In The united states district court for The district of maryland



tải về 339.35 Kb.
trang2/5
Chuyển đổi dữ liệu02.11.2017
Kích339.35 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

  1. This Court has jurisdiction over this subject matter under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964 (a) and (c), 1965(a) and the Constitution of the United States.

  1. This Court has venue because one of the plaintiffs is located in this jurisdiction, and the other was doing business here during pertinent times; a number of the defendants are located in this jurisdiction, many of the acts complained of took place in whole or in part in this jurisdiction, including particularly the baseless law suits against the plaintiffs and others similarly situated, and all of the acts complained of extended into this jurisdiction over the wires and airwaves in the broadcasts complained of. Many witnesses are located in this jurisdiction and many others are in neighboring jurisdictions. The scheme and pattern of racketeering activity complained of was devised in major part in this jurisdiction and in substantial part executed in this jurisdiction as one state among the many in which it was executed. This jurisdiction has, over all more connection with that activity than any other single state. All defendants have transacted their business and acts complained of in this District for the purposes of the venue provisions of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a).

COMPOSITION OF VIETNAMESE LANGUAGE MEDIA MARKET AND INDUSTRY IN THE UNITED STATES


  1. At all relevant times, the individual defendants Thang Dinh Nguyen, Hien Thi Ngo, and Hung Ngoc Ngo, and those working with them in their associated-in-fact enterprise, have sought to dominate the narrow market for Vietnamese language media in the United States through the use of the instrumentality of the defendant Vietnamese Public Radio, Inc.

  1. They operate through their instrumentalities, Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam, Inc., headed by defendant Hien Thi Ngo, and Boat People S.O.S., Inc., headed by defendant Thang Dinh Nguyen, as well as Vietnamese Public Radio, Inc. to give a veneer of being solely for the public good, with no profit accruing to themselves, with constant solicitations for donations and funds over the multi-state broadcasting system of VPR to create the impression of being solely for the good of the community from which they receive no profit or remuneration. In reality they reap large profits from a number of fraudulent schemes of private inurement out of the donations that they solicit and receive through commingling of funds, laundering of funds, diversion of funds from the stated purposes that they use to raise the funds and otherwise use the funds to maintain and operate their enterprises to harm any who dare to seek accountability from them, verification of their claims, or even question what happens to the proceeds of their solicited donations.

  1. The Vietnamese language media market in the United States is small, perhaps 1.2 million nationwide. Even in an important metro area such as this Washington, D.C. area, it numbers no more than seventy-five thousand. It is a relatively isolated market for historic reasons: the Vietnamese community here is by and large an émigré community comprised of those who stood with us in the Vietnam War and then had to leave because they did so. They remember how, starting with the Tet offensive, their and our victories, fighting side by side, were cast by our media as defeats. The Vietnamese community in America, therefore, looks to its own media for most of its news, not trusting completely our main stream media.

  1. Yet there are a large number of Vietnamese language newspapers in every Vietnamese metro area, all of them small, and mostly surviving by paid advertising aimed at the Vietnamese language community. In this metro area of Washington, D.C., for example, there are 13 Vietnamese language newspapers.

  1. By reaching into many states through the defendant VPR the defendants are able to dominate in such a narrow market as, in the days of only three major nationwide regular broadcast networks, CBS, NBC, and ABC, the mainstream networks could dominate. According to VPR’s website, it broadcasts or relays in 20 cities nationwide and reaches at least 24 cities. It reaches Washington, D.C., Maryland, including Baltimore, Virginia, and has locations in Wichita, KS, Atlanta, GA, Tampa Bay, FL, Austin, TX, St. Louis, MO, Kansas City, KS, Boston, MA, Portland, OR, Philadelphia, PA, New Orleans, LA, Grand Rapids, MI, Denver CO, Oklahoma City, OK, Baton Rouge LA, Louisville, KY, Biloxi, MS, Seattle WA, Dallas TX, and Lincoln NE. The VPR broadcast system also reaches audiences in Arizona, California, New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey. No other Vietnamese language media has this kind of coordinated, nationwide reach and it is this reach upon which the defendants impose their command structure.

  1. This market structure has enabled the defendants, in recent years, and has facilitated them, in the planning, implementation, operation, and funding, of a pattern of racketeering activity and conspiracy to conduct the same, by posing as non-profit, do good entities while in reality reaping large and handsome private inurements for the three principal heads of the defendants’ associated-in-fact enterprise and engaging in the pattern of racketeering complained of in this complaint.

NATURE OF CONSPIRACY AND ASSOCIATED-IN-FACT ENTERPRISE ACTIVITY

  1. This action claims damages arising out of an ongoing conspiracy by the primary actors and defendants Thang Dinh Nguyen, Hien Thi Ngo and Hung Ngoc Ngo and the other defendants and third parties working with them as well as out of the pattern of racketeering exhibited by their associated-in-fact enterprise. The goal of the conspiracy is to dominate the market for Vietnamese language media to serve as a vehicle for a massive fraud involving purported fundraising for ostensible charitable and Vietnamese patriotic purposes through a fraudulent plan, scheme, design and effort in which the interstate wire and broadcast capabilities of VPR were used to solicit money, public relations and other valuable items and services by fraud and deceit, the money to be mailed and/or wired to them and their controlled organizations in order that they might, as they have done, commingle it and use it for their personal and other business purposes without accountability.

  1. The named individual defendants have pursued a conspiracy of deceit and misrepresentation against the plaintiffs and other Vietnamese-speaking individuals and their businesses in the American Vietnamese-speaking community. It is a conspiracy designed to deceive the listening audience across America into giving money and other things of value to the defendants and their defendant organizations for the ostensible purpose of expanding religious freedom in Vietnam and contributing to charities targeted at Vietnam in such a manner as to weaken the hold of communism in Vietnam and to suppress those who are sympathetic to communism and pose a threat to anti-communism. In reality the defendants are almost completely ineffectual in achieving any of these purported goals because they use the funds for other purposes than those they claim to espouse, such as their own personal inurement, the capitalizing of businesses that they own or that are owned by those with whom they are allied, to threaten those who dare to question their use of proceeds or ask for accountability, and for other illicit enterprises, such as fraudulent immigration assistance and counseling, government contracting that does nothing to achieve what it claims to achieve, and the like.

  1. Thus the conspiracy is two-fold. First they deceive the public into giving them money and other things of value using their unique nationwide status as having a network with reach into all the Vietnamese speaking community in America and the mails, using the funds that they receive for their personal inurement rather than the purposes they pronounce in order to obtain it, then they use threats, including of violence, and knowingly stir up violence against those who question them. They thus deceive their fellow Vietnamese in America that they are doing something against communism and the hated Vietnamese communist regime from which the Vietnamese in America fled, and then, so strong is anti-communism, as they know, amongst the Vietnamese language community here, that they falsely accuse any who question them of being communist in order to willfully provoke violence and a continuing threat of violence against any who so threaten them.

  1. This constant campaign of misrepresentation on the one hand, and intimidation and the promoting of anti-Communist feelings leading to threats of violence and attempted violence by Vietnamese in America against Vietnamese in America on the other is designed to deceive and confuse the Vietnamese language audience in America and then to intimidate and confuse them further about the use of the moneys which the defendants trick the Vietnamese listening audience into giving by using the money to intimidate those who question what happens to the money under the further deceit and fraud of labeling those who question the use of proceeds as communists.

  1. The defendants count on the resulting public trust that the create through their fraud and deception against the plaintiffs and those similarly situated to misrepresent, suppress, and confuse accurate information and reporting on who is actually helping the communists and those who are actually seeking to do something to effectively combat the communist government in Vietnam by seeking the truth about who is actually doing something effective to help the people of Vietnam move out from under Communism versus those who are only pretending to do something effective.

  1. These frauds, deceptions, and intimidations have the effect of supplanting effective action and publishing by newspapers such as the plaintiff newspaper and destroying competitive Vietnamese language media such as the plaintiff newspaper by virtue of the fraud and deception taking away readership and driving away the advertising on which most Vietnamese language newspapers and other media depend.

  1. Thus, the retaliatory campaigns of intimidation, including stirring up anti-Communist motivated violence against those who question the use of funds raised by the fraud and deceit are themselves part of the deceit. For those retaliated against are as anti-Communist as the rest of the Vietnamese speaking community in America, but they are placed, through the racketeering activities of the defendants, in the false light of being Communist as part of the deception that the defendants are actually doing something to bring about better, non-Communist government in Vietnam and helping their fellow Vietnamese here through charitable efforts. To the Vietnamese speaking community in America “Communist” is a concrete defamation, not an abstract concept, and being placed in the false light of being “Communist” when you are not is the most harmful thing that can be done to you.

COUNT I
(Federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act-Pattern of Racketeering Activity)


  1. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

  1. This claim for relief is asserted against each of the defendants and arises under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c) as to all defendants and also (d) as to the individual defendants among themselves as an associated-in-fact enterprise.

  1. At all relevant times, each of the defendants was a “person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3), as each of the defendants was “capable of holding a legal or beneficial interest in property.”

  1. At all relevant times, the defendants Thang Dinh Nguyen, Hien Thi Ngo, and Hung Ngoc Ngo led and directed an associated-in-fact “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4) that was constituted of themselves, the other individual defendants and also the three corporate defendants as their controlled instrumentalities. This associated-in-fact enterprise is ongoing and it has an ascertainable structure with these three as its directors and Thang Dinh Nguyen functioning as its chairman and the other defendants having assigned and ascertainable roles within it. The three corporate defendants are also “enterprises” within their own right. These enterprises are ongoing and have purposes beyond the scope of the predicate acts alleged in this complaint and beyond the conspiracy of the defendants in forming and operating and maintaining this associated-in-fact enterprise. The purpose and function of the main associated-in-fact enterprise is to maximize the defendants’ control of Vietnamese-language media in the United States and dominate fundraising in interstate and foreign commerce in the Vietnamese language media markets and correspondingly dominate allegedly charitable giving in the Vietnamese language community in America for anti-Communist and purportedly charitable purposes in this country and for Communist-controlled Vietnam and also to dominate contacts between the Vietnamese language community and the wider American community in a public relations sense, especially with members of Congress and the non-Vietnamese language media. The three corporate defendants as sub-enterprises participate as instrumentalities in this effort. Each enterprise engages in, and its activities affect, interstate and foreign commerce.

  1. Each defendant has been associated with this associated-in-fact enterprise and has conducted or participated in its operations and activities, directly or indirectly, through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c). The three defendants Thang Dinh Nguyen, Hien Thi Ngo, and Hung Ngoc Ngo, have directed the associated-in-fact enterprise and the corporate defendants, each of which is headed by one of them in such pattern of racketeering activity. Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity dates from at least 1998 and continues to the present and will continue into the indefinite future unless halted as a result of legal action. Defendants’ multiple predicate acts of racketeering include:

  1. Mail and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343. Defendants engaged and are continuing to engage in schemes to deceive and defraud members of the Vietnamese language public in the United States. These schemes have involved fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions reasonably calculated to deceive the Vietnamese language public that listens to the broadcast system of the defendant VPR in 22 states, deceiving individuals that are persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension. They also involve “lulling” and the suppression of the truth about the fraudulent activities of the defendants. They execute these schemes by wire and radio transmission in Interstate Commerce and by the United States mail.

  1. Defendant VPR’s broadcasts of programs by and about the defendant Committee for Religious Freedom’s activities supposedly in assisting the victims of flood relief in Vietnam and in helping religious figures there in such efforts, broadcasts in which the defendant Thang and his company, Boat People SOS, participated, communicated over the VPR broadcast system, were designed to and did solicit funds, which were paid to VPR and CRFV by the use of the U.S. mail and interstate wire communications to transfer credit, pursuant to deceptions about what the defendants had in mind to do with the funds and what they did do with the funds, a deception which they still continue.

  1. Defendants’ programs directed toward individual Vietnamese-speaking Americans such as the individual plaintiff, and small businesses in the Vietnamese media market, such as the plaintiff bi-weekly newspaper, were designed to solicit funds and favorable public relations and press mention under false pretenses, as alleged, and in doing so to create a dominance by the defendants of Vietnamese public language media on a national basis, in every state where there is a sizeable Vietnamese-speaking population. These broadcasts containing these deceptions are broadcast every week three or four times and have been so broadcast for many years.

  1. The plaintiff Hoai Thanh was favorably impressed by these broadcasts and gave donations, writing checks and giving cash in 1997 and then from time to time up through 2000, and to the end of the year 2001 and for a while afterwards and continued to be favorably impressed with what he was led to believe were the good and charitable works of the defendants to which the claimed they devoted “most” of the funds that they solicited and received for the promoted good purposes. Hoai Thanh’s bi-weekly newspaper, the plaintiff Dai Chung Bi-weekly Newspaper, gave the defendants favorable mention in the writings it contained. Some of the defendants advertised in the Dai Chung newspaper, advertising their supposed good works as part of the deception, placing ads over the interstate wires and using the mail.

  1. In the early spring of 2001, however, the plaintiff Hoai Thanh began to wonder about the use of the proceeds that they were raising by the defendants, particularly their claim to have transmitted large sums of money to Vietnam for assistance to flood victims there through the liason of one Father Ly, a well known Catholic priest in Vietnam. In issue number 68 of Dai Chung Bi-weekly Newspaper, published March 1, 2001, plaintiff Hoai Thanh and his plaintiff newspaper raised the question for their Vietnamese language readership in the Washington, D.C. interstate metro area and nationwide in states such as Pennsylvania, of what was happening to the funds that the defendants were raising through the CRFV programs on VPR several times every week in which the defendants Thang Dinh Nguyen and Boat People participated. They did so merely in a questioning manner and for many months thereafter tried to work with the defendants to try and make the public understand what was going on, still trying to support the defendants’ efforts in the hopes of giving the public a clearer understanding, including accepting documents from the defendants that the defendants claimed would support the defendants’ representations.

  1. As a result of that questioning in the plaintiff Dai Chung newspaper, the defendants began a campaign through the CRFV and Boat People broadcasting over VPR of “lulling” in which they sought to convince the plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the American Vietnamese-speaking population and among the local Vietnamese language publications in the many states to which their broadcasts were transmitted that the defendants could account for their use of funds that they had solicited and obtained by means of wire, radio transmission and mail in interstate commerce. Plaintiffs tried to cooperate with these efforts and only after a year or more had to reluctantly conclude that these representations were a further implementation of the defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity. The defendants never did and could not account for their use of the funds for the purposes that they falsely and fraudulently claimed that they were for and the representations made over the interstate wire and radio that the defendants could and had accounted for their use of the funds were a further fraud of deception and omission using interstate wire, radio and mail. Continuing the deception and omission with this “lulling” against the plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the Vietnamese-speaking community in America, the defendants raised further funds which came in by U. S. mail and wiring of credit to the defendants to, as defendant Thai Hong Nguyen put it, “hurt” those such as the plaintiffs who dared to question the defendants’ use of funds.

  1. Ultimately the defendants carried this “lulling” to further fool the Vietnamese-speaking community in the United States through their broadcasts to the extent of filing baseless lawsuits against the plaintiffs and others who questioned the defendants’ use of funds and then further fraudulently claiming that they were winning these lawsuits when they were not, misrepresenting what was happening in the courts in order to fraudulently raise further funds by fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions in order to “lull” the audience into believing that their false representations and omissions were being vindicated in the courts.

  1. Defendants made false and fraudulent statements under oath and penalty of perjury in these law suits and then broadcast these false and fraudulent statements nationwide through the VPR system. The defendants affirmatively denied their fraudulent representations and their failure to use the funds they solicited and raised as they had represented they would use the funds.

  1. Interference with commerce by threats or violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951. As the plaintiffs persisted in questioning the use of funds by the defendants contrary to the defendants’ representations in the defendants’ interstate radio programs, the defendants initiated a campaign of threats of violence and intimidation against the plaintiffs in a pattern of racketeering activity that the defendants knew full well would lead to attempts of violence against the plaintiff Hoai Thanh, as it did do.

  1. Repeatedly, week after week, month after month, year after year and right up to the present, the defendants broadcast through the VPR system indicating that the plaintiffs were communists. In the context of the Vietnamese language community here in the U.S., this is not an abstraction but a concrete defamation among those who fought communism, bled and died in doing so, saw their country of birth taken over by a brutal communist regime and have witnessed atrocities against their country and its people ever since. The constant accusation of being a communist can cause intimidation and violence as defendants well know.

  1. In one of a thousand examples, in a broadcast over VPR October 6, 2001, while other defendants were still purporting to be working with the plaintiffs to clarify matters for the Vietnamese public and support their claims, the defendant Huy Duc set a tone, saying:

“You will see the communist flag in this newspaper. As far as we know, it is probably copied from the Communist Quan Doi Nhan Dan newspaper and a communist website. That’s why there is a Vietnamese communist flag. Perhaps you will understand where the truth is. Please read those pages.
These comments and others in the broadcast elicited comments from callers in in the Vietnamese language such as: “To tell you the truth, if those people [plaintiff Hoai Thanh and his newspaper personnel] lived next to my house, I might have stabbed them to death.” Another comment was: “If I were you they would not get out of my house. After their being knocked out in my house, I would have police pull their body out.” Defendant Hung Ngic Ngo and defendant Hien Thi Ngo participated in this broadcast as the hosts also, prompting and eliciting these threats of violence. A caller suggested not going after the plaintiff newspaper, to which a host responded: “Do you think we should surrender or defeat communism?”

  1. These representations were all false and known to defendants to be false. In fact the plaintiff Hoai Thanh served in the Vietnam War against the communists in the army of the late, lamented Republic of South Vietnam. He was an intelligence officer working closely with the American military as a liaison. The plaintiff newspaper, by any objective standard, has been anti-Communist in its content throughout its existence.

  1. The aim of the defendants is to supplant and displace those like the plaintiffs who are publishing and working against communism in their work in the Vietnamese community with a fraudulent version of anti-communist activities that is a cover for their personal power and inurement.

  1. In a further attempt to stir up threats against the plaintiff Hoai Thanh, the defendants also broadcast week after week, month after month, year after year, purported documents setting out fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions about the plaintiff Hoai Thanh in his personal businesses other than the defendant newspaper. On September 2, 2004, for example, the defendants broadcast a purported letter saying that plaintiff Thanh had defrauded and cheated innocent Vietnamese business people in America of tens of thousands of dollars. The representations were false, known to be false and were deliberately misleading. They repeated this broadcast on or around December 23, 2005 and again shortly after Christmas.

  1. Here is an actual broadcast transcript from some broadcasts:

Operator: Good evening, Vietnam Radio Overseas listeners. My name is Ngo Ngoc Hung. [Defendant Hung Ngoc Ngo] Today we would like to provide you with the correspondence response program, Sunday, October 21, 2001. Tonight we have a lot of important things to share with you. Please stay tuned. First of all, we sincerely thank audience members who have been donating to the station and who offer continued support by sending us their comments. You will be receiving a thank you letter from us this week.
UM1: About this daily newspaper, I think you already know that there is only 1 part that we would like you take a look at: page 27, Print No. 71. There is the list of the formal delegates visiting Vietnam with Mr. Nguyen Tuan. You will see the communist flag in this newspaper. As far as we know, it is probably copied from the Communist Quan Doi Nhan Dan newspaper and a Communist website. That’s why there is a Vietnamese communist flag. Perhaps you will understand where the truth is. Please read those pages.
Sorry, please wait for a second.
The reason why we had some trouble responding to you is the amount of money for flood relief in central Vietnam. Almost the whole amount has been sent to the current leaders in Vietnam, who perform excellent social activities as well as a very high merit of fighting. They are listed as follows: First, farther Nguyen van Ly, Superior monk Thich Thai Hoa, farther Giai, farther Loi and the sisters and the Buddhist charity groups. As you know, even though people like farther Ly and farther Giai experienced some difficulties at that time, they were still able to perform social activities. However, up till now, their fighting has not been strong enough. Therefore, we also expected some suspects in the flood relief issue. This was what we did wrong during the period of flood relief. If you have the flood relief document, you will see page No. T16. When opening this page, you will see the posted date of March 27, 2000. The Committee of Freedom Religious (CFR) has sent to farther Ly (You will see: Nguyen Van Ly, Hue, Vietnam and the account number) the amount of $31,000 (please open the document), which was wire-transferred from the bank of the CRFV to farher. Ly’s bank account, which is Vietcombank, 46 Hung vuong, Hue, Viet nam, and the account of farther Nguyen Van Ly as well. That was our mistake, because in the United States of America when you sign an over-$10,000 check, the check will be investigated. The reason for this law is that they want people of notorious background, especially “money launderers”, which means that they send their money from one bank to another. Therefore any amount of over $10,000 must be sent through this system. That was the mistake of the CRFV.
UF1: Hello.
UM2: Yes, I’m listening.
UF1: Hello, I have a comment. I live in Boston. I turned 70 this year. I have heard what you said on the radio about sabotage and I have a question about the amount. It is said that “don’t let your left hand know the charity done by the right hand” [a Vietnamese idiom]. How much did those people donate while they keep sabotaging? Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien works for the community . . . It is said not to share the same language. Most of the times they call the radio station to ask for help in everything. I think those people could have been sent here by Viet Cong to commit sabotage. “Receive benefit from the state but worship the communism” [fixed expression]. You should not be dependent on them. Vietnamese people living here are all anti-communists, not just a few individuals. Therefore you don’t have to hold talks with them to be truthful and upright. Being truthful and upright is a matter for hundreds or thousands of people, not just for them. Put them aside. To tell you the truth, if those people lived next to my house, I might have stabbed them to death.
Operator: Thank you very much.
UM2: My name is Minh. Good evening Ms. Ngo Thi Hien. [defendant Hien Thi Ngo] I have been with the station for quite a long time and I know that you have made a great contribution. I would like to make a suggestion about bringing an action against Dai Chung newspaper. I think you shouldn’t do that because what we did is for justice and Dai Chung newspaper is the unfounded saboter, supported by the domestic Communists.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: Mr. Minh, pardon me for interrupting you here. Do you think we should surrender or defeat communism? In Vietnam, we can surrender to communism because there is no law but the law of the jungle, but here we need money. I don’t think it will become the second O.J. Simpson.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: October 6, 2001.

What can we do while South of Vietnam is getting worse and worse? Two difficult years have resulted in extreme poverty amoung the poor, taking the lives of many innocent citizens, especially of ill-fated children. In the spirit of “blood is thicker than water” [Literally, means “if the blood is split, the gut turns soft”], we appeal to your charitable hearts, who wish to mollify some of the poverty, misery and calamity descending to our consanguineous people. You may wish to send a check to: Vietnamese Committee of Free Religion, P.O Box 342111. MD 20827. All donations for flood relief to Committee of Free Religion are tax exempted.

We really appreciate it.

Best regards,


UF3: Mr. Banh, from Maryland.
Mr. Banh: Good evening Ms. Hien, Ms. Hoang Lan and the audience of the Vietnam Radio Overseas. Dai Chung newspaper has criticized the donation of relief and has sabotaged the Radio of the Free Vietnamese behind the radio announcer’s back, such as Ms. Ngo Thi Hien, has barred our voice and jobs. I have told Dai Chung newspaper...this is an application of the law of the jungle like that of the Viet Cong. Many people complainted that Mrs. Hien is as gentle in her character as her name [Hien means “Gentle” in Vietnamese]. What a pity that you are so courteous. If I were you, they would not get out of my house. After their being knocked out in my house, I would have police pull their body out. And this sabotage is to stifle our voice and bar our relief fund in the future. From this, our fellow-citizens can see the purpose of Dai Chung newspaper. I think the fellow countrymen and the audiences will support the words of anti-communists.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: Good evening.
Now Mr. Hien, please. Good evening, Mr. Hien.
Mr. Hien: Yes. Good evening Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien, Ms. Minh and others at the station. I think that what Mr. Sinh just said was unfounded. Since we are in Tesla, we don’t know what rag Dai Chung newspaper is. Honestly, we did not know anything until we heard from the radio. Do you know which state that newspaper is based in? The way they combat is quite a sabotage. According to your station, they have strong support. perhaps they have a lot of money to hire an attorney, as in Kim Xuan’s case. I would also like it if audiences would support the station so that it can have an attorney bring an action against/sue them. Otherwise they represent a group of people. It means that we fight against communism and they are against us, so it means they are some force. We also expect that the audience will support our legislation fund to bring them to court. Bye.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: Thank you very much. We think that if we give our hands, we must believe that we will win.
Ms. Nam, please.
Ms. Nam: I’m Nam in Boston. Good evening, Mrs. Hien. Good evening, everyone and all...
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien:
Ms. Nam, turn off the radio please!
Ms. Nam: I think that Dai Chung newspaper did that one purpose. It means that they have a strong support. That’s why they have done it. If we sue them, will we win? What if they have a huge financial support from a nation? They could prove black is white. We still don’t know their real ability. What Mrs. Hien has done is right. But when black is proven to be white, it will be clear who gave that amount to them. They are against the radio station, meaning that they are against all Vietnamese nationals, but not only Mrs. Hien, Mr.Ngo Ngoc Hung or anyone working at the station. That’s all I have to say.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: Thank you Ms. Nam. Ladies and gentlemen, honestly the comments sent to us are right. We believe that we have to contend with a force, which is stronger than us. We have lost our country. If we want to get it back, we must have resistance. Do not think that we can lose, just let it be. We will try and we promise you that if you agree and support us, we will bring glorious victory to stamp out the old shame. If we let them win, not only will this committee of religion be wiped out but also hundreds of other people. Then what will be our nationals’ voice? Next will be Mr. Minh.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: My name is Minh. Good evening Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien. I have been with the station for quite a long time and I know that you have made a great contribution. I would like to make a suggestion about bringing an action against Dai Chung newspaper. I think you shouldn’t do that because what we did is for justice and Dai Chung newspaper is the unfounded saboteur, supported by the domestic Communists.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: Mr. Minh, pardon me for interrupting you here. Do you think we should surrender or defeat communism? In Vietnam, we can surrender to communism because there is no law but the law of the jungle, but here we need money. I don’t think it will become the second O.J. Simpson. We don’t think so. O.J. Simpson has been supported by those who have the same color skin as them. But here, we must know that we are Vietnamese nationals. Communism was lucky or indebted to some miscreants who took over our Vietnam. But someday we must defeat them. We must defeat them completely. In the meantime we say that we will lose, then, if we don’t take action, when we could get our country back.
Mr. Banh: Good evening, Mrs. Hien, Ms. Hoang Lan and the audience of the Vietnamese Public Radio. I’m Banh, from Maryland State. Dai Chung newspaper, criticizing the donation of relief and sabotaging the Radio of Free Vietnamese behind the radio station’s back has barred our voice and our jobs. I have told Mr. Hoai Thanh’s Dai Chung newspaper that this is an application of the law of the jungle like the Viet Cong did. Many people complained that Mrs. Hien is so gentle in her character as her name [Hien means “Gentle” in Vietnamese]. What a pity that you are so courteous. If I were you, they could not get out of my house. After their being knocked out in my house, I would have police pull their body out. And this sabotage is to stifle our voice and bar out relief fund in the future. From this, our fellow-citizens can see the purpose of Dai Chung newspaper. I think the fellow countrymen and the audiences will support the words of anti-communists. And Ms. Hien should help our fellow citizens to fight for our future and for our unhappy people in Vietnam. We should do something and Dai Chung Newspaper’s reporters should do something for our unhappy Vietnamese in the home land. We have seen clearly what Dai Chung Newspaper has done. That’s all.
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: Thank you Mr. Banh very much. Thank you to all of you who want to express your comments. But it is getting late now. We really appreciate those who called in to convey their accurate opinions and comments. Though some of you thought that they were so strong while we are weak, we should not bring them to court. We will leave this for you to comment. We are in a weak position, so we must do something to improve our position...so that we can win, do you agree? We have here some of you who can support, but those who still have other issues to be concerned about, please spiritually support us. To that extent we feel happy to continue our job in the future. See you again. Once again, the address of the Vietnam Committee of Free Religion is: P.O Box 342111. MD 20827. Thank you very much.
...it was so shameless to bang his fist on the table and ask for the records. When we wrote a press release requesting you not to get close to our house, you responded by writing an article with the title “Madam President of the Vietnam Committee of Free Religion needs to study American laws”. At that time, you adduced a law. Since we are not aware of the legislation system, we had to consult with some attorneys. It seems that none of them know about your so called [...] law. We found that you are so aware of laws. So we had to ask our attorney to bring actions against you and request the court order you not to come near our house and office. We hope that you have a chance to talk to the judge about your [Sunshine?] law.
Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Hoai Thanh forgot his law book at home, so as soon as he got into the court, he asked the attorney to inform us that he had surrendered and would comply with our requirements and never come to our office.
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me raise a question: Is there anything worthy of complaint in a case of having got what was wanted without spending a minute in court? Our attorney still hadn’t agreed while Mr. Hoai Thanh had stated conditions. Do you know what were the conditions? They were that the Committee of Free Religion has to promise not to broadcast on air that he lost this time. Yes, you did not hear by mistake. Mr. Thanh surrendered and promised likely not to come to our house and office with the condition that we have to keep this case confidential and not to talk on the radio so that people can know that he surrendered.
UF5: Mrs. Hien, you have talked about Mr. Hoai Thanh so far. I was wondering when you saw Mr. Hoai Thanh, were you afraid?
Mrs. Ngo Thi Hien: My impression was that he came here without an appointment. My house is located in a relatively large area. The distance between houses is wide, so an appointment needs to be arranged. Only the postman or a ticket deliveryman do not need appointments. So the image of him giving me a pile of documents and banging on my table to ask me to give him this and that makes us feel scared everytime the doorbell is rung. This morning when we met him at court, we did not dare to look at him. This fear can be compared to Nam Anh’s fear of a caterpillar or a snake. For example, we are scared of being bitten by a tiger, but a tiger is bigger and stronger than us, we must say. In case we find that a caterpillar is so descpicable, but we are still scared of it and we don’t want to get close to it. That’s what I am really afraid of from now until the court date and when I see Mr. Hoai Thanh. This fear will never be forgotten for the rest of my life. So to answer Nam Anh’s question: I am really scared. But have you ever seen a caterpillar on your skin?
UF5: (Smile)
Operator:

Now, for the rest of our time, we would like to tell you briefly about this morning in court. As we have said earlier, Mr. Hoai Thanh’s attorney came to negotiate before the hearing had started that Mr. Hoai Thanh had surrendered and agreed that he would never come to our house. Then Mr. Hoai Thanh suggested that he surrendered with only one condition: that we had to keep this morning’s hearing a secret and not to say on the radio that he had lost at the hearing. Actually, as you see, for the past few months, the radio station has appreciated the time for us to open our heart about what needs to be done rather than talking about things that may be important to our life but not as important as what we need to do for our country. Thus, we probably realize that in the past few months we haven’t mentioned about the issue of Dai Chung newspaper. So we also think that it’s not important. The matter of who’s right and who’s wrong has been known, so we don’t view it as an issue needing to be talked about on the air. But when Mr. Hoai Thanh, though he had surrendered, set this condition for us, we found it unacceptable. For us, the winner is the decider, not Mr. Hoai Thanh, who told us what to do. For us, we just say the truth. And we think that no one has the right to force us to act against our working concept and methodology, just because of their honor or embarrassment. Our answer was no, because we had come to appear in court. If you don’t want to appear in court, you must agree that you would not come to our house and office. About broadcasting on our radio, our right to do so is not subject to your wish/command. Finally, Mr. Hoai Thanh knew that if he entered the court the same result/judgement was waiting for him. Why did he come to our house and, in his anger, risk doing something he might have regretted later on? So he knows that if he raised his hand in defense he would still lose the case. Eventually, he let his attorney talk to the judge. Mr. Hoai Thanh’s attorney and our attorney standing in front of the judge said iut was fine and I would write it in the report. So, we didn’t stay long because without entering the court Mr. Hoai Thanh had agreed to comply with our requirements. In his article “Madam president of the Vietnam Committee of Free Religion needs to study American laws”, Mr. Hoai Thanh wrote “an incomparable visit in my life is satisfaction enough.” Ladies and gentlemen, he visited our house asking for documents. We did not give them to him but because he felt so satisfied that this morning he had to agree to surrender and promise from now on he would never come near our house! And even though he is SO good at law, he still will be chastised by laws. In fact, we did not want to make a big fuss out of the case, but it is so ridiculous to give conditions upon losing the case. When he slandered us, I wondered whether he would ask our permission in order now to ask us to hide what he doesn’t want to be seen. Well, we don’t want to talk about anything more about this for sure. But if we have a chance, our Committee of Free Religion will be on the radio to tell you about what’s going on in this stressful and profitless dispute so that you can understand and sympathize with us. We think that what Mr. Hoai Thanh wrote in his articles was to gag the committee because the committee has done something which encountered his idea or offended his boss. To answer Nam Anh’s question of whether Mr. Hoai Thanh is scared, for the past few weeks we did not hear anything from his newspaper that we misappropriated the money.
In fact the defendants had filed a completely baseless lawsuit, which they ultimately lost on the merits in both the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Maryland, and the Maryland Special Court of Appeals. During that case, the attorney representing the defendants, defendant Nguyen Hong Thai, boasted to his opposing counsel and those assisting them that he and his colleagues knew that the suit was baseless, but, as they boasted in their programs, they could wear the plaintiffs down financially and hurt them. Defendant Nguyen Hong Thai also admitted that, as part of this effort, he was not paid an hourly or other substantial fee and that plaintiffs would have to pay heavy legal fees (eventually over $100,000.00, see malicious prosecution count below.)

As a result of this broadcast, and others substantially similar in which the same letters and other pretextual provocations would be used by defendants to elicit other calls and threats, plaintiff Hoai Thanh found himself threatened in other ways. In late 2002 he reported to the police that as he was exiting on a ramp from the Washington Beltway, Interstate 95, two cars traveling very fast engaged in a maneuver that was coordinated to try and force him off the road into an accident. One car had Pennsylvania license plates and the other New York license plates. By stopping quickly he was able to avoid being forced off the road into an accident. The cars were moving too fast for him to get their license plate numbers. Other incidents have occurred as the defamatory, attacking, false broadcasts have continued. In the last two years, when VPR has, in late November, its anniversary celebration, which is attended by many listeners from many states, there have been particularly ominous threats. In 2003 at the time of the annual VPR celebration, he found that his car in front of his business, had been entered into and a ninja uniform covered with dog and cat hairs had been placed so as to cover the car’s steering wheel. In Vietnamese culture this is a message to threaten one’s life and that of his family. This year, just a few weeks ago, he found hanging in front of the door of his auto business as he went to work, a large skeleton with flashing red eyes. Bones and skeletons have a particular significance in Vietnamese culture as a threat to kill and send one to join the dead.




  1. Engaging in interstate or foreign travel in aid of racketeering activities in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1953. Routinely, the defendants traveled between Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, as well as other states and overseas in pursuit of their racketeering activities.

  1. The acts form a “pattern” of racketeering activity. These acts have been related in their common objectives of defrauding the Vietnamese language community in America with false representations about soliciting money, public relations exposure and other things of value in order to help free Vietnam and fight communism, establish free religion in Vietnam and other laudable goals which the defendants use to further their domination of such efforts and the Vietnamese language media to shut out those such as the plaintiffs who really do do something about these issues and in “hurting” through threats and intimidations any who question the defendants and their use of proceeds while “lulling” the Vietnamese language community into believing that the defendants can account for their use of funds when they cannot do so. These acts have had the same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, and methods of commission. The acts have been consistently repeated and show no sign of being discontinued and are capable of being repeated indefinitely.

  1. Each defendant also conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), the individual defendants all with each other, and the corporate defendants all with each other.

  1. Plaintiff Hoai Thanh has been injured in his business and property, and in his health, emotional well-being and ability to work within his Vietnamese language community by the defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c) and (d), his wife has been greatly harmed and intimidated, her emotional health so damaged that she has had to seek medical help, and his children have been affected. His businesses other than the plaintiff newspaper have been so severely damaged by the driving away of customers from the Vietnamese language community that he has had to sell his Maryland business and start over in Virginia with a business that is struggling to make it without customers from the Vietnamese language community. The plaintiff newspaper has had its advertisers from the Vietnamese business community intimidated and driven away and its growth reversed and circulation destroyed while its ability to publish has been virtually eliminated. The defendants have boasted of this on the air and stated that they will do so to anyone who dares to question their use of proceeds. In the absence of the defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) and (d), none of this harm and damage would have occurred. Under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), plaintiffs are entitled to bring this action and to have immediate, temporary and permanent injunctive relief, and to recover treble damages, all the costs of bringing this suit, and reasonable attorney fees.

COUNT II
(Federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Investment of Proceeds of Racketeering Activity)


  1. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

  1. This claim for relief is asserted against each of the defendants, and arises under 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (a) and (d) of RICO.

  1. At all relevant times, each defendant was a “person” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961, as each defendant was capable of “holding a legal or beneficial interest in property.”

  1. At all relevant times, the defendants have constituted an associated-in-fact “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), or, in the alternative, each defendant has constituted such an enterprise. Each enterprise and its activities have an effect on interstate commerce, in that the enterprise is engaged in broadcasting and transmitting commercially subscribed to programs, supported by advertising and subscriptions, in interstate commerce, and in obtaining funds from listeners in interstate commerce and in competing in interstate Vietnamese language media markets for the purpose of dominating such markets and “hurting” through the use of interstate commerce any who question the defendants’ fundraising or drive for such market dominance.

  1. Defendants have engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity which dates from 1999 through the present and is ongoing and threatens to continue indefinitely into the future. Defendants multiple acts of racketeering are set out in Count I above. These racketeering acts generated income for the defendants from the funds raised through their fraudulent and deceptive false representations and omissions and from their threats and actions that “hurt” those who tried to question their activities so as to enable them to compete illegally against those such as the plaintiffs, including starting a newspaper directly competitive with the plaintiff newspaper and taking away its advertisers.

  1. Defendants have used or invested their illicit proceeds, generated through the pattern of racketeering activity, directly or indirectly, in the acquisition of an interest in, or the establishment or operation of, each enterprise in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a). Defendants’ use and investment of these illicit proceeds in each enterprise is for the specific purpose of obtaining further funds through their fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions in interstate commerce through wire and transmission and gaining additional funds through the mail and for “hurting” through an interstate campaign and their travel interstate, with threats and intimidation, those such as the plaintiffs who question their use of their funds that they raise and solicit in the broadcasts.

  1. Each defendant also conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), the individual defendants among themselves and the corporate defendants among themselves.

  1. Plaintiff Hoai Thanh has been injured in his business and property, and in his health, emotional well-being and ability to work within his Vietnamese language community by the defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (c) and (d), his wife has been greatly harmed and intimidated, her emotional health so damaged that she has had to seek medical help, and his children have been affected. His businesses other than the plaintiff newspaper have been so severely damaged by the driving away of customers from the Vietnamese language community that he has had to sell his Maryland business and start over in Virginia with a business that is struggling to make it without customers from the Vietnamese language community. The plaintiff newspaper has had its advertisers from the Vietnamese business community intimidated and driven away and its growth reversed and circulation destroyed while its ability to publish has been virtually eliminated. The defendants have boasted of this on the air and stated that they will do so to anyone who dares to question their use of proceeds. In the absence of the defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) and (d), none of this harm and damage would have occurred. Under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), plaintiffs are entitled to bring this action and to have immediate, temporary and permanent injunctive relief, and to recover treble damages, all the costs of bringing this suit, and reasonable attorney fees.

COUNT III: FALSE LIGHT

  1. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

  1. The individual defendants, working through and with their respective organizations, (the organization defendants, VPR, BPSOS and CRFV), decided to “hurt”, as they put it in their broadcasts, the plaintiffs for questioning the fundraising, ostensibly for Vietnamese flood victim relief, which the defendants VPR and CRFV, with the participation of BPSOS, were conducting through the radio publishing system of the defendant VPR.

  1. At all relevant times in this action, defendant program hosts such as Huy Duc and Thanh Tin and the other host and broadcaster defendants were acting within the scope of their employment and work with the organization defendants and pursuant to the direction of the individual defendants Nguyen Dinh Thang, Hung Ngoc Ngo, Hien Thi Ngo, and Thai Hong Nguyen.

  1. From at least in October of 2002, in a series of repetitive programs published over and over again and disseminated through their radio system in multiple states and reaching over 1 million Vietnamese speaking citizens and residents of the United States, the defendants published false and misrepresentative matter concerning the individual plaintiff Hoai Thanh and his activities in private business apart from his publishing activity with the plaintiff Dai Chung newspaper and invaded his privacy by undertaking to cast a completely false light on him with the wider Vietnamese-language public.

  1. From this point in time forward, the defendants, no longer content to just “hurt” the plaintiff Hoai Thanh, set out to destroy him and his business and life apart from his role in the plaintiff newspaper. They conspired together to destroy his business in the plaintiff newspaper beyond just criticizing the content of his articles questioning the defendants’ fundraising and his automobile repair business, in the former by taking away readers and advertisers and the latter by driving Vietnamese-speaking customers away from the business through the power of their broadcast dominance. Vietnamese language newspapers are particularly dependent upon advertisers, as defendants well knew. Defendants conspired to do this.

  1. The defendants repeated this publishing of false and misrepresentative statements and material through the multi-state publishing and dissemination system of VPR from time to time, (scores of times all told) up until the present time and continue to publish them.

  1. As recently as September 2, 2004, and then again on or about December 23, 2004, the defendants repeated the publishing and dissemination of the false and misrepresentative statements and material through the VPR multi-state radio system. On September 2, 2004, from 9 PM until 9:27 PM EDST the defendants broadcast again anew a purported letter saying that plaintiff Hoai Thanh had defrauded and cheated innocent Vietnamese business people in America of tens of thousands of dollars. The representations were false, known to be false and were deliberately misleading. They did this again on or about December 23, 2004.

  2. The radio programs mentioned above, as disseminated and published in multiple states, included falsehoods and misrepresentations about the plaintiff Hoai Thanh and his non-publishing business activities and personal history including:

  1. That the plaintiff Hoai Thanh did not own a valuable Sunoco gas station franchise which he did in fact own on Pennsylvania Avenue Southeast in the District of Columbia, but was merely a “manager” for Sunoco.

  1. That the plaintiff Hoai Thanh deceived one “Mr. Thanh” (Thanh Van Vo) about the plaintiff Hoai Thanh’s ownership of this valuable gas station franchise.

  1. That Mr. Thanh Van Vo was a “victim” of Mr. Hoai Thanh when in fact the opposite was the case.

  1. That Mr. Thanh Van Vo bought the gas station from Mr. Hoai Thanh for “$70,000.00” when such was not the case. Mr. Thanh did not legitimately buy the gas station for any amount of money, did not have “$70,000”, but was instead an extortionate con artist, part of a would be Vietnamese “mafia,” that attempted to use the gas stations own income to illegally take over the gas station accompanied by threats of violence, including murder and physical harm to the family of Mr. Hoai.

  1. That Thanh Van Vo personally “invested hundred thousand of dollars” in the gas station and built many improvements with such funds. Thanh never invested any of “his” funds in the gas station, but only illegally took funds from the revenues of Mr. Hoai’s Sunoco franchise after he illegally took it over and used those funds to operate a business that was not his and that he had not any legal ownership of. Thanh Van Vo did not make improvements but he did operate businesses out of the gas station in violation of the franchise agreement.

  1. That Thanh Van Vo brought the Sunoco gas station franchise business, in contrast to its operation by the present plaintiff Hoai Thanh, to a “prosperity.” In fact Thanh Van Vo knew nothing about, and had no experience in operating, a gas station whereas Hoai Thanh, the present plaintiff, had successfully operated and supervised many stations as a manager within major oil companies, including Sunoco, and had successfully operated other major oil company franchises. Thanh Van Vo, by contrast, didn’t even know, when he illegally intruded into the franchise, how to change oil, and knew nothing about auto mechanics. He repeatedly bounced checks, he attempted to rape an employee, allowed his employees, who were inexperienced in the business and were menacing, violence prone young men, to joy ride customer’s cars and he failed to give decent service up to the standards of the trade.

  1. That Hoai Thanh, the present plaintiff, was a “conner” in the sense of a criminal “con artist” and untruthful and deceiving person when in fact he was not and Thanh Van Vo was. Thanh Van Vo was bluffing and deceiving about everything connected with his past, his purported skills and experience, his business background, and his finances, and was part of a group that was engaged in a conspiracy of “bluffing,” lying and deceiving.

  1. That Hoai Thanh, as a result of business arrangements that he had with one Khuong, “dispersed his property and filed bankruptcy.” This is false and a misrepresentation.

  1. That Hoai Thanh, the present plaintiff, committed “crime” in his dealings with Khuong.

  1. That Hoai Thanh was able to prevail in a number of lawsuits stemming from business relationships only by “cheating and deceiving.” In fact Hoai prevailed in court on the merit of his case in each instance where he prevailed.

  1. That Hoai Thanh only prevailed in the cases where he prevailed because of trickery and of lawyers he hired who went along with his deceit and trickery and enabled it and whom he paid a lot of money which he tricked out of people by illegal means. In fact there were no tricks, the cases were won because Hoai was honest and not “tricky,” and the lawyers were not paid very much for the amount of work that they did and were not paid with any money except money that was honestly earned and come by.

  1. That a woman, Mrs. Minh, had loaned $100,000.00 to Hoai Thanh without a receipt and had never been repaid because Hoai Thanh had tricked and cheated her. In reality Mrs. Minh had invested in a business with Hoai Thanh and she purported to invest $60,000.00 not $100,000.00 and at that one check of the amount she purported to invest, for $10,000.00, was returned for insufficient funds and never made good. In addition she received in payments, $34,880.35, for which Hoai Thanh has the returned checks, and also received back valuable inventory and other items. Hoai Thanh has the signed document in which Mrs. Minh acknowledges repayment of her investment over and above money received in the form of “tools, equipment, supplies, inventory and office furniture,” and releases Hoai Thanh from any further obligation. To the release is attached a list of the inventory received by Mrs. Minh. It alone shows a value of $43,230.00. In short Mrs. Minh got back what she invested and more and acknowledged the same, despite the fact that the business venture ultimately failed.

  1. In connection with this episode the broadcast claims that Mrs. Minh went to Hoai Thanh’s home to get furniture to pay back part of her “loan” and Hoai Thanh called the police on her for trespassing. This never happened. Hoai Thanh never called the police and Mrs. Minh did in fact take a good bit of furniture from Hoai Thanh’s home, getting even more back on her investment. To represent that she was a “victim” as the broadcast does, who “lost $100,000.00,” is untrue and a misrepresentation.

  1. These examples and others are used in this and the other, like, broadcasts, to supposedly illustrate that the plaintiff Hoai Thanh is a “crook” and a “big liar,” who “deceive[s]” the “VN refugees…”

73) These assertions are false and misrepresentative of the truth, and known by the defendants to be so when they direct and publish them. The purported examples are false and known by the defendants who direct and publish them to be so. They constitute a willful campaign to misrepresent the truth about and harm the life of the plaintiff Hoai Thanh and to discredit and place in a false light both plaintiffs.

74) In these programs also the defendants had the host defendants indicate that Hoai was a “communist.” By this they meant, within the context of the Vietnamese exile and expatriate community in the U.S., not that Hoai was a philosophical believer in the theory of communism but that he was an active collaborator with the dictatorial communist regime that rules Vietnam and against which we and the South Vietnamese fought. This also is false and known to the defendants to be false and is used by the defendants to place the plaintiffs in a false light.

75) This is a serious misrepresentation and is completely false. In fact plaintiff Hoai fought against the communists in the armed forces of the late lamented Republic of South Vietnam and has remained active in working against communism in this country and against the dictatorial communist regime that now rules Vietnam. There is no greater slander or disparagement in the Vietnamese ethnic community in this country than this accusation.

76) The defendants not only perpetrated these false representations about the plaintiff Hoai and his newspaper, but also actively condoned and enabled “callers in” to their programs from all over the U.S. Vietnamese speaking community in multiple states to embellish and amplify these false representations, calling plaintiff Hoai a “communist” and even threatening violence against plaintiff Hoai, such as killing him, or wishing in public utterances on the program that someone would do the plaintiff Hoai harm and violence. Defendants did his repeatedly on every show.

77) These repeated publications of false statements and misrepresentations over a period of years were intended to place the plaintiffs in a false light before the ethnically Vietnamese and Vietnamese-speaking community in the United States and did so, holding out the plaintiff Hoai, and, as a consequence, his newspaper and the writings under his pen name as to be despised based on a completely false picture and representation.

78) Defendants did these acts and made these misrepresentations to place plaintiffs in a false light with malice aforethought, maliciously, wantonly, recklessly, intentionally with complete disregard for the rights of the plaintiffs and did so in order to destroy, displace and replace the plaintiff newspaper and destroy financially the plaintiff Hoai in all his business, when combined with the pattern of racketeering activity engaged in by the defendants, and to destroy the reputation and viability of plaintiff Hoai’s pen name.

79) They acted in this way and engaged in this illegal behavior in order to discourage the plaintiffs from exercising their First Amendment Freedom to investigate and report on the defendants and their activities and to prevent the plaintiff newspaper and the plaintiff Hoai as its owner and publisher from existing and publishing in competition and rivalry with the newspaper which the defendants started to displace and replace the plaintiff newspaper.

80) In so doing the defendants, jointly and severally, caused great financial harm to the plaintiffs, caused great emotional suffering to the plaintiff Hoai, destroyed and are destroying his businesses, both his newspaper and his other businesses and have made clear their intent to keep on damaging and harming the plaintiffs unless and until they are stopped.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) and punitive damages in the amount of five million dollars ($10,000,000.00), for temporary and permanent injunctions to prohibit the defendants from ever again invading the privacy of the plaintiff Hoai in order to cast him a false light, from engaging in further misrepresentations about the defendants and ro such other relief as to the Court shall seem just and meet in law or equity and to order them to publish corrective statements accurately representing the plaintiffs and the falsehood of their misrepresentations and acknowledging that falsehood to the same Vietnamese public to whom they addressed their efforts to place the plaintiffs in a false light over a period of three months and, the plaintiffs also pray, because of the particularly egregious and outrageous nature of the defendants conduct, and the viciousness and wantonness of their malice as exhibited by it, that the plaintiffs be awarded all of their costs, including reasonable counsel fees.

COUNT IV: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT “FALSE LIGHT”



  1. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

  1. The individual defendants, and all of them, conspired together as set out in the previous counts in order to perpetrate the tort of false lights by which the plaintiffs were cast in a false light before the Vietnamese language public by the misrepresentations and falsehoods alleged.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray, jointly and severally, for compensatory damages in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) and punitive damages in the amount of five million dollars ($10,000,000.00), for temporary and permanent injunctions to prohibit the defendants from ever again invading the privacy of the plaintiff Hoai in order to cast him a false light, from engaging in further misrepresentations about the defendants and ro such other relief as to the Court shall seem just and meet in law or equity and to order them to publish corrective statements accurately representing the plaintiffs and the falsehood of their misrepresentations and acknowledging that falsehood to the same Vietnamese public to whom they addressed their efforts to place the plaintiffs in a false light over a period of three months and, the plaintiffs also pray, because of the particularly egregious and outrageous nature of the defendants conduct, and the viciousness and wantonness of their malice as exhibited by it, that the plaintiffs be awarded all of their costs, including reasonable counsel fees against all of the individual plaintiffs, jointly and severally.

COUNT V: DEFAMATION



  1. Plaintiffs restate and incorporate all the preceding paragraphs of this complaint.

  1. Plaintiff Hoai Thanh resides in Northern Virginia, in the Washington D.C. Metropolitan area and did so at all times pertinent hereto. At the relevant times in this complaint to its counts above he operated an auto business in suburban Maryland at the address given above for the plaintiff Dai Chung Bi-weekly Newspaper, of which he is president and publisher, a business which he was compelled to sell because of the harm done to it by the defendants in the actions complained of herein.

  1. The plaintiff Dai Chung Bi-weekly Newspaper at all relevant times operated out of offices in Suburban Maryland at the above address.

  1. The defendant Committee for Religious Freedom in Vietnam (CRFV) was a corporation incorporated in Maryland which operated out of headquarters in Maryland at the address given in the style of this complaint above.

  1. The defendant Hien Thi Ngo resided in suburban Maryland at the above address at all relevant times and still resides there. She operates out of the address of CRFV which she heads as president and principal.

  1. All the other defendants reside and operate in the Washington, D.C. metro area and did so at all relevant times, some also in Maryland.

  1. The campaign of false light and the pattern of racketeering activity focused on the plaintiffs in broadcasts by the defendant CRFV over the system of the defendant VPR under the direction of the defendants in their associated-in-fact enterprise originating in the D.C. metro area and reaching an audience of over a million in this D.C. area and many other states.

  1. It was focused particularly in Maryland because it was coordinated there with the defendants’ campaign of malicious prosecution against the defendants, the details of which are set out and alleged in Count VII below, and it was those maliciously prosecuted law suits in the Montgomery County, Maryland, Circuit Court that were the recipient, ultimately, of a substantial portion of the funds that the defendants raised by their fraudulent representations over intestate wire and airwaves and received by wire nd mail and where much of their interstate travel and transportation was involved along with their use of proceeds to fund interstate operations to harm the plaintiffs there and destroy them and their business.

  1. The particularly publishing of defamatory material against and concerning the plaintiffs complained of in this count, one of many that have gone on for years and threaten to continue into the future, took place in a broadcast by CRFV over the VPR system on September 2, 2004. The broadcast was one of many similar broadcasts, which the defendants have made over a span of more than three years, since they began a systematic campaign of defamation against the plaintiffs. They repeated this broadcast again or or about December 23, 2004 and again during the Christmas holiday season of 2004.

  2. Defendants, on that September 2, 2004 date, maliciously published over the defendant Vietnamese Public Radio system, under the sponsorship of the defendant CRFV and under the direction and planning of their associated-in-fact enterprise, reaching an audience in many states of approximately one million people who speak and understand and are conversant in the Vietnamese language, the following words concerning the plaintiff Hoai Thanh in the original Vietnamese, which they then repeated on or about December 23, 2004:




Поделитесь с Вашими друзьями:
1   2   3   4   5


Cơ sở dữ liệu được bảo vệ bởi bản quyền ©tieuluan.info 2019
được sử dụng cho việc quản lý

    Quê hương