Re: Re: [TSCM-L] {5882} Recently Filed in the Case (VERY Interestign Details of TSCM Equipment Exports) from palmb..._at

From: <palmb..._at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2011 06:05:43 +0000

>From - Sat Mar 02 00:57:17 2024
Received: by 10.236.124.80 with SMTP id w56mr41470999yhh.0.1323112823253;
 Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:20:23 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: tscm-l2006_at_googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.150.37.33 with SMTP id k33ls10527004ybk.0.gmail; Mon, 05 Dec
2011 11:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.101.197.23 with SMTP id z23mr7182733anp.48.1323112820345;
 Mon, 05 Dec 2011 11:20:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.150.195.7 with SMTP id s7msybf;
 Sun, 4 Dec 2011 19:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.158.4 with SMTP id f4mr30713278icx.4.1323054195236;
 Sun, 04 Dec 2011 19:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.42.158.4 with SMTP id f4mr30713275icx.4.1323054195170;
 Sun, 04 Dec 2011 19:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Return-Path: <horiz..._at_yahoo.com>
Received: from nm7-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm7-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.90.155])
 by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id vc5si3063736icb.1.2011.12.04.19.03.14;
 Sun, 04 Dec 2011 19:03:15 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of horiz..._at_yahoo.com designates 98.138.90.155 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.90.155;
Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of horiz..._at_yahoo.com designates 98.138.90.155 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=horiz..._at_yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) head..._at_yahoo.com
Received: from [98.138.90.57] by nm7.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Dec 2011 03:03:14 -0000
Received: from [98.138.87.1] by tm10.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Dec 2011 03:03:14 -0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 05 Dec 2011 03:03:14 -0000
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3
X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 12028..._at_omp1001.mail.ne1.yahoo.com
Received: (qmail 9756 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Dec 2011 03:03:13 -0000
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoo.com; s=s1024; t=1323054193; bh=nMVZWX8o2ZQVMHCE9xvvsn4SXLYy/ii/7DyLaPZlsDc=; h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=eRfkp0sA9FhwXRT3HBm3xXiD8LBVyfkJu6HfEkgVHnaF8hmEACXsjW2h2hM5uVw/3hXa0NBZhg+O3Vb8FneflSxMNxLGSNk54pU86eskBX8tFynXhia7Kyf8kC3dAkBtxohrE1LVVaVL9NNhAmEiXK7mTN0ntHTsTEyYIxVzd0k=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
 s=s1024; d=yahoo.com;
 h=X-YMail-OSG:Received:X-Mailer:References:Message-ID:Date:From:Reply-To:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type;
 b=KmAIQy3WXWhGXt13Lt5IUAW4faH4lYitTpJcd9Yqnbq2T24QlujPM3h0YGFMsryS/NQRdbcVWFxZfJUlhs1ssUB0ba5vztMbbydgnXkXGwBkFmR1GUePjShKkp4S4/zpHRPoVNxW2HNGtMEHxTA6DNPAazO3TMeqtQZ7kMcRL94=;
X-YMail-OSG: bhwO8NkVM1nc83NZW1a3aQasPfu0vC0urXvgGXlnM3skY6I
tvwcXA0Doo6RJ39fABOP3h_7406uJGDhONntE_pjKJ2oD_C5RRV.Oy34I1mG
OpBa92qjaZDyO5gYkpt4qK4u1zOFRIVBqs_8MEKwF9cVqmN_upIVu3DxpsPU
Y97FJxl.ZXnsSTHwXolfHbPkcuYl7JIPyG6fhL8tac4vDeBtxfWeodfojVp5
YsEdv97FVaIJIosO0Th1eBWZ4eU.ZbqsjNOa.Mx4tmmYqJPAY18jWGUPrDYP
4ERnzeTUglMaKB26UFrcEwEi3fgW_03DkQoEZldKs.epYykVkwkR1secrkYn
PQGog5HLVyvrgOGA.i8KumPqZmGIlgz0.IAV1pLymNNNLBOYGcgx92.4WVJm
sX5ZwIUvDPVSeQLga0cK7RWorYFPzb_uay.Rh1yx5t5GcomWpKcRBeKUEgA_
Sz7rkwKrJh_W_ISLryJUjnOq3R7OnFFQONv1.NrfrYg--
Received: from [75.88.158.168] by web125704.mail.ne1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 04 Dec 2011 19:03:12 PST
X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.115.331698
References: <4EDADF89.1050901_at_tscm.com>
Message-ID: <1323054192.8996.YahooMailNeo_at_web125704.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2011 19:03:12 -0800 (PST)
From: Markella Liberto <horiz..._at_yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Markella Liberto <horiz..._at_yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [TSCM-L] {5858} Recently Filed in the Case (VERY Interestign Details of TSCM Equipment Exports)
To: "tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com" <tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <4EDADF89.1050901_at_tscm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="-1903230837-1238976427-1323054192=:8996"

---1903230837-1238976427-1323054192=:8996
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

674. Is an introduction to international law when federal law is no longer =
the only government participant in which where imposed upon; with this in m=
ind and post 9/11/2001, it is understandable the reasoning of equipment spe=
cifically designed to operate covertly. The infringement is questionable an=
d could have been honestly consequential, however in this specific circumst=
ance should be evident was not the case. A product sold by any entity that =
is found to cause a risk of serious personal injury due to proper use, shou=
ld be made knowledgeable to the consumer; emphasized in article 711. Articl=
e 713 however makes one question the integrity of the Governmental entity m=
aking such a complaint. Taxation purposes as well are needed when dealing w=
ith international sales; state and federal (depending on what state you res=
ide of course). When selling any equipment it is the seller=E2=80=99s respo=
nsibility to know regulations and there does seem to be probable cause to
believe the defendant may be in violation of infringement laws as well; th=
is is assumption only on my behalf, for I have seen not tangible evidence. =
Once again in my opinion, due to the nature of the equipment being sold, it=
would depend on the international purchaser, Swiss not being one of suspic=
ion. Kazakhstan, as well as Uzbekistan would in my opinion raise extreme su=
spicion with consideration of several known international relations with th=
ese countries. =C2=A0=C2=A0=20
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=
=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Thank you James! Now I fully understand and wish you the be=
st of luck and am looking forward to end result.=20

From: James M. Atkinson <jm..._at_tscm.com>
To: tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com=20
Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2011 9:48 PM
Subject: [TSCM-L] {5858} Recently Filed in the Case (VERY Interestign Detai=
ls of TSCM Equipment Exports)

Go though this very slowly and very carefully and let me know what you thin=
k.

-jma

674. Defendant unlawfully exports controlled munitions and controlled devic=
es in violation of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR=
, Sections 120 - 130) in that they are legally defined as defense articles =
on the United States Munitions List (USML). Defendants have violated, are v=
iolating, have conspired, or conspiring to violate the Arms Export Control =
Act (AECA). Licenses are issued by the U.S. Department of State Directorate=
of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC).
Sec. 121.1 General. The United States Munitions List.
=E2=80=9C(a) The following articles, services and related technical data ar=
e designated as defense articles and defense services pursuant to sections =
38 and 47(7) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 and 2794(7)).=
=E2=80=9D

Category XI--Military [and Space] Electronics
=E2=80=9C(b) Electronic systems or equipment specifically designed, modifie=
d, or configured for intelligence, security, or military purposes for use i=
n search, reconnaissance, collection, monitoring, direction-finding, displa=
y, analysis and production of information from the electromagnetic spectrum=
and electronic systems or equipment designed or modified to counteract ele=
ctronic surveillance or monitoring.=E2=80=9D

675. Research Electronics has unlawfully subverted this by repeatedly claim=
ing that the =E2=80=9Celectronics counter-measures equipment=E2=80=9D which=
they make is merely =E2=80=9Cgeneral purpose test equipment=E2=80=9D when =
it is in fact =E2=80=9Celectronic counter-measures equipment=E2=80=9D as de=
fined by Section 121.1, Category XI(b) as =E2=80=9Cequipment designed or mo=
dified to counteract electronic surveillance or monitoring.=E2=80=9D

676. Further, Research Electronics does not advertise this equipment for an=
y function other than for the purposes of =E2=80=9Ccounteracting electronic=
surveillance or monitoring,=E2=80=9D and the equipment is purpose built fo=
r that sole function along, and no other.

677. Neither does Research Electronics train students at their school on ho=
w to use this equipment for any function other than to find, locate, and to=
counteract eavesdropping devices.

678. All products which the Defendant offers for sale, has a primary use de=
scribed by the Defendant as being that of finding, locating, and counteract=
eavesdropping devices.

679. The Defendants have not only violated International Traffic in Arms Re=
gulations, but they have also committed including, but not limited to: Wire=
Fraud, Mail Fraud, Scheme to Defraud, Obstruction of Criminal Investigatio=
ns, Obstruction of Law Enforcement, Interference with Commerce, and Transac=
tions in Property Derived from Specific Unlawful Activity in furtherance of=
this illegal exportation, and misrepresented to the federal government of =
the nature of their goods.

680. This scheme to defraud, and to falsely classify in order to export cou=
nter-surveillance equipment as mere =E2=80=9Cgeneral purpose test equipment=
=E2=80=9D on the part of the Defendants has caused harm to the business and=
property of the Plaintiff and others, represents the conduct of a continui=
ng unit, by an enterprise, through a pattern, of prohibited activities, whi=
ch resulted in income for the Defendants, and damage to the Plaintiff busin=
ess and property.

681. Had Defendants not engaged in this fraud, other parties (including the=
Plaintiff) would have been able to apply for such licenses, and then to ex=
port an estimated $28,774,000 in goods, which the Defendant illegally expor=
ted to foreign customers between June 2007 and June 2011.

682. As this illegal export, and violations of the RICO statutes were commi=
tted by the Defendants, trebles damages for the illegal exports alone is ex=
pected to exceed $86,322,000.

683. Defendants Research Electronics, A and L Enterprises, Thomas H. Jones,=
Bruce Barsumian, Michelle Gaw, Trish Webb, Pamela McIntyre, Lee Jones, Arl=
ene J. Barsumian, Darlene Jones, others named herein, and various John Does=
makes, builds, imports, sells, resells, possesses, offer for sale, operate=
s, ships in interstate and international commerce goods and devices sold fo=
r detecting hidden cellular phones or other electronics on or in the human =
body by means of non-ionizing radiation, and which are not approved medical=
or radiological devices, and which are expressly prohibited by Federal Gui=
delines due to the likelihood of very grave health risks in violation of Fe=
deral law.

684. Defendants Research Electronics, A and L Enterprises, Thomas H. Jones,=
Bruce Barsumian, Michelle Gaw, Trish Webb, Pamela McIntyre, Lee Jones, Arl=
ene J. Barsumian, Darlene Jones, others named herein, and various John Does=
makes, builds, imports, sells, resells, possesses, offer for sale, operate=
s, ships in interstate and international commerce goods and devices manufac=
tures medical equipment for the purposes of radiological or radiating devic=
es to examine humans which are not approved for human use, and which are sp=
ecifically prohibited by federal guidelines for human use, and which are ex=
pressly prohibited by Federal Guidelines due to the likelihood of very grav=
e health risks, in violation of Federal law.

685. Defendants Research Electronics, A and L Enterprises, Thomas H. Jones,=
Bruce Barsumian, Michelle Gaw, Trish Webb, Pamela McIntyre, Lee Jones, Arl=
ene J. Barsumian, Darlene Jones, others named herein, and various John Does=
makes, builds, imports, sells, resells, possesses, offer for sale, operate=
s, ships in interstate and international commerce, goods and device claimed=
to be able to detect bombs or explosive devices by means of non-ionizing r=
adiation, which present a high risk of accidental detonation. Defendants re=
cklessly endangers the life and limbs of U.S. Military forces and members o=
f the intelligence community by selling defective equipment, and make false=
claims about products to obtain federal funds.

686. Defendants Research Electronics, A and L Enterprises, Thomas H. Jones,=
Bruce Barsumian, Michelle Gaw, Trish Webb, Pamela McIntyre, Lee Jones, Arl=
ene J. Barsumian, Darlene Jones, others named herein, and various John Does=
encouraged, endorsed, organized, and/orchestrated an ongoing criminal ente=
rprise.

687. Any veil of immunity, which this defendant may have previously enjoyed=
by virtue of their office or position, or government connections is =E2=80=
=9Cpierced and ripped asunder=E2=80=9D due to their infringement and depriv=
ation of the Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiff, and thus this Defendan=
t (and all other Defendants) stands fully naked and vulnerable before the c=
ourt, with no immunity of any form.

688. Defendants Research Electronics, A and L Enterprises, Thomas H. Jones,=
Bruce Barsumian, Michelle Gaw, Trish Webb, Pamela McIntyre, Lee Jones, Arl=
ene J. Barsumian, Darlene Jones, others named herein, and various John Does=
, in combination, contracted to, engaged in, conspired to engage in, create=
d trusts and agreements, engaged in monopolistic efforts, rigged contracts,=
inflated market price, price fixing, and restraint of trade among the seve=
ral States, or with foreign nations, in violation of the law and contrary t=
o public policy. Defendants demanded that the Plaintiff not deal in the goo=
ds, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of their =
competitor or competitors, with the effect of such lease, sale, or contract=
for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substant=
ially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commer=
ce.

689. Defendants engaged in a long term course of fraud and conversion as fo=
llows to include stealing customers, refusing to pay contracted commissions=
, unduly delaying international and domestic shipments, and other acts whic=
h harmed the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff=E2=80=99s business.

690. Plaintiff began dealing the Defendant Research Electronics and Defenda=
nt Barsumian in approximate late Fall of 1981 as a retail customer of the c=
ompany purchasing products for use in the performance of TSCM services and =
bug sweeps. At that time, Defendant Barsumian operated the company in the f=
orm of =E2=80=9CResearch Electronics, Inc=E2=80=9D and alternately under th=
e name of =E2=80=9CSecurity Research International=E2=80=9D with an address=
in and near the Tampa, Florida area. At the time, the Defendant stated tha=
t he was in the profession of performing TSCM (bug sweeping) services as we=
ll as the profession of making bugging devices and TSCM equipment.

691. In 1983, (by his own admission) Defendant Barsumian suffered a catastr=
ophic financial collapse of his business in Florida, and moved to Tennessee=
to be supported by his wife=E2=80=99s parents. At that time the Defendant =
produced only the most primitive of TSCM products, and the quality was gros=
sly inferior to those produced by the competitors of the Defendant.

692. In the April 1988, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant was now=
operating in Tennessee after moving from Florida and contacted the Defenda=
nt in order to arrange for a visit in the Fall of 1988 while the Plaintiff =
would be working at a project in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Defendant at this ti=
me disclosed to the Plaintiff that his business had collapsed, and that his=
father-in-law had to rent a U-Haul truck to move him and his wife from Flo=
rida to Tennessee and that he and his father-in-law had restarted the =E2=
=80=9CResearch Electronics=E2=80=9D company, but was no longer operating th=
e under the =E2=80=9CSecurity Research=E2=80=9D company name. At that time =
the Defendant disclosed to the Plaintiff that the Defendant was wholly unab=
le to perform a TSCM inspection or bug sweep and stated to the Plaintiff th=
at he =E2=80=9Cwould be restricting his activities to the making of bug swe=
ep devices, not of rending TSCM service, as he discovered too late that he =
was no good at it, and
that it was at the center of his bankruptcy problems=E2=80=9D.

693. In the late Fall of 1988, the Plaintiff visited the Defendants factory=
in or near Cookeville, TN in order to purchase a new model of device which=
the Defendant had described to him and was marketing to replaced the infer=
ior quality equipment previously purchased by the Plaintiff from the Defend=
ant in 1983. While the product still performed inferior to that built by co=
mpetitors, it was an improvement on the product purchased roughly five year=
s previously. During this visit, the Defendant quizzed the Plaintiff in reg=
ards to the =E2=80=9Cother equipment=E2=80=9D the Plaintiff was using to pe=
rform TSCM services for clients, and the Plaintiff agreed to demonstrate se=
veral items, which the Plaintiff had designed and built for his own use to =
provide TSCM services. Among the items demonstrated was a silver Halliburto=
n briefcase into which the Plaintiff had built a computer controlled receiv=
er, with a swing out panel that positioned the antennas and receivers well =
away
from the computer so that it did not pickup electrical noise the from comp=
uter, and the small printer/plotter which was also built into the case. The=
Plaintiff also demonstrated a sophisticated antenna system, whereby the an=
tennas, filters, and preamplifiers were built into the =E2=80=9Cswing out w=
ings=E2=80=9D that would normally hold screwdriver blades. The Plaintiff di=
scovered to some horror in 1990, that the Defendant actually took the Plain=
tiff design and use, claimed it as his own, and fraudulently filed a patent=
for it mere weeks after the demonstration by the Plaintiff.

694. In approximately 1992, Defendant again began dealing with Plaintiff, a=
nd through Plaintiff=E2=80=99s web site allowed an Internet presence (www.t=
scm.com) in which Plaintiff provided detailed descriptions, photographs, et=
c. of Defendants products as well as other competing manufacturers of such =
equipment to the TSCM, Intelligence, and private sector communities.

695. At that time, the Defendant lacked any kind of a website, lacked any s=
ort of on-line representation of its products, lacked even primitive E-mail=
of their own, and lacked the technical ability to provide same.

696. As the relationship developed between the parties, in approximately De=
cember 3, 1994, Plaintiff began buying and reselling Defendants counter-sur=
veillance products under a non written agreement in which Plaintiff receive=
d a 31.5% to 38.9% discount on all of Defendants products he purchased and =
was free to sell at whatever price Plaintiff desired. Plaintiff did however=
; refuse to have anything at all to do with the illegal bugging devices, wh=
ich the Defendant was offering for sale.

697. Pursuant to this non written agreement, Plaintiff=E2=80=99s sold Defen=
dants products to the United States Government, the U.S. Government Intelli=
gence community, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bur=
eau of Investigation, the U.S. Department of State, Secret Service, Departm=
ent of Energy, U.S. Army, U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, Def=
ense Contractors, Research and Development Companies, Think Tanks, Lockheed=
Martin, Harvard, Raytheon Corporation, MITRE Corporation, Lawrence Livermo=
re Labs, Lincoln Labs, Sandia Labs, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and =
others.

698. During this same period, Defendant developed a product known as the =
=E2=80=9COSCOR=E2=80=9D which is an Omni Spectral Correlator, Model 5000 or=
OSC-5000. Plaintiff took an OSCOR (which he owned), designed and modified =
the circuits and chassis, and thereafter showed it to Defendant suggesting =
the modification be made to their production units to make it more saleable=
to U.S. Government entities. Defendant implemented Plaintiff=E2=80=99s des=
igns and modifications.

699. In 1995, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff by phone and asked Plai=
ntiff if he had any suggestion on how to resolve a technical issue in raisi=
ng the frequency coverage of the OSC-5000 product, which the Plaintiff had =
successfully performed on other similar systems for defense contractors. Th=
e Plaintiff described to the Defendant a very simple, and inexpensive desig=
n which he had used in the past on other equipment whereby the local oscill=
ator of the OSC-5000 could be used to drive a simple microwave down convert=
or that was attached to an 18 GHz AEL blade style log periodic antenna that=
was commercially available. Further, the Plaintiff cautioned the Defendant=
that the product would not be taken seriously by the TSCM community unless=
it could cover up to 40 GHz or above, which would require the use of three=
antennas, each with a slightly different downconvertor, and some kind of s=
witching circuit. The Plaintiff advised caution with the product,
and stated that merely building a downconvertor was of limited value in th=
e electronic countermeasures application as a system to automatically rotat=
ed the unit would also need to be provided due to the highly directional na=
ture of the signals at those frequencies, and that a simple two-axis servo =
assembly could be used.

700. In approximately 1999, Defendant made additional modifications to the =
OSCOR and increased the price. Plaintiff, an authority in TSCM, continued t=
o purchase and resell Defendants products and gave individual discounts to =
other practitioners in the TSCM field while maintaining normal pricing stru=
cture for non-TSCM professionals. Because of Plaintiff=E2=80=99s profession=
al courtesy, Defendant became upset and expressed its upset with Plaintiff;=
however, the relationship continued.

701. In early July 1998, an FBI Agent in Boston, MA (to whom the Plaintiff =
had previously rendered TSCM services) approached Defendant and asked advic=
e as to how to approach Research Electronics in a way that would allow the =
FBI and CIA to harvest customer information more effectively as the agents =
he spoke to acknowledged that Research Electronics had been provided this i=
nformation to them for years, but that it was often incomplete, and they ha=
d caught Defendant Research Electronics not being forthcoming on the export=
information to the intelligence agencies of equipment which they had previ=
ously provided. Plaintiff explained to the FBI Agent that the only effect m=
ethod to do this was to have at least one agent in place (overtly or covert=
ly), by way of the training department so that not only would that person h=
ave access to equipment sales records, but could also assess and direct the=
training of foreign nationals by way of this agent-in-position.
This agent-in-position was chosen by the U.S. Army as one of their own TSC=
M instructors and overtly put in place a few months later to act as a condu=
it and liaison. Additionally, in the years that followed, several additiona=
l agents were put in place inside the Defendants firm from the U.S. Army, w=
ith the Defendants permission as a type of undercover operation, with these=
later operatives being controlled by the Central Intelligence Agency inste=
ad of the U.S. Army.

702. Essentially, the U.S. Intelligence community has sought for decades to=
control the TSCM marketplace, and the manufacture of related goods and in =
turn to provide training so that there would be only a single control point=
, or monopoly on all TSCM and related equipment that was being exported to =
foreign countries for use by their intelligence agencies, government agenci=
es, military, and corporations.

703. In December of 1999, the Defendant requested the assistance of the Pla=
intiff and attempted to use the Plaintiff to contact the manufacture of a C=
ODEC (digital coding and decoding) system which the Defendant has seen the =
Plaintiff use to examine digital phone systems during TSCM inspections. The=
Defendant sought to develop an eavesdropping device based on the CODEC sys=
tem, which the Plaintiff refused to assist in, or to have anything to do wi=
th in any way. The Plaintiff did demonstrate to the Defendant how to instea=
d utilize near-end and far-end cross talk analysis to locate eavesdropping =
devices, but refused to assist the Defendant in eavesdropping methods or eq=
uipment development which they were seeking.

704. Defendant restructured the company in 2000 and in the following year, =
Defendant confected a Manufacturer=E2=80=99s Representative Contract in whi=
ch Defendant now claimed that all government sales were =E2=80=9Cin house=
=E2=80=9D clients of Defendant. Plaintiff discussed the improper and unethi=
cal wholesale blanket of =E2=80=9Cin house=E2=80=9D contained in the agreem=
ent with Defendant Tom Jones, a managing member of Defendant, informed Plai=
ntiff that if he didn=E2=80=99t agree Defendant would severe all ties with =
Plaintiff and he would be prohibited from any further purchases. In short, =
Defendant informed Plaintiff he could =E2=80=9Ctake it or leave it=E2=80=9D=
with respect to that provision and every other provision of the contract.

705. In addition, during visits made almost yearly after that point, Defend=
ant maintained a huge inventory of illegal bugging devices (i.e. illegal de=
vices designed primarily for the unlawful and surreptitious interception of=
wire and/or oral communications), which is a felony to possess, and which =
the Plaintiff personally examined, and in some cases covertly and/or overtl=
y photographed. Defendant repeatedly solicited Plaintiff to purchase and de=
al in these illicit eavesdropping devices from them, but Plaintiff strongly=
refused. Further, Defendant repeatedly illegally bugged and eavesdropped u=
pon Plaintiff during his visits in contravention of applicable State laws o=
f the State of Tennessee and Federal law.

706. During the Plaintiff visits to the Defendants business location in 199=
9, 2004, 2005, and in 2007, Plaintiff photographed these illegal bugging de=
vices, which drastically upset the Defendants as they stated that were conc=
erned the they could get into trouble if the photographs were ever publishe=
d, put on the Internet, or provided to the authorities.

707. Beginning in 2001, Defendant entered into a manufacturer=E2=80=99s rep=
resentative agreement, which continued until October of 2010. A review of t=
he terms and conditions imposed by Plaintiff pursuant to its inclusion of a=
dhesion clauses in said contract required to be executed by Defendant on a =
=E2=80=9Ctake it or leave it=E2=80=9D basis is illustrative. For example, D=
efendant required Plaintiff to agree that =E2=80=9CIn the event of any disp=
ute or controversy regarding whether a commission is due, Plaintiff =E2=80=
=9Cwill have full authority and final discretion regarding same. REI=E2=80=
=99s decision regarding the payment or non payment will not be appealable (=
sic) or actionable even if it is arbitrary, unreasonable, and or motivated =
by REI=E2=80=99s self interest.=E2=80=9D In addition, Defendants provided t=
he following: =E2=80=9CREI may freely solicit any customer directly, even i=
n competition with the MREP and no liability will be incurred to the MREP.=
=E2=80=9D

708. After 2006, annual renewals were signed but Defendant retained all cop=
ies refusing to send copies to representatives who executed same, even afte=
r multiple requested to be provided copies.

709. Defendant required that Plaintiff provide it with a Pending Order Form=
on all sales of Plaintiff pursuant to the Manufacturer=E2=80=99s Represent=
ative Contract. In approximately 2004, Plaintiff discovered that on orders =
he had made with third parties, Defendant was under reporting commissions d=
ue to Plaintiff. Further, Defendant restricted Plaintiff=E2=80=99s ability =
to provide Pending Order Forms limiting him to only ten (10) per month sinc=
e Plaintiff was submitting more than any other dealer in the United States =
(i.e. approximately 250 per month) as a result of him selling more product =
then any other venue outside of the Defendants business.

710. In 2004 and 2005, Plaintiff went to Defendants business to attend a tw=
o-week series of classes, and then a one-week course relative to Defendants=
equipment. Prior to Plaintiff=E2=80=99s arrival, he was told that Defendan=
t would assist him in dealing with clients to close more sales and would al=
so train Plaintiff in doing basic repairs on the OSCOR such as replacing ba=
tteries and alignments and would do this over a three day period over the w=
eekend of the two week course (the =E2=80=9Cservice=E2=80=9D course was to =
take place on Friday Afternoon, and then all day on Saturday and Sunday). C=
ontrary to Defendants representations, when Plaintiff arrived he was shown =
how to repair broken hinges; however, Defendant not only did not provide an=
y instruction on any other repair or alignment techniques as promised, Defe=
ndant did everything to hide from Plaintiff anything related to repairs of =
the OSCOR.

711. In 2007, Defendant had developed another product, the TALAN (which was=
based on the aforementioned CODEC of the Plaintiff). Plaintiff, prior to h=
is arrival at Defendants business, was told to bring photographic equipment=
because Defendant wanted Plaintiff to take extensive photographs of the TA=
LAN in order to promote the product on the Plaintiff=E2=80=99s web site. Pr=
ior to this date, Defendant had published only computer mockups since Defen=
dant was experiencing considerable problems getting a final, production mod=
el. Upon arrival, Defendant not only refused to allow photographs by Plaint=
iff, Defendant further prohibited Plaintiff from using photographs from Def=
endant brochures, even though Plaintiff was still a manufacturer=E2=80=99s =
representative. Over the two week course, Plaintiff witnessed the TALAN pro=
ducts used in the classroom and laboratories exhibiting catastrophic failur=
es due to serious design flaws, and the course instructors state to the
Plaintiff that the all of the units that the company was selling were havi=
ng the same problems, and that all of the units which the Plaintiff had sol=
d to the FBI as eavesdropping systems had been returned as defective.

712. In April 2007, after Plaintiff testified as a nationally recognized te=
chnical subject matter expert in TSCM and TEMPEST for the =E2=80=9CDeepwate=
r=E2=80=9D Congressional Investigation and engaged as a subject matter expe=
rt for the Congressional Oversight Committee a situation unfolded which eve=
ntually resulted in the Defendant threatening to =E2=80=9Cdestroy =E2=80=9C=
the Plaintiff by a series of actions the Defendant initiated in August 200=
7 and coordinated on behalf of the certain elements of the U.S. Government =
who were found to be involved by the Plaintiff in the =E2=80=9CDeepwater=E2=
=80=9D matter, while the Plaintiff was engaged by and acting on behalf of t=
he Congressional Oversight Committee.

713. The Plaintiff asserts that this is the same pattern of retaliatory beh=
avior by the FBI an other government agencies, which was used against Marti=
n L. Kaiser in 1975 (and others since) after he also testified before Congr=
ess in a similar fashion about government corruption and rampant contractor=
fraud. This retaliation represents a long term pattern of conduct by an ag=
ency, agent, or contractor of the government in order to =E2=80=9Cpay back=
=E2=80=9D or attempt to discrete the person who testified before Congress a=
nd who performing their civic duty by providing such testimony. Plaintiff f=
urther asserts, that this was a long term course of conduct of a continuing=
enterprise, though a pattern, of racketeering (including but not limited t=
o: mail fraud, wire fraud, scheme to defraud, obstruction of justice, inter=
ference in commerce, witness tampering, whistle-blower retaliation, and mon=
etary transactions in property derived from specified unlawful activities),=
and
have caused injury to the business and/or property of Plaintiff.

714. The project to =E2=80=9Cdestroy=E2=80=9D the Plaintiff by this Defenda=
nt thus appears to have been instituted in August of 2007, and possibly as =
early as July 2007 (after the Plaintiff received a barrage of threats from =
three defense contractor who had just lost a contract valued in the tens of=
billions of dollars as a result of the Plaintiffs testimony before Congres=
s in April 2007).

715. The Plaintiff did not become aware of this pattern of criminal behavio=
r of the Defendants until it manifested itself on December 1, 2009, and dis=
covered the injury to the Plaintiff at that time. Plaintiff asserts that th=
is pattern of specific, organized criminal acts (in order to destroy the Pl=
aintiff) took place from 2007 until the present date, but also that the con=
duct took place over a long period of time spanning a continuum of acts fro=
m October 2001 to the present time, and acts which form a pattern even prio=
r to September 2001, and in fact dating back over a period of nearly thirty=
years.

716. After the Plaintiff testified before Congress in April 2007, the Defen=
dant began to suddenly complicate Plaintiff=E2=80=99s sales by kicking back=
or rejecting end user certificates on overseas sales of products, revealin=
g at one point, that Defendant had =E2=80=9Cnot received approval from Wash=
ington, D.C. on the end user certificate.=E2=80=9D The Defendant repeatedly=
stated that these =E2=80=9CEnd User Letters=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CEnd User =
Certificates=E2=80=9D were required to export the equipment, and to obtain =
the licenses from the government for export (under 22 CFR 121.1XI(b) the ex=
port of these goods are strictly controlled and licensed). This tactic cont=
inued to be employed by Defendant such that simple transactions often were =
complicated by Defendant to cause delays in the transactions resulting in D=
efendant capturing the client and sale and denying Plaintiff rightful commi=
ssions, or profits.

717. In January 2011, the Plaintiff discovered that in fact, the Defendants=
did not have a license to export the goods as required by law, and that th=
ey had repeatedly misreported the goods to the U.S. Government as to the na=
ture and capabilities, and had fraudulently obtain classification as =E2=80=
=9CGeneral Purpose Test Equipment,=E2=80=9D when indeed it was not.

718. As far back as 1996, the Defendant repeatedly represented that =E2=80=
=9Cthey had the export license,=E2=80=9D and that the Plaintiff did not dis=
cover this fraud until extensively researching the matter in January 2011.

719. When Plaintiff questioned the Defendant concerning these suspected ill=
egal shipments and ITAR and munitions control list violations, RICO, and re=
lated violation, the Defendant filed a vexatious and frivolous lawsuit in P=
utnam country court (in Tennessee) in an attempt to muzzle the Defendant, a=
nd to seek country level judgment, on what was indeed a federal matter, and=
to cover-up their wrong doings.

720. Several transactions regarding sales made by Plaintiff are illustrativ=
e. In approximately mid 2005, Plaintiff was contacted by a national company=
interested in his advice relative to their needs and TSCM equipment availa=
ble from a number of manufacturers, including Defendant. After spending a s=
ubstantial period of time with the client, Plaintiff submitted the Pending =
Order Form to Defendant for this particular sale. After submission of same,=
Plaintiff made an inquiry to Defendant on the status of the order and was =
informed no transaction took place. This was approximately a $100,000 sale =
of equipment in which Plaintiff should have been paid $25,000.00 commission=
. After being informed no transaction took place, Plaintiff was on the prem=
ises of Defendant subsequently for a training course and was greeted by one=
of the national company=E2=80=99s employees who told Plaintiff they had tr=
ied to purchase equipment from him; however, his boss had been contacted
directly by Defendant who told the company they had to buy it directly fro=
m Defendant, not Plaintiff. Thereafter the sale went through directly with =
Defendant who retained the entirety of the transaction and informed Plainti=
ff that no sale had occurred.

721. A national pharmaceutical company consulted with Plaintiff in a simila=
r manner. After the company agreed to purchase Defendants equipment from Pl=
aintiff, Plaintiff submitted the pending order notification to Defendant.

722. The purchase order was made with the pharmaceutical company=E2=80=99s =
employee charged with providing not only budget requirements but also recom=
mendations to the company. As soon as Defendant received the pending order =
notification from Plaintiff, Defendant immediately went to a higher up in t=
he pharmaceutical company took the order, concluded the transaction and rep=
orted to Plaintiff that no sale had taken place.

723. Later at a trade show, Plaintiff encountered the pharmaceutical compan=
y=E2=80=99s employee, with whom Plaintiff had dealt, who informed Plaintiff=
that Defendant had called the company=E2=80=99s executive and told him the=
y had to purchase direct with Defendant, not Plaintiff.

724. Plaintiff was contacted by a foreign government who sought his advice =
and counsel who desired to purchase equipment. The foreign government flew =
not only their representative but also a number of their TSCM personnel who=
came to Plaintiff place of business. The result of Plaintiff meetings with=
this government resulted in the sale of 16 complete sets of Defendants equ=
ipment. Defendant, after receiving the order, restricted Plaintiff=E2=80=99=
s commissions to only two of the sixteen sets thereby depriving Plaintiff o=
f some approximate $318,000 in commissions earned.

725. In approximately September of 2007, and then in March 2008, Plaintiff =
was directly contacted by a foreign government for the purchase of approxim=
ately $1.5 Million dollars of Defendants equipment to be delivered directly=
to their Embassy in Washington, D.C. In addition, the Embassy desired Plai=
ntiff to provide two weeks of training to their personnel. The Embassy; how=
ever, desired that a small fraction of the actual order be sent as a test t=
ransaction to ensure the confidentiality of the transaction. Again, upon re=
ceipt of the test transaction, Defendants went directly to persons inside t=
his foreign government to take over the entire transaction (and to cut the =
Plaintiff out of the transaction). As a result of Defendants actions, the e=
ntire transaction was terminated with an assurance made to Plaintiff that t=
his foreign government=E2=80=99s purchase would never be used in any of the=
ir Embassies throughout the world as the direct result of the methods used
by Defendant as their operational security had been breached by Defendant =
(the purchasing of this kind of equipment requires great secrecy, or the eq=
uipment will be rendered of little or no value). Plaintiff was deprived of =
approximately $500,000 in direct commissions as well as the additional moni=
es which were to be paid for Plaintiff training of these intelligence offic=
ers.

726. Because of the nature of the business of the Plaintiff, the agencies o=
f the United States government who may or may not have been involved with P=
laintiff, and the nature of the transactions, Defendant has been intentiona=
lly non specific relative to the specific details of these transactions dis=
closed herein. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff has provided TSCM services to vir=
tually every intelligence agency of the United States government as a recog=
nized GSA contractor up until December 1, 2009.

727. Upon information and belief there are hundreds of transactions which w=
ere similarly handled by Defendants who maintained no transactions occurred=
, when in fact they did resulting in commissions being due and owing to Pla=
intiff well in excess of $3,150,000.00. The conduct described herein by Def=
endants is submitted to have breached the contract existing between the par=
ties. Defendant is entitled to an accounting for at least the past ten year=
s prior to the filing of this suit, and damages for the entirety of the thi=
rty years, as the injury was not fully discovered until December 2010 and J=
anuary 2011.

728. Defendant has demanded an accounting of the aforementioned commissions=
due from Plaintiff, but Plaintiff has failed and/or refused and continues =
to fail and/or refuses to render such an accounting and pay the monies due =
as reflected in the demand letter transmitted to Defendant.

729. In 2004, Plaintiff advised Defendant of Ariyani Nawardi with the Intel=
ligence service for Indonesia. Mr. Nawardi and his entourage flew to the U.=
S. and met with Plaintiff for several days. The result of Plaintiff=E2=80=
=99s efforts was a contract calling for an international sale with overseas=
delivery with Mr. Nawardi to purchase $916,880.00 of Defendants countermea=
sure equipment. After Plaintiff Atkinson registered his client with Defenda=
nts in accordance with written contract with Defendant, and disclosed the e=
ntirety of the sale, the end result was that Plaintiff drop shipped to Indo=
nesia two sets of gear remitting to Defendant the price less Plaintiff=E2=
=80=99s profits on those two sets. Thereafter, Defendant fraudulently and t=
ortuously interfered with Plaintiff=E2=80=99s relationship with Mr. Nawardi=
and converted the remainder of the order by entering an agreement with Mr.=
Nawardi converting the remaining 14 sets which realized $819,000.00 to Def=
endants of
which Plaintiff received -0- commissions. To effectuate Defendants fraud, =
tortuous interference with the contractual rights existing between Plaintif=
f and Nawardi and the government of Indonesia, Defendant transformed Mr. Na=
wardi magically into a =E2=80=9Chouse client=E2=80=9D shorting Plaintiff of=
$316,000.00 commissions due. Specifically, Mr. Nawardi did not want to dea=
l with Defendants directly and so that sale was clearly Plaintiff=E2=80=99s=
for which money is and has been due and owing.

730. In early November of 2009, Plaintiff booked a large sale to a client a=
nd obtained a $66,000.00 sale of Defendants countermeasure equipment. His c=
ommissions due were approximately $17,000.00; however, being in the hospita=
l from multiple heart attacks as a result of the Defendant actions combined=
with his already being a disabled Veteran, when Plaintiff did place the or=
der, Defendant refused to remit to him the commissions he earned and conver=
ted the customer completely.

731. Repeatedly throughout from April 2003 through October of 2010 the Plai=
ntiff requested a written accounting of the sales and commissions between t=
he Plaintiff and the Defendant, but the Defendant refused requests for same=
, and the Defendant suddenly =E2=80=9Cterminated=E2=80=9D the agreement, wh=
en Plaintiff more strongly requested an accounting to which he is and has b=
een entitled, Defendants threatened to terminate any further association an=
d bar Plaintiff from continuing to service his clients as a further means o=
f attempting to enforce the adhesion clause relative to monies due.

732. The commissions due to the Plaintiff from the Defendant at this point =
would have been well in excess of three million dollars, and by Plaintiff r=
efusing to do further business with the Plaintiff they essentially retained=
the commissions that were due the Plaintiff.

733. Additionally, the future lost profits and commissions, which the Plain=
tiff could reasonably earn are in the area of in excess of fifteen million =
dollars in addition to moneys already owned.

734. Plaintiff asserts that between 2005 and 2007 Defendant, confected a sc=
heme to defraud the Plaintiff out of sales and commissions, and to remove h=
im as a market influencer, for their own benefit, and that in August of 200=
7 they launched their scheme.

735. During the calendar year of 2010, Plaintiff sold approximately $220,00=
0.00 of Defendants equipment and earned at least $54,000.00 in commissions,=
none of which have been paid or properly credited to his in-house account,=
which Defendant had established for its convenience since Plaintiff was th=
e largest seller of Defendants equipment.

736. In March 2010, the accounting department at Defendant stated that Plai=
ntiff had a credit balance of $43,115, which was earmarked to purchase new =
demonstration gear and to attend classes from the Defendant, although the P=
laintiff was somewhat wary of the =E2=80=9Cnew products=E2=80=9D the Defend=
ant was trying to promote and began asking technical question about the equ=
ipment; however, the Defendant could not answer the questions to the Plaint=
iffs satisfaction.

737. In order to avoid payment of past monies due to Plaintiff and alternat=
ively to avoid any accounting which had been repeatedly requested by Plaint=
iff, Defendant engaged in an abuse of process.

738. Specifically, in February 2009, the Plaintiff contracted for the sale =
of over $30,000.00 of Defendants equipment to a client located in Switzerla=
nd and an ultimate destination in Uzbekistan.

739. Upon receipt of payment by the Swiss client, Plaintiff properly regist=
ered the sale in accordance with the required disclosure to Defendant and i=
mmediately remitted full payment in the sum of over $20,000.00 to Defendant=
who received same.

740. Defendant has previously judicially confessed that these funds were fo=
r the entirety of the order bound for Switzerland and thence to Uzbekistan,=
and that the transaction had been paid in full at the time and was financi=
ally cleared for immediate shipment.

741. In order to avoid any accounting or payment of monies due to Plaintiff=
, Defendant required that the shipment of the Defendants equipment must be =
preceded by what is referred to as an =E2=80=9Cend user=E2=80=9D certificat=
e, rather than ship the purchased items to the address provided, and then r=
epeatedly rejected the supplied documents without submitting them to the U.=
S. Government.

742. Plaintiff was repeatedly told that the shipment was =E2=80=9Con the lo=
ading dock=E2=80=9D and requiring only the end-user certificate to effect r=
elease.

743. In truth in fact, due to Fraud by Research Electronics and employees o=
f Research Electronics under the U.S. Commerce classification of the equipm=
ent purchased at the time, no end user certificate was actually required. F=
urther, neither Switzerland nor Uzbekistan required any end user certificat=
e.

744. It has since been discovered that while no =E2=80=9Cend user=E2=80=9D =
certificate is legally required, the goods are still required by law to be =
shipped under a State Department issued approval, which the Defendant had u=
nlawfully subverted by falsely claiming the equipment was merely =E2=80=9Cg=
eneral purpose test equipment=E2=80=9D when in fact it was rather =E2=80=9C=
electronic counter measures gear=E2=80=9D which is tightly controlled and r=
egulated by the U.S. Government.

745. It is by this deception, that the Defendant was engaging in tens of mi=
llions of dollars in illegal exports, as an long term organized criminal en=
terprise.

746. To make matter worse, under ITAR 121.1 XI(b) and international arms co=
ntrol treaties the goods are not actually controlled by the U.S. Commerce D=
epartment, but rather the U.S. State Department and then in turn controlled=
secondarily by the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Defense Intelligen=
ce Agency though the Department of Defense.

747. The Defendant Research Electronics registered fraudulent ECCN (Export =
Control Numbers) with the U.S. Commerce Department to deceive the U.S. Gove=
rnment as to the true nature of the goods, and thus to maintain control und=
er the umbrella of the U.S. Commerce instead other U.S. State Department. T=
hese fraudulent ECCN codes were then used to subvert U.S. Export controls a=
nd international treaty, and remove oversight, licensure, and control of th=
e goods from the U.S. State Department, when in fact the U.S. State Departm=
ent was required both by law and international treaty to control these good=
s, not the U.S. Commerce Department.

748. The mechanism by which the U.S. State Department controls these goods =
is by way of an End User License, which is obtained by making a formal appl=
ication by the manufacture and exporter (in this case Research Electronics)=
to the U.S. State Department and including an End User Certificate or Lett=
er along with relevant documents.

749. Thusly, a purchaser of such equipment would be required to provide an =
End User Certificate at some point in the transaction to effect the obtaini=
ng of the required U.S. State Department License. Additional documents in r=
egards to the transaction would also be supplied to the U.S. State Departme=
nt to obtain this license, which would vary based on whom the end user woul=
d be and their prior relationship with the U.S. diplomatic, military, and i=
ntelligence services.

750. Very often a purchaser of this equipment would initiate an initial End=
user Certificate to the U.S. State Department mere to inquire if it would =
be possible to obtain mere information about a product or to obtain technic=
al manual to review as by Federal Statute detailed technical information or=
users manuals also require the same licenses, although they are not as str=
ictly enforced.

751. As customers tend not to purchase good on which they have not been tra=
ined the end user also must obtain a license is order to attend training, w=
hich normally precede actual acquisition of the equipment.

752. Therefore, one End user Certificate will be issued and carried to the =
U.S. Embassy in the country where the actual end user is located to start t=
he process of licensure.

753. Once approved, the end user can then obtain detailed technical materia=
ls on the equipment they seek, and obtain technical manuals to review.

754. Once the end user determines several systems which they will be intere=
sted in they will then initiate a license to attend training, and the organ=
ization which will be providing training will seek a license to be allowed =
to provide the same training (to better understand and evaluate the propose=
d equipment).

755. Once the end user is comfortable that the equipment will fulfill their=
requirements an initial purchase of the equipment will be made, and yet an=
other End user Certificate issued, for the final equipment purchase. It is =
therefore not uncommon for there to be four or five End User Certificates i=
ssued over a six to nine month or even several year period to effect the pu=
rchase of a single piece of equipment. The last End User Certificate of cou=
rse being the most vital of these.

756. By Defendant Research Electronics requiring an End User Certificate on=
foreign transactions they provided a complex illusion that they were apply=
ing for U.S. State Department licenses, when indeed they were not doing so.=
This is a very grave violation of both U.S. Law and a violation of Interna=
tional Treaties on Arms Control.

757. Defendant Research Electronics and their agents and mpeoyyes repeatedl=
y stated they had the proper licenses in place to effect export of these go=
ods, which indeed that did not. They further promised they all exports were=
being made in accordance with U.S. Export laws, when in fact no shipment o=
f goods, materials, or providing of training was being provided legally.

758. Indeed, the entirety of the business operations of Defendant Research =
Electronics is a complex and organized criminal enterprise involved in inte=
rnational arm smuggling and money laundering.

759. Defendant, upon information and belief, directed the customer in Switz=
erland to contact the Rockport Police Department in Rockport, Massachusetts=
, and the Cape Ann Chamber of Commerce in Gloucester, Massachusetts and to =
file a criminal complaint alleging that Plaintiff was attempting to =E2=80=
=9Csteal=E2=80=9D the customer=E2=80=99s money (when in fact the Defendant =
was in possession of the funds, and was delaying shipping the goods, and in=
full control of the transaction).

760. In addition, Defendant further rejected the first and second =E2=80=9C=
end user=E2=80=9D certificate which Defendant required in order to delay th=
e shipment which Defendant knew the customer wanted as quickly as possible =
since it formed a portion of a time sensitive contract via the cut-out in S=
witzerland for a sale that the Swiss customer had with the Government of Uz=
bekistan.

761. Due to the delays in the Defendant shipping the goods to the client, t=
he Plaintiff received a number of threatening phone calls, in an attempt to=
speed up shipment, and the caller (from Switzerland) even threatening bodi=
ly violence (and made terroristic threats against the Plaintiff) if the goo=
ds were not in his hands by November 6, 2009, so that the goods could in tu=
rn be provided to the end user. Further, the Plaintiff was told that he wou=
ld be =E2=80=9Cseverely punished=E2=80=9D because of the delays in the ship=
ment, which were in fact caused by the Defendant.

762. In fact, the transaction was out of the Plaintiff hands at that point =
as the Defendant had the entirety of the Plaintiffs funds, and was awaiting=
the End User to provide a legitimate End User Certificate (which was issue=
d by the Government of Uzbekistan until November 23, 2009).

763. It has since been discovered that while Defendant Research Electronics=
was provided with this End User Certificate they did not in fact forward t=
o the U.S. State Department in order to obtain an Export License for the tr=
ansaction, and indeed the Defendant did falsify export documentation that w=
as provided to the U.S. Customs Department in order to smuggle the arms out=
the United States.

764. Further the Defendant Research under declared the value and the nature=
of the goods, and even knowing that the End User Certificate indicate that=
the end user was in Uzbekistan, fraudulently listed another country as the=
end user.

765. For a number of years the Government of Kazakhstan had been covertly s=
upplying weapons grade radiological materials to the Government of the Isla=
mic Republic of Iran to facilitate the development of the Iranian nuclear w=
eapons program. Numerous shipments were being made out of the strategic sto=
ckpiles of the Government of Kazakhstan over both land routes and by way of=
the Caspian Sea. These illicit transaction of nuclear materials where ofte=
n brokered by politicians and businessmen in Uzbekistan and Switzerland. Mu=
ch of these radiological materials were originating from the old Soviet sto=
ckpiles of decommissioned nuclear weapons and mining and refining operation=
s that were still located in Kazakhstan. With minimal effort on the part of=
the Iranian nuclear engineers these materials could then be crafted into a=
t least a hundred or more Iranian high yield nuclear warheads, spread over =
(at the time) several dozen intercontinental ballistic missiles. In
order to cripple the Iranian nuclear weapons program it was thus vital to =
relocate these nuclear materials well away from the Caspian Sea and well aw=
ay from the Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan border and to a more secure and remote st=
orage location in the far north of Kazakhstan.

766. In 2007 and 2008, the Islamic Republic of Iran was also internationall=
y procuring the materials by way of front companies in the United Arab Emir=
ates from source companies in China, North Korea and the United States suff=
icient to produce deuterium oxide foam and tritium for use for roughly 130 =
two and three stage thermo-nuclear-pressure devices or high yield nuclear w=
arheads for deployment on their inventory of long range Shahab-5 and Shahab=
-6 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). These raw materials for this=
project were inside Iran prior to February 2009, at a nuclear weapons fabr=
ications facility just to the north of Tehran.

767. Then in 2009, and 2010 the Islamic Republic of Iran completed the proc=
urement of raw materials to fabricate in excess of 150 completed warheads a=
nd re-entry vehicles, and made this purchase again through front companies =
in the United Arab Emirates from source in China and the United States of A=
merica.

768. In August and September 2011, the Islamic Republic of Iran started the=
procurement of additional raw materials to fabricate additional nuclear wa=
rheads and re-entry vehicles.

769. The Government of Uzbekistan had agreed to provide counter-surveillanc=
e services to the Government of Kazakhstan in preparation for the movement =
of sixty casks of nuclear weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched urani=
um (sufficient to make 770+ nuclear bombs) by rail starting in Mid November=
2009 (such transactions, sales, and services for such counter-surveillance=
goods and services are within the normal course and scope of the Plaintiff=
=E2=80=99s business and area of expertise).

770. Such equipment sales or counterintelligence services to the intelligen=
ce agencies of one country, so that they may render services to a allied or=
semi-allied country is the mainstay of the intelligence community and whic=
h forms a type of =E2=80=9Cdiplomatic quid pro quo=E2=80=9D where the natio=
n with greater technical capabilities provides services to the inferior nat=
ion.

771. In this case, the Government of Kazakhstan lacked the ability to detec=
t tracking devices and eavesdropping devices on the transport rail cars, an=
d requested the assistance of the intelligence agencies within the Governme=
nt of Uzbekistan, who then procured the equipment through the cut-out compa=
ny in Switzerland, who in turn placed the order with the Plaintiff, and thu=
s the Plaintiff placed the order with the Defendant Research Electronics wh=
o performed the manufacturing and export.

772. As the test runs of these rail cars and casks were to begin in Mid Nov=
ember 2009 with live runs starting in February 2010 and completing in Febru=
ary 2011, and it was vitally important that the counter-surveillance equipm=
ent supplied by Defendant arrive a week in advance of Mid November 2009 (th=
e equipment had to be in the hands of the Government of Uzbekistan, not lat=
er then November 6, 2009).

773. The Government of Uzbekistan and the Government of Kazakhstan opted to=
utilize a =E2=80=9CChinese Wall=E2=80=9D in order to procure the equipment=
for this project, and in February 2009, the Government of Uzbekistan CEMA =
contracted with the intermediary in Switzerland for the equipment purchase.

774. The Government of Kazakhstan had been obstructing the movement of thes=
e casks for years, it took supreme diplomatic and political pressure on the=
part of the United States Government to move the casks, and the U.S. State=
Department, Central Intelligence Agency, and Department of Energy were str=
ongly involved in manipulating this project to get it moving forward.

775. In short, the Government of Kazakhstan did not want to move the casks =
and was doing everything possible to obstruct the project.

776. The casks being close to Uzbekistan gave the country political and dip=
lomatic power as they were accessible to Uzbekistan should they choose to m=
ake any move on the weapons grade materials or to make purchases and smuggl=
e same.

777. Moving the nuclear materials away from the Caspian Sea moved them well=
outside the reach of Uzbekistan and Iran. The government of Uzbekistan did=
not want to move the casks and was doing everything possible to obstruct t=
he project as it weakened them politically, and diplomatically.

778. In turn the U.S. Government requested that the Defendant, delay and in=
terfere with the shipping the Plaintiff=E2=80=99s goods destined for Uzbeki=
stan, so that the shipment arrivals would take place well after the window =
of opportunity (after Mid November 2009). To this end, the Defendant repeat=
edly and needlessly rejected the un-needed end user certificates, and creat=
ed drama about the transaction to enable this delay.

779. It was presumably in the best interest of the U.S. Government diplomat=
ic efforts for there to be no counter-surveillance gear available to the Go=
vernment of Kazakhstan for use on this project, which is why, even after th=
e Plaintiff provided Defendant will all of the funds to cover the shipment,=
and all of the documents requested, they claimed that the documents were n=
ot sufficient, and Plaintiff now asserts that Defendants were fully acting =
as agents of the U.S. Government in delaying the goods.

780. In turn, the U.S. Government applied pressure on Defendants Research E=
lectronics (and co-defendant agents, and employees of Research Electronics)=
to cause these delays in order to deprive the Government of Kazakhstan of =
their sweep gear so that they could not detect the bugs and tracking device=
s that the U.S. Government would have placed on the rail cars.

781. Ultimately, Defendants Research Electronics (and co-defendant agents, =
and employees of Research Electronics) were acting as an agent of the U.S. =
Government (the FBI), the U.S. State Department (outside of PM/DDTC, the no=
rmal approval authority) and the Central Intelligence Agency and Plaintiff =
merely got caught in the middle of a legitimate business transaction whereb=
y the U.S. Government wanted to delay the shipment, but knew that Plaintiff=
too honest to play games with his clients, and hence went to the less ethi=
cal supplier of the goods, the Defendant Research Electronics (and co-defen=
dant agents, and employees of Research Electronics) to effect the delay.

782. But these illegal manipulations, and delays, and interference with Pla=
intiff international shipments, along with wire fraud, and scheme to defrau=
d, qualify this as a Racketeering Offense involving both private and govern=
ment entities.

783. Thereafter, upon information and belief, Defendant Research Electronic=
s (and co-defendant agents, and employees of Research Electronics) was in c=
ommunication with the Rockport Police Department, specifically Robert J. Ti=
bert, who handed the matter to Patrolmen Daniel Mahoney, and other law enfo=
rcement agencies, manipulating their investigations to obtain the specific =
result of effectuating Plaintiff=E2=80=99s arrest to not only damage Plaint=
iff=E2=80=99s good name and reputation known worldwide as not only an exper=
t and market influencer in TSCM, but also to obtain the result of not havin=
g to account for or pay for large sums of monies due and owing to Plaintiff=
Atkinson.

784. Indeed Defendant Research Electronics has actually judicially confesse=
d that such a conspiracy was confected, and that they worked closely with t=
he Rockport Police Department to create un-needed delays for the sole purpo=
se of setting up the Plaintiff so that he may be arrested on false charges,=
and have his civil rights violated, even though the Plaintiff had done not=
hing wrong.

785. Indeed Research Electronics had been paid in full by the Plaintiff for=
the goods and that Research Electronics working with the Rockport Police D=
epartment created delays in the shipment.

786. In turn, once the Plaintiff Atkinson had been arrested, the Defendant =
Research Electronics went ahead and immediately released the shipment they =
had been delaying without cause (under the guise of non-existent licensing =
that they were not applying for, but which was indeed required), and all of=
the goods in the hands of the end-user a few days later (while the Plainti=
ff was in the hospital due to the actions of the Defendants).

787. On information and belief, Plaintiff asserts that this conspiracy was =
initiated and coordinated through FBI Agent Christian McDowell and ICE Agen=
t Jamison Wiroll operating out the Boston, MA.

788. The U.S. Government had previously approached the Plaintiff to effect =
similar delays on foreign transactions, which the Plaintiff had always refu=
sed to take part in as a matter of ethics. The proper legal mechanism for a=
proper delay was to request the PM/DDTC office at the U.S. State Departmen=
t to delay the license approvals, but the FBI was not doing this and was se=
eking extra-legal delays, which were improper.

789. After these goods where released in early December 2009 by Defendant R=
esearch Electronics, starting on or about Mid-December 2009, and running th=
rough March and April 2010, virtually all of the Defendants Research Electr=
onics in-transit shipments were seized or delayed by U.S. Customs due to =
=E2=80=9Cirregularities in the export documents=E2=80=9D, presumable due to=
fraudulent export documents having been repeatedly filed by the Defendant =
in violation of 22 CFR 121.1 XI(b).

790. In conjunction with an abuse of process (i.e. using and manipulating t=
he criminal process to obtain a result for which the process was not intend=
ed =E2=80=93 avoid payment of monies and accounting of monies due), Defenda=
nt further refused to ship to a customer from China, a Defendants product w=
hich was to be shipped to Arizona inside the Territory of the United States=
.

791. In accordance with terms and conditions of contract, which Defendant h=
as judicially confessed, the sale of the Defendants product to the Chinese =
customer to be delivered to Arizona, Defendant refused to ship the product =
to Arizona, even though there sufficient credit balance on the Plaintiff ac=
count to fully fund the transaction.

792. Defendant again communicated with the Rockport Police Department and p=
rovided misleading, false and inaccurate information to Patrolman Daniel Ma=
honey in its singular scheme to avoid any accounting, payment of monies due=
Plaintiff from Defendant, and utterly destroy the competitive viability of=
Plaintiff in the marketplace as a strong market influence for which Defend=
ant was keenly aware.

793. Plaintiff submits that he is entitled to declaratory judgment that the=
clauses in MREP Agreements described herein are adhesionary and contra bon=
es mores such that they are legally unenforceable.

794. Plaintiff submits that he is entitled to an appropriate order from thi=
s Court commanding disclosure for inspection and copying by Plaintiff of al=
l pending order forms submitted by Plaintiff to Defendant as well as all sa=
les records, communications relative to sales, shipping, and export records=
of Defendant for the past ten (10) years.

795. Plaintiff submits that Defendant has committed tortuous interference w=
ith the contractual rights of Plaintiff contracts, to Plaintiff detriment c=
ausing damages.

796. Plaintiff submits that Defendant has converted Plaintiff=E2=80=99s fun=
ds due and owing both through refusing to remit the funds maintained in Pla=
intiff=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9Chouse=E2=80=9D account, commissions due, and via =
conversion of Defendants customers and clients.

797. Plaintiff submits that Defendant has committed fraud by intentionally =
falsifying the status of sales made by Plaintiff and falsely claiming sales=
made by Plaintiff as Defendants and/or other third parties.

798. Plaintiff submits that Defendant has abused the legal process by false=
ly reporting information to the Rockport Police Department with the intende=
d purpose of destroying Plaintiff=E2=80=99s good name, business reputation,=
business, market influence, and accomplish the conversion of Plaintiff=E2=
=80=99s money and goods; a purpose for which the legal process was not inte=
nded to achieve with full knowledge of Defendants actions.

799. Plaintiff asserts the Research Electronics, and individual employees a=
nd agents of Research Electronics acting both in their individual capacity,=
and of their official capacity as agents of the Rockport Police Department=
and the FBI violated the civil right of the Plaintiff while acting under c=
olor of authority.

800. Plaintiff submits that Defendant has breached the laws of the State of=
Tennessee or/or of the United States by illegally possessing bugging devic=
es as well as using those illegal bugging devices to intercept wire and/or =
oral communications of Plaintiff without Plaintiff=E2=80=99s consent contra=
ry to law, doing so within and throughout at least the past ten years while=
Plaintiff was on the premises of Defendants establishments in Tennessee.

801. Further, this Defendant has engaged in conduct and as a continuing uni=
t of an enterprise, through a pattern, of racketeering enterprises (includi=
ng, but not limited to: mail fraud, wire fraud, scheme to defraud, robbery,=
kidnapping, extortion, obstruction of justice, interference in commerce, a=
lso involving monetary transactions in property derived from specified unla=
wful activity), and have caused injury to the business and/or property of t=
he Plaintiff Atkinson. These Defendants have violated the Constitutional ri=
ghts of the Plaintiff, infringing and deprived him of his civil rights

--
James M. Atkinson
President and Sr. Engineer
"Leonardo da Vinci of Bug Sweeps and Spy Hunting"
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=3D15178662
Granite Island Group
jm..._at_tscm.com
http://www.tscm.com/
(978) 546-3803
---1903230837-1238976427-1323054192=:8996
Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><body><div style=3D"color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:ti=
mes new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:12pt">
<div style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=3DMsoNormal>=
674. Is an introduction to international law when federal law is no longer =
the only government participant in which where imposed upon; with this in m=
ind and post 9/11/2001, it is understandable the reasoning of equipment spe=
cifically designed to operate covertly. The infringement is questionable an=
d could have been honestly consequential, however in this specific circumst=
ance should be evident was not the case. A product sold by any entity that =
is found to cause a risk of serious personal injury due to proper use, shou=
ld be made knowledgeable to the consumer; emphasized in article 711. Articl=
e 713 however makes one question the integrity of the Governmental entity m=
aking such a complaint. Taxation purposes as well are needed when dealing w=
ith international sales; state and federal (depending on what state you res=
ide of course). When selling any equipment it is the seller=E2=80=99s
responsibility to know regulations and there does seem to be probable caus=
e to believe the defendant may be in violation of infringement laws as well=
; this is assumption only on my behalf, for I have seen not tangible eviden=
ce. Once again in my opinion, due to the nature of the equipment being sold=
, it would depend on the international purchaser, Swiss not being one of su=
spicion. Kazakhstan, as well as Uzbekistan would in my opinion raise extrem=
e suspicion with consideration of several known international relations wit=
h these countries.    </F=
ONT></div>
<div style=3D"MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" class=3DMsoNormal>=
       =
         Thank you James! No=
w I fully understand and wish you the best of luck and am looking forward t=
o end result. </div>
<div style=3D"RIGHT: auto"><VAR id=3Dyui-ie-cursor></VAR> </div>
<div> </div>
<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SI=
ZE: 12pt">
<DIV style=3D"FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif; FONT-SI=
ZE: 12pt">
<DIV style=3D"BORDER-BOTTOM: #ccc 1px solid; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; P=
ADDING-BOTTOM: 0px; LINE-HEIGHT: 0; MARGIN: 5px 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 0px; PAD=
DING-RIGHT: 0px; HEIGHT: 0px; FONT-SIZE: 0px; BORDER-TOP: #ccc 1px solid; B=
ORDER-RIGHT: #ccc 1px solid; PADDING-TOP: 0px" class=3Dhr readonly=3D"true"=
contenteditable=3D"false"></DIV>From:=
 James M. Atkinson <j..._at_tscm.com> To: tscm-..._at_googlegroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 3, 2011 9:48 PM=
 Subject: [TSCM-L] {5858=
} Recently Filed in the Case (VERY Interestign Details of TSCM Equipment Ex=
ports) Go though this very slowly and very carefully and =
let me know what you think. -jma 674. Defendant unlaw=
fully exports controlled munitions and controlled devices in violation of
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR, Sections 120 - 1=
30) in that they are legally defined as defense articles on the United Stat=
es Munitions List (USML). Defendants have violated, are violating, have con=
spired, or conspiring to violate the Arms Export Control Act (AECA). Licens=
es are issued by the U.S. Department of State Directorate of Defense Trade =
Controls (DDTC). Sec. 121.1 General. The United States Munitions List.<B=
R>=E2=80=9C(a) The following articles, services and related technical data =
are designated as defense articles and defense services pursuant to section=
s 38 and 47(7) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2778 and 2794(7)).=
=E2=80=9D Category XI--Military [and Space] Electronics =E2=80=9C=
(b) Electronic systems or equipment specifically designed, modified, or con=
figured for intelligence, security, or military purposes for use in search,=
reconnaissance, collection, monitoring, direction-finding, display, analys=
is and
production of information from the electromagnetic spectrum and electronic=
systems or equipment designed or modified to counteract electronic surveil=
lance or monitoring.=E2=80=9D 675. Research Electronics has unlawful=
ly subverted this by repeatedly claiming that the =E2=80=9Celectronics coun=
ter-measures equipment=E2=80=9D which they make is merely =E2=80=9Cgeneral =
purpose test equipment=E2=80=9D when it is in fact =E2=80=9Celectronic coun=
ter-measures equipment=E2=80=9D as defined by Section 121.1, Category XI(b)=
as =E2=80=9Cequipment designed or modified to counteract electronic survei=
llance or monitoring.=E2=80=9D 676. Further, Research Electronics do=
es not advertise this equipment for any function other than for the purpose=
s of =E2=80=9Ccounteracting electronic surveillance or monitoring,=E2=80=9D=
and the equipment is purpose built for that sole function along, and no ot=
her. 677. Neither does Research Electronics train students at their =
school on how to use this equipment for any function other
than to find, locate, and to counteract eavesdropping devices. 678.=
All products which the Defendant offers for sale, has a primary use descri=
bed by the Defendant as being that of finding, locating, and counteract eav=
esdropping devices. 679. The Defendants have not only violated Inter=
national Traffic in Arms Regulations, but they have also committed includin=
g, but not limited to: Wire Fraud, Mail Fraud, Scheme to Defraud, Obstructi=
on of Criminal Investigations, Obstruction of Law Enforcement, Interference=
with Commerce, and Transactions in Property Derived from Specific Unlawful=
Activity in furtherance of this illegal exportation, and misrepresented to=
the federal government of the nature of their goods. 680. This sche=
me to defraud, and to falsely classify in order to export counter-surveilla=
nce equipment as mere =E2=80=9Cgeneral purpose test equipment=E2=80=9D on t=
he part of the Defendants has caused harm to the business and property of t=
he
Plaintiff and others, represents the conduct of a continuing unit, by an e=
nterprise, through a pattern, of prohibited activities, which resulted in i=
ncome for the Defendants, and damage to the Plaintiff business and property=
. 681. Had Defendants not engaged in this fraud, other parties (incl=
uding the Plaintiff) would have been able to apply for such licenses, and t=
hen to export an estimated $28,774,000 in goods, which the Defendant illega=
lly exported to foreign customers between June 2007 and June 2011. 6=
82. As this illegal export, and violations of the RICO statutes were commit=
ted by the Defendants, trebles damages for the illegal exports alone is exp=
ected to exceed $86,322,000. 683. Defendants Research Electronics, A=
and L Enterprises, Thomas H. Jones, Bruce Barsumian, Michelle Gaw, Trish W=
ebb, Pamela McIntyre, Lee Jones, Arlene J. Barsumian, Darlene Jones, others=
named herein, and various John Does makes, builds, imports, sells,
resells, possesses, offer for sale, operates, ships in interstate and inte=
rnational commerce goods and devices sold for detecting hidden cellular pho=
nes or other electronics on or in the human body by means of non-ionizing r=
adiation, and which are not approved medical or radiological devices, and w=
hich are expressly prohibited by Federal Guidelines due to the likelihood o=
f very grave health risks in violation of Federal law. 684. Defendan=
ts Research Electronics, A and L Enterprises, Thomas H. Jones, Bruce Barsum=
ian, Michelle Gaw, Trish Webb, Pamela McIntyre, Lee Jones, Arlene J. Barsum=
ian, Darlene Jones, others named herein, and various John Does makes, build=
s, imports, sells, resells, possesses, offer for sale, operates, ships in i=
nterstate and international commerce goods and devices manufactures medical=
equipment for the purposes of radiological or radiating devices to examine=
humans which are not approved for human use, and which are
specifically prohibited by federal guidelines for human use, and which are=
expressly prohibited by Federal Guidelines due to the likelihood of very g=
rave health risks, in violation of Federal law. 685. Defendants Rese=
arch Electronics, A and L Enterprises, Thomas H. Jones, Bruce Barsumian, Mi=
chelle Gaw, Trish Webb, Pamela McIntyre, Lee Jones, Arlene J. Barsumian, Da=
rlene Jones, others named herein, and various John Does makes, builds, impo=
rts, sells, resells, possesses, offer for sale, operates, ships in intersta=
te and international commerce, goods and device claimed to be able to detec=
t bombs or explosive devices by means of non-ionizing radiation, which pres=
ent a high risk of accidental detonation. Defendants recklessly endangers t=
he life and limbs of U.S. Military forces and members of the intelligence c=
ommunity by selling defective equipment, and make false claims about produc=
ts to obtain federal funds. 686. Defendants Research
Electronics, A and L Enterprises, Thomas H. Jones, Bruce Barsumian, Michel=
le Gaw, Trish Webb, Pamela McIntyre, Lee Jones, Arlene J. Barsumian, Darlen=
e Jones, others named herein, and various John Does encouraged, endorsed, o=
rganized, and/orchestrated an ongoing criminal enterprise. 687. Any =
veil of immunity, which this defendant may have previously enjoyed by virtu=
e of their office or position, or government connections is =E2=80=9Cpierce=
d and ripped asunder=E2=80=9D due to their infringement and deprivation of =
the Constitutional Rights of the Plaintiff, and thus this Defendant (and al=
l other Defendants) stands fully naked and vulnerable before the court, wit=
h no immunity of any form. 688. Defendants Research Electronics, A a=
nd L Enterprises, Thomas H. Jones, Bruce Barsumian, Michelle Gaw, Trish Web=
b, Pamela McIntyre, Lee Jones, Arlene J. Barsumian, Darlene Jones, others n=
amed herein, and various John Does, in combination, contracted to, engaged =
in,
conspired to engage in, created trusts and agreements, engaged in monopoli=
stic efforts, rigged contracts, inflated market price, price fixing, and re=
straint of trade among the several States, or with foreign nations, in viol=
ation of the law and contrary to public policy. Defendants demanded that th=
e Plaintiff not deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies,=
or other commodities of their competitor or competitors, with the effect o=
f such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or u=
nderstanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a=
monopoly in any line of commerce. 689. Defendants engaged in a long=
term course of fraud and conversion as follows to include stealing custome=
rs, refusing to pay contracted commissions, unduly delaying international a=
nd domestic shipments, and other acts which harmed the Plaintiff and the Pl=
aintiff=E2=80=99s business. 690. Plaintiff began dealing the
Defendant Research Electronics and Defendant Barsumian in approximate late=
Fall of 1981 as a retail customer of the company purchasing products for u=
se in the performance of TSCM services and bug sweeps. At that time, Defend=
ant Barsumian operated the company in the form of =E2=80=9CResearch Electro=
nics, Inc=E2=80=9D and alternately under the name of =E2=80=9CSecurity Rese=
arch International=E2=80=9D with an address in and near the Tampa, Florida =
area. At the time, the Defendant stated that he was in the profession of pe=
rforming TSCM (bug sweeping) services as well as the profession of making b=
ugging devices and TSCM equipment. 691. In 1983, (by his own admissi=
on) Defendant Barsumian suffered a catastrophic financial collapse of his b=
usiness in Florida, and moved to Tennessee to be supported by his wife=E2=
=80=99s parents. At that time the Defendant produced only the most primitiv=
e of TSCM products, and the quality was grossly inferior to those produced =
by the competitors of the
Defendant. 692. In the April 1988, the Plaintiff discovered that th=
e Defendant was now operating in Tennessee after moving from Florida and co=
ntacted the Defendant in order to arrange for a visit in the Fall of 1988 w=
hile the Plaintiff would be working at a project in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. D=
efendant at this time disclosed to the Plaintiff that his business had coll=
apsed, and that his father-in-law had to rent a U-Haul truck to move him an=
d his wife from Florida to Tennessee and that he and his father-in-law had =
restarted the =E2=80=9CResearch Electronics=E2=80=9D company, but was no lo=
nger operating the under the =E2=80=9CSecurity Research=E2=80=9D company na=
me. At that time the Defendant disclosed to the Plaintiff that the Defendan=
t was wholly unable to perform a TSCM inspection or bug sweep and stated to=
the Plaintiff that he =E2=80=9Cwould be restricting his activities to the =
making of bug sweep devices, not of rending TSCM service, as he discovered =
too late that he was no
good at it, and that it was at the center of his bankruptcy problems=E2=80=
=9D. 693. In the late Fall of 1988, the Plaintiff visited the Defend=
ants factory in or near Cookeville, TN in order to purchase a new model of =
device which the Defendant had described to him and was marketing to replac=
ed the inferior quality equipment previously purchased by the Plaintiff fro=
m the Defendant in 1983. While the product still performed inferior to that=
built by competitors, it was an improvement on the product purchased rough=
ly five years previously. During this visit, the Defendant quizzed the Plai=
ntiff in regards to the =E2=80=9Cother equipment=E2=80=9D the Plaintiff was=
using to perform TSCM services for clients, and the Plaintiff agreed to de=
monstrate several items, which the Plaintiff had designed and built for his=
own use to provide TSCM services. Among the items demonstrated was a silve=
r Halliburton briefcase into which the Plaintiff had built a computer contr=
olled
receiver, with a swing out panel that positioned the antennas and receiver=
s well away from the computer so that it did not pickup electrical noise th=
e from computer, and the small printer/plotter which was also built into th=
e case. The Plaintiff also demonstrated a sophisticated antenna system, whe=
reby the antennas, filters, and preamplifiers were built into the =E2=80=9C=
swing out wings=E2=80=9D that would normally hold screwdriver blades. The P=
laintiff discovered to some horror in 1990, that the Defendant actually too=
k the Plaintiff design and use, claimed it as his own, and fraudulently fil=
ed a patent for it mere weeks after the demonstration by the Plaintiff. =
 694. In approximately 1992, Defendant again began dealing with Plaintif=
f, and through Plaintiff=E2=80=99s web site allowed an Internet presence (w=
ww.tscm.com) in which Plaintiff provided detailed descriptions, photographs=
, etc. of Defendants products as well as other competing manufacturers of s=
uch
equipment to the TSCM, Intelligence, and private sector communities. <B=
R>695. At that time, the Defendant lacked any kind of a website, lacked any=
sort of on-line representation of its products, lacked even primitive E-ma=
il of their own, and lacked the technical ability to provide same. 6=
96. As the relationship developed between the parties, in approximately Dec=
ember 3, 1994, Plaintiff began buying and reselling Defendants counter-surv=
eillance products under a non written agreement in which Plaintiff received=
a 31.5% to 38.9% discount on all of Defendants products he purchased and w=
as free to sell at whatever price Plaintiff desired. Plaintiff did however;=
refuse to have anything at all to do with the illegal bugging devices, whi=
ch the Defendant was offering for sale. 697. Pursuant to this non wr=
itten agreement, Plaintiff=E2=80=99s sold Defendants products to the United=
States Government, the U.S. Government Intelligence community, including
the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the =
U.S. Department of State, Secret Service, Department of Energy, U.S. Army, =
U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Marine Corps, Defense Contractors, Research=
and Development Companies, Think Tanks, Lockheed Martin, Harvard, Raytheon=
Corporation, MITRE Corporation, Lawrence Livermore Labs, Lincoln Labs, San=
dia Labs, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and others. 698. During=
this same period, Defendant developed a product known as the =E2=80=9COSCO=
R=E2=80=9D which is an Omni Spectral Correlator, Model 5000 or OSC-5000. Pl=
aintiff took an OSCOR (which he owned), designed and modified the circuits =
and chassis, and thereafter showed it to Defendant suggesting the modificat=
ion be made to their production units to make it more saleable to U.S. Gove=
rnment entities. Defendant implemented Plaintiff=E2=80=99s designs and modi=
fications. 699. In 1995, the Defendant contacted the Plaintiff by ph=
one and
asked Plaintiff if he had any suggestion on how to resolve a technical iss=
ue in raising the frequency coverage of the OSC-5000 product, which the Pla=
intiff had successfully performed on other similar systems for defense cont=
ractors. The Plaintiff described to the Defendant a very simple, and inexpe=
nsive design which he had used in the past on other equipment whereby the l=
ocal oscillator of the OSC-5000 could be used to drive a simple microwave d=
own convertor that was attached to an 18 GHz AEL blade style log periodic a=
ntenna that was commercially available. Further, the Plaintiff cautioned th=
e Defendant that the product would not be taken seriously by the TSCM commu=
nity unless it could cover up to 40 GHz or above, which would require the u=
se of three antennas, each with a slightly different downconvertor, and som=
e kind of switching circuit. The Plaintiff advised caution with the product=
, and stated that merely building a downconvertor was of limited
value in the electronic countermeasures application as a system to automat=
ically rotated the unit would also need to be provided due to the highly di=
rectional nature of the signals at those frequencies, and that a simple two=
-axis servo assembly could be used. 700. In approximately 1999, Defe=
ndant made additional modifications to the OSCOR and increased the price. P=
laintiff, an authority in TSCM, continued to purchase and resell Defendants=
products and gave individual discounts to other practitioners in the TSCM =
field while maintaining normal pricing structure for non-TSCM professionals=
. Because of Plaintiff=E2=80=99s professional courtesy, Defendant became up=
set and expressed its upset with Plaintiff; however, the relationship conti=
nued. 701. In early July 1998, an FBI Agent in Boston, MA (to whom t=
he Plaintiff had previously rendered TSCM services) approached Defendant an=
d asked advice as to how to approach Research Electronics in a way that
would allow the FBI and CIA to harvest customer information more effective=
ly as the agents he spoke to acknowledged that Research Electronics had bee=
n provided this information to them for years, but that it was often incomp=
lete, and they had caught Defendant Research Electronics not being forthcom=
ing on the export information to the intelligence agencies of equipment whi=
ch they had previously provided. Plaintiff explained to the FBI Agent that =
the only effect method to do this was to have at least one agent in place (=
overtly or covertly), by way of the training department so that not only wo=
uld that person have access to equipment sales records, but could also asse=
ss and direct the training of foreign nationals by way of this agent-in-pos=
ition. This agent-in-position was chosen by the U.S. Army as one of their o=
wn TSCM instructors and overtly put in place a few months later to act as a=
conduit and liaison. Additionally, in the years that followed,
several additional agents were put in place inside the Defendants firm fro=
m the U.S. Army, with the Defendants permission as a type of undercover ope=
ration, with these later operatives being controlled by the Central Intelli=
gence Agency instead of the U.S. Army. 702. Essentially, the U.S. In=
telligence community has sought for decades to control the TSCM marketplace=
, and the manufacture of related goods and in turn to provide training so t=
hat there would be only a single control point, or monopoly on all TSCM and=
related equipment that was being exported to foreign countries for use by =
their intelligence agencies, government agencies, military, and corporation=
s. 703. In December of 1999, the Defendant requested the assistance =
of the Plaintiff and attempted to use the Plaintiff to contact the manufact=
ure of a CODEC (digital coding and decoding) system which the Defendant has=
seen the Plaintiff use to examine digital phone systems during TSCM
inspections. The Defendant sought to develop an eavesdropping device based=
on the CODEC system, which the Plaintiff refused to assist in, or to have =
anything to do with in any way. The Plaintiff did demonstrate to the Defend=
ant how to instead utilize near-end and far-end cross talk analysis to loca=
te eavesdropping devices, but refused to assist the Defendant in eavesdropp=
ing methods or equipment development which they were seeking. 704. D=
efendant restructured the company in 2000 and in the following year, Defend=
ant confected a Manufacturer=E2=80=99s Representative Contract in which Def=
endant now claimed that all government sales were =E2=80=9Cin house=E2=80=
=9D clients of Defendant. Plaintiff discussed the improper and unethical wh=
olesale blanket of =E2=80=9Cin house=E2=80=9D contained in the agreement wi=
th Defendant Tom Jones, a managing member of Defendant, informed Plaintiff =
that if he didn=E2=80=99t agree Defendant would severe all ties with Plaint=
iff and he would be prohibited
from any further purchases. In short, Defendant informed Plaintiff he coul=
d =E2=80=9Ctake it or leave it=E2=80=9D with respect to that provision and =
every other provision of the contract. 705. In addition, during visi=
ts made almost yearly after that point, Defendant maintained a huge invento=
ry of illegal bugging devices (i.e. illegal devices designed primarily for =
the unlawful and surreptitious interception of wire and/or oral communicati=
ons), which is a felony to possess, and which the Plaintiff personally exam=
ined, and in some cases covertly and/or overtly photographed. Defendant rep=
eatedly solicited Plaintiff to purchase and deal in these illicit eavesdrop=
ping devices from them, but Plaintiff strongly refused. Further, Defendant =
repeatedly illegally bugged and eavesdropped upon Plaintiff during his visi=
ts in contravention of applicable State laws of the State of Tennessee and =
Federal law. 706. During the Plaintiff visits to the Defendants busi=
ness
location in 1999, 2004, 2005, and in 2007, Plaintiff photographed these il=
legal bugging devices, which drastically upset the Defendants as they state=
d that were concerned the they could get into trouble if the photographs we=
re ever published, put on the Internet, or provided to the authorities. =
 707. Beginning in 2001, Defendant entered into a manufacturer=E2=80=99s=
representative agreement, which continued until October of 2010. A review =
of the terms and conditions imposed by Plaintiff pursuant to its inclusion =
of adhesion clauses in said contract required to be executed by Defendant o=
n a =E2=80=9Ctake it or leave it=E2=80=9D basis is illustrative. For exampl=
e, Defendant required Plaintiff to agree that =E2=80=9CIn the event of any =
dispute or controversy regarding whether a commission is due, Plaintiff =E2=
=80=9Cwill have full authority and final discretion regarding same. REI=E2=
=80=99s decision regarding the payment or non payment will not be appealabl=
e (sic) or actionable even if
it is arbitrary, unreasonable, and or motivated by REI=E2=80=99s self inte=
rest.=E2=80=9D In addition, Defendants provided the following: =E2=80=9CREI=
may freely solicit any customer directly, even in competition with the MRE=
P and no liability will be incurred to the MREP.=E2=80=9D 708. After=
2006, annual renewals were signed but Defendant retained all copies refusi=
ng to send copies to representatives who executed same, even after multiple=
requested to be provided copies. 709. Defendant required that Plain=
tiff provide it with a Pending Order Form on all sales of Plaintiff pursuan=
t to the Manufacturer=E2=80=99s Representative Contract. In approximately 2=
004, Plaintiff discovered that on orders he had made with third parties, De=
fendant was under reporting commissions due to Plaintiff. Further, Defendan=
t restricted Plaintiff=E2=80=99s ability to provide Pending Order Forms lim=
iting him to only ten (10) per month since Plaintiff was submitting more th=
an any other dealer in the
United States (i.e. approximately 250 per month) as a result of him sellin=
g more product then any other venue outside of the Defendants business. =
 710. In 2004 and 2005, Plaintiff went to Defendants business to attend =
a two-week series of classes, and then a one-week course relative to Defend=
ants equipment. Prior to Plaintiff=E2=80=99s arrival, he was told that Defe=
ndant would assist him in dealing with clients to close more sales and woul=
d also train Plaintiff in doing basic repairs on the OSCOR such as replacin=
g batteries and alignments and would do this over a three day period over t=
he weekend of the two week course (the =E2=80=9Cservice=E2=80=9D course was=
to take place on Friday Afternoon, and then all day on Saturday and Sunday=
). Contrary to Defendants representations, when Plaintiff arrived he was sh=
own how to repair broken hinges; however, Defendant not only did not provid=
e any instruction on any other repair or alignment techniques as promised, =
Defendant
did everything to hide from Plaintiff anything related to repairs of the O=
SCOR. 711. In 2007, Defendant had developed another product, the TAL=
AN (which was based on the aforementioned CODEC of the Plaintiff). Plaintif=
f, prior to his arrival at Defendants business, was told to bring photograp=
hic equipment because Defendant wanted Plaintiff to take extensive photogra=
phs of the TALAN in order to promote the product on the Plaintiff=E2=80=99s=
web site. Prior to this date, Defendant had published only computer mockup=
s since Defendant was experiencing considerable problems getting a final, p=
roduction model. Upon arrival, Defendant not only refused to allow photogra=
phs by Plaintiff, Defendant further prohibited Plaintiff from using photogr=
aphs from Defendant brochures, even though Plaintiff was still a manufactur=
er=E2=80=99s representative. Over the two week course, Plaintiff witnessed =
the TALAN products used in the classroom and laboratories exhibiting
catastrophic failures due to serious design flaws, and the course instruct=
ors state to the Plaintiff that the all of the units that the company was s=
elling were having the same problems, and that all of the units which the P=
laintiff had sold to the FBI as eavesdropping systems had been returned as =
defective. 712. In April 2007, after Plaintiff testified as a nation=
ally recognized technical subject matter expert in TSCM and TEMPEST for the=
=E2=80=9CDeepwater=E2=80=9D Congressional Investigation and engaged as a s=
ubject matter expert for the Congressional Oversight Committee a situation =
unfolded which eventually resulted in the Defendant threatening to =E2=80=
=9Cdestroy =E2=80=9C the Plaintiff by a series of actions the Defendant ini=
tiated in August 2007 and coordinated on behalf of the certain elements of =
the U.S. Government who were found to be involved by the Plaintiff in the =
=E2=80=9CDeepwater=E2=80=9D matter, while the Plaintiff was engaged by and =
acting on behalf of the
Congressional Oversight Committee. 713. The Plaintiff asserts that =
this is the same pattern of retaliatory behavior by the FBI an other govern=
ment agencies, which was used against Martin L. Kaiser in 1975 (and others =
since) after he also testified before Congress in a similar fashion about g=
overnment corruption and rampant contractor fraud. This retaliation represe=
nts a long term pattern of conduct by an agency, agent, or contractor of th=
e government in order to =E2=80=9Cpay back=E2=80=9D or attempt to discrete =
the person who testified before Congress and who performing their civic dut=
y by providing such testimony. Plaintiff further asserts, that this was a l=
ong term course of conduct of a continuing enterprise, though a pattern, of=
racketeering (including but not limited to: mail fraud, wire fraud, scheme=
to defraud, obstruction of justice, interference in commerce, witness tamp=
ering, whistle-blower retaliation, and monetary transactions in property de=
rived
from specified unlawful activities), and have caused injury to the busines=
s and/or property of Plaintiff. 714. The project to =E2=80=9Cdestroy=
=E2=80=9D the Plaintiff by this Defendant thus appears to have been institu=
ted in August of 2007, and possibly as early as July 2007 (after the Plaint=
iff received a barrage of threats from three defense contractor who had jus=
t lost a contract valued in the tens of billions of dollars as a result of =
the Plaintiffs testimony before Congress in April 2007). 715. The Pl=
aintiff did not become aware of this pattern of criminal behavior of the De=
fendants until it manifested itself on December 1, 2009, and discovered the=
injury to the Plaintiff at that time. Plaintiff asserts that this pattern =
of specific, organized criminal acts (in order to destroy the Plaintiff) to=
ok place from 2007 until the present date, but also that the conduct took p=
lace over a long period of time spanning a continuum of acts from October 2=
001
to the present time, and acts which form a pattern even prior to September=
2001, and in fact dating back over a period of nearly thirty years. <BR=
>716. After the Plaintiff testified before Congress in April 2007, the Defe=
ndant began to suddenly complicate Plaintiff=E2=80=99s sales by kicking bac=
k or rejecting end user certificates on overseas sales of products, reveali=
ng at one point, that Defendant had =E2=80=9Cnot received approval from Was=
hington, D.C. on the end user certificate.=E2=80=9D The Defendant repeatedl=
y stated that these =E2=80=9CEnd User Letters=E2=80=9D or =E2=80=9CEnd User=
Certificates=E2=80=9D were required to export the equipment, and to obtain=
the licenses from the government for export (under 22 CFR 121.1XI(b) the e=
xport of these goods are strictly controlled and licensed). This tactic con=
tinued to be employed by Defendant such that simple transactions often were=
complicated by Defendant to cause delays in the transactions resulting in =
Defendant capturing the client and
sale and denying Plaintiff rightful commissions, or profits. 717. I=
n January 2011, the Plaintiff discovered that in fact, the Defendants did n=
ot have a license to export the goods as required by law, and that they had=
repeatedly misreported the goods to the U.S. Government as to the nature a=
nd capabilities, and had fraudulently obtain classification as =E2=80=9CGen=
eral Purpose Test Equipment,=E2=80=9D when indeed it was not. 718. A=
s far back as 1996, the Defendant repeatedly represented that =E2=80=9Cthey=
had the export license,=E2=80=9D and that the Plaintiff did not discover t=
his fraud until extensively researching the matter in January 2011. =
719. When Plaintiff questioned the Defendant concerning these suspected ill=
egal shipments and ITAR and munitions control list violations, RICO, and re=
lated violation, the Defendant filed a vexatious and frivolous lawsuit in P=
utnam country court (in Tennessee) in an attempt to muzzle the Defendant, a=
nd to seek
country level judgment, on what was indeed a federal matter, and to cover-=
up their wrong doings. 720. Several transactions regarding sales mad=
e by Plaintiff are illustrative. In approximately mid 2005, Plaintiff was c=
ontacted by a national company interested in his advice relative to their n=
eeds and TSCM equipment available from a number of manufacturers, including=
Defendant. After spending a substantial period of time with the client, Pl=
aintiff submitted the Pending Order Form to Defendant for this particular s=
ale. After submission of same, Plaintiff made an inquiry to Defendant on th=
e status of the order and was informed no transaction took place. This was =
approximately a $100,000 sale of equipment in which Plaintiff should have b=
een paid $25,000.00 commission. After being informed no transaction took pl=
ace, Plaintiff was on the premises of Defendant subsequently for a training=
course and was greeted by one of the national company=E2=80=99s employees
who told Plaintiff they had tried to purchase equipment from him; however,=
his boss had been contacted directly by Defendant who told the company the=
y had to buy it directly from Defendant, not Plaintiff. Thereafter the sale=
went through directly with Defendant who retained the entirety of the tran=
saction and informed Plaintiff that no sale had occurred. 721. A nat=
ional pharmaceutical company consulted with Plaintiff in a similar manner. =
After the company agreed to purchase Defendants equipment from Plaintiff, P=
laintiff submitted the pending order notification to Defendant. 722.=
The purchase order was made with the pharmaceutical company=E2=80=99s empl=
oyee charged with providing not only budget requirements but also recommend=
ations to the company. As soon as Defendant received the pending order noti=
fication from Plaintiff, Defendant immediately went to a higher up in the p=
harmaceutical company took the order, concluded the transaction and
reported to Plaintiff that no sale had taken place. 723. Later at a=
trade show, Plaintiff encountered the pharmaceutical company=E2=80=99s emp=
loyee, with whom Plaintiff had dealt, who informed Plaintiff that Defendant=
had called the company=E2=80=99s executive and told him they had to purcha=
se direct with Defendant, not Plaintiff. 724. Plaintiff was contacte=
d by a foreign government who sought his advice and counsel who desired to =
purchase equipment. The foreign government flew not only their representati=
ve but also a number of their TSCM personnel who came to Plaintiff place of=
business. The result of Plaintiff meetings with this government resulted i=
n the sale of 16 complete sets of Defendants equipment. Defendant, after re=
ceiving the order, restricted Plaintiff=E2=80=99s commissions to only two o=
f the sixteen sets thereby depriving Plaintiff of some approximate $318,000=
in commissions earned. 725. In approximately September of 2007, and=
then in
March 2008, Plaintiff was directly contacted by a foreign government for t=
he purchase of approximately $1.5 Million dollars of Defendants equipment t=
o be delivered directly to their Embassy in Washington, D.C. In addition, t=
he Embassy desired Plaintiff to provide two weeks of training to their pers=
onnel. The Embassy; however, desired that a small fraction of the actual or=
der be sent as a test transaction to ensure the confidentiality of the tran=
saction. Again, upon receipt of the test transaction, Defendants went direc=
tly to persons inside this foreign government to take over the entire trans=
action (and to cut the Plaintiff out of the transaction). As a result of De=
fendants actions, the entire transaction was terminated with an assurance m=
ade to Plaintiff that this foreign government=E2=80=99s purchase would neve=
r be used in any of their Embassies throughout the world as the direct resu=
lt of the methods used by Defendant as their operational security had been
breached by Defendant (the purchasing of this kind of equipment requires g=
reat secrecy, or the equipment will be rendered of little or no value). Pla=
intiff was deprived of approximately $500,000 in direct commissions as well=
as the additional monies which were to be paid for Plaintiff training of t=
hese intelligence officers. 726. Because of the nature of the busine=
ss of the Plaintiff, the agencies of the United States government who may o=
r may not have been involved with Plaintiff, and the nature of the transact=
ions, Defendant has been intentionally non specific relative to the specifi=
c details of these transactions disclosed herein. Nonetheless, the Plaintif=
f has provided TSCM services to virtually every intelligence agency of the =
United States government as a recognized GSA contractor up until December 1=
, 2009. 727. Upon information and belief there are hundreds of trans=
actions which were similarly handled by Defendants who maintained no
transactions occurred, when in fact they did resulting in commissions bein=
g due and owing to Plaintiff well in excess of $3,150,000.00. The conduct d=
escribed herein by Defendants is submitted to have breached the contract ex=
isting between the parties. Defendant is entitled to an accounting for at l=
east the past ten years prior to the filing of this suit, and damages for t=
he entirety of the thirty years, as the injury was not fully discovered unt=
il December 2010 and January 2011. 728. Defendant has demanded an ac=
counting of the aforementioned commissions due from Plaintiff, but Plaintif=
f has failed and/or refused and continues to fail and/or refuses to render =
such an accounting and pay the monies due as reflected in the demand letter=
transmitted to Defendant. 729. In 2004, Plaintiff advised Defendant=
of Ariyani Nawardi with the Intelligence service for Indonesia. Mr. Naward=
i and his entourage flew to the U.S. and met with Plaintiff for
several days. The result of Plaintiff=E2=80=99s efforts was a contract cal=
ling for an international sale with overseas delivery with Mr. Nawardi to p=
urchase $916,880.00 of Defendants countermeasure equipment. After Plaintiff=
Atkinson registered his client with Defendants in accordance with written =
contract with Defendant, and disclosed the entirety of the sale, the end re=
sult was that Plaintiff drop shipped to Indonesia two sets of gear remittin=
g to Defendant the price less Plaintiff=E2=80=99s profits on those two sets=
. Thereafter, Defendant fraudulently and tortuously interfered with Plainti=
ff=E2=80=99s relationship with Mr. Nawardi and converted the remainder of t=
he order by entering an agreement with Mr. Nawardi converting the remaining=
14 sets which realized $819,000.00 to Defendants of which Plaintiff receiv=
ed -0- commissions. To effectuate Defendants fraud, tortuous interference w=
ith the contractual rights existing between Plaintiff and Nawardi and the g=
overnment
of Indonesia, Defendant transformed Mr. Nawardi magically into a =E2=80=9C=
house client=E2=80=9D shorting Plaintiff of $316,000.00 commissions due. Sp=
ecifically, Mr. Nawardi did not want to deal with Defendants directly and s=
o that sale was clearly Plaintiff=E2=80=99s for which money is and has been=
due and owing. 730. In early November of 2009, Plaintiff booked a l=
arge sale to a client and obtained a $66,000.00 sale of Defendants counterm=
easure equipment. His commissions due were approximately $17,000.00; howeve=
r, being in the hospital from multiple heart attacks as a result of the Def=
endant actions combined with his already being a disabled Veteran, when Pla=
intiff did place the order, Defendant refused to remit to him the commissio=
ns he earned and converted the customer completely. 731. Repeatedly =
throughout from April 2003 through October of 2010 the Plaintiff requested =
a written accounting of the sales and commissions between the Plaintiff and=
the
Defendant, but the Defendant refused requests for same, and the Defendant =
suddenly =E2=80=9Cterminated=E2=80=9D the agreement, when Plaintiff more st=
rongly requested an accounting to which he is and has been entitled, Defend=
ants threatened to terminate any further association and bar Plaintiff from=
continuing to service his clients as a further means of attempting to enfo=
rce the adhesion clause relative to monies due. 732. The commissions=
due to the Plaintiff from the Defendant at this point would have been well=
in excess of three million dollars, and by Plaintiff refusing to do furthe=
r business with the Plaintiff they essentially retained the commissions tha=
t were due the Plaintiff. 733. Additionally, the future lost profits=
and commissions, which the Plaintiff could reasonably earn are in the area=
of in excess of fifteen million dollars in addition to moneys already owne=
d. 734. Plaintiff asserts that between 2005 and 2007 Defendant, conf=
ected
a scheme to defraud the Plaintiff out of sales and commissions, and to rem=
ove him as a market influencer, for their own benefit, and that in August o=
f 2007 they launched their scheme. 735. During the calendar year of =
2010, Plaintiff sold approximately $220,000.00 of Defendants equipment and =
earned at least $54,000.00 in commissions, none of which have been paid or =
properly credited to his in-house account, which Defendant had established =
for its convenience since Plaintiff was the largest seller of Defendants eq=
uipment. 736. In March 2010, the accounting department at Defendant =
stated that Plaintiff had a credit balance of $43,115, which was earmarked =
to purchase new demonstration gear and to attend classes from the Defendant=
, although the Plaintiff was somewhat wary of the =E2=80=9Cnew products=E2=
=80=9D the Defendant was trying to promote and began asking technical quest=
ion about the equipment; however, the Defendant could not answer the questi=
ons to
the Plaintiffs satisfaction. 737. In order to avoid payment of past=
monies due to Plaintiff and alternatively to avoid any accounting which ha=
d been repeatedly requested by Plaintiff, Defendant engaged in an abuse of =
process. 738. Specifically, in February 2009, the Plaintiff contract=
ed for the sale of over $30,000.00 of Defendants equipment to a client loca=
ted in Switzerland and an ultimate destination in Uzbekistan. 739. U=
pon receipt of payment by the Swiss client, Plaintiff properly registered t=
he sale in accordance with the required disclosure to Defendant and immedia=
tely remitted full payment in the sum of over $20,000.00 to Defendant who r=
eceived same. 740. Defendant has previously judicially confessed tha=
t these funds were for the entirety of the order bound for Switzerland and =
thence to Uzbekistan, and that the transaction had been paid in full at the=
time and was financially cleared for immediate
shipment. 741. In order to avoid any accounting or payment of monie=
s due to Plaintiff, Defendant required that the shipment of the Defendants =
equipment must be preceded by what is referred to as an =E2=80=9Cend user=
=E2=80=9D certificate, rather than ship the purchased items to the address =
provided, and then repeatedly rejected the supplied documents without submi=
tting them to the U.S. Government. 742. Plaintiff was repeatedly tol=
d that the shipment was =E2=80=9Con the loading dock=E2=80=9D and requiring=
only the end-user certificate to effect release. 743. In truth in f=
act, due to Fraud by Research Electronics and employees of Research Electro=
nics under the U.S. Commerce classification of the equipment purchased at t=
he time, no end user certificate was actually required. Further, neither Sw=
itzerland nor Uzbekistan required any end user certificate. 744. It =
has since been discovered that while no =E2=80=9Cend user=E2=80=9D certific=
ate is legally required, the
goods are still required by law to be shipped under a State Department iss=
ued approval, which the Defendant had unlawfully subverted by falsely claim=
ing the equipment was merely =E2=80=9Cgeneral purpose test equipment=E2=80=
=9D when in fact it was rather =E2=80=9Celectronic counter measures gear=E2=
=80=9D which is tightly controlled and regulated by the U.S. Government.<BR=
> 745. It is by this deception, that the Defendant was engaging in tens =
of millions of dollars in illegal exports, as an long term organized crimin=
al enterprise. 746. To make matter worse, under ITAR 121.1 XI(b) and=
international arms control treaties the goods are not actually controlled =
by the U.S. Commerce Department, but rather the U.S. State Department and t=
hen in turn controlled secondarily by the Central Intelligence Agency, and =
the Defense Intelligence Agency though the Department of Defense. 74=
7. The Defendant Research Electronics registered fraudulent ECCN (Export Co=
ntrol Numbers)
with the U.S. Commerce Department to deceive the U.S. Government as to the=
true nature of the goods, and thus to maintain control under the umbrella =
of the U.S. Commerce instead other U.S. State Department. These fraudulent =
ECCN codes were then used to subvert U.S. Export controls and international=
treaty, and remove oversight, licensure, and control of the goods from the=
U.S. State Department, when in fact the U.S. State Department was required=
both by law and international treaty to control these goods, not the U.S. =
Commerce Department. 748. The mechanism by which the U.S. State Depa=
rtment controls these goods is by way of an End User License, which is obta=
ined by making a formal application by the manufacture and exporter (in thi=
s case Research Electronics) to the U.S. State Department and including an =
End User Certificate or Letter along with relevant documents. 749. T=
husly, a purchaser of such equipment would be required to provide an
End User Certificate at some point in the transaction to effect the obtain=
ing of the required U.S. State Department License. Additional documents in =
regards to the transaction would also be supplied to the U.S. State Departm=
ent to obtain this license, which would vary based on whom the end user wou=
ld be and their prior relationship with the U.S. diplomatic, military, and =
intelligence services. 750. Very often a purchaser of this equipment=
would initiate an initial End user Certificate to the U.S. State Departmen=
t mere to inquire if it would be possible to obtain mere information about =
a product or to obtain technical manual to review as by Federal Statute det=
ailed technical information or users manuals also require the same licenses=
, although they are not as strictly enforced. 751. As customers tend=
not to purchase good on which they have not been trained the end user also=
must obtain a license is order to attend training, which normally
precede actual acquisition of the equipment. 752. Therefore, one En=
d user Certificate will be issued and carried to the U.S. Embassy in the co=
untry where the actual end user is located to start the process of licensur=
e. 753. Once approved, the end user can then obtain detailed technic=
al materials on the equipment they seek, and obtain technical manuals to re=
view. 754. Once the end user determines several systems which they w=
ill be interested in they will then initiate a license to attend training, =
and the organization which will be providing training will seek a license t=
o be allowed to provide the same training (to better understand and evaluat=
e the proposed equipment). 755. Once the end user is comfortable tha=
t the equipment will fulfill their requirements an initial purchase of the =
equipment will be made, and yet another End user Certificate issued, for th=
e final equipment purchase. It is therefore not uncommon for there
to be four or five End User Certificates issued over a six to nine month o=
r even several year period to effect the purchase of a single piece of equi=
pment. The last End User Certificate of course being the most vital of thes=
e. 756. By Defendant Research Electronics requiring an End User Cert=
ificate on foreign transactions they provided a complex illusion that they =
were applying for U.S. State Department licenses, when indeed they were not=
doing so. This is a very grave violation of both U.S. Law and a violation =
of International Treaties on Arms Control. 757. Defendant Research E=
lectronics and their agents and mpeoyyes repeatedly stated they had the pro=
per licenses in place to effect export of these goods, which indeed that di=
d not. They further promised they all exports were being made in accordance=
with U.S. Export laws, when in fact no shipment of goods, materials, or pr=
oviding of training was being provided legally. 758. Indeed,
the entirety of the business operations of Defendant Research Electronics =
is a complex and organized criminal enterprise involved in international ar=
m smuggling and money laundering. 759. Defendant, upon information a=
nd belief, directed the customer in Switzerland to contact the Rockport Pol=
ice Department in Rockport, Massachusetts, and the Cape Ann Chamber of Comm=
erce in Gloucester, Massachusetts and to file a criminal complaint alleging=
that Plaintiff was attempting to =E2=80=9Csteal=E2=80=9D the customer=E2=
=80=99s money (when in fact the Defendant was in possession of the funds, a=
nd was delaying shipping the goods, and in full control of the transaction)=
. 760. In addition, Defendant further rejected the first and second =
=E2=80=9Cend user=E2=80=9D certificate which Defendant required in order to=
delay the shipment which Defendant knew the customer wanted as quickly as =
possible since it formed a portion of a time sensitive contract via the cut=
-out in Switzerland for a
sale that the Swiss customer had with the Government of Uzbekistan. <BR=
>761. Due to the delays in the Defendant shipping the goods to the client, =
the Plaintiff received a number of threatening phone calls, in an attempt t=
o speed up shipment, and the caller (from Switzerland) even threatening bod=
ily violence (and made terroristic threats against the Plaintiff) if the go=
ods were not in his hands by November 6, 2009, so that the goods could in t=
urn be provided to the end user. Further, the Plaintiff was told that he wo=
uld be =E2=80=9Cseverely punished=E2=80=9D because of the delays in the shi=
pment, which were in fact caused by the Defendant. 762. In fact, the=
transaction was out of the Plaintiff hands at that point as the Defendant =
had the entirety of the Plaintiffs funds, and was awaiting the End User to =
provide a legitimate End User Certificate (which was issued by the Governme=
nt of Uzbekistan until November 23, 2009). 763. It has since been
discovered that while Defendant Research Electronics was provided with thi=
s End User Certificate they did not in fact forward to the U.S. State Depar=
tment in order to obtain an Export License for the transaction, and indeed =
the Defendant did falsify export documentation that was provided to the U.S=
. Customs Department in order to smuggle the arms out the United States.<BR=
> 764. Further the Defendant Research under declared the value and the n=
ature of the goods, and even knowing that the End User Certificate indicate=
that the end user was in Uzbekistan, fraudulently listed another country a=
s the end user. 765. For a number of years the Government of Kazakhs=
tan had been covertly supplying weapons grade radiological materials to the=
Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to facilitate the development o=
f the Iranian nuclear weapons program. Numerous shipments were being made o=
ut of the strategic stockpiles of the Government of Kazakhstan over
both land routes and by way of the Caspian Sea. These illicit transaction =
of nuclear materials where often brokered by politicians and businessmen in=
Uzbekistan and Switzerland. Much of these radiological materials were orig=
inating from the old Soviet stockpiles of decommissioned nuclear weapons an=
d mining and refining operations that were still located in Kazakhstan. Wit=
h minimal effort on the part of the Iranian nuclear engineers these materia=
ls could then be crafted into at least a hundred or more Iranian high yield=
nuclear warheads, spread over (at the time) several dozen intercontinental=
ballistic missiles. In order to cripple the Iranian nuclear weapons progra=
m it was thus vital to relocate these nuclear materials well away from the =
Caspian Sea and well away from the Kazakhstan/Uzbekistan border and to a mo=
re secure and remote storage location in the far north of Kazakhstan. <B=
R>766. In 2007 and 2008, the Islamic Republic of Iran was also
internationally procuring the materials by way of front companies in the U=
nited Arab Emirates from source companies in China, North Korea and the Uni=
ted States sufficient to produce deuterium oxide foam and tritium for use f=
or roughly 130 two and three stage thermo-nuclear-pressure devices or high =
yield nuclear warheads for deployment on their inventory of long range Shah=
ab-5 and Shahab-6 Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBM). These raw mat=
erials for this project were inside Iran prior to February 2009, at a nucle=
ar weapons fabrications facility just to the north of Tehran. 767. T=
hen in 2009, and 2010 the Islamic Republic of Iran completed the procuremen=
t of raw materials to fabricate in excess of 150 completed warheads and re-=
entry vehicles, and made this purchase again through front companies in the=
United Arab Emirates from source in China and the United States of America=
. 768. In August and September 2011, the Islamic Republic of
Iran started the procurement of additional raw materials to fabricate addi=
tional nuclear warheads and re-entry vehicles. 769. The Government o=
f Uzbekistan had agreed to provide counter-surveillance services to the Gov=
ernment of Kazakhstan in preparation for the movement of sixty casks of nuc=
lear weapons-grade plutonium and highly enriched uranium (sufficient to mak=
e 770+ nuclear bombs) by rail starting in Mid November 2009 (such transacti=
ons, sales, and services for such counter-surveillance goods and services a=
re within the normal course and scope of the Plaintiff=E2=80=99s business a=
nd area of expertise). 770. Such equipment sales or counterintellige=
nce services to the intelligence agencies of one country, so that they may =
render services to a allied or semi-allied country is the mainstay of the i=
ntelligence community and which forms a type of =E2=80=9Cdiplomatic quid pr=
o quo=E2=80=9D where the nation with greater technical capabilities provide=
s services
to the inferior nation. 771. In this case, the Government of Kazakh=
stan lacked the ability to detect tracking devices and eavesdropping device=
s on the transport rail cars, and requested the assistance of the intellige=
nce agencies within the Government of Uzbekistan, who then procured the equ=
ipment through the cut-out company in Switzerland, who in turn placed the o=
rder with the Plaintiff, and thus the Plaintiff placed the order with the D=
efendant Research Electronics who performed the manufacturing and export.<B=
R> 772. As the test runs of these rail cars and casks were to begin in M=
id November 2009 with live runs starting in February 2010 and completing in=
February 2011, and it was vitally important that the counter-surveillance =
equipment supplied by Defendant arrive a week in advance of Mid November 20=
09 (the equipment had to be in the hands of the Government of Uzbekistan, n=
ot later then November 6, 2009). 773. The Government of
Uzbekistan and the Government of Kazakhstan opted to utilize a =E2=80=9CCh=
inese Wall=E2=80=9D in order to procure the equipment for this project, and=
in February 2009, the Government of Uzbekistan CEMA contracted with the in=
termediary in Switzerland for the equipment purchase. 774. The Gover=
nment of Kazakhstan had been obstructing the movement of these casks for ye=
ars, it took supreme diplomatic and political pressure on the part of the U=
nited States Government to move the casks, and the U.S. State Department, C=
entral Intelligence Agency, and Department of Energy were strongly involved=
in manipulating this project to get it moving forward. 775. In shor=
t, the Government of Kazakhstan did not want to move the casks and was doin=
g everything possible to obstruct the project. 776. The casks being =
close to Uzbekistan gave the country political and diplomatic power as they=
were accessible to Uzbekistan should they choose to make any move on the
weapons grade materials or to make purchases and smuggle same. 777.=
Moving the nuclear materials away from the Caspian Sea moved them well out=
side the reach of Uzbekistan and Iran. The government of Uzbekistan did not=
want to move the casks and was doing everything possible to obstruct the p=
roject as it weakened them politically, and diplomatically. 778. In =
turn the U.S. Government requested that the Defendant, delay and interfere =
with the shipping the Plaintiff=E2=80=99s goods destined for Uzbekistan, so=
that the shipment arrivals would take place well after the window of oppor=
tunity (after Mid November 2009). To this end, the Defendant repeatedly and=
needlessly rejected the un-needed end user certificates, and created drama=
about the transaction to enable this delay. 779. It was presumably =
in the best interest of the U.S. Government diplomatic efforts for there to=
be no counter-surveillance gear available to the Government of Kazakhstan
for use on this project, which is why, even after the Plaintiff provided D=
efendant will all of the funds to cover the shipment, and all of the docume=
nts requested, they claimed that the documents were not sufficient, and Pla=
intiff now asserts that Defendants were fully acting as agents of the U.S. =
Government in delaying the goods. 780. In turn, the U.S. Government =
applied pressure on Defendants Research Electronics (and co-defendant agent=
s, and employees of Research Electronics) to cause these delays in order to=
deprive the Government of Kazakhstan of their sweep gear so that they coul=
d not detect the bugs and tracking devices that the U.S. Government would h=
ave placed on the rail cars. 781. Ultimately, Defendants Research El=
ectronics (and co-defendant agents, and employees of Research Electronics) =
were acting as an agent of the U.S. Government (the FBI), the U.S. State De=
partment (outside of PM/DDTC, the normal approval authority) and the
Central Intelligence Agency and Plaintiff merely got caught in the middle =
of a legitimate business transaction whereby the U.S. Government wanted to =
delay the shipment, but knew that Plaintiff too honest to play games with h=
is clients, and hence went to the less ethical supplier of the goods, the D=
efendant Research Electronics (and co-defendant agents, and employees of Re=
search Electronics) to effect the delay. 782. But these illegal mani=
pulations, and delays, and interference with Plaintiff international shipme=
nts, along with wire fraud, and scheme to defraud, qualify this as a Racket=
eering Offense involving both private and government entities. 783. =
Thereafter, upon information and belief, Defendant Research Electronics (an=
d co-defendant agents, and employees of Research Electronics) was in commun=
ication with the Rockport Police Department, specifically Robert J. Tibert,=
who handed the matter to Patrolmen Daniel Mahoney, and other law
enforcement agencies, manipulating their investigations to obtain the spec=
ific result of effectuating Plaintiff=E2=80=99s arrest to not only damage P=
laintiff=E2=80=99s good name and reputation known worldwide as not only an =
expert and market influencer in TSCM, but also to obtain the result of not =
having to account for or pay for large sums of monies due and owing to Plai=
ntiff Atkinson. 784. Indeed Defendant Research Electronics has actua=
lly judicially confessed that such a conspiracy was confected, and that the=
y worked closely with the Rockport Police Department to create un-needed de=
lays for the sole purpose of setting up the Plaintiff so that he may be arr=
ested on false charges, and have his civil rights violated, even though the=
Plaintiff had done nothing wrong. 785. Indeed Research Electronics =
had been paid in full by the Plaintiff for the goods and that Research Elec=
tronics working with the Rockport Police Department created delays in the
shipment. 786. In turn, once the Plaintiff Atkinson had been arrest=
ed, the Defendant Research Electronics went ahead and immediately released =
the shipment they had been delaying without cause (under the guise of non-e=
xistent licensing that they were not applying for, but which was indeed req=
uired), and all of the goods in the hands of the end-user a few days later =
(while the Plaintiff was in the hospital due to the actions of the Defendan=
ts). 787. On information and belief, Plaintiff asserts that this con=
spiracy was initiated and coordinated through FBI Agent Christian McDowell =
and ICE Agent Jamison Wiroll operating out the Boston, MA. 788. The =
U.S. Government had previously approached the Plaintiff to effect similar d=
elays on foreign transactions, which the Plaintiff had always refused to ta=
ke part in as a matter of ethics. The proper legal mechanism for a proper d=
elay was to request the PM/DDTC office at the U.S. State Department
to delay the license approvals, but the FBI was not doing this and was see=
king extra-legal delays, which were improper. 789. After these goods=
where released in early December 2009 by Defendant Research Electronics, s=
tarting on or about Mid-December 2009, and running through March and April =
2010, virtually all of the Defendants Research Electronics in-transit shipm=
ents were seized or delayed by U.S. Customs due to =E2=80=9Cirregularities =
in the export documents=E2=80=9D, presumable due to fraudulent export docum=
ents having been repeatedly filed by the Defendant in violation of 22 CFR 1=
21.1 XI(b). 790. In conjunction with an abuse of process (i.e. using=
and manipulating the criminal process to obtain a result for which the pro=
cess was not intended =E2=80=93 avoid payment of monies and accounting of m=
onies due), Defendant further refused to ship to a customer from China, a D=
efendants product which was to be shipped to Arizona inside the Territory o=
f the
United States. 791. In accordance with terms and conditions of cont=
ract, which Defendant has judicially confessed, the sale of the Defendants =
product to the Chinese customer to be delivered to Arizona, Defendant refus=
ed to ship the product to Arizona, even though there sufficient credit bala=
nce on the Plaintiff account to fully fund the transaction. 792. Def=
endant again communicated with the Rockport Police Department and provided =
misleading, false and inaccurate information to Patrolman Daniel Mahoney in=
its singular scheme to avoid any accounting, payment of monies due Plainti=
ff from Defendant, and utterly destroy the competitive viability of Plainti=
ff in the marketplace as a strong market influence for which Defendant was =
keenly aware. 793. Plaintiff submits that he is entitled to declarat=
ory judgment that the clauses in MREP Agreements described herein are adhes=
ionary and contra bones mores such that they are legally
unenforceable. 794. Plaintiff submits that he is entitled to an app=
ropriate order from this Court commanding disclosure for inspection and cop=
ying by Plaintiff of all pending order forms submitted by Plaintiff to Defe=
ndant as well as all sales records, communications relative to sales, shipp=
ing, and export records of Defendant for the past ten (10) years. 79=
5. Plaintiff submits that Defendant has committed tortuous interference wit=
h the contractual rights of Plaintiff contracts, to Plaintiff detriment cau=
sing damages. 796. Plaintiff submits that Defendant has converted Pl=
aintiff=E2=80=99s funds due and owing both through refusing to remit the fu=
nds maintained in Plaintiff=E2=80=99s =E2=80=9Chouse=E2=80=9D account, comm=
issions due, and via conversion of Defendants customers and clients. <BR=
>797. Plaintiff submits that Defendant has committed fraud by intentionally=
falsifying the status of sales made by Plaintiff and falsely claiming sale=
s made by
Plaintiff as Defendants and/or other third parties. 798. Plaintiff =
submits that Defendant has abused the legal process by falsely reporting in=
formation to the Rockport Police Department with the intended purpose of de=
stroying Plaintiff=E2=80=99s good name, business reputation, business, mark=
et influence, and accomplish the conversion of Plaintiff=E2=80=99s money an=
d goods; a purpose for which the legal process was not intended to achieve =
with full knowledge of Defendants actions. 799. Plaintiff asserts th=
e Research Electronics, and individual employees and agents of Research Ele=
ctronics acting both in their individual capacity, and of their official ca=
pacity as agents of the Rockport Police Department and the FBI violated the=
civil right of the Plaintiff while acting under color of authority. <BR=
>800. Plaintiff submits that Defendant has breached the laws of the State o=
f Tennessee or/or of the United States by illegally possessing bugging devi=
ces
as well as using those illegal bugging devices to intercept wire and/or or=
al communications of Plaintiff without Plaintiff=E2=80=99s consent contrary=
to law, doing so within and throughout at least the past ten years while P=
laintiff was on the premises of Defendants establishments in Tennessee. =
 801. Further, this Defendant has engaged in conduct and as a continuing=
unit of an enterprise, through a pattern, of racketeering enterprises (inc=
luding, but not limited to: mail fraud, wire fraud, scheme to defraud, robb=
ery, kidnapping, extortion, obstruction of justice, interference in commerc=
e, also involving monetary transactions in property derived from specified =
unlawful activity), and have caused injury to the business and/or property =
of the Plaintiff Atkinson. These Defendants have violated the Constitutiona=
l rights of the Plaintiff, infringing and deprived him of his civil rights<=
BR> -- James M. Atkinson President and Sr. Engineer "Leonardo
da Vinci of Bug Sweeps and Spy Hunting" <A href=3D"http://www.linkedin.=
com/profile/view?id=3D15178662" target=3D_blank>http://www.linkedin.com/pro=
file/view?id=3D15178662</A> Granite Island Group <A href=3D"mailto:jm=
..._at_tscm.com" ymailto=3D"mailto:jm..._at_tscm.com">jm..._at_tscm.com</A> <A hr=
ef=3D"http://www.tscm.com/" target=3D_blank>http://www.tscm.com/</A> (97=
8) 546-3803 </DIV></DIV></div></body></html>
---1903230837-1238976427-1323054192=:8996--
Received on Sat Mar 02 2024 - 00:57:17 CST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Sat Mar 02 2024 - 01:11:44 CST