numerous counts of Coercion, Conversion, Extortion, Forgery, Obstruction
of Justice, and wire fraud.
6.5.5 Plaintiffs have shown that Defendants have set up extensive structures that
are not only interconnected domestically, but internationally, using influences
impinging upon the public and the public fabric. Their activities are of substantial
import to the public and have existed for several years. On information and belief
based upon the evidence, submitted herewith, the Plaintiffs aver that the Defendants
devised a schema and artifices to defraud the Plaintiffs and others to obtain monies by
means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, and
transmitted by means of wire by telephonic voice and over the Internet in both
interstate and foreign commerce, writings, financial instruments and voice
communications for the purpose of executing their schemes and various artifices in

violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 (1988) Wire Fraud, Coercion, Conversion, Extortion,
Forgery, and Obstruction of Justice as an integral part of their schema.
6.5.6 The RICO statute creates civil liability for those who engage in a"pattern of
racketeering activity." 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962, 1964. Though limited in discovery, the
Plaintiffs have nonetheless established a pattern of racketeering activity, fulfilled the
necessary predicate acts, and that the Defendants’ pattern of racketeering and extent
of those activities will very likely continue. Clearly, Plaintiffs have reached past any
challenge for failure to satisfy the specificity requirement of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 9(b), as such, Plaintiffs should be granted the leave to amend their
complaint on the ground that it would serve the interests of justice and justly serve
the public interest as well.
6.5.7 Plaintiffs believe discovery will reveal further support of RICO claims and
that until discovery is complete that it would be prudent to later seek leave to amend
in light of newly discovered evidence; and, it is premature to plead RICO claims and
file a RICO Case Statement, as the Plaintiffs are confident that the number of RICO
defendants are likely to increase and the reach of racketeering activities will extend
further.
Wherefore, Plaintiffs assert non-waiver of RICO claims and defer to such time as
discovery is completed.

6.6 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR: FRAUD AND
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT OF THIS FRAUD
6.6.2 On the part of Defendants, thus suspending the running of limitations as to
all claims. Equitable tolling permits the Plaintiffs to avoid the bar of the statute of
limitations if despite the exercise of all due diligence they are unable to obtain vital
information bearing on the existence of their claims. In the instant case, the doctrine
of equitable estoppel becomes consequential since the Defendants have clearly
established active steps to prevent or severely restrain the Plaintiffs’ ability to secure
essential information regarding their illegal or unlawful actions with particularity.
6.7 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR: FRAUDULENT
CONCEALMENT OF FACTS UNDER DEFENDANTS’ CONTROL
6.7.2 Giving rise to this cause of action against Defendants including those
unknown for which they have concealed information. Their concealment has prevented
Plaintiffs from showing the extent of nexus or co-conspiracy in Defendants unlawful or

illegal transgressions, thus suspending the running of limitations and reasonable
relaxation of Rule 9(b).
6.8 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR: BREACH OF
FIDUCIARY DUTY, INCLUDING THE DUTY TO DISCLOSE
6.8.2 Against Defendants, particularly Eugene Fletcher, thus suspending the
running of limitations against all Defendants and reasonable relaxation of Rule 9(b).
6.9 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR: JOHN/JANE DOE(S)
CONCERT OF ACTION
6.9.2 For conspiracy to conceal negligence, to commit fraud and to fraudulently
conceal the acts and the existence of the fraud and conspiracy, thus suspending the
running of limitations against all JOHN/JANE DOE Defendants and reasonable
relaxation of Rule 9(b) Plaintiffs include:
6.9.2.1 John Doe 1 REDACTED from INSTANCE TYPE AND
TRANSMISSION -notification of Original SWIFT (ACK); Message Reference

1010 09 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn46579; Receiver HSBCHKHHHKH (HSBC)(ALL
HK OFFICES AND HEAD OFFICE) HONG KONG HK; Transaction Reference
Number NNN/blc/a011/09 … SIGNED BY AND BETWEEN [JOHN DOE 1
REDACTED] AND BMW MAJE, TRASK AND AFFILIATES … [dtd.]
24/Dec/2009 10:08:30 AM
6.9.2.2 John Doe 2 (TRASK AND AFFILIATES LTD.) from INSTANCE
TYPE AND TRANSMISSION -notification of Original SWIFT (ACK); Message
Reference 1010 09 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn46579; Receiver HSBCHKHHHKH
(HSBC)(ALL HK OFFICES AND HEAD OFFICE) HONG KONG HK;
Transaction Reference Number NNN/blc/a011/09 … SIGNED BY AND
BETWEEN [JOHN DOE 1 REDACTED] AND BMW MAJE, TRASK AND
AFFILIATES … [dtd.] 24/Dec/2009 10:08:30 AM
6.9.2.3 John Doe 3 (“HSBC HK Banker”) from x INSTANCE TYPE AND
TRANSMISSION -notification of Original SWIFT (ACK); Message Reference
1010 09 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn46579; Receiver HSBCHKHHHKH (HSBC)(ALL
HK OFFICES AND HEAD OFFICE) HONG KONG HK; Transaction Reference
Number NNN/blc/a011/09 … SIGNED BY AND BETWEEN [JOHN DOE 1
REDACTED] AND BMW MAJE, TRASK AND AFFILIATES … [dtd.]
24/Dec/2009 10:08:30 AM
6.9.2.4 John Doe 4 (John Childs, San Francisco, CA)
6.9.2.5 John Doe 5 (Dr. Eugene Fletcher; Cook Business Services LLC, 5710
Melanie Trail, Atlanta, GA, 30349-2853 – Tel. (770) 969-2217)

6.10 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD DELAYED DISCOVERY FOR: INCLUSION OF
NOMINAL DEFENDANTS UNJUST ENRICHMENT
6.10.2 HSBC HONG KONG, thru HSBC Group Head Office (London, UK), thru
HSBC Bank N.A. (USA).
6.10.3 Alexzander KOKER (Principal, Avira Investment Limited),
AVIRA INVESTMENT LIMITED, Ghana, and
6.10.4 Terra KOSTER; 14391 80TH Street, Milaca, Minnesota 56353.
6.10.5 Chelsey REYNOLDS; 26 Marlwood Lane, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418.
6.11 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD: VIOLATION OF SECTION 10(b) OF THE
EXCHANGE ACT AND RULE 10-5
6.11.2 As a part of and in furtherance of their scheme, Defendants Woods,
Gelazela, Reynolds, Koster, Harlan, and Emre and through ALICORN CAPITAL
MANAGEMENT LLC, IDLYC HOLDINGS TRUST LLC (USA), IDLYC
HOLDINGS TRUST LLC (New Zealand), and BMW MAJESTIC LLC, directly and

indirectly, prepared, disseminated or used contracts, written offering documents,
promotional materials, investor and other correspondence, and oral presentations,
which contained untrue statements of material facts and misrepresentations of
material facts, and which omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading, including, but not limited to, those set forth above.
6.11.3 Defendants Woods, Gelazela, Reynolds, Koster, Harlan, and Emre made
the above-referenced misrepresentations and omissions knowingly or grossly
recklessly disregarding the truth.
6.11.4 By reason of the foregoing, Defendants Woods, Gelazela, Reynolds, Koster,
Harlan, and Emre have violated and will very likely to continue to violate the
provisions of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5
thereunder [17 C.F.R. §240.10b-5]
6.12 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD: VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 17(a) OF THE
SECURITIES ACT
6.12.2 Defendants Woods, Gelazela, Reynolds, Koster, Harlan, and Emre, directly
or indirectly, singly, in concert with others, in the offer and sale of securities, by use of
the means and instruments of transportation and communication in interstate

commerce and by use of the wires or mails, have: (a) employed devices, schemes or
artifices to defraud; (b) obtained money or property by means of untrue statements of
material fact or omissions to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading; and (c) engaged in transactions, practices or courses of business which
operate or would operate as a fraud or deceit.
6.12.3 As part of and in furtherance of this scheme, Defendants Woods, Gelazela,
Reynolds, Koster, Harlan, and Emre, directly and indirectly, prepared, disseminated
or used contracts, written offering documents, promotional materials, investor and
other correspondence and oral presentations, which contained untrue statements of
material fact and which omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading, including, but not limited to, those statements and omissions set forth in
the foregoing.
6.12.4 Defendants Woods, Gelazela, Reynolds, Koster, Harlan, and Emre, made
the above-referenced misrepresentations and omissions knowingly or grossly
recklessly disregarding the truth.
Harlan, and Emre have violated, and are likely to continue in their violations of
Sections 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77q(a).

6.13 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD: VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 5(a) AND 5(c) OF THE
SECURITIES ACT
6.13.2 Defendants Woods, Gelazela, Reynolds, Koster, Harlan, and Emre, directly
or indirectly, singly and in concert with others, have been offering to sell, selling and
delivering after sale, certain securities, and have been, directly and indirectly: (a)
making use of the means and instruments of communication in interstate commerce
and of the wires to sell securities, through the use of written contracts, offering
documents and otherwise; (b) carrying and causing to be carried through the wires or
mails and in interstate commerce by the means and instruments of transportation,
such securities for the purpose of sale and for delivery after sale; and (c) making use of
the means or instruments of transportation and communication in interstate
commerce and of the wires or mails to offer to sell such securities.
6.13.3 As describe in the foregoing, the purported Alicorn/Idlyc/BMW private
placement program and PSP was offered and sold to the Plaintiffs and others through
a direct solicitation of investors. Plaintiffs can find no registration statements that
have been filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission or are otherwise in
effect with respect to their offerings.

Harlan, and Emre, have violated and it is likely they will continue to violate Sections
5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. 77e(a) and 77e(c)].
6.14 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD: VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 1 5(a)(1) OF THE
EXCHANGE ACT
6.14.2 At the times alleged in this Complaint, Defendants Woods, Gelazela,
Reynolds, Koster, Harlan, and Emre have been in the business of effecting
transactions in securities, as set forth in the foregoing fact and allegations, for the
accounts of others.
6.14.3 Complaint, Defendants Woods, Gelazela, Reynolds, Koster, Harlan, and
Emre made use of the telephonic and communications wires, and of the means and
instrumentalities of interstate commerce to effect transactions in and to induce or
attempt to induce the purchase of their security instruments.
6.14.4 At the times alleged in this Complaint, Defendants Woods, Gelazela,
Reynolds, Koster, Harlan, and Emre were not registered with the Securities and
Exchange Commission as brokers or dealers, as required by section 15(b) of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §780(b)].

Harlan, and Emre have violated and it is likely they will continue to violate section 1
5(a)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78o(a)(1 )J.
6.15 CLAIM AGAINST THE NOMINAL DEFENDANTS AS CUSTODIANS OF
INVESTOR FUNDS AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT
6.15.2 As set forth in the forgoing, the Nominal Defendants have received funds
and/or property derived through conversion or from the illicit proceeds obtained from
the use of Plaintiffs’ funds by one or more of the Defendants, which are the proceeds,
or are traceable to the proceeds, of the Defendants unlawful activities, as alleged
throughout the Complaint.
6.15.3 Nominal Defendants have obtained the funds and/or property alleged above
as part of and in furtherance of Defendants’ frauds, contractual defaults, torts and/or
racketeering activities or their securities violations alleged throughout this Complaint
and under the circumstances in which it is not just, equitable nor conscionable for
them to retain the funds and/or property derived therefrom. As a consequence,
Nominal Defendants
6.15.3.1 Vladimir PIERRE-LOUISE,
6.15.3.2 Christine WONG-SANG,

6.15.3.3 Tulin Emre,
6.15.3.4 IBalance LLC,
6.15.3.5 GODSPEEDS ENDEAVORS LLC,
6.15.3.6 GODSPEEDS INITIATIVE LLC,
6.15.3.7 GODSPEEDS ENTERTAINMENT,
6.15.3.8 SPIN ENTERTAINMENT
6.15.3.9 Alexzander KOKER (Principal, Avira Investment Limited), and
6.15.3.10 AVIRA INVESTMENT LIMITED (Ghana).
have been unjustly enriched.
6.16 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD: ESTOPPEL BY SILENCE
6.16.2 Equitable estoppel arises because all Defendants, but especially Koster,
counseled by Harlin, had an obligation and a duty to speak, and they intentionally
failed, or should have acted, and did not, or otherwise withheld information for which
they had the duty to provide the Plaintiffs. By Defendants' silence that arises from
their obligation their silence was maintained to intentionally mislead so that the
Plaintiff would be deceived.
6.16.3 Koster and the Syndicate members were given almost fifteen months to
speak, and they intentionally failed, or should have acted, and did not, or otherwise

withheld information for which they had the duty to provide the Plaintiffs. Koster
stated on several occasion that he could prove and defend his acts and provide all the
documentary evidence in a court of law or other statements. However, Koster never
did so to the date of the filing of this Complaint; far beyond a reasonable period to
respond to demands for that which he should provided long before now, and surly
beyond challenge to Plaintiffs’ claim of equitable estoppel.
6.16.4 Koster and the Collective were given an opportunity, to restate, recant, or
otherwise respond and withdraw Koster’s statements and implications of Richard
Hall, Eugene Fletcher and Winston J. Cook in the Fraud, Conversion, Conspiracy,
Theft, Tortious Interference, Violation of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
Interference with an Existing Contract, by the use of the public telecommunication
wires to remove the Plaintiffs’ ownership and rights to the property known as the
“one-third” interest in the returns (profits) of the Gold Transaction. However, Koster
never did so to the date of the filing of this Complaint; far beyond a reasonable period
to respond to demands for that which he should provided long before now, and surly
beyond challenge to Plaintiffs’ claim of equitable estoppel.
6.17 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD ESTOPPEL BY ACQUIESCENCE.

6.17.2 Defendants, specifically Koster, counseled by Harlin, continued their
acquiescence to Plaintiffs’ legal notifications arising after Flores gave numerous legal
warnings to Defendants based on clearly asserted facts and specification of related
legal principle, thereafter, neither Koster nor his counsel Harlin, respond within a
reasonable period of time nor have they responded as of the filing of the filing of this
Complaint. By acquiescing, the Defendants lost the legal right to assert the contrary
of any and all issues presented to them and are now prohibited or otherwise estopped
from making related arguments, defenses or claiming related rights. It is evident,
given the aforementioned facts incorporated hereto, Defendants, particularly Koster
and Harlin, took into account their tortious and/or illegal acts, their reckless and
others, and with scienter, weighed the risks of their deeds.
6.18 PLAINTIFFS PLEAD PRECLUSION FROM CLAIMING A BAR BY
LIMITATIONS.
6.18.2 Plaintiffs allege that the actions of all Defendants, because of their conduct,
statements and promises, preclude them from claiming a bar by limitations to any of
Plaintiffs' claims. Plaintiffs plead the doctrine of equitable estoppel.

§ VII DAMAGES
7.1 COMPENSATORY DAMAGES. In Actual Damages as a direct and proximate
result of the Defendants’ conduct, the Plaintiffs have sustained damages well in excess of
this Court’s minimum $75,000 jurisdictional limit. More specifically, Defendants’ conduct
has proximately caused the following damages, both past and future: 1) lost profits; 2) loss
of credit; 3) loss of credibility and reputations critical to Plaintiffs’ functional viability and
performance within financial, Plaintiff Clarkson’s real-estate and Plaintiff Flores ‘motion
pictures industries; Plaintiffs’ individual reputations, loss of goodwill; damages for
interruption to and cessation of its business operations; consequential damages; and
reliance damages. Plaintiffs’ damages will exceed One Hundred -Eighty million U. S.
Dollars ($180,000,000 USD) and likely in next several years, may exceed an amount
greater than Two Hundred -Twenty million U.S. Dollars ($220,000,000 USD).
7.2 EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. Additionally, Plaintiffs seeks exemplary damages as
a result of Defendants’ willful, fraudulent, or malicious conduct. Plaintiffs assert Punitive
Damages pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code - Section 41.003 for harm
with respect to Plaintiffs proof by clear and convincing evidence the elements of
exemplary damages as provided by this section resulting from: 1) fraud, 2) malice, and 3)
gross negligence.
§ VII 193 20110202 O rgC m plnt F lores-C larkson v K oster et al.w pd

7.2.1 DTPA RELIEF & DAMAGES. Plaintiffs are entitled the following relief
pursuant to TEX BC. CODE ANN. § 17.50:
Texas Statutes - Section 17.50: RELIEF FOR CONSUMERS:
(b) In a suit filed under this section, each consumer who prevails may obtain:
(1) the amount of economic damages found by the trier of fact. If the trier of fact
finds that the conduct of the defendant was committed knowingly, the consumer
may also recover damages for mental anguish, as found by the trier of fact, and the
trier of fact may award not more than three times the amount of economic
damages; or if the trier of fact finds the conduct was committed intentionally, the
consumer may recover damages for mental anguish, as found by the trier of fact,
and the trier of fact may award not more than three times the amount of damages
for mental anguish and economic damages; …
(g) Chapter 41, Civil Practice and Remedies Code, does not apply to a cause of
action brought under this subchapter.
(h) Notwithstanding any other provision of this subchapter, if a claimant is granted
the right to Koster and Emre a cause of action under this subchapter by another
law, the claimant is not limited to recovery of economic damages only, but may
recover any actual damages incurred by the claimant, without regard to whether
the conduct of the defendant was committed intentionally. For the purpose of the
recovery of damages for a cause of action described by this subsection only, a
reference in this subchapter to economic damages means actual damages. In
applying Subsection (b)(1) to an award of damages under this subsection, the trier

of fact is authorized to award a total of not more than three times actual damages,
in accordance with that subsection.
7.3 PRE- /POST- JUDGMENT INTEREST & ATTORNEYS’ FEES.
Because of the Defendants’ intentional infliction of emotional distress above-
described, and continued distress brought upon the Plaintiffs, they cannot reasonably
detach themselves to effectively prosecute this action past discovery into trial and
therefore Plaintiffs shall retain other attorneys to do so. Wherefore, Plaintiffs also seeks
pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys’ fees not excluded by DTPA, and taxable costs
of court.

§ VIII REQUEST FOR ORDER PROHIBITING DESTRUCTION
OR SPOLIATION OF EVIDENCE
Plaintiffs request the Court immediately issue an ORDER instructing the Defendants not
to destroy, discard or spoil any documents or records, whether written, recorded, or
stored electronically, that may be or may have become relevant to any issue in this suit.
§ VIII 196 20110202 O rgC m plnt F lores-C larkson v K oster et al.w pd

§ IX PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray, for these reasons, that Defendants be
served and cited to appear and answer herein, and for the following relief:
1) Damages in an amount to be proven at trial, including but not limited to
compensatory and consequential damages;
2) Treble damages where appropriate under Texas TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE § 17.43
3) Restitution;
4) The imposition of a constructive trust on all monies provided by the Plaintiffs to the
Defendants and all assets acquired with such funds;
5) Equitable accounting, including accounting to Plaintiffs for any and all gains, profits,
benefits, gratuities and advantages derived by Defendants resulting out of the PSP
investment funds and all of Plaintiffs’ litigation expenses, including reasonable
attorney fees and the costs of this action;
6) An avoidance of transfers to the extent of the satisfaction of the Plaintiffs’ claims, an
attachment against the Defendants’ property, attorney fees, and costs;
7) Injunctive relief preventing the sale or disposition of Defendants’ assets acquired
through the diversion of funds from the Plaintiffs;
8) A finding of alter ego status of all Defendants;
9) Punitive damages on any and all causes of actions permitting such damages;
10) Attorney fees and costs incurred in prosecuting this action;
11) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest as provided by statute;
12) Additional and/or alternative relief as the Court may deem to be just, equitable and
§ IX 197 20110202 O rgC m plnt F lores-C larkson v K oster et al.w pd

appropriate; and further:
that an ORDER be immediately issued against destruction or spoliation of evidence
herein, and upon final hearing of this cause, a permanent injunction against further abuse
be issued, and that Plaintiffs have judgment against Defendants, jointly and severally, for
damages described herein,;
that Defendants be cited to appear and answer and that Plaintiff have judgment
against Defendants for all these actual damages, special damages (including incidental
damages), attorney fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, costs of the suit, and
all other relief in law and in equity to which Plaintiffs may be entitled.
Respectfully submitted, and signed on this the 4th day of April 2011.
s/ s/
R. LANCE FLORES VICKI CLARKSON

Lead Attorney
2416 - 36 Street SW
3314 Pleasant Drive Calgary, AB T3E 2Z5
Dallas, Texas 75227 USA
Tel. (Dallas): +1 (214) 272-0349 Tel. (Calgary): +1 403-244-9980
Tel. (Fax): +1 (210) 519-6528 Tel. (Fax:) +1 (403) 246-3331
ECF & Case Management E-mail: ECF & Case Management E-mail:
LF_legaldept@MockingbirdFilms.com VC_LegalDept@MockingbirdFilms.com
Attorney for the Plaintiff Attorney for the Plaintiff
§X 198 20110202 O rgC m plnt F lores-C larkson v K oster et al.w pd

Complaint Flores-Clarkson V Koster Et Al ECF2 Publish

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complaint Flores-Clarkson V Koster Et Al ECF2 Publish

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M -BH Document 1 Filed 04/08/11 Page 1 of 70 PageID 1

CLERK US DISTRICT COURT

R. Lance FLORES, and

Scott Anthony KOSTER,

PLAINTIFFS’ ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

1.3 NOMINAL DEFENDANTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2 PERSONAL JURISDICTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

§ III BACKGROUND & SUMMARY OF THE FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS. . . . . 15

3.1 THE INTERNET AGE GANGSTER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3.2 THE INSURMOUNTABLE CIVIL PROSECUTION OF THE

3.3 THE FIRST FRAUD SCHEME.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3.4 THE SECOND FRAUD SCHEME. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

§ IV STATEMENT OF FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.1 FIRST SOLICITATION.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4.2 12/2/2009 - EMRE SOLICITS AND OFFERS FINANCIAL

4.3 12/10/2009 - 1ST FRAUD SCHEME (Alicorn/Idlyc/BMW Majestic). . . . . 36

4.4 8/30/2010 - KOSTER DESCRIBES THE BREADTH OF HIS

4.5 12/11/2009 - PROFIT-SHARING AGREEMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

4.7 12/15/2009 - SYNDICATE’S COMPULSION TO SOLICIT FUNDS.. . . 42

4.8 FALLACY & DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICE – 1ST Fraud Scheme –

4.9 12/14/2009 — 12/30/2009 KOSTER INITIATES A PATTERN OF

4.10 1/7/2010 - PAYOUT AND DEPOSIT SCHEDULE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

4.11 1/13/2010 - EMRE TAKES A 16.7% CUT OF FLORES’ PSP

4.12 1/13/2010 - FRAUD BEGINS WITH DELAYS, DECEIT, AND MORE

4.13 1/26/2010 - THE THIRD MAN OF STRAW. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

4.14 2/4/2010 - DEFENDANTS’ FALSE PROOF OF PERFORMANCE.

4.15 2/4/2010 - KOSTER DELIVERS THE THIRD STRAW MAN. . . . . . . . 57

4.16 3/5/2010 - DEFENDANTS ARE INFORMED OF THE MOUNTING

4.17 DEFENDANTS’ BEGIN LONG CAMPAIGN OF DELAY AND

4.18 3/15/2010 — 3/16/2010 - KOSTER & ATTORNEY CLAIM WITNESS

4.19 EXTRINSIC FRAUD ATOP DETRIMENTAL RELIANCE.. . . . . . . . 63

4.20 3/26/2010 - KOSTER DECLARES 100% CONFIRMATION ARRIVAL

4.21 3/26/2010 - DEATH KNELL TOLLS FOR PSP PARTNER. . . . . . . . . . 64

4.22 SYNDICATE/KOSTER BLAME HSBC FOR DELAYS. . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.23 3/26/2010 - KOSTER MAKES 2ND CONFIRMATION AND ADDS

4.24 3/26/2010 - CANCELLATION EDICT FOR VOICING LEGAL ACTION

4.25 3/30/2010 — 4/14/2010 - 91ST DAY IN DEFAULT - 116TH

4.26 4/22/2010 - KOSTER REPORTS SEC INVESTIGATOR SAYS

4.27 4/24/2010 - FLORES INFORMS IDLYC PRINCIPALS & KOSTER

4.28 6/24/2010 - LEGAL NOTICE GIVEN - LEGAL DEFINITION -

4.29 EMRE’S REQUEST FOR IRS W9 FORM. PAYMENT SCHEDULE

4.31 KOSTER OFFERS GOLD BUY/SELL VALUE EQUIVALENCY

4.32 4/29/2010 - PLAINTIFFS’ APRIL 29TH DEMAND FOR

4.33 6/13/2010 - FLORES’ JUNE 13TH DEMAND FOR PERFORMANCE &

4.34 6/29/2010 - CLARKSON’S CALL FOR VERIFICATION OF KOSTER’S

4.35 6/30/2010 - KOSTER BMW MAJESTIC PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY -

4.36 7/5/2010 – KOSTER WITHHOLDS EVIDENCE FROM FEDERAL

4.37 7/8/2010 - LEGAL NOTICE TO KOSTER & HARLAN - FLORES

4.38 7/8/2010 - RESPONSE TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE - ADMITS

4.39 7/9/2010 – 2ND LEGAL NOTICE TO KOSTER OF FEDERAL CRIMES

4.40 7/29/ 2010 - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF DAMAGES AND HARM BY

4.41 7/29-8/16/2010 – 2ND FRAUD SCHEME – GENESIS (Berea/Hall Gold

4.42 8/18/2010 - FLORES’ SIGNATURE WITHDRAWAL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

4.43 8/24/2010 - KOSTER ESTABLISHES EARLIEST OPPORTUNITY TO

4.44 8/25/2019 - NINE MONTH DEFAULT/FAILURE TO PERFORM

4.45 9/1/2010 10:43 AM - SCHEDULE FOR TELEPHONE CONFERENCE

4.46 9/1/2010 12:01 AM - 2ND FRAUD SCHEME - DURING CONFERENCE

4.47 9/6/2010 11:10 AM – 2ND FRAUD SCHEME - THE SHAKEDOWN

4.49 10/11/2010 - KOSTER ANNOUNCES READY TO EXECUTE GOLD

4.51 10/20/2010 6:49 PM CST - FLORES GIVES NOTICE OF BREACH OF

4.52 10/21/2010 3:00 PM – CHILDS IDENTIFIES EMRE AS AUTHOR OF

4.53 10/21/2919 - KOSTER WANTS A STOP OF LEGAL NOTICES “FOR

4.54 10/25/2010 - PLAINTIFFS DEMAND STATUS TERMS AND TIME-