6 USDOJ employees caught lying to the court.
Your Tax Dollars Hard at Work - No Once seems to
be able to do anything about the Bankruptcy Court Corruption
and the DOJ Employee and Trustee Corruption, WHY?
Included in this post are a few of court documents from the Donald Stone Stolen Patent Case and his Florida RICO Compaint where 6 USDOJ employees are caught lying to the court, and trying to white wash Donald Ston'es criminal allegations as " a business dispute" .
These USDOJ criminals did not know that Donald Stone had their internal documents where they were discussing the multitude of criminal activities of Donald Stone's former business associates.
It is said that they were certain that they had been successful in concealing these documents and meeting from Donald Stone with their various schemes to thwart his subpoenas.
They tried this 'business dispute" trick with the court in their motion.
Donald Stone went back to the court with their own documents of this meeting 9/26/94 with a multitude of federal felony offenses.
And they were forced to admit to the criminal activities of Donald Stone's former business associates.
And it wouldn't be until 2005 that it would be discovered that the Sappersteins were stealing and laundering $3.5 million from the Baltimore School Board during the time that Donald Stone was suing them for racketeering and the USDOJ was protecting their criminal activities.
Is there NO Accountability at All in the United states Court System?
6 federal prosecutors caught lying in federal court proceedings. When does the injustice on We the People STOP. When is the TRUTH the only Real Defense that is needed in the Courts?
It is said that, Not only was Thomas E. Scott's name floated for possible FBI Director by Bush, Scott was a former federal judge in Miami before he became US Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.
Readers Remember in your Research of Stolen Patents: One Connecting Element to these Stolen Patents is the Bankruptcy Courts. So the Department of Justice Trustee somewhere along the line has to be involved. This stuff is way more then Coincidence.
Florida Rico Click Here
RICO Document
Click Here to See Documents Used to
Catch the DOJ folks Lying
Curran Howard Falsified Affidavit
More on the Donald Stone Stolen Patent Case at
www.MarylandCorruption.com
crystal
Posted by
Crystal L. Cox
Investigative Blogger
Crystal Cox
Showing posts with label DONALD D. STONE. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DONALD D. STONE. Show all posts
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Foley and Lardner a Motto of High Integrity. Have Foley and Lardner LLP Employees and Attorneys Read the Iviewit Story, the thousands of Documents..
"Foley & Lardner LLP is one of the nation's largest and most reputable law firms. " of Course this by Foley and Lardner themselves. Yet a Thinking person can see that from www.Iviewit.tv and the Thousands of Documents on that Stolen Patent Site, Foley and Lardner are Far from "Reputable" when it comes to Helping or Representing inventors on their patents.
Now I cannot speak for Foley and Lardner LLP on other Legal Issues, however it is pretty clear from the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case and from the Donald Stone Stolen Technology case at www.MarylandCorruption.com that Foley and Lardner are certainly not a "Reputable Law Firm" when it comes to assisting inventors in their Patent Rights.
We have also heard that Foley and Lardner have stolen other smaller inventions, and by smaller I mean from inventors not necessarily with million backing them, it is Reported that Foley and Lardner LLP have Stolen inventions over and over again.
Please Email your Foley and Lardner Stolen Patent Story to me Crystal@CrystalCox.com - I am an Investigative Journalist and my Intention is to Tell YOUR Story.
Email me your court case, documents,evidence, proof of your Stolen Technology and share your Stolen Patent Case with the World.
Now I cannot speak for Foley and Lardner LLP on other Legal Issues, however it is pretty clear from the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case and from the Donald Stone Stolen Technology case at www.MarylandCorruption.com that Foley and Lardner are certainly not a "Reputable Law Firm" when it comes to assisting inventors in their Patent Rights.
We have also heard that Foley and Lardner have stolen other smaller inventions, and by smaller I mean from inventors not necessarily with million backing them, it is Reported that Foley and Lardner LLP have Stolen inventions over and over again.
Please Email your Foley and Lardner Stolen Patent Story to me Crystal@CrystalCox.com - I am an Investigative Journalist and my Intention is to Tell YOUR Story.
Email me your court case, documents,evidence, proof of your Stolen Technology and share your Stolen Patent Case with the World.
Foley and Lardner and the Iviewit Stolen Patent Case
Crystal L. Cox
Whistleblower
Investigative Journalist..
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Donald Stone Industries Inc. Patent Theft - Polictical Corruption, Maryland Attorney General, Joseph Curran Jr.- Glibert Sapperstein- Mark Sapperstein
Stolen Technology - Patent Theft - Political Corruption - Court Corruption
"Donald Stone asks this court for permission to make a brief Victim Impact Statement as part of the court record at the sentencing hearing of Gilbert Sapperstein."
"Stone has suffered irreparable damage to his patent and intellectual property as a direct result of Gilbert Sapperstein's Criminal Activity for which Gilbert Sapperstein is being Sentenced"
"... a Political Corruption Investigation..."
"Tracing Gilbert Sapperstein and his son Mark Sapperstein's Criminal Activities as far back as the 1980's early 90's..."
This Document Talks about the Connection to Maryland Attorney General Joseph Curran Jr. and the connections to Gilbert Sapperstein and Mark Sapperstein along with co-conspirator Charles R. Longo.
"In late 1991 Donald Stone formed Donald Stone Industries Inc. to commercial a technology Donald Stone had invented. By late 1993 under Stone's leadership, Stone's invention, still in it's infancy appeared to have tremendous potential in a broad spectrum of application. Donald Stone had initiated numerous discussions with major U.S. Corporations.
Unknown to Stone, the Donald Stone Industries Inc. Corporate Attorney Greg Burgee and his law firm Miles and Stockbridge and the secretarty / treasure of this company Bruff J. Procter wer involved in numerous fraudulant schemes such as money laundering and federal bankruptcy fraud, primarily hiding the assets of the bankruptcies of Charles R. Longo in legitimate business such as Donald Stone Industries Inc."
Foley and Lardner,
Monday, January 25, 2010
Charles R. Longo - Shippers Choice of Virginia and the Donald Stone Patent Theft
"Gilbert & Mark Sapperstein crime syndicate associate Charles R. Longo was indicted on 45 counts of grand theft in Virginia, considered a flight risk Longo was arrested and held in jail in Maryland for 10 days without bail. Eventually Longo got the charges dropped and had the records expunged.
Gilbert & Mark's crime syndicate associate, Charles R. Longo, (with the help of Gilbert & Mark) had successfully defrauded the U.S. Dept. of Education out of $8 million in student loans involving 2000 documented victims in Maryland & Virginia in the late 1980's thru 2005.
100 page document (view this PDF file) describing criminal activities of Sapperstein crime syndicate associate Charles R. Longo and Bruff J. Procter filed by MD. AG.
...
Federal Bankruptcy Fraud schemes
(4)separate cases 1990/1999 National Training Systems, Charles R. Longo, Shippers Choice Inc., Winmark "
Charles Longo and Donald Stone Industries Inc. -
Published on: 11/2/1999 Last Visited: 5/19/2006
Instead of helping him with his problems with Longo, Stone contends that complaining to the proper authorities just added to his difficulties. ...
Even more surprising to Stone, at the time Longo was investing in DSII, Longo was under investigation by state and federal law enforcement for allegedly defrauding the federal student loan program of millions of dollars. ...
Donald Stone claims that during the business start-up, Longo "befriended" him and then urged him to turn over the corporate documents for DSII to Longo....
The lawsuit claims that while Stone was not present, Charles Longo, armed with the corporate documents, convinced the other DSII board members, Proctor, Warfield and Sapperstein, to fire Stone as President of Donald Stone Industries Inc. ...
To add insult to the injury of having his company pulled out from under his feet, Longo and DSII then took Stone to court to force him to turn over his surfboard ointment patent to DSII. ...Stone says that Longo told the investigators Stone was never more than an inventor hired by the company, and that Stone was just an employee of DSII. ...Bankruptcy Case #161-94-57899 that Stone later obtained, Howard asked Longo, "Did Shipper's Choice ever borrow any money from Stone Industries?" ...
Knowing that Howard was investigating Longo, Stone surmised that Howard would be interested in hearing about the way Longo had fleeced him out of Donald Stone Industries Inc. and was now trying to steal Stone's invention. ...So, Stone had Howard served with a subpoena to testify against Longo in the Worcester County Court lawsuit brought by Longo against Stone....
Stone was hoping that testimony by Howard about Longo's alleged defrauding of the student loan program, would help in his defense against Longo's lawsuit. ...
The report states that Longo was an investor who owned a company called American Credit Company. Charles Longo told the investigators that instead of allowing DSII's funds to sit idle in a Donald Stone Industries Inc. account, he decided to put some of the money in his other business.
While the investigators report talking to Longo, Procter and Mark Sapperstein, the report does not mention Moore, Glick or Warfield who were also investors in DSII, although they lived in Worcester County where the investigation was taking place, while Longo lived in Annapolis and Sapperstein in Baltimore.
While the investigators report talking to Longo, Procter and Mark Sapperstein, the report does not mention Moore, Glick or Warfield who were also investors in DSII, although they lived in Worcester County where the investigation was taking place, while Longo lived in Annapolis and Sapperstein in Baltimore. ...
Stone claims the records show that Longo provided Kinhart with a copy of a promissory note for over $53,000 payable to DSSI from Shipper's Choice Inc. for the alleged investment by Moore, Warfeild and Glick into DSII after they had seized control of the company from Stone....Longo also told Kinhart that Stone would receive his share of any money made from the invention. ...Stone's lawsuit claims that in one of the lines it clearly states, "In one year he (Longo) pulled down more federal aid in Maryland than College Park" (the University of Maryland's campus is known as College Park.)
Key to Stone's lawsuit is that in the typewritten notes from the 1994 meeting - it plainly states "complaints by Donald Stone." ...If Stone's case is true, it poses some disturbing questions, not the least of all is the way the Maryland States Attorney's office seems to be holding a "see no evil, speak no evil" attitude to possible criminal activities of Charles Longo.
I asked Stone why he felt that Howard would not testify in Longo's suit against him.
Stone replied that the 2000 people who were ripped off by Longo in the student loan program would be upset at the news. ...Stone replied, "If any of this gets out," the victims of the loan scheme would be angry that while Stone was complaining about Longo ripping him off, the state did not even bother to mention the fact they suspected Longo of stealing 8 million dollars from the student loan program. ...
But I do know that both the government and the media should be more than willing to investigate Stone's complaints about Longo.
Charles Longo is a person, who seems to have allegedly stolen from thousands of Maryland citizens, but rather than facing some sort of scrutiny by the media and law enforcement, he continues to live comfortably in an expensive house on Harbor Drive in Annapolis, Maryland.
When Longo was asked by the Washington Post about the fact he was driving a $138,000 Lamborghini sports car bought by yet another school, Longo said, "So what?You're under the misconception that we weren't entitled to make a profit ...
I'm happy to be in the United States, which gives me the opportunity to do the things I do." It is troubling to think that in the face of a disinterested press, Longo might be allowed to continue to feel that he can safely go on to set up other business deals like the one with Donald Stone Industries Inc.
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Longo_Charles_22093132.aspx
...
2. Unknown to Plaintiff, DSII's attorney Gregory M. Burgee ("Burgee"), Secretary/Treasurer Bruff J. Procter ("Procter"), and alleged first investor Charles R. Longo ("Longo") were engaged in numerous fraudulent interwoven and overlapping schemes, such as money laundering and conspiracies to commit federal bankruptcy fraud, that were perpetrated by Longo, a white-collar criminal who had 2,000 documented victims in Maryland and Virginia.
...
3. In or about January 1991, Burgee, Procter, and Longo induced Plaintiff to believe that Longo was an accredited investor (an individual with an annual income of not less than $200,000.00 and a net worth of not less than $1,000,000.00) who had invested $15,000 into DSII.
...
4. Plaintiff as inventor, President, and major shareholder of controlling interest of DSII, having successfully introduced and interested numerous major "Fortune 100" and "Fortune 500" corporations in the emerging technology and inventions was unaware of Longo, Procter, Burgee, and the law firm of Miles & Stockbridge's ongoing criminal activities.
...
5. In the Fall of 1993, just as DSII was on the verge of possibly signing two (2) potentially valuable licensing agreements for the technology Plaintiff had invented, Longo and Procter, needing money to support one (1) of their rapidly-collapsing fraudulent securities schemes, conspired with three (3) DSII investors to fraudulently seize control of DSII.
...
In the first of numerous extortion attempts, Longo, Procter, and the other DSII investors threatened to have Plaintiff arrested on unspecified criminal charges unless Plaintiff capitulated to their demand to turn over DSII corporate documents in his possession.
...
6. After seizing control of DSII, Longo was made President of DSII. At that point, Longo and Procter had exclusive control of DSII's checking account.
...
7. In furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge induced three (3) investors to invest additional money in DSII.
...
Longo and Procter then embezzled a portion of this money for their personal enrichment and to finance their sale of fraudulent securities.
...
8. On or about January 12, 1994, in order to cover up their embezzlement of DSII funds and to support their rapidly-collapsing fraudulent securities scheme, Longo and Procter devised a scheme to extort Plaintiff's patent.
...
In this extortion attempt, Longo, Procter, Hal P. Glick ("Glick"), Bruce A. Moore ("Moore"), Mark Sapperstein ("Sapperstein"), and Gilbert Sapperstein ("G. Sapperstein") demanded that Plaintiff assign to DSII his patent and pending patent for the technology upon which DSII was based.
...
The investigation would not terminate until four (4) years later and would reveal Longo and his business associates' extensive white-collar criminal activities that included complex numerous interwoven and overlapping fraudulent schemes. The investigation was conducted in Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., New Jersey, New York, Texas, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, and Alabama.
2. Longo, through his National Training Systems ("NTS"), which was a professional truck driver training school, had victimized approximately 2,000 (two thousand) students in Maryland and Virginia in a United States Department of Education student loan fraud scheme in the late 1980s.
3. Longo and NTS are alleged by the Maryland Attorney General's office to have defrauded NTS students of approximately $8 million in United States Department of Education student loan money.
4. In or about October 1990, Longo was indicted in Virginia on 46 (forty-six) counts of grand theft, arrested, and jailed for approximately 9 (nine) days in Maryland. Due to a technicality, the charges were dropped and Longo had records expunged.
5. By 1993, NTS in Virginia was closed as a result of numerous complaints.
6. Longo reopened in Virginia in or about 1993 under the name Shippers' Choice of Virginia. The company was registered under the name of other individuals to disguise Longo's ownership. The opening of Shippers' Choice of Virginia was financed with money Longo had obtained from an alleged securities fraud scheme.
7. In or about September 1990, NTS filed bankruptcy in Maryland, with debts of approximately $10,000,000.00 (ten million dollars), to use the protection of the bankruptcy courts against an intensifying investigation by the Maryland Attorney General's office. In connection with this bankruptcy, Longo and his associates made numerous fraudulent pre-petition and post-petition transfers of assets to defraud the NTS creditors. The NTS bankruptcy was dismissedin July 1992.
8. In or about November 1990, Longo and his wife (Linda) would jointly file personal bankruptcy in Maryland to protect themselves from personal liability with NTS and to use the protection of the bankruptcy courts against the intensifying investigation by the Maryland Attorney General's office.
...
Longo made numerous fraudulent pre-petition and post-petition transfers of assets to defraud his personal creditors. Longo and his wife would later split their case. Longo's wife's case and plan would be confirmed but Longo's case would still be open in 1997.
9. By conducting fraudulent transfers to conceal cash and material assets to defraud the creditors of both the NTS bankruptcy and his personal bankruptcy, and then diverting these assets into legitimate businesses and real estate, Longo and his associates were able to finance a new corporation as a vehicle for the furtherance of numerous fraudulent schemes.
...
12. The money from the student loan offerings was to be used by SCI, a Maryland corporation, but Longo was diverting a portion of the money to finance the start up of Shippers' Choice of Virginia.
13. Additionally, Longo is alleged to have been using money from these schemes for his personal enrichment rather than for corporate purposes.
14. Longo had personally fraudulently represented in writing to investors of these offerings that SCI was not a party to any litigation and that no litigation had been brought against SCI. At the time Longo was making these statements, SCI was operating against two (2) cease-and-desist orders from the Maryland Higher Education Department and was continually involved in litigation with the state of Maryland.
15. In or about March 1993, Michael Dennis Beck ("Beck"), an associate of Longo's involved in the alleged sale of the SCI fraudulent securities offerings, pled guilty to one (1) count of federal felony offense (wire fraud) and was incarcerated for 18 (eighteen) months on a charge unrelated to the alleged SCI securities offerings.
...
Namely, all were vehicles through which Longo and his associates engaged in fraudulent activities. With DSII, Longo and his associates would have absolute control of the potentially valuable technology and patent Plaintiff had invented and of DSII, a legitimate corporation Plaintiff had formed.
Hidden behind this legitimate corporation, Longo and his associates would further their fraudulent and federal felony activities and parlay the money and assets from their previous fraudulent schemes into an ever-expanding collection of legitimate businesses, enterprises, and real estate.
...
11. On or about January 7, 1992, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge induced Plaintiff (working in Florida) to believe that Longo was an accredited investor.
...
11. On or about January 7, 1992, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge induced Plaintiff (working in Florida) to believe that Longo was an accredited investor.
...
a) Longo, Procter, and Burgee told Plaintiff that Longo had presented check number 272, drawn on Citizens Bank of Maryland in the amount of $15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars) as an investment in DSII.
...
a) Longo, Procter, and Burgee told Plaintiff that Longo had presented check number 272, drawn on Citizens Bank of Maryland in the amount of $15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars) as an investment in DSII.
...
b) In or about May 1995, Plaintiff discovered that the $15,000.00 check presented by Longo as an investment into DSII was made payable to Bruff Procter, an individual, not to DSII.
...
23. All corporate documents and stock certificates would remain in the exclusive control of Burgee, Procter, and Longo in the offices of Miles & Stockbridge until Spring 1993.
...
26. In the fall of 1993, Longo, Procter, John L. Milling ("Milling"), John J. Sellinger ("Sellinger"), James R. Johnson ("J. Johnson"), Carl F. Johnson
Charles R. Longo 624 Harbor Drive Annapolis, MD 21403
...
Charles R. Longo, Resident Agent 1623 Forest Dr., Ste. 203 Annapolis, MD 21403-1020 DEFENDANT
...
Charles R. Longo, Resident Agent 1623 Forest Dr., Ste. 203 Annapolis, MD 21403-1020 DEFENDANT
...
Charles R. Longo, Resident Agent 6200 Jefferson Davis Hwy. DEFENDANT Woodford, VA
...
The investigation was initiated because of an extortion attempt on October 15, 1993 by Defendants Robert E. Warfield ("Warfield"), Mark Sapperstein ("M. Sapperstein"), Charles R. Longo ("Longo"), and Bruff J. Procter ("Procter").
...
Plaintiff, the inventor of United States patent number 5,314,940, and founder of Donald Stone Industries, Inc., seeks the recovery of damages and his patent(s) and intellectual property caused by a conspiracy and scheme whereby Defendants Warfield, Sr.; Longo; Lauren Longo ("L. Longo"); Mark Sapperstein; Sondra Sapperstein ("S. Sapperstein"); Gilbert Sapperstein ("G. Sapperstein"); Joseph E. Moore ("J. Moore"); Hal P. Glick ("Glick"); Procter; Gregory M. Burgee ("Burgee"); the law firm Miles and Stockbrige; and the law firm Williams, Hammond, Shockley, Moore, and Harrison ("WHSM&H")infiltrated and achieved control over Donald Stone Industries, Inc. and simultaneously began using the assets of Donald Stone Industries, Inc. to further other criminal activities.
...
2. Unknown to Plaintiff, DSII's attorney Burgee, Secretary/Treasurer Bruff J. Procter, and alleged first investor Charles R. Longo were engaged in numerous fraudulent interwoven and overlapping schemes, such as money laundering and conspiracies to commit federal bankruptcy fraud, that were perpetrated by Longo, a white-collar criminal who had 2,000 documented victims in Maryland and Virginia.
...
3. In or about January 1991, Burgee, Procter, and Longo induced Plaintiff to believe that Longo was an accredited investor (an individual with an annual income of not less than $200,000.00 and a net worth of not less than $1,000,000.00) who had invested $15,000 into DSII.
...
4. Plaintiff as inventor, President, and major shareholder with controlling interest of DSII, having successfully introduced and interested numerous major "Fortune 100" and "Fortune 500" corporations in the emerging technology and inventions was unaware of Longo, Procter, Burgee, and the law firm of Miles & Stockbridge's ongoing criminal activities.
...
5. In the Fall of 1993, just as DSII was on the verge of possibly signing two (2) potentially valuable licensing agreements for the technology Plaintiff had invented, Longo and Procter, needing money to support one (1) of their rapidly-collapsing fraudulent securities schemes, conspired with three (3) DSII investors to fraudulently seize control of DSII.
...
In the first of numerous extortion attempts, Longo, Procter, and the other DSII investors threatened to have Plaintiff arrested on unspecified criminal charges unless Plaintiff capitulated to their demand to turn over DSII corporate documents in his possession.
...
6. After seizing control of DSII, Longo was made President of DSII. At that point, Longo and Procter had exclusive control of DSII's checking account.
...
7. In furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge induced three (3) investors to invest additional money in DSII.
...
Longo and Procter then embezzled a portion of this money for their personal enrichment and to finance their sale of fraudulent securities.
...
8. On or about January 12, 1994, in order to cover up their embezzlement of DSII funds and to support their rapidly-collapsing fraudulent securities scheme, Longo and Procter devised a scheme to extort Plaintiff's patent.
...
In this extortion attempt, Longo, L. Longo, Procter, Glick, Moore, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and S. Sapperstein demanded that Plaintiff assign to DSII his patent and pending patent for the technology upon which DSII was based.
...
The investigation would not terminate until four (4) years later and would reveal Longo and his business associates' extensive white-collar criminal activities that included complex numerous interwoven and overlapping fraudulent schemes.
The investigation was conducted in Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., New Jersey, New York, Texas, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, and Alabama. 2. Longo, through his National Training Systems ("NTS"), which was a professional truck driver training school, had victimized approximately 2,000 (two thousand) students in Maryland and Virginia in a United States Department of Education student loan fraud scheme in the late 1980s.
3. Longo and NTS are alleged by the Maryland Attorney General's office to have defrauded NTS students of approximately $8 million in United States Department of Education student loan money.
4. In or about October 1990, Longo was indicted in Virginia on 46 (forty-six) counts of grand theft, arrested, and jailed for approximately 9 (nine) days in Maryland. Due to a technicality, the charges were dropped and Longo had records expunged.
5. By 1993, NTS in Virginia was closed as a result of numerous complaints.
6. Longo reopened in Virginia in or about 1993 under the name Shippers' Choice of Virginia. The company was registered under the name of other individuals to disguise Longo's ownership. The opening of Shippers' Choice of Virginia was financed with money Longo had obtained from an alleged securities fraud scheme.
7. In or about September 1990, NTS filed bankruptcy in Maryland, with debts of approximately $10,000,000.00 (ten million dollars), to use the protection of the bankruptcy courts against an intensifying investigation by the Maryland Attorney General's office.
In connection with this bankruptcy, Longo and his associates made numerous fraudulent pre-petition and post-petition transfers of assets to defraud the NTS creditors.
The NTS bankruptcy was dismissed in July 1992. 8. In or about November 1990, Longo and his wife (Linda) would jointly file personal bankruptcy in Maryland to protect themselves from personal liability with NTS and to use the protection of the bankruptcy courts against the intensifying investigation by the Maryland Attorney General's office. Longo made numerous fraudulent pre-petition and post-petition transfers of assets to defraud his personal creditors. Longo and his wife would later split their case.
Charles Longo's wife's case and plan would be confirmed but Longo's case would still be open in 1998. 9. By conducting fraudulent transfers to conceal cash and material assets to defraud the creditors of both the NTS bankruptcy and his personal bankruptcy, and then diverting these assets into legitimate businesses and real estate, Longo and his associates were able to finance a new corporation as a vehicle for the furtherance of numerous fraudulent schemes.
10. Longo's new corporation, Shippers' Choice, Inc. ("SCI"), was another alleged "professional truck driving school" which opened in Maryland on or about September 27, 1990.
11. Beginning in or about 1992, Longo/SCI, with the assistance of Washington Investments ("WI"), a corporation engaged in investment banking, would begin selling student loans in bundled offerings of $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars).
This alleged fraudulent securities scheme would gross Longo/SCI/WI approximately $1,325,000.00 (one million, three hundred twenty-five thousand dollars). This securities fraud scheme would collapse in late 1993/early 1994.
12. The money from the student loan offerings was to be used by SCI, a Maryland corporation, but Longo was diverting a portion of the money to finance the start up of Shippers' Choice of Virginia.
13. Additionally, Longo is alleged to have been using money from these schemes for his personal enrichment rather than for corporate purposes.
14. Longo had personally fraudulently represented in writing to investors of these offerings that SCI was not a party to any litigation and that no litigation had been brought against SCI. At the time Longo was making these statements, SCI was operating against two
(2) cease-and-desist orders from the Maryland Higher Education Department and was continually involved in litigation with the state of Maryland. 15.
In or about March 1993, Michael Dennis Beck ("Beck"), an associate of Longo's involved in the alleged sale of the SCI fraudulent securities offerings, pled guilty to one
(1) count of federal felony offense (wire fraud) and was incarcerated for 18 (eighteen) months on a charge unrelated to the alleged SCI securities offerings.
...
Namely, all were vehicles through which Longo and his associates engaged in fraudulent activities. With DSII, Longo and his associates would have absolute control of the potentially valuable technology and patent Plaintiff had.
Source of This Post
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Longo_Charles_22093132.aspx
court corruption
Using Bankruptcy Courts to Protect Criminal Activity? Bankruptcy Court Fraud seems to be a Common Factor in these High Dollar Patent Thefts, why the US Government and US Judicial System ALLOWS this to happen seemingly decade after decade is quite SHOCKING.
bankruptcy fraud
Gilbert & Mark's crime syndicate associate, Charles R. Longo, (with the help of Gilbert & Mark) had successfully defrauded the U.S. Dept. of Education out of $8 million in student loans involving 2000 documented victims in Maryland & Virginia in the late 1980's thru 2005.
100 page document (view this PDF file) describing criminal activities of Sapperstein crime syndicate associate Charles R. Longo and Bruff J. Procter filed by MD. AG.
...
Federal Bankruptcy Fraud schemes
(4)separate cases 1990/1999 National Training Systems, Charles R. Longo, Shippers Choice Inc., Winmark "
Charles Longo and Donald Stone Industries Inc. -
Published on: 11/2/1999 Last Visited: 5/19/2006
Instead of helping him with his problems with Longo, Stone contends that complaining to the proper authorities just added to his difficulties. ...
Even more surprising to Stone, at the time Longo was investing in DSII, Longo was under investigation by state and federal law enforcement for allegedly defrauding the federal student loan program of millions of dollars. ...
Donald Stone claims that during the business start-up, Longo "befriended" him and then urged him to turn over the corporate documents for DSII to Longo....
The lawsuit claims that while Stone was not present, Charles Longo, armed with the corporate documents, convinced the other DSII board members, Proctor, Warfield and Sapperstein, to fire Stone as President of Donald Stone Industries Inc. ...
To add insult to the injury of having his company pulled out from under his feet, Longo and DSII then took Stone to court to force him to turn over his surfboard ointment patent to DSII. ...Stone says that Longo told the investigators Stone was never more than an inventor hired by the company, and that Stone was just an employee of DSII. ...Bankruptcy Case #161-94-57899 that Stone later obtained, Howard asked Longo, "Did Shipper's Choice ever borrow any money from Stone Industries?" ...
Knowing that Howard was investigating Longo, Stone surmised that Howard would be interested in hearing about the way Longo had fleeced him out of Donald Stone Industries Inc. and was now trying to steal Stone's invention. ...So, Stone had Howard served with a subpoena to testify against Longo in the Worcester County Court lawsuit brought by Longo against Stone....
Stone was hoping that testimony by Howard about Longo's alleged defrauding of the student loan program, would help in his defense against Longo's lawsuit. ...
The report states that Longo was an investor who owned a company called American Credit Company. Charles Longo told the investigators that instead of allowing DSII's funds to sit idle in a Donald Stone Industries Inc. account, he decided to put some of the money in his other business.
While the investigators report talking to Longo, Procter and Mark Sapperstein, the report does not mention Moore, Glick or Warfield who were also investors in DSII, although they lived in Worcester County where the investigation was taking place, while Longo lived in Annapolis and Sapperstein in Baltimore.
While the investigators report talking to Longo, Procter and Mark Sapperstein, the report does not mention Moore, Glick or Warfield who were also investors in DSII, although they lived in Worcester County where the investigation was taking place, while Longo lived in Annapolis and Sapperstein in Baltimore. ...
Stone claims the records show that Longo provided Kinhart with a copy of a promissory note for over $53,000 payable to DSSI from Shipper's Choice Inc. for the alleged investment by Moore, Warfeild and Glick into DSII after they had seized control of the company from Stone....Longo also told Kinhart that Stone would receive his share of any money made from the invention. ...Stone's lawsuit claims that in one of the lines it clearly states, "In one year he (Longo) pulled down more federal aid in Maryland than College Park" (the University of Maryland's campus is known as College Park.)
Key to Stone's lawsuit is that in the typewritten notes from the 1994 meeting - it plainly states "complaints by Donald Stone." ...If Stone's case is true, it poses some disturbing questions, not the least of all is the way the Maryland States Attorney's office seems to be holding a "see no evil, speak no evil" attitude to possible criminal activities of Charles Longo.
I asked Stone why he felt that Howard would not testify in Longo's suit against him.
Stone replied that the 2000 people who were ripped off by Longo in the student loan program would be upset at the news. ...Stone replied, "If any of this gets out," the victims of the loan scheme would be angry that while Stone was complaining about Longo ripping him off, the state did not even bother to mention the fact they suspected Longo of stealing 8 million dollars from the student loan program. ...
But I do know that both the government and the media should be more than willing to investigate Stone's complaints about Longo.
Charles Longo is a person, who seems to have allegedly stolen from thousands of Maryland citizens, but rather than facing some sort of scrutiny by the media and law enforcement, he continues to live comfortably in an expensive house on Harbor Drive in Annapolis, Maryland.
When Longo was asked by the Washington Post about the fact he was driving a $138,000 Lamborghini sports car bought by yet another school, Longo said, "So what?You're under the misconception that we weren't entitled to make a profit ...
I'm happy to be in the United States, which gives me the opportunity to do the things I do." It is troubling to think that in the face of a disinterested press, Longo might be allowed to continue to feel that he can safely go on to set up other business deals like the one with Donald Stone Industries Inc.
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Longo_Charles_22093132.aspx
...
2. Unknown to Plaintiff, DSII's attorney Gregory M. Burgee ("Burgee"), Secretary/Treasurer Bruff J. Procter ("Procter"), and alleged first investor Charles R. Longo ("Longo") were engaged in numerous fraudulent interwoven and overlapping schemes, such as money laundering and conspiracies to commit federal bankruptcy fraud, that were perpetrated by Longo, a white-collar criminal who had 2,000 documented victims in Maryland and Virginia.
...
3. In or about January 1991, Burgee, Procter, and Longo induced Plaintiff to believe that Longo was an accredited investor (an individual with an annual income of not less than $200,000.00 and a net worth of not less than $1,000,000.00) who had invested $15,000 into DSII.
...
4. Plaintiff as inventor, President, and major shareholder of controlling interest of DSII, having successfully introduced and interested numerous major "Fortune 100" and "Fortune 500" corporations in the emerging technology and inventions was unaware of Longo, Procter, Burgee, and the law firm of Miles & Stockbridge's ongoing criminal activities.
...
5. In the Fall of 1993, just as DSII was on the verge of possibly signing two (2) potentially valuable licensing agreements for the technology Plaintiff had invented, Longo and Procter, needing money to support one (1) of their rapidly-collapsing fraudulent securities schemes, conspired with three (3) DSII investors to fraudulently seize control of DSII.
...
In the first of numerous extortion attempts, Longo, Procter, and the other DSII investors threatened to have Plaintiff arrested on unspecified criminal charges unless Plaintiff capitulated to their demand to turn over DSII corporate documents in his possession.
...
6. After seizing control of DSII, Longo was made President of DSII. At that point, Longo and Procter had exclusive control of DSII's checking account.
...
7. In furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge induced three (3) investors to invest additional money in DSII.
...
Longo and Procter then embezzled a portion of this money for their personal enrichment and to finance their sale of fraudulent securities.
...
8. On or about January 12, 1994, in order to cover up their embezzlement of DSII funds and to support their rapidly-collapsing fraudulent securities scheme, Longo and Procter devised a scheme to extort Plaintiff's patent.
...
In this extortion attempt, Longo, Procter, Hal P. Glick ("Glick"), Bruce A. Moore ("Moore"), Mark Sapperstein ("Sapperstein"), and Gilbert Sapperstein ("G. Sapperstein") demanded that Plaintiff assign to DSII his patent and pending patent for the technology upon which DSII was based.
...
The investigation would not terminate until four (4) years later and would reveal Longo and his business associates' extensive white-collar criminal activities that included complex numerous interwoven and overlapping fraudulent schemes. The investigation was conducted in Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., New Jersey, New York, Texas, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, and Alabama.
2. Longo, through his National Training Systems ("NTS"), which was a professional truck driver training school, had victimized approximately 2,000 (two thousand) students in Maryland and Virginia in a United States Department of Education student loan fraud scheme in the late 1980s.
3. Longo and NTS are alleged by the Maryland Attorney General's office to have defrauded NTS students of approximately $8 million in United States Department of Education student loan money.
4. In or about October 1990, Longo was indicted in Virginia on 46 (forty-six) counts of grand theft, arrested, and jailed for approximately 9 (nine) days in Maryland. Due to a technicality, the charges were dropped and Longo had records expunged.
5. By 1993, NTS in Virginia was closed as a result of numerous complaints.
6. Longo reopened in Virginia in or about 1993 under the name Shippers' Choice of Virginia. The company was registered under the name of other individuals to disguise Longo's ownership. The opening of Shippers' Choice of Virginia was financed with money Longo had obtained from an alleged securities fraud scheme.
7. In or about September 1990, NTS filed bankruptcy in Maryland, with debts of approximately $10,000,000.00 (ten million dollars), to use the protection of the bankruptcy courts against an intensifying investigation by the Maryland Attorney General's office. In connection with this bankruptcy, Longo and his associates made numerous fraudulent pre-petition and post-petition transfers of assets to defraud the NTS creditors. The NTS bankruptcy was dismissedin July 1992.
8. In or about November 1990, Longo and his wife (Linda) would jointly file personal bankruptcy in Maryland to protect themselves from personal liability with NTS and to use the protection of the bankruptcy courts against the intensifying investigation by the Maryland Attorney General's office.
...
Longo made numerous fraudulent pre-petition and post-petition transfers of assets to defraud his personal creditors. Longo and his wife would later split their case. Longo's wife's case and plan would be confirmed but Longo's case would still be open in 1997.
9. By conducting fraudulent transfers to conceal cash and material assets to defraud the creditors of both the NTS bankruptcy and his personal bankruptcy, and then diverting these assets into legitimate businesses and real estate, Longo and his associates were able to finance a new corporation as a vehicle for the furtherance of numerous fraudulent schemes.
...
12. The money from the student loan offerings was to be used by SCI, a Maryland corporation, but Longo was diverting a portion of the money to finance the start up of Shippers' Choice of Virginia.
13. Additionally, Longo is alleged to have been using money from these schemes for his personal enrichment rather than for corporate purposes.
14. Longo had personally fraudulently represented in writing to investors of these offerings that SCI was not a party to any litigation and that no litigation had been brought against SCI. At the time Longo was making these statements, SCI was operating against two (2) cease-and-desist orders from the Maryland Higher Education Department and was continually involved in litigation with the state of Maryland.
15. In or about March 1993, Michael Dennis Beck ("Beck"), an associate of Longo's involved in the alleged sale of the SCI fraudulent securities offerings, pled guilty to one (1) count of federal felony offense (wire fraud) and was incarcerated for 18 (eighteen) months on a charge unrelated to the alleged SCI securities offerings.
...
Namely, all were vehicles through which Longo and his associates engaged in fraudulent activities. With DSII, Longo and his associates would have absolute control of the potentially valuable technology and patent Plaintiff had invented and of DSII, a legitimate corporation Plaintiff had formed.
Hidden behind this legitimate corporation, Longo and his associates would further their fraudulent and federal felony activities and parlay the money and assets from their previous fraudulent schemes into an ever-expanding collection of legitimate businesses, enterprises, and real estate.
...
11. On or about January 7, 1992, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge induced Plaintiff (working in Florida) to believe that Longo was an accredited investor.
...
11. On or about January 7, 1992, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge induced Plaintiff (working in Florida) to believe that Longo was an accredited investor.
...
a) Longo, Procter, and Burgee told Plaintiff that Longo had presented check number 272, drawn on Citizens Bank of Maryland in the amount of $15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars) as an investment in DSII.
...
a) Longo, Procter, and Burgee told Plaintiff that Longo had presented check number 272, drawn on Citizens Bank of Maryland in the amount of $15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars) as an investment in DSII.
...
b) In or about May 1995, Plaintiff discovered that the $15,000.00 check presented by Longo as an investment into DSII was made payable to Bruff Procter, an individual, not to DSII.
...
23. All corporate documents and stock certificates would remain in the exclusive control of Burgee, Procter, and Longo in the offices of Miles & Stockbridge until Spring 1993.
...
26. In the fall of 1993, Longo, Procter, John L. Milling ("Milling"), John J. Sellinger ("Sellinger"), James R. Johnson ("J. Johnson"), Carl F. Johnson
Charles R. Longo 624 Harbor Drive Annapolis, MD 21403
...
Charles R. Longo, Resident Agent 1623 Forest Dr., Ste. 203 Annapolis, MD 21403-1020 DEFENDANT
...
Charles R. Longo, Resident Agent 1623 Forest Dr., Ste. 203 Annapolis, MD 21403-1020 DEFENDANT
...
Charles R. Longo, Resident Agent 6200 Jefferson Davis Hwy. DEFENDANT Woodford, VA
...
The investigation was initiated because of an extortion attempt on October 15, 1993 by Defendants Robert E. Warfield ("Warfield"), Mark Sapperstein ("M. Sapperstein"), Charles R. Longo ("Longo"), and Bruff J. Procter ("Procter").
...
Plaintiff, the inventor of United States patent number 5,314,940, and founder of Donald Stone Industries, Inc., seeks the recovery of damages and his patent(s) and intellectual property caused by a conspiracy and scheme whereby Defendants Warfield, Sr.; Longo; Lauren Longo ("L. Longo"); Mark Sapperstein; Sondra Sapperstein ("S. Sapperstein"); Gilbert Sapperstein ("G. Sapperstein"); Joseph E. Moore ("J. Moore"); Hal P. Glick ("Glick"); Procter; Gregory M. Burgee ("Burgee"); the law firm Miles and Stockbrige; and the law firm Williams, Hammond, Shockley, Moore, and Harrison ("WHSM&H")infiltrated and achieved control over Donald Stone Industries, Inc. and simultaneously began using the assets of Donald Stone Industries, Inc. to further other criminal activities.
...
2. Unknown to Plaintiff, DSII's attorney Burgee, Secretary/Treasurer Bruff J. Procter, and alleged first investor Charles R. Longo were engaged in numerous fraudulent interwoven and overlapping schemes, such as money laundering and conspiracies to commit federal bankruptcy fraud, that were perpetrated by Longo, a white-collar criminal who had 2,000 documented victims in Maryland and Virginia.
...
3. In or about January 1991, Burgee, Procter, and Longo induced Plaintiff to believe that Longo was an accredited investor (an individual with an annual income of not less than $200,000.00 and a net worth of not less than $1,000,000.00) who had invested $15,000 into DSII.
...
4. Plaintiff as inventor, President, and major shareholder with controlling interest of DSII, having successfully introduced and interested numerous major "Fortune 100" and "Fortune 500" corporations in the emerging technology and inventions was unaware of Longo, Procter, Burgee, and the law firm of Miles & Stockbridge's ongoing criminal activities.
...
5. In the Fall of 1993, just as DSII was on the verge of possibly signing two (2) potentially valuable licensing agreements for the technology Plaintiff had invented, Longo and Procter, needing money to support one (1) of their rapidly-collapsing fraudulent securities schemes, conspired with three (3) DSII investors to fraudulently seize control of DSII.
...
In the first of numerous extortion attempts, Longo, Procter, and the other DSII investors threatened to have Plaintiff arrested on unspecified criminal charges unless Plaintiff capitulated to their demand to turn over DSII corporate documents in his possession.
...
6. After seizing control of DSII, Longo was made President of DSII. At that point, Longo and Procter had exclusive control of DSII's checking account.
...
7. In furtherance of their criminal conspiracy, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge induced three (3) investors to invest additional money in DSII.
...
Longo and Procter then embezzled a portion of this money for their personal enrichment and to finance their sale of fraudulent securities.
...
8. On or about January 12, 1994, in order to cover up their embezzlement of DSII funds and to support their rapidly-collapsing fraudulent securities scheme, Longo and Procter devised a scheme to extort Plaintiff's patent.
...
In this extortion attempt, Longo, L. Longo, Procter, Glick, Moore, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, and S. Sapperstein demanded that Plaintiff assign to DSII his patent and pending patent for the technology upon which DSII was based.
...
The investigation would not terminate until four (4) years later and would reveal Longo and his business associates' extensive white-collar criminal activities that included complex numerous interwoven and overlapping fraudulent schemes.
The investigation was conducted in Maryland, Virginia, Washington D.C., New Jersey, New York, Texas, Georgia, Florida, Indiana, and Alabama. 2. Longo, through his National Training Systems ("NTS"), which was a professional truck driver training school, had victimized approximately 2,000 (two thousand) students in Maryland and Virginia in a United States Department of Education student loan fraud scheme in the late 1980s.
3. Longo and NTS are alleged by the Maryland Attorney General's office to have defrauded NTS students of approximately $8 million in United States Department of Education student loan money.
4. In or about October 1990, Longo was indicted in Virginia on 46 (forty-six) counts of grand theft, arrested, and jailed for approximately 9 (nine) days in Maryland. Due to a technicality, the charges were dropped and Longo had records expunged.
5. By 1993, NTS in Virginia was closed as a result of numerous complaints.
6. Longo reopened in Virginia in or about 1993 under the name Shippers' Choice of Virginia. The company was registered under the name of other individuals to disguise Longo's ownership. The opening of Shippers' Choice of Virginia was financed with money Longo had obtained from an alleged securities fraud scheme.
7. In or about September 1990, NTS filed bankruptcy in Maryland, with debts of approximately $10,000,000.00 (ten million dollars), to use the protection of the bankruptcy courts against an intensifying investigation by the Maryland Attorney General's office.
In connection with this bankruptcy, Longo and his associates made numerous fraudulent pre-petition and post-petition transfers of assets to defraud the NTS creditors.
The NTS bankruptcy was dismissed in July 1992. 8. In or about November 1990, Longo and his wife (Linda) would jointly file personal bankruptcy in Maryland to protect themselves from personal liability with NTS and to use the protection of the bankruptcy courts against the intensifying investigation by the Maryland Attorney General's office. Longo made numerous fraudulent pre-petition and post-petition transfers of assets to defraud his personal creditors. Longo and his wife would later split their case.
Charles Longo's wife's case and plan would be confirmed but Longo's case would still be open in 1998. 9. By conducting fraudulent transfers to conceal cash and material assets to defraud the creditors of both the NTS bankruptcy and his personal bankruptcy, and then diverting these assets into legitimate businesses and real estate, Longo and his associates were able to finance a new corporation as a vehicle for the furtherance of numerous fraudulent schemes.
10. Longo's new corporation, Shippers' Choice, Inc. ("SCI"), was another alleged "professional truck driving school" which opened in Maryland on or about September 27, 1990.
11. Beginning in or about 1992, Longo/SCI, with the assistance of Washington Investments ("WI"), a corporation engaged in investment banking, would begin selling student loans in bundled offerings of $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars).
This alleged fraudulent securities scheme would gross Longo/SCI/WI approximately $1,325,000.00 (one million, three hundred twenty-five thousand dollars). This securities fraud scheme would collapse in late 1993/early 1994.
12. The money from the student loan offerings was to be used by SCI, a Maryland corporation, but Longo was diverting a portion of the money to finance the start up of Shippers' Choice of Virginia.
13. Additionally, Longo is alleged to have been using money from these schemes for his personal enrichment rather than for corporate purposes.
14. Longo had personally fraudulently represented in writing to investors of these offerings that SCI was not a party to any litigation and that no litigation had been brought against SCI. At the time Longo was making these statements, SCI was operating against two
(2) cease-and-desist orders from the Maryland Higher Education Department and was continually involved in litigation with the state of Maryland. 15.
In or about March 1993, Michael Dennis Beck ("Beck"), an associate of Longo's involved in the alleged sale of the SCI fraudulent securities offerings, pled guilty to one
(1) count of federal felony offense (wire fraud) and was incarcerated for 18 (eighteen) months on a charge unrelated to the alleged SCI securities offerings.
...
Namely, all were vehicles through which Longo and his associates engaged in fraudulent activities. With DSII, Longo and his associates would have absolute control of the potentially valuable technology and patent Plaintiff had.
Source of This Post
http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Longo_Charles_22093132.aspx
court corruption
Using Bankruptcy Courts to Protect Criminal Activity? Bankruptcy Court Fraud seems to be a Common Factor in these High Dollar Patent Thefts, why the US Government and US Judicial System ALLOWS this to happen seemingly decade after decade is quite SHOCKING.
bankruptcy fraud
Donald D. Stone - Charles Long and Patent Theft... (Mark Sapperstein)
Mark Sapperstein
""In or about September 1989, Plaintiff, a surfer for over 25 years, envisioned a non-abrasive, non-skid coating for surfboards. With only a high school education and no formal chemistry background, Plaintiff began independent research and development on a non-abrasive, non-skid coating for surfboards.
In or about October 1990, Plaintiff discovered that a mixture of off-the-shelf components, such as Vaseline TM (from the drug store) and Plastidip TM (from the hardware store), could produce certain qualities desirable for non-abrasive and non-skid coatings on water-wet surfaces.
Plaintiff continued his independent research and development through 1991 until he believed he had a working formula to demonstrate.
In or about September 1991, after several hundred experiments, Plaintiff finally developed a formulation that met all the necessary criteria for a possible surfboard application: non-abrasive, wet traction coating, adhesion to substrate, and easy to clean.
On or about September 20, 1991, Plaintiff demonstrated his invention, which he named Octo-Grip, at the Action Sports Retail Trade Show in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Shortly thereafter, Procter, a customer of Plaintiff’s fiberglass repair company in Ocean City, Maryland, convinced Plaintiff that he (Procter) could raise the operating capital to finance the cost to patent Plaintiff’s technology and to commercialize it.
Plaintiff entered into a verbal agreement with Procter where Procter was to receive shares in the proposed corporation in exchange for his work raising money on behalf of the proposed corporation.
In or about October 1991, Procter introduced Plaintiff to Charles Longo touting Longo as a potential investor in the proposed corporation.
In or about November 1991, Procter and Plaintiff contracted Ken Darnell, a patent agent, to conduct a patent search to determine if the invention Plaintiff had discovered could be patented. The patent search, concluded in November 1991, showed that Plaintiff’s invention was unique and could be patented.
In or about November 1991, Procter introduced Plaintiff to Burgee, an attorney with the law firm Miles & Stockbridge at the Miles & Stockbridge office in Frederick, Maryland.
Procter and Burgee were childhood friends and Burgee was Procter’s personal and business attorney.
Plaintiff and Procter engaged Burgee to form a corporation to be known as Donald Stone Industries, Inc. for the purpose of developing Plaintiff’s invention and to commercialize the resultant technology.
Unknown to Plaintiff at the time he was introduced to Burgee, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge were engaged in numerous fraudulent schemes allegedly involving money laundering and conspiracies to commit federal bankruptcy fraud by diverting Longo’s personal assets, as a debtor in possession, and the assets of the bankrupt NTS, a corporation Charles Longo exclusively controlled, into various legitimate businesses and real estate transactions in Frederick, Maryland and throughout Maryland.
On December 6, 1991, DSII was incorporated as a Maryland corporation with an initial stock distribution of 5,000 (five thousand) shares of Common stock, 3,000 (three thousand) shares of Class A Voting Common stock, and 2,000 (two thousand) shares of Class B Non-voting Common stock.
a) The Articles of Incorporation were signed in the offices of Miles & Stockbridge in Frederick, Maryland. The Articles of Incorporation recorded the following as officers of the Corporation: Donald D. Stone, President and Bruff J. Procter, Secretary/Treasurer.
b) On or about December 7, 1991, in the presence of Burgee in the Miles & Stockbridge offices in Frederick, Maryland, Plaintiff and Procter were issued stock in DSII as follows: Donald D. Stone, President, stock certificate number A-1 for 61% of the Class A Voting stock, which represented controlling interest of DSII; and Bruff Procter, Secretary/Treasurer, stock certificate number A-2 for 39% of the Class A Voting stock.
c) Neither Burgee nor Procter explained to Plaintiff that investors in DSII would be sold shares of stock from Plaintiff’s 61%.
On or about December 6, 1991, Burgee advised Plaintiff and Procter that operating capital for DSII could be raised through a private offering to not-more-than 35 (thirty-five) accredited investors (individuals with an annual income or not less than $200,000.00 and a minimum net worth of $1,000,000.00) and that Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge could provide DSII with the necessary documents and questionnaires that investors would have to complete for consideration as accredited investors.
In or about January 1992, Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge prepared a Licensing Agreement by which Plaintiff would license his invention to DSII.
a) On or about January 13, 1992, Plaintiff signed the licensing agreement as licenser. Procter, as receiver for DSII, signed the licensing agreement as licensee.
b) Burgee never informed Plaintiff that neither he nor Miles & Stockbridge had experience or expertise in drafting patent licensing agreements.
c) Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge, as corporate attorney for DSII, never filed the license agreement with the U.S. Patent Office.
d) Burgee was acting under a gross conflict of interest by concurrently representing DSII, Procter, and Plaintiff.
On or about January 7, 1992, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge induced Plaintiff (working in Florida) to believe that Longo was an accredited investor.
a) Longo, Procter, and Burgee told Plaintiff that Longo had presented check number 272, drawn on Citizens Bank of Maryland in the amount of $15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars) as an investment in DSII.
b) In or about May 1995, Plaintiff discovered that the $15,000.00 check presented by Longo as an investment into DSII was made payable to Bruff Procter, an individual, not to DSII.
c) Procter refused to open an DSII corporate checking account. Instead, Procter deposited the $15,000.00 check into the bank account of Fiber Technology in Frederick County National Bank in Frederick, Maryland.
d) Further, Plaintiff discovered that the deposit transaction did not occur until January 23, 1992.
e) Fiber Technology was a checking account exclusively controlled by Procter and his wife Michelle Procter. Though some of the $15,000.00 investment into DSII was used for DSII expenses, a portion of the investment was used by Procter and his wife for their own personal enrichment.
Between January 1992 and the spring of 1992, Plaintiff made repeated, unsuccessful requests to Procter for Procter to open a DSII corporate checking account and to deposit the invested funds into that account.
In the spring of 1992, when Procter had still not opened a DSII corporate checking account or deposited the funds into a DSII account, Plaintiff, who was working in Florida, returned to Maryland and personally collected from Procter $5,507.69 (five thousand, five hundred seven dollars and sixty-nine cents), the amount remaining from the $15,000.00 investment.
a) Plaintiff then opened a DSII corporate checking account at Calvin B. Taylor Bank in Ocean City, Maryland, and deposited into the DSII corporate checking account $5,507.69, the amount retrieved from Procter.
b) The DSII corporate checking account was structured so that either Plaintiff or Procter could sign checks on the account without requiring a countersignature.
c) Plaintiff used the funds to continue DSII research, development, marketing, and to cover the expenses to obtain a patent on the developing technology.
Also in the spring of 1992, because it appeared that the technology DSII was developing would have a greater number of possible applications -- and thereby greater financial value -- than was originally envisioned, Procter approached Burgee about how to raise additional operating capital for DSII.
a) Shortly after Procter’s request to Burgee, Burgee arranged a meeting of Plaintiff, Procter, and Burgee at the downtown Baltimore offices of Miles & Stockbridge with Miles & Stockbridge attorney John B. Frisch (“Frisch”).
b) Burgee and Frisch led Plaintiff and Procter to believe that additional capital could be raised by making a private offering to Miles & Stockbridge clients Sandy Panitz, Frank Sarro, and others.
c) Plaintiff requested that additional capital be raised within three (3) months because DSII and Plaintiff were operating under extreme financial hardship.
In the fall of 1992, DSII terminated its relationship with Miles & Stockbridge because of nonperformance and delays by Miles & Stockbridge.
In or about September 1992, Plaintiff personally borrowed $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars) from Capital Cash (P.O. Box 9560, Manchester, New Hampshire) at 21.9% interest to keep Plaintiff and DSII solvent because of Procter’s refusal to raise any operating capital for DSII (other than the alleged $15,000.00 Longo, Procter, and Burgee were inducing Plaintiff to believe was an investment into DSII).
In the Fall of 1992, Plaintiff returned to Florida and began working in a cabinet shop to support himself and the research and development efforts for DSII.
In or about December 1992, Procter secured a $30,000.00 (thirty thousand dollars) investment into DSII from Sapperstein of Baltimore, Maryland for which Sapperstein was given 4% of Class A Voting Common stock in DSII. Plaintiff, working in Florida, traveled to Maryland to meet Sapperstein, to receive the investment, and to deposit the $30,000.00 into the DSII checking account at Calvin B. Taylor Bank in Ocean City, Maryland.
In or about December 1992, DSII paid to Andrew Sherman (“Sherman”), an attorney, the sum of $2,000.00 (two thousand dollars) for Sherman to create a Licensing Memorandum which DSII could use to introduce its technology to potential licensees.
DSII terminated its agreement with Sherman in or about late February 1993, for delay in producing the finished Memorandum.
During the first quarter of 1993, Plaintiff, continuing to work in a cabinet shop in Florida, and Procter engaged in a massive licensing effort.
a) The licensing effort consisted of contacting personnel in major corporations throughout the United States that might have applications for DSII’s technology and then faxing them the DSII licensing memorandum.
b) From this licensing effort, Plaintiff and DSII met with representatives of Stride Rite shoes in Boston, Massachusetts, one of the largest seller of shoes in the United States, for the possible application of DSII’s technology in their Sperry Top Sider shoe soles.
From this meeting, DSII was introduced to a raw material supplier to Stride Rite.
c) Also from this licensing effort, DSII entered into a research and development agreement with Golf Pride, a division of Eaton Industries and the largest manufacturer of golf club grips in the world, for the possible application of DSII’s technology in their golf club grips.
d) Both agreements indicated the enormous possible potential value of DSII’s emerging technology.
During the first quarter of 1993, as Plaintiff was preparing the 1992 K-1 tax forms for investors, Procter informed Plaintiff that the $30,000.00 invested by Sapperstein was actually not made by Sapperstein but rather by his father Gilbert, and that the K-1 form was to be made out to Gilbert Sapperstein.
In or about March 1993, Sapperstein invested an additional $15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars) in DSII for which he was given 2% of DSII’s Class A Voting stock.
All corporate documents and stock certificates would remain in the exclusive control of Burgee, Procter, and Longo in the offices of Miles & Stockbridge until Spring 1993.
During the second quarter of 1993, DSII entered into a research and development agreement with Miles Polymer, a large international chemical conglomerate, for possible application of DSII’s technology in polyurethane shoe soles. DSII also initiated contacts with Nike and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.
This agreement and these contacts reaffirmed the enormous possible potential value of DSII’s emerging technology and Plaintiff’s invention.
On or about June 17, 1993, Warfield and Glick made a combined investment into DSII of $22,500.00 (twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollars) for which they were given 2.5% of DSII’s Class A Voting stock.
In the fall of 1993, Longo, Procter, John L. Milling (“Milling”), John J. Sellinger (“Sellinger”), James R. Johnson (“J. Johnson”), Carl F. Johnson (“C. Johnson”), and Gary Boardwine (“Boardwine”) realized that their securities fraud scheme, being perpetrated through SCI and WI, was collapsing.
They then focused their attention on DSII as a legitimate enterprise to further their fraudulent schemes and began shifting their accomplices into doing work for DSII.
a) In the summer of 1993, Longo introduced Plaintiff to Milling, a securities attorney in New Jersey, stating that Milling could help with DSII’s licensing efforts.
b) Unknown to Plaintiff at the time Milling was introduced to him, Milling was creating the securities documents Longo was using to sell the fraudulent securities through SCI and WI.
c) Allegedly, under this fraudulent scheme, the student loans were bundled into $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars) packages by Longo/SCI then sold by WI to investors throughout the United States
i) To insure the investment, Longo’s long-time personal friend and business attorney, Sellinger, was alleged to be acting as the escrow agent between SCI and WI.
ii) Sellinger was alleged to be maintaining a cushion in the escrow account to make the investors “whole” in the event there was a default on the securities.
However, Longo and Sellinger never maintained this account, thereby defrauding the investors who bought these securities.
iii) The money from the sale of these fraudulent securities was to be used to operate SCI, but Longo was diverting a portion of the money from the sale of these fraudulent securities through Boardwine and C. Johnson, persons who had been involved with Longo in numerous other fraudulent schemes, to Shippers’ Choice of Virginia. - Mark Sapperstein
On or about September 28, 1993, after a DSII corporation meeting in the real estate office of Moore, Warfield, and Glick at 128th Street in Ocean City, Maryland, Longo persuaded Plaintiff that he (Longo) could get the DSII corporate papers in order, would help Plaintiff issue stock certificates to investors, and would obtain additional financing for DSII. - Mark Sapperstein
Plaintiff, believing Longo had befriended him -- and at that time unaware of Longo’s propensity to engage in criminal conduct -- gave over to Longo DSII’s corporate documents and the stock certificates issued to Plaintiff (certificate number A-1) and to Procter (certificate number A-2) on December 7, 1991.
In or about mid-October 1993, Plaintiff personally financed his travel and lodging to attend the Licensing Executive Society business convention in San Francisco, California on behalf of DSII to introduce DSII’s emerging technology to major United States corporations.
a) At this convention, Plaintiff was able to interest H.B. Fuller, the third largest adhesives and sealant manufacturer in the United States, and Becton Dickinson, one of the largest medical product suppliers in the United States, in the emerging technology Plaintiff had invented.
b) While at this convention, Longo, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Procter, and Warfield seized control of DSII by calling and holding a fraudulent board meeting. At this meeting they elected Longo as president of DSII.
Mark Sapperstein
Source of Post
maryland corruption story
""In or about September 1989, Plaintiff, a surfer for over 25 years, envisioned a non-abrasive, non-skid coating for surfboards. With only a high school education and no formal chemistry background, Plaintiff began independent research and development on a non-abrasive, non-skid coating for surfboards.
In or about October 1990, Plaintiff discovered that a mixture of off-the-shelf components, such as Vaseline TM (from the drug store) and Plastidip TM (from the hardware store), could produce certain qualities desirable for non-abrasive and non-skid coatings on water-wet surfaces.
Plaintiff continued his independent research and development through 1991 until he believed he had a working formula to demonstrate.
In or about September 1991, after several hundred experiments, Plaintiff finally developed a formulation that met all the necessary criteria for a possible surfboard application: non-abrasive, wet traction coating, adhesion to substrate, and easy to clean.
On or about September 20, 1991, Plaintiff demonstrated his invention, which he named Octo-Grip, at the Action Sports Retail Trade Show in Atlantic City, New Jersey.
Shortly thereafter, Procter, a customer of Plaintiff’s fiberglass repair company in Ocean City, Maryland, convinced Plaintiff that he (Procter) could raise the operating capital to finance the cost to patent Plaintiff’s technology and to commercialize it.
Plaintiff entered into a verbal agreement with Procter where Procter was to receive shares in the proposed corporation in exchange for his work raising money on behalf of the proposed corporation.
In or about October 1991, Procter introduced Plaintiff to Charles Longo touting Longo as a potential investor in the proposed corporation.
In or about November 1991, Procter and Plaintiff contracted Ken Darnell, a patent agent, to conduct a patent search to determine if the invention Plaintiff had discovered could be patented. The patent search, concluded in November 1991, showed that Plaintiff’s invention was unique and could be patented.
In or about November 1991, Procter introduced Plaintiff to Burgee, an attorney with the law firm Miles & Stockbridge at the Miles & Stockbridge office in Frederick, Maryland.
Procter and Burgee were childhood friends and Burgee was Procter’s personal and business attorney.
Plaintiff and Procter engaged Burgee to form a corporation to be known as Donald Stone Industries, Inc. for the purpose of developing Plaintiff’s invention and to commercialize the resultant technology.
Unknown to Plaintiff at the time he was introduced to Burgee, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge were engaged in numerous fraudulent schemes allegedly involving money laundering and conspiracies to commit federal bankruptcy fraud by diverting Longo’s personal assets, as a debtor in possession, and the assets of the bankrupt NTS, a corporation Charles Longo exclusively controlled, into various legitimate businesses and real estate transactions in Frederick, Maryland and throughout Maryland.
On December 6, 1991, DSII was incorporated as a Maryland corporation with an initial stock distribution of 5,000 (five thousand) shares of Common stock, 3,000 (three thousand) shares of Class A Voting Common stock, and 2,000 (two thousand) shares of Class B Non-voting Common stock.
a) The Articles of Incorporation were signed in the offices of Miles & Stockbridge in Frederick, Maryland. The Articles of Incorporation recorded the following as officers of the Corporation: Donald D. Stone, President and Bruff J. Procter, Secretary/Treasurer.
b) On or about December 7, 1991, in the presence of Burgee in the Miles & Stockbridge offices in Frederick, Maryland, Plaintiff and Procter were issued stock in DSII as follows: Donald D. Stone, President, stock certificate number A-1 for 61% of the Class A Voting stock, which represented controlling interest of DSII; and Bruff Procter, Secretary/Treasurer, stock certificate number A-2 for 39% of the Class A Voting stock.
c) Neither Burgee nor Procter explained to Plaintiff that investors in DSII would be sold shares of stock from Plaintiff’s 61%.
On or about December 6, 1991, Burgee advised Plaintiff and Procter that operating capital for DSII could be raised through a private offering to not-more-than 35 (thirty-five) accredited investors (individuals with an annual income or not less than $200,000.00 and a minimum net worth of $1,000,000.00) and that Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge could provide DSII with the necessary documents and questionnaires that investors would have to complete for consideration as accredited investors.
In or about January 1992, Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge prepared a Licensing Agreement by which Plaintiff would license his invention to DSII.
a) On or about January 13, 1992, Plaintiff signed the licensing agreement as licenser. Procter, as receiver for DSII, signed the licensing agreement as licensee.
b) Burgee never informed Plaintiff that neither he nor Miles & Stockbridge had experience or expertise in drafting patent licensing agreements.
c) Burgee and Miles & Stockbridge, as corporate attorney for DSII, never filed the license agreement with the U.S. Patent Office.
d) Burgee was acting under a gross conflict of interest by concurrently representing DSII, Procter, and Plaintiff.
On or about January 7, 1992, Longo, Procter, Burgee, and Miles & Stockbridge induced Plaintiff (working in Florida) to believe that Longo was an accredited investor.
a) Longo, Procter, and Burgee told Plaintiff that Longo had presented check number 272, drawn on Citizens Bank of Maryland in the amount of $15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars) as an investment in DSII.
b) In or about May 1995, Plaintiff discovered that the $15,000.00 check presented by Longo as an investment into DSII was made payable to Bruff Procter, an individual, not to DSII.
c) Procter refused to open an DSII corporate checking account. Instead, Procter deposited the $15,000.00 check into the bank account of Fiber Technology in Frederick County National Bank in Frederick, Maryland.
d) Further, Plaintiff discovered that the deposit transaction did not occur until January 23, 1992.
e) Fiber Technology was a checking account exclusively controlled by Procter and his wife Michelle Procter. Though some of the $15,000.00 investment into DSII was used for DSII expenses, a portion of the investment was used by Procter and his wife for their own personal enrichment.
Between January 1992 and the spring of 1992, Plaintiff made repeated, unsuccessful requests to Procter for Procter to open a DSII corporate checking account and to deposit the invested funds into that account.
In the spring of 1992, when Procter had still not opened a DSII corporate checking account or deposited the funds into a DSII account, Plaintiff, who was working in Florida, returned to Maryland and personally collected from Procter $5,507.69 (five thousand, five hundred seven dollars and sixty-nine cents), the amount remaining from the $15,000.00 investment.
a) Plaintiff then opened a DSII corporate checking account at Calvin B. Taylor Bank in Ocean City, Maryland, and deposited into the DSII corporate checking account $5,507.69, the amount retrieved from Procter.
b) The DSII corporate checking account was structured so that either Plaintiff or Procter could sign checks on the account without requiring a countersignature.
c) Plaintiff used the funds to continue DSII research, development, marketing, and to cover the expenses to obtain a patent on the developing technology.
Also in the spring of 1992, because it appeared that the technology DSII was developing would have a greater number of possible applications -- and thereby greater financial value -- than was originally envisioned, Procter approached Burgee about how to raise additional operating capital for DSII.
a) Shortly after Procter’s request to Burgee, Burgee arranged a meeting of Plaintiff, Procter, and Burgee at the downtown Baltimore offices of Miles & Stockbridge with Miles & Stockbridge attorney John B. Frisch (“Frisch”).
b) Burgee and Frisch led Plaintiff and Procter to believe that additional capital could be raised by making a private offering to Miles & Stockbridge clients Sandy Panitz, Frank Sarro, and others.
c) Plaintiff requested that additional capital be raised within three (3) months because DSII and Plaintiff were operating under extreme financial hardship.
In the fall of 1992, DSII terminated its relationship with Miles & Stockbridge because of nonperformance and delays by Miles & Stockbridge.
In or about September 1992, Plaintiff personally borrowed $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars) from Capital Cash (P.O. Box 9560, Manchester, New Hampshire) at 21.9% interest to keep Plaintiff and DSII solvent because of Procter’s refusal to raise any operating capital for DSII (other than the alleged $15,000.00 Longo, Procter, and Burgee were inducing Plaintiff to believe was an investment into DSII).
In the Fall of 1992, Plaintiff returned to Florida and began working in a cabinet shop to support himself and the research and development efforts for DSII.
In or about December 1992, Procter secured a $30,000.00 (thirty thousand dollars) investment into DSII from Sapperstein of Baltimore, Maryland for which Sapperstein was given 4% of Class A Voting Common stock in DSII. Plaintiff, working in Florida, traveled to Maryland to meet Sapperstein, to receive the investment, and to deposit the $30,000.00 into the DSII checking account at Calvin B. Taylor Bank in Ocean City, Maryland.
In or about December 1992, DSII paid to Andrew Sherman (“Sherman”), an attorney, the sum of $2,000.00 (two thousand dollars) for Sherman to create a Licensing Memorandum which DSII could use to introduce its technology to potential licensees.
DSII terminated its agreement with Sherman in or about late February 1993, for delay in producing the finished Memorandum.
During the first quarter of 1993, Plaintiff, continuing to work in a cabinet shop in Florida, and Procter engaged in a massive licensing effort.
a) The licensing effort consisted of contacting personnel in major corporations throughout the United States that might have applications for DSII’s technology and then faxing them the DSII licensing memorandum.
b) From this licensing effort, Plaintiff and DSII met with representatives of Stride Rite shoes in Boston, Massachusetts, one of the largest seller of shoes in the United States, for the possible application of DSII’s technology in their Sperry Top Sider shoe soles.
From this meeting, DSII was introduced to a raw material supplier to Stride Rite.
c) Also from this licensing effort, DSII entered into a research and development agreement with Golf Pride, a division of Eaton Industries and the largest manufacturer of golf club grips in the world, for the possible application of DSII’s technology in their golf club grips.
d) Both agreements indicated the enormous possible potential value of DSII’s emerging technology.
During the first quarter of 1993, as Plaintiff was preparing the 1992 K-1 tax forms for investors, Procter informed Plaintiff that the $30,000.00 invested by Sapperstein was actually not made by Sapperstein but rather by his father Gilbert, and that the K-1 form was to be made out to Gilbert Sapperstein.
In or about March 1993, Sapperstein invested an additional $15,000.00 (fifteen thousand dollars) in DSII for which he was given 2% of DSII’s Class A Voting stock.
All corporate documents and stock certificates would remain in the exclusive control of Burgee, Procter, and Longo in the offices of Miles & Stockbridge until Spring 1993.
During the second quarter of 1993, DSII entered into a research and development agreement with Miles Polymer, a large international chemical conglomerate, for possible application of DSII’s technology in polyurethane shoe soles. DSII also initiated contacts with Nike and Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company.
This agreement and these contacts reaffirmed the enormous possible potential value of DSII’s emerging technology and Plaintiff’s invention.
On or about June 17, 1993, Warfield and Glick made a combined investment into DSII of $22,500.00 (twenty-two thousand, five hundred dollars) for which they were given 2.5% of DSII’s Class A Voting stock.
In the fall of 1993, Longo, Procter, John L. Milling (“Milling”), John J. Sellinger (“Sellinger”), James R. Johnson (“J. Johnson”), Carl F. Johnson (“C. Johnson”), and Gary Boardwine (“Boardwine”) realized that their securities fraud scheme, being perpetrated through SCI and WI, was collapsing.
They then focused their attention on DSII as a legitimate enterprise to further their fraudulent schemes and began shifting their accomplices into doing work for DSII.
a) In the summer of 1993, Longo introduced Plaintiff to Milling, a securities attorney in New Jersey, stating that Milling could help with DSII’s licensing efforts.
b) Unknown to Plaintiff at the time Milling was introduced to him, Milling was creating the securities documents Longo was using to sell the fraudulent securities through SCI and WI.
c) Allegedly, under this fraudulent scheme, the student loans were bundled into $10,000.00 (ten thousand dollars) packages by Longo/SCI then sold by WI to investors throughout the United States
i) To insure the investment, Longo’s long-time personal friend and business attorney, Sellinger, was alleged to be acting as the escrow agent between SCI and WI.
ii) Sellinger was alleged to be maintaining a cushion in the escrow account to make the investors “whole” in the event there was a default on the securities.
However, Longo and Sellinger never maintained this account, thereby defrauding the investors who bought these securities.
iii) The money from the sale of these fraudulent securities was to be used to operate SCI, but Longo was diverting a portion of the money from the sale of these fraudulent securities through Boardwine and C. Johnson, persons who had been involved with Longo in numerous other fraudulent schemes, to Shippers’ Choice of Virginia. - Mark Sapperstein
On or about September 28, 1993, after a DSII corporation meeting in the real estate office of Moore, Warfield, and Glick at 128th Street in Ocean City, Maryland, Longo persuaded Plaintiff that he (Longo) could get the DSII corporate papers in order, would help Plaintiff issue stock certificates to investors, and would obtain additional financing for DSII. - Mark Sapperstein
Plaintiff, believing Longo had befriended him -- and at that time unaware of Longo’s propensity to engage in criminal conduct -- gave over to Longo DSII’s corporate documents and the stock certificates issued to Plaintiff (certificate number A-1) and to Procter (certificate number A-2) on December 7, 1991.
In or about mid-October 1993, Plaintiff personally financed his travel and lodging to attend the Licensing Executive Society business convention in San Francisco, California on behalf of DSII to introduce DSII’s emerging technology to major United States corporations.
a) At this convention, Plaintiff was able to interest H.B. Fuller, the third largest adhesives and sealant manufacturer in the United States, and Becton Dickinson, one of the largest medical product suppliers in the United States, in the emerging technology Plaintiff had invented.
b) While at this convention, Longo, Sapperstein, G. Sapperstein, Procter, and Warfield seized control of DSII by calling and holding a fraudulent board meeting. At this meeting they elected Longo as president of DSII.
Mark Sapperstein
Source of Post
maryland corruption story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)