DOCKET NO. NNH-CV-12-4053717-S

Richard J Freer Prose                                               SUPERIOR COURT

VS.                                                                                JD OF NEW HAVEN

Andrew Chien _ Prose                                               October 6, 2023

                      Eleven Years of Racketeering Activities in this Case

     1.  Defendant Andrew Chien (“Chien”) appearing as prose, files this report of “Eleven Years of Racketeering Activities in this Case” due to enduring sustained insults from white-collar crimes perpetrated under the color of law over the past 11 years. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968, is a federal statute while the Corrupt Organizations and Racketeering Activity Act (CORA) (C.G.S §53-393 et seq) is Connecticut (“CT”) state law. This case encompasses fraudulent activities in extensive interstate commerce as defined by 18 USC §1961.

    2. Chien established a website at https://wordpress.com/view/vajudicialcorru.com, where Virginia (“VA”) Secret Inmate was briefly introduced, and several complaints were lodged with the Department of Justice, Criminal Branch of the Civil Division. The timeline of events unfolded as follows:

      (a) On 10/05/2021, Chien received the first letter, outlining the procedure for the complaint’s review by a criminal lawyer (Attached P.1-2).

      (b) Chien received two additional letters, both containing allegations of hatred towards Asian-Americans, along with identification numbers:

• 106370-MDX, dated 03/26/2022
• 195676-FSM, dated 03/22/2022 (Attached P.3-6).

     (c) The letters instructed Chien to try resolving the issue in CT. This is the common sense because Chien’s property locates here.

     3. Under 18 USC §1964(c), victims of RICO can seek redress through civil litigation for criminal offenses defined by both federal and state law in 18 USC §1961. The civil RICO suits adhere to the less demanding preponderance of evidence standard. Conversely, the related criminal allegations need not be validated through criminal procedure. This implies that the complainant must establish that it is more likely than not that the illicit conduct occurred

     4. This case can be divided in three stages.

       (a) Stage One with period from 02/17/2012 to 08/31/2012.

       Plaintiff Richard J Freer (“Freer”) and his lawyer Andrew K Clark (“Clark”) of LeClairRyan in case CL 12-485 of VA Chesterfield Circuit Court (VA Court) through the court fraud, created a default judgment (“VA Blackmail”) with subject error and fabricated evidence against Chien.

       (b) Stage Two with period from 09/26/2012 till 6/27/2016.

        Freer, Clark, and William K Grogan (“Grogan”, collectively referred as “Freer Party”), an agent, (not salaried employee) of VA Court for collecting VA Blackmail in both CT and VA through illegal detention of Chien for 38 months to create a secret inmate or debt prisoners. Then under the “color of law,” Freer Party enforced to ship the commercial assets from CT to VA without a list, a penny payment and return. Taking advantage of illegal detention, Freer Party secretly forged a stock certificate of China Bull Management Inc (trading ticker: “CHBM”) No.1073 with 89% of total outstanding shares, for Freer to replace Chien, without the required proxy filing to U S Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Then Freer Party under false corporation identity, stole the cash of CHBM, three computers, one of which contained over one thousand confidential shareholder identification numbers and addresses of one of Chien’s clients. Freer Party is also accused of wrongly occupied many commercial assets, such as those of CHBM, as well as about fifty stock certificates of a dozen of other shareholders in three companies, and thousands of pages of confidential documents. Among the lost documents, there are two foreign tax identification numbers, and various confidential commercial contracts including two contracts in conflict with Freer’s interests in CBI’s bankruptcy procedure.

     (3)  Stage Three with period from 6/27/2016 when Chien was released up to the present day.

   In this period, the lawyers of LeClairRyan no longer represented Freer. LeClairRyan entered liquidation and bankruptcy due to the Ponzi Scheme. Then Freer engaged the VA Blackmail here by himself. Under the color of law, Freer not only got the protection afforded by the alleged fraud from Stage Two, but also expanded the fraud by creating a new fictitious corporation identity in SEC registration to counter CHBM’s shareholders, who had purportedly voted unanimously against Freer under SEC proxy filing. Allegedly supported by this court’s sanction order dated 7/15/2015, Freer replaced Chien to get the SEC filing authorization on 12/14/2017. However, he never filed any financial statements of CHBM, leading to the revocation of CHBM’s trading ticker on 09/21/2018. Then all shares of CHBM became valueless. CHBM became no revenue, and deficit in assets since 2014 up to present. from positive assts, and made operating profits and paid income tax to IRS in 2011. Additionally, on 12/15/2016, Freer under the order, stole the cash from Chien’s bank account of the social security benefits, which violated the federal law that the social security benefits are not subject to garnishment.

.   Sec. 207. [42 U.S.C. 407] (a) The right of any person to any future payment under this title shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this title shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, (emphases added)

     5.Acts of RICO in Stage One.    

   . Freer and Clark in VA Case CL12-485 violated 28USC §157, was act of RICO under the definition provided by 18 USC §1961(1)(D).

      The initial confliction between Freer and Chien, arose during the CBI Chapter 11 bankruptcy process. Freer at his lawyer Clark lodged complaints in case Cl.12-485, alleging two issues. First, Chien was accused of defaming Freer during the Bankruptcy Court’s §341 meeting by alleging Freer’s involvement in embezzlement. Second, it was alleged that Chien assisted CBI in filing a proxy with the SEC with the intention of disqualifying Freer from representing CBI in the bankruptcy proceedings. The two issues were the core issues of CBI’s bankruptcy 28USC §157(b)(2), thereby establishing the federal court mandated jurisdiction as per 28USC §157(b)(5). Any bankruptcy fraud that violated 28USC §157 is considered racketeering, defined in 18USC §1961(1)(D). Then VA Case CL.12-485 committed subject error.

      6. Freer and Clark created perjury evidence in violation the state criminal felony law, which is RICO from 18USC §1961(1)(A).

         CBI was a publicly traded company. Freer’s 2010 compensation was $124515 fully paid, as reported in Form 10-K for year 2010 and 2011 respectively. But Freer in the bankruptcy court, claimed a significant unpaid 2010 compensation. His embezzlement was real. Chien did not defame Freer. In VA, before the compensation trial session scheduled on 7/30/2012, Freer and Clark on 7/16/2012 submitted Exh. 20, This exhibit comprised CBI’s 10-K for the year 2011, along with Exh.17 of Freer’s compensation table from year 2003 to 2011. Both pieces of evidence seemingly corroborated Freer’s involvement in embezzlement within CBI’s Chapter 11 proceedings. Notably, the embezzlement was paid until April of 2013. Chien regularly attended the hearings related to CBI’s bankruptcy, potentially exposing the embezzlement scheme.  Subsequently, Clark spent additional 10.5 hours to create Exh. 27 of Freer’s CBI compensation table from 2003 to June of 2012 with fabricated Freer’s 2010 compensation was $222096.70, but only paid $124515, thereby positioning Freer as a creditor. During the hearing, this table was projected onto a large screen with the claim that Freer’s substantial salary affirmed his success as a businessman and that he was unfairly defamed by Chien. Prior to the hearing, Freer and Clark sought an order to prevent Chien from submitting any evidence in his defense. As a result, approximately 100 pages of evidentiary documents presented by Chien were stricken. This marks the second fraudulent act within VA Case CL.12-485.

     7. The third fraudulent act in VA Case CL.12-485 occurred on 6/08/2012, when Clark and Freer allegedly solicited a default judgment on the grounds that Chien had failed to file a Motion to Dismiss within 21 days. However, the reality was that Chien had indeed filed in a timely manner, within 18 days.

      8. Freer at his lawyers James Byand (“Byand’) and Clark on 9/26/2012 filed certificate of VA case here but making perjury by concealed the three instances of the court fraud. Chien immediately filed Motion to disclose the fraud. This court should have independent trial from

C.R.S. “§52-605(b) Such foreign judgment … is subject to the same procedures, defenses and proceeding for reopening, vacating…”  and

C.R.S. §50a-34. (Formerly Sec. 52-614). Grounds for nonrecognition. (a) A foreign judgment is not conclusive if: (1) The judgment was rendered under a system which does not provide impartial tribunals or procedures compatible with the requirements of due process of law. (2) The foreign court did not have personal jurisdiction over the judgment debtor; or (3) The foreign court did not have jurisdiction over the subject matter

Should this court affirm Chien’s motion, it could potentially lead to the dismissal of this case. Even if this court were to confirm VA Blackmail, it would be expected to close this case. Freer would then be afforded the opportunity to engage agents who possess the necessary licenses for debt collection in CT. However, it is alleged that this court committed two instances of court fraud: firstly, by rejecting Chien’s request for a new trial, and secondly, by directly engaging in debt collection, which is purportedly in violation of C.G.S §36a-800.

       9. Stage Two’s fraud

     The debt collection in both CT and VA violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) codified as 15USC §1692 –1692p and the CT Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (CFDCPA) (C.G.S §36a-645 to 36a-648). Chien’s judgment debt is considered the consumer debt. According to:15 USC§1692a(3), “term ‘consumer’ means any natural person obligated or allegedly obligated to pay any debt”; The term “debt” is broadly defined in 15USC§1692a(5) as any obligation. Under 15USC§1692a(6), a debt collector is described as someone who “collected any debts.”. These provisions collectively establish that Chien’s debt falls within the scope of consumer debt, thereby bringing it under the purview of the FDCPA.

      10.. Debt collection is not the legal work, descripted in Heintz v. Jenkins, 514 US 291,297 – Supreme Court 1995:

“regulates debt collection, not the practice of law. Congress repealed the attorney exemption to the act, not because of attorney[s’] conduct in the courtroom, but because of their conduct in the backroom. Only collection activities, not legal activities, are covered by the act. . . The act applies to attorneys when they are collecting debts, not when they are performing tasks of a legal nature. ” 132 Cong. Rec. 30842 (1986).

C.G.S. §36a-800 is reinforced by 15 USC §1692a(6)(C) which prohibits all federal and state court and judges from engaging in debt collection. Chien will present the case laws later to demonstrate instances where state judges, private lawyers, and law firms faced government sanctions for their purportedly improper debt collection.

       11.“15 USC§1692.d(1)” outlined to prohibit from using criminal means to hurt the liberty and property of the debtor.

 “15USC§1692d. A debt collector may not….

         (1) The use or threat of use of violence or other criminal means to harm the physical person, reputation, or property of any person.

In this case, Grogan’s orders for the indefinite incarceration to seize the business assets, not only infringed upon Chien’s personal liberty, but also inflicted damage upon the properties of Chien. This court executed Grogan’s orders in violation of 15 USC§1692.d(1).

       12.. It appears that in 2006, VA abolished the Equity Court. Notably, Grogan is not a member of law enforcement. His actions of incarcerating Chien for commercial assets are seen as acts akin to kidnapping.  There was no established criminal procedure, potentially violating 18 USC § 4001(a), which unequivocally states, “No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress”.

       13. Chien was held as a secret inmate, and a debt-prisoner. Debt prisoner was abolished by the Congress in 1833, (ref. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debtors%27_prison.) and VA state law in 1849. These measures were part of broader efforts to eliminate a system that had clear historical ties to debtors’ prisons, a system that had its roots in the history of slavery. The slavery system was abolished in 1865. The application of this system to Chien by the Freer Party is deeply troubling in light of these historical reforms

       14. The 38 months of debt-prisoner is RICO as defined by 18USC 1861(1)(A), because it violated “C.G.S. § 53a-96, unlawful restraint” in the second-degree felony. This crime is closely related to kidnapping. Many top CT criminal defense lawyers refer to unlawful restraint as a mini-kidnapping.

       15. During the unlawful detention, in spite of Chien’s objection, Freer Party deceptively circumvented this court’s authority by shipping the commercial assets from CT to Gogan’s office in VA without a list, a penny payment and return. This action constitutes a violation of 18 USC §1951 (b)(1), which pertains to interference with commerce through robbery. Additionally, Freer Party contravened 18 USC § 2314, which addresses the transportation of stolen goods and securities, as well as 18 USC §2315, which concerns the sale or receipt of such illicit property. All these actions fall under the purview of RICO as defined in 18 USC §1961(1)(B). Furthermore, they dispatched three computers to VA before abruptly vanishing, thereby contravening C.G.S §53a-251.”

      16. After the shipment of the commercial assets including Chien’s stock certificate of CHBM, Freer Party secretly forged a stock certificate No.1073 of CHBM for Freer to replace Chien by unauthorized using signatures of Chien as President and Mr. Li as Secretary. Forgery is RICO because it offended C.G.S. § 53a-139, as well as 18USC §1961(1)(D) for oversale of stocks. Even though Chien owed Freer an outstanding balance, it’s crucial to note that Chien’s stock certificate could only be pledged to Freer. This arrangement allowed Chien to retain control over the operation of CHBM for the purpose of sustaining his livelihood and repaying his debts. It’s important to distinguish between a pledge and a sale or purchase in this context.

 “Pledge of stock as collateral for loan to owner of stock was not “purchase” for purpose of §17(a) of Securities Act (15USCS §77g(a)) or 10(b) of Securities Exchange Act (15USCS §78j(b)), since rights and privileges of parties are not affected by pledge in same manner as by “sale” or purchase.” National Bank of Commerce v All American Assurance Co.(1978, CA5Tex) 583 F.2d 1295, CCH Fed Secur L Rep. ¶96609. (Emphases added).

      Furthermore, the alteration of control was not accompanied by the filing of a proxy with the SEC. This constitutes a violation of Section 14 concerning proxies, in addition to Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5 of the Exchange Act of 1934.

     17. Further, Freer Party made Freer as a falsified President and Director of CHBM, then stole the cash and commercial assets of CHBM. This fraudulent representation and identity alteration violated 18USC §1028 a deliberate act aimed at wresting control of CHBM. This kind of activity aligns with the characteristic behavior outlined in RICO as defined in 18 USC §1962(b).

18 USC§1962(b) states:

    “(b) It shall be unlawful for any person through a pattern of racketeering activity or through

      collection of an unlawful debt to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly, any interest in

       or control of any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect,

       interstate or foreign commerce.” (Emphasis added).

CHBM had domestic and international interstate commerce. and its stock was eligible for public trading, it is undeniably a participant in activities with a trans-state and foreign dimension. Importantly, CHBM is not a party of any litigation, not a debtor to Freer. CHBM has no asset or business activities in VA. None of any VA Courts has the jurisdiction to change the control of CHBM. These offenses under 18 USC §1962(b) were executed concurrently with the conspiracy outlined in 18 USC §1962(d), demonstrating a coordinated effort to manipulate and control CHBM’s operations.

18. The additional acts of RICO involved multi-instances of the mail fraud 18USC §1341, Free’s lawyers Byrne, Clark and Michael Caldwell made a dozen of filings in this court. These filings were purportedly aimed at facilitating actions such as kidnapping, theft of commercial assets, authorization of a fabricated corporate identity for Freer, and embezzlement of CHBM’s funds. Their objective was to impose sanctions on Chien, thereby preventing him from further disclosing their alleged RICO activities. One of the most notorious incidents occurred during a hearing on 04/24/2015, Chien, who was restrained with handcuffs and leg shackles, was present alongside Clark and Grogan at the LeClairRyan headquarters. Meanwhile, Freer, Byrne, and Caldwell were seated in this court. Subsequently, Byrne and Caldwell submitted the following documents:

    (1) A copy of Grogan order dated 02/18/2014 and Freer forged stock certificate No.1073.

    (2) A set of fabricated CHBM shareholder meeting documents, no SEC filing.

    (3)  A false CHBM board meeting on 12/08/2014 to dissolve CHBM, no SEC filing

    (4)  A copy of Grogan’s order dated six months ago on 10/31/2014, contained the following:

           (a) he (Grogan) ordered the creation of a forged stock certificate for Freer;

           (b) he disputed Chien’s claim that Freer’s shares’ voting rights violated Nevada Revised Statute §78.379 by ordering the voting rights of Freer’s shares;

           (c) he ordered to liquidate CHBM;

           (d) he ordered Freer’s CHBM stock certificate to be pledged to LeClaieRyan.

           (e) he falsely claimed that CHBM did not have public trading status, despite evidence from E*trade records showing that CHBM qualified for trade. (notr: its trade ticker reversed on 09/21/2018.)

         (f) that order has cheating language stating that Chesterfield Court will lodge it in its docket, but this never happened, and there was no record of it on the docket of CL.12-485.

        (g)  Later, from this court’s sanction order dated 7/15/2015 to pay the legal costs, Chien received the time sheet of. Clark’s, which recorded that the 10/31/2014 order was created on

04/22/2015 by Clark through ghostwriting later reviewed by Byrne. Predating the order by about six months obvious was clearly tampering and an offense of C.G.S §53a-155.   

     Before the hearing, Chien filed a handwritten motion, contending that Freer Party had violated the Exchange Act of 1934. However, the judge disregarded this legal argument and instead issued a sanction order against Chien on 07/15/2015. This order implied support for Freer Party’s action in treating Chien as a debt-prisoner, which in turn assisted the alleged RICO activities of Freer Party.

     19.. Stage Three’s fraud – to use VA-CHBM replacing CHBM in SEC registration

      During this period, the law firm LeClairRyan faced a collapse due to a Ponzi Scheme. Freer continued his debt collection efforts through tactics of blackmail and perjury. Managing his fraudulent control over CHBM became increasingly challenging. On 07/07/2016, CHBM filed a DEF 14A Proxy with the SEC for a shareholder meeting, signed by Secretary Mr. Li. The meeting’s results revealed that, excluding Chien’s votes, 100% of the shares were cast against Freer’s status as the control shareholder. Instead, they voted for Chien as the sole Director, as documented in the 8-K filing on 07/11/2016. Nine shareholders provided sworn statements to validate their votes and raised concerns about Freer’s appropriation of CHBM’s assets and their stock certificates. Furthermore, CHBM submitted financial statements up to the third quarter of 2016, indicating that a third party had unlawfully taken the cash and computer systems. The Nevada government acknowledged Chien’s complaint, confirming that the forms identifying Freer’s CHBM officer claims were indeed false. On 01/01/2017, CHBM relocated its registration to Wyoming, as evidenced by the 8-K filing on 12/29/2016.

     Subsequently, on 12/01/2016, Freer registered in VA under the same name as China Bull Management Inc (“VA-CHBM”) and used it to replace CHBM. He claimed that the corporate replacement had been ordered by the VA state court (referred to Grogan’s orders) and affirmed by CT srate court, providing evidence in the form of the sanction order dated 7/15/2015. Later, on 12/14/2017, a SEC employee named Denis B. Morris assigned Freer the filing authority to replace Chien on behalf of CHBM. On 2/15/2018, Freer filed an 8-K to announce his replacement of Chien as president, but concealed the fact that he used VA-CHBM to replace CHBM of Wyoming. Following the completion of his conspiracy, he failed to file any financial statements. This led to the cancellation of CHBM’s public trading status. On 4/30/2021, VA-CHBM canceled its registration. However, this court still upheld the judgment that Freer had replaced Chien in controlling CHBM.

.  There are five differences: between VA-CHBM and CHBM. (a) Different state of residence. (b) Different time span. VA-CHBM existed for five years from 12/01/2016 to 4/30/2011, while CHBM had a history of over 12 years from 12/17/2010 to 12/31/2016 in Nevada, and from 01/01/2017 up to the present in Wyoming. (c) Different officers. VA-CHBM had only one officer, Freer himself, whereas CHBM maintained two officers in compliance with the Medallion Guarantee Program, which mandates that any public company must have two officers to sign the stock certificate or oversee shareholder meetings involving financial matters. (d) VA-CHBM operated as an S-type corporation for tax purposes, implying that its profits were distributed to all shareholders, and the corporation was not allowed to retain them. This tax structure is unprecedented in the realm of U.S. publicly trading companies. With perpetually zero profits, it became exceedingly challenging for the market to evaluate the stock’s price. (e) VA-CHBM never had financial statements while CHBM has filed the federal tax form every year up to present.

      20. Chien’s business suffered significant damage. He was engaged in intelligence work, assisting private companies in their process of going public and aiding them in SEC filings. The value of the confidential documents Chien generated depended on timely SEC filing and finding the right market to sell them. Unfortunately, Freer lacks neither the knowledge of how to carry out SEC filings, nor a market strategy, except to significantly damage Chien’s market relationships and reputation. Among the seized documents were USChina Venture I and USChina Venture II, two blank-check companies. These companies completed their SEC registration of the shares and became qualified to be sold to private investors nationwide. Chien successfully established the first blank-check company, Fangxing Holding Inc, on 10/20/2010, and sold it on 12/21/2010 for $50,000. He then founded USChina Venture I and USChina Venture II on 01/24/2011, but they were seized by Freer Party. Regrettably, Freer neither continued the Nevada registration nor filed the required financial statements. As a result, the SEC revoked their registrations on 03/23/2016.

        Regarding Chien’s shares in CHBM, he received an offer of $300,000 on 03/30/2017. However, Chien couldn’t proceed due to unresolved control issues. The investor had no interests to contact Freer, as it is common sense to protect one’s liberty and property through due process, a principle that Freer Party violated.

         On 05/02/2013, Chien signed a confidential agreement with the owner to sell Machinery Inc, located in Massachusetts, to Chinese investors for approximately $6 million. However, due to Chien’s second detention from 05/08/2013 to 06/27/2016, the contract could not be executed.

        Chien anticipates in an independent lawsuit against the Freer Party in the future, to detail all business damages

      21. Freer is alleged to have engaged in an extensive pattern of RICO violations, totaling over ten thousand acts:

      (a) Each day of his debt collection activities is considered a separate instance of blackmail, constituting a violation of C.G.S §53-40. From 09/26/2012 to 10/06/2023, Freer is said to have committed 4006 counts of blackmail.

      (b) Additionally, each count of blackmail allegedly involved three instances of perjury:

 which included a subject-matter error and interference with CBI’s bankruptcy proceedings; presentation of falsified evidence. perpetration of a fraud to obtain default judgments. This leads to a total of 12018 counts of perjury, committed by Freer.

     (c) Freer is accused of committing 3318 counts of interference with commercial assets, as defined by 18 USC §1951. This period of offense spans from 09/05/2014, when thousands of confidential documents and approximately fifty stock certificates were shipped to VA, up to the present day of 10/06/2023.

    (d) Freer is accused of committing 1148 counts of VA kidnapping in violation of C.G.S. § 53a-96

    (e) Lastly, Freer is alleged to have committed 2122 counts of fabricating a false corporate identity. This period of offense begins on 12/14/2017 when Freer obtained the authority for SEC filings and continues to the present day.

     22. Case Laws of Judges being sanctioned due to Abused Debt Collection

     . There have been several cases in different states where judges have faced sanctions for

using incarceration to collect civil debts, which is a clear violation of judicial ethics and

constitutional principles. Here are some examples:

      (a) Mississippi:  In case Mississippi Commission on Judicial Performance v. Bustin, Miss:

Supreme Court, 2011, Judge Bustin being sanctioned following previous additional three judges being sanctioned for same fraud of using the criminal process to collect civil debts

“The principal offense here is that Judge Bustin used the criminal process to influence a civil proceeding. In that regard, her behavior is similar to those cases in which judges have used the criminal process to collect or enforce a civil debt. Miss. Comm’n on Judicial Performance v. Willard, 788 So. 2d 736, 738, 743, 746 (Miss. 2001) (judge removed from office for twenty-four counts of judicial misconduct, one of which included using the criminal process to collect a civil debt); In re Odom, 444 So. 2d 835, 837 (Miss. 1984) (judge publicly reprimanded and fined $250, in part, for using the criminal process or the threat of criminal process to collect civil debts); In re Lambert, 421 So. 2d 1023, 1024-25 (Miss. 1982) (judge publicly reprimanded and fined $2,000, in part, for using the criminal process to collect civil debts).

      (b) Maine:  In the Matter of Benoit, 487, A 2d. 1158, 1161(Me. 1985), Judge Benoit being sanctioned with reasons that to use incarceration to collect civil debts in several cases, because “there can be no incarceration in a civil case. That distinction is basic to our system of justice.”

     (c) New York State: In the Matter of Hamel, 668 N.E.2d 390 (New York 1996), New York Court of Appeals accepted the determination of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that a judge should be removed from office for two incidents in which he improperly jailed individuals for their purported failure to pay fines and restitution obligations that he had imposed.

     (d) The excuse to incarcerate Chien is “civil contempt,’ which is judicial misconduct because civil contempt is civil case, and Federal law specified the difference between civil contempt and criminal contempt. In case Gompers v Bucks, 221 US 418, 441 (1911):

 “If it is for civil contempt the punishment is remedial, and for the benefit of the

complainant. But if it is for criminal contempt the sentence is punitive, to vindicate the authority of the court.”.

      23. Penalties for violation of FDCPA against the law firms and lawyers by consumer financial protection bureau (“CFPB”):

      (a) In case 09-cv-02467-LDW-AKT, U.S. v Oxford Collection Agency and Salvatore Spinelli, ESQ, the U.S. obtained a “Consent Decree” on 06/10/2009, from the District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The decree penalized Salvatore Spinelli, ESQ, a member of the New York bar, for violating FDCPA, specifically 15 USC §1692d, and other violations. The court found the defendants guilty of running a debt collection lawsuit mill and ordered a penalty of $1,060,000 against Salvatore Spinelli, ESQ. The penalty amount was determined according to 15 USC §45(m)(l)(A). The Consent Decree accused the defendants of misleading consumers by implying that nonpayment of a debt would result in arrest or legal action. These communications were deemed to violate 15 USC §1692d(2), because criminal punishment for unpaid debt was ‘obscene or profane language” in debt collection. Another violation included communicating with consumers outside of permissible hours (before 8:00 AM or after 5:00 PM) or at the wrong location of the consumer’s employment placement, which violated 15USC §1692c(a)(1).

      (b) CFPB obtained a “Stipulated Final Judgment and Order” dated 01/06/2016 under 1:14-

CV-02211-AT, U.S. Court, Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The judgment ordered defendants Frederick J. Hanna & Associates, P.C. and its three principal partners to pay

injunctive relief, damages or other monetary relief, restitution, disgorgement, and civil penalties

of $3,100,000 for Defendants: used complaints that falsely represented or implied meaningful

attorney involvement” and “recklessly used affidavits” in violation of FDCPA and others.

     (c) CFPB‘s Administrative Proceeding against Pressler & Pressler, LLP, and its partners (File No. 2016-CFPB-0009, dated 04/25/2016) resulted in not only a penalty of $1 million but also a prohibition on certain debt collection acts. The defendants were found to have engaged in unfair debt collection practices, including initiating litigation without a reasonable basis, using deceptive affidavits, and engaging in improper pre-judgment discovery practices etc.

     (d) On 01/18/2023, CFPB obtained the stipulated final judgment and order under Case No.2:19cv2928, U.S Court for Eastern District of New York. The defendant was the law firm Forster & Garbus, LLP, which on behalf of Citibank and Discover and others, illegally filed junk lawsuits against borrowers in debt collections. The order halted the law firm from engaging the debt collection, Duo to that defendant exposed no money, the judge ordered to pay penalty of $100,000 to CFPB. Upon further motion of CFPB, the law firm will pay extra $3,000,000.

    24. The judges of this court should follow standard operation to avoid the liability

.    (a)  For properly alleging RICO, there is guidance on the website of DOJ (www.justice.gov/archives/usam/file/870856/download):

CRIMINAL RICO:18 USC §§1961-1968, A Manual For Federal Prosecutors, Sixth Revised Edition May 2016, Prepared by the Staff of the Organized Crime and Gang Section, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20005. (“Manual”)

The RICO allegation must have pattern. This case is 11 years. RICO must have organization which is broadly defined including any government organization (p.70-p75, Manual):

“includes governmental units such as the offices of governors, mayors, state and congressional legislators,⁷⁶ courts and judicial offices,⁷⁷ police departments and sheriffs’ offices…” (tops p.72, id) … “a RICO enterprise may consist of an association-in-fact of legal entities as well as an association of legal entities and individuals” (p.75, id).

      (b) The important issue is whether the government officer acted in their job duty description. Here, the judges violate C.G.S §36a-800 which prohibits this court and judges from engaging in debt collection. The members of RICO enterprise only need to engage the same illegal purpose, in different position with different function, even under “color of law”

     Moreover, it is not necessary to prove “that every member of the enterprise participated in or knew about all its activities.” United States v. Cagnina, 697 F.2d 915, 922 (11th Cir. 1983). Accord United States v. Hewes, 729 F.2d 1302, 1310-11 (11th Cir. 1984); United States v. Rastelli, 870 F.2d 822, 827-28 (2d Cir. 1989). Rather, “it is sufficient that the defendant knows the general nature of the enterprise and know that the enterprise extends beyond his individual role.” Rastelli, 870 F.2d at 828.⁹¹

     The same targets of RICO are to retaliate Chien’s whistle-blower of Freer’s embezzlements and Freer Party’s kidnapping by destroying Chien’s personal life and associated business, which is act of RICO defined by 18USC §1513(e). Even under incarceration, Chien repeated sending hand-writing mails or filled forms to the jail’s magistrates, the prosecutors and grand jury of VA Chesterfield Circuit Court to report the crime of Freer Party. The opening case here is the continuous of offense of 18USC §1513(e).

        (c) The Manual (p.101-p.103, id) showed that a “Profit-Seeking Motive Is Not Required” under RICO. RICO actions may not necessarily involve monetary gain.

        In this case, although Judges had no profits from acts of RICO of Freer Party, they still are liable as long as they do their jobs beyond their job scope.

      25. CT has great law to protect victims like Chien.    

       The ‘CT Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA). C.G.S §42-110a-110-q, and §42-110b(b), specified “the commissioner and courts of the state are guided by interpretations provided by the Federal Trade Commission and federal courts with respect to Section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 USC §45(a)(1))”. This empowers CT courts to handle cases where private victims can sue under 15 USC §45. Notably, as demonstrated in previous case law, the CFPB penalized private lawyers and law firms for their violation of the FDCPA under 15 USC §45.  US Supreme Court has affirmed the connection between unfair business competition and fraudulent debt collection; In Case: Jerman v Carlisle et al., 130 S.Ct. 1605,1609 (2010), U S Supreme Court:

“violations of the FDCPA are deemed to be unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), 15 USC § 41 et seq., and are enforced by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). See § 1692l. As a result, a debt collector who acts with “actual knowledge or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances that such act is [prohibited under the FDCPA]” is subject to civil penalties of up to $16,000 per day. §§ 45(m)(1)(A), (C); 74 Fed.Reg. 858 (2009) (amending 16 CFR § 1.98(d)).”

It means that this court should follow principal of the case laws operated by CFPB to treat Freer Party under acts of RICO, and C.G.S. §42-110b(b)..

     26. Chien requests that this court should invalid all previous orders of this case due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, or hold a hearing due to C.R.S. §50a-34 to approve that Freer committed perjury in his certification of VA Case Cl.12-485 on 9/26/2012.

Respectively submitted

                     Defendant:

Andrew Chien

Jcs23@yahoo.com

Attached: three letters from DOJ (P.1-P.6)