Doc. 201 -- Plantiffs Motion to Strike Bruce H. Haglund's Answer

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

for theNORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

R. Lance Flores,Vicki Clarkson,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Scott Anthony Koster, et al.Defendants.A 9

C I VI L A C TI ON

¹ 3:11-cv-00726-M -BH

VERIFIED MOTION TO STRIKE BRUCE H. HAGLUND’s ANSWERfor

FRAUD UPON THE COURT BY THE PERJURY AND FALSE STATEMENTS OFBRUCE H. HAGLUND

1

Plaintiffs mutually file their Verified Motion to Strike RICO Defendant Bruce H.

Haglund’s ANSWER OF DEFENDANT BRUCE H. HAGLUND TO PLAINTIFFS’ RICO

COMPLAINT (hereinafter, the Defendant’s “Answer”). Plaintiffs’ shall separately file their

Motion for Sanctions against Defendant Haglund unless Court has so moved sua sponti.

Plaintiffs respectfully move the Court to strike RICO Defendant Bruce H. Haglund’s

Answer, pursuant to FRCP 12(f) subject to the Court’s discretion and inherent powers2

including that of the Court’s dispositive authority.

Hereinafter, “Bruce Haglund,” or “Haglund” or the “Defendant”1

RULE 12(f) Motion to Strike. The court may strike from a pleading an insufficient defense or any2

redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. The court may act:(1) on its own; or(2) on motion made by a party either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not allowed,

within 21 days after being served with the pleading.

20120912210015 Motion to Strike BRUCE HAGLUND's Mtn Dismiss.wpd Page 1

Case 3:11-cv-00726-M-BH Document 201 Filed 09/14/12 Page 1 of 16 PageID 3054

§ I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1.1 On April 8, 2011 Plaintiffs filed their Original Complaint, petition for

injunctive relief and other equitable relief in this matter. (Doc. 1, 1-1, 1-2)

1.2 On March 19, 2012, Plaintiffs amended their Original Complaint with their

First Amended Complaint (Doc. 36) in behalf of the Plaintiffs, and in the national

economic and general public interests. Plaintiffs amended, adding additional RICO

Defendants, and Nominal Defendants and removing others into statuses in delayed

discovery. Plaintiffs petition for compensatory damages including a plea of a damages

amount directly related to Defendant’s acts in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962, et seq.,

(“RICO” violations) exceeding not less than Two-hundred Twenty Million Dollars

(Doc. 36 at 187) subject to mandatory treble award, notwithstanding other3

compensatory, exemplary, and injunctive relief, or further calculation of damages in

prove-up motions or damages affidavit.

1.3 Plaintiffs additionally support their claims pled in conformance of FRCP Rule

9(b), with two-hundred seventy-two (272) verified exhibits, or exhibits entered as

manifest fact by judicial notice, to evidence their claims.

1.4 Plaintiffs’ FAC pleads RICO Defendant jointly and severally liable for

damages.4

Section 1964(c), title 18, provides that “[a]ny person injured in his business or property by reason of a3

violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court andshall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees.”18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

See, e.g., United States v. Oreto, 37 F.3d 739, 752 (1st Cir. 1994) at 751-53 (finding that Congress intended4

to reach all who participated in the conduct of the enterprise, whether they were “generals or foot soldiers”and holding that the “Reves test” (Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170 (1993) was satisfied by evidence thatthe defendant collected extortion payments under the direction of leaders of an extortion collectionenterprise); Napoli v. United States, 32 F.3d 31, 36 (2d Cir. 1994) (overwhelming evidence that attorneys,although “of counsel” to the law firm enterprise, were not merely providing peripheral advice, butparticipated in the core activities that constituted the affairs of the firm), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110, reh'ggranted, 45 F.3d 680, 683 (2d Cir.) (upholding convictions of law firm investigators who were “lower-rungparticipants” whose racketeering activities were conducted “under the direction of upper management”), cert.

(continued...)



1.5 This matter is brought pursuant to, inter alia, Section 901(a) of the Organized

Crime Control Act of 1970 (Pub.L. 91-452, 84 Stat. 922, enacted October 15, 1970), and

codified as Chapter 96 of Title 18 of the United States Code as 18 U.S.C. § 1961–1968;

1.6 On July 10, 2012, Haglund, who was added to this action by the Plaintiffs in

their First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), was properly and timely served. (Doc. 130)

1.7 On July 31, 2012, Haglund’s appearance and answer were due.

1.8 On July 31, 2012, RICO Defendant Bruce H. Haglund did not timely file an

Answer nor otherwise responded to the First Amended Complaint, or make an

appearance in any manner.

1.9 On August 8, 2012, Plaintiffs filed Application for Clerk’s Entry of Default and

Memorandum of Law & Verified Motion for Default Judgment Against RICO Defendant

Bruce H. Haglund. (Doc. 155)

1.10 On August 9, 2012, the Clerk of the Court entered Bruce H. Haglund into

default. (Doc. 157-1)

(...continued)4

denied, 514 U.S. 1084 (1995); United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754 (3d Cir. 2005) at 769-70 (stating that “the‘operation or management’ test does not limit RICO liability to upper management because ‘an enterprise isoperated not just by upper management but also by lower-rung participants in the enterprise who are underthe direction of upper management’”; and holding that Reves liability encompassed city employees whoperformed plumbing inspections and related work for the city’s Construction Services Department, thealleged enterprise) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); United States v. Delgado, 401 F.3d 290(5th Cir. 2005) at 297-98 (same); First Capital Asset Mgmt. v. Satinwood, Inc., 385 F.3d 159, 176 (2d Cir. 2004)(“‘RICO liability is not limited to those with primary responsibility for the enterprise’s affairs’” (citationomitted)); Baisch v. Gallina, 346 F.3d 366, 376 (2d Cir. 2003) (same and adding that “[o]ne is liable underRICO if he or she has ‘discretionary authority in carrying out the instructions of the [enterprises’] principals’”)(citations omitted); DeFalco v. Bernas, 244 F.3d (2d Cir. 2001) at 309 (ruling that RICO liability “is not limitedto those with primary responsibility” or “to those with a formal position in the enterprise,” and finding thatthere was sufficient evidence to satisfy the Reves test where the defendant instructed others to facilitatecommission of racketeering activity) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); United States v.Posada-Rios, 158 F.3d 832, 857 (5th Cir. 1998) (finding that Reves does not require that the defendant havedecision-making power, only that defendant “take part in” the operation of the enterprise, and holding thatthe defendant was liable under Reves since he bought multi-kilogram amounts of cocaine from the drugenterprise on a regular basis); United States v. To, 144 F.3d 737, 747 (11th Cir. 1998) (holding that Reves testwas satisfied by evidence that the defendant planned and carried out a robbery with other members of anAsian crime gang that committed a series of robberies targeting Asian-American business owners andmanagers).



1.11 On August 10, 2012, ten days into default, Haglund filed his untimely answer,

disingenuous, verified Answer under pain of perjury. (See, Doc. 164 at 16):

“VERIFICATION OF BRUCE H. HAGLUND TO PLAINTIFF’SFIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

I have read the foregoing Answer to Plaintiffs’ First AmendedComplaint, and verify that the responses given in the Answer are trueand correct to the best of knowledge, information and belief.

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the United States andthe State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed this 6th of August, 2012 at Los Angeles, Californias/Bruce H. Haglund”

1.12 On August 13, 2012, Hon. Irma Carrillo Ramirez, USMJ, Referring, issued an

order for scheduling proposals due on September 4, 2012 no later than 5:00 PM CST.

1.13 On August 20, 2012, Plaintiffs filed a joint Scheduling Proposal and attached a

proposed Scheduling Order.

1.14 On September 4, 2012, RICO Defendant Bruce H. Haglund failed to file a

scheduling proposal.

§ II. BACKGROUND

2.1 RICO Defendant Bruce H. Haglund, is a California lawyer, admitted to The State

Bar of California on May 30,1980, is presently “Not Eligible To Practice Law” and lost his

eligibility to practice law on July 3, 2012.

2.2 In Haglund’s Answer to the SEC v. Wilde, et al. Complaint Haglund admitted he5

received funds from investors, and transmitted funds to other Defendants and Relief

United States Securities and Exchange Commission vs. Francis E. Wilde, et al., 8:11-cv-00315-DOC -AJW,5

U.S. Dist. Ct. CD Cal. 05/13/11 (Document 1, the “SEC Complaint”; all proceedings thereto related,cumulatively, the “SEC Action”), also (Document 4, the “Haglund’s SEC Comp. Answer”).



Defendants.6

2.3 In SEC v. Wilde, et al., Haglund admitted that he resides, conducted transactions,

and maintains his [IOLTA] trust account in the Central District of California.7

2.4 In SEC v. Wilde, et al., Haglund admitted that he made use of the means of

instrumentalities of interstate commerce in connection with the acts and courses of

business alleged in the [SEC] Complaint.8

2.5 Plaintiffs incorporate by reference from the Court Record, the averments, facts,

allegations, and statements contained in

2.5.1 Plaintiffs’ FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. 36), and

2.5.2 Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 272 (Doc. 200-1) “DEFENDANT BRUCE H. HAGLUND’S ANSWER

TO COMPLAINT” in SEC v. Wilde, et al., (See also, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Judicial Notice,

Doc. 200),

all which are hereby re-averred and re-alleged, for all purposes, and with the same force

and effect as if set forth verbatim herein.

2.6 Plaintiffs attest that RICO Defendant’s motion was supported by false statements

by and through perjury, sent over the interstate wires in a deliberate and wanton attempt

to obstruct justice.

2.7 The Defendant Haglund’ false statements were submitted with scienter,

knowingly made, in a material declaration by oath made under pain of perjury, and9

See, Haglund’s SEC Comp. Answer, Doc. 4, ¶ 1, at 2.6

id., ¶ 7, at 2.7

id., ¶ 8, at 2.8

United States v. Gorman, 613 F.3d 711, 715-16 (7th Cir. 2010)(“To support a conviction for perjury9

beyond a reasonable doubt, the government had the burden of proving that (1) the defendant, while underoath, testified falsely before the grand jury; (2) his testimony related to some material matter; and (3) heknew that testimony was false”); United States v. Hasan, 609 F.3d 1121, 1134 (10th Cir. 2010)(“To establishguilt under the statute, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) the defendant made adeclaration under oath before a grand jury; (2) such declaration was false; (3) the defendant knew thedeclaration was false and (4) the false declaration was material to the grand jury’s inquiry”); United States v.

(continued...)



submitted in a proceeding before this Court. Haglund’s fraud upon the Court was

intentional, willfully blind to the truth, and fraught with Defendant’s reckless disregard for

the law.

2.8 Defendant’s fraud upon the Court is found in his claims that contradict manifest

fact, previous declaration and physical evidence where such perjury and false statements

are evident on the face of his Answer. Haglund knew, that his verified Answer submitted to

the Court was material to the First Amended Complaint and issues at hand. Haglund

intended his false statement to become the gravamen of his denials, and these most serious

disputes would give grave concern to the Court and alter the outcome of the case against

him. Haglund was well aware that his false statements and perjury would have a natural

tendency to influence, or was capable of influencing, the decision of the fact finder, in this

instance, the Magistrate Judge (referring) and the Presiding Judge. Haglund’s Answer is10

patently offensive to the Court’s bench and bar.

2.9 With respect to all RICO Defendants, the well-established and verified manifest

fact in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and the Record of the Court, give historical

evidence to an unmistakable pattern of mutual and complotted conduct replete with fraud,

lies, misinformation, purposeful misdirection, and concealment by the RICO Defendants.

WHEREFORE, the grounds for Plaintiffs’ Motions are set forth in the facts argument,

and law below:

(...continued)9

Safa, 484 F.3d 818, 821 (6th Cir. 2007)(“To convict an individual of a violation of 18 U.S.C. 1623, thegovernment must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant: (1) knowingly made, (2) a materiallyfalse declaration (3) under oath (4) in a proceeding before or ancillary to any court of the United States”);United States v. Pagan-Santini, 451 F.3d 258, 266 (1st Cir. 2006); United States v. Hirsch, 360 F.3d 860, 864-65(8th Cir. 2004).

See, United States v. Brown, 459 F.3d 509, 529 (5th Cir. 2006), citing, United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S.10

506, 509 (1995), and Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770 (1988); see also United States v. Benkahla, 530F.3d 300, 310 (4 Cir.2008); United States v. McKenna, 327 F.3d 830, 839 (9th Cir. 2003); United States v. Lee,359 F.3d 412, 417 (6 Cir.2003); United States v. Durham, 139 F.3d 1325, 1329 (10th Cir. 1998).



§ III. PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO STRIKE FOR DEFENDANT’S/COUNSEL’SFRAUD UPON THE COURT

3.1 The question before the Court is whether RICO Defendant Haglund has engaged

in conduct by the extensive fraud exhibited by his false statements and perjury, and

whether Defendant Haglund is deserving of having his Answer stricken and due additional

sanctions.

3.2 The Court may impose further sanctions on a latter motion from the Plaintiffs or

on the Court’s own motion. Plaintiffs’ statement of fact and argument will show,

unambiguously, that Haglund’ Answer is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth and

misleading, and deserving of sanction.

3.3 Because Defendants Haglund’ actions are directed at the judicial machinery, and

that they demonstrate, at a minimum, a reckless disregard of the truth, the Plaintiffs

request an expedited action to address these serious issues, by striking Defendant’s

Answer which has severely prejudiced, harassed, and oppressed the Plaintiffs.

3.4 In support thereof Plaintiffs show the following:

3.5 FRAUD UPON THE COURT – COUNT 1PERJURY – COUNT 1OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE – COUNT 1

3.5.1 RICO Defendant’s Haglund’ Answer. Doc. 164 at 5, lines 5-8

“Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs 5.13,5.13.1 through 5.13.4.”

Referring to Plaintiffs’ FAC (Doc. 36 at 79, 80):

5.13 DEFENDANTS MISAPPROPRIATE INVESTOR FUNDS FOR UNAUTHORIZEDAND UNDISCLOSED PURPOSES

5.13.1 Wilde exhausted all $6.3 million of the investors' funds throughattempts to acquire "bank guarantees," brokers' fees paid to Gelazelaand Woods, fees to Haglund for "legal services," some Ponzi-likepayments to prior investors, and personal expenses.



5.13.2 Each investor's money was wired out of the trust account soonafter it arrived. In some instances, fees to Wilde, Gelazela, Woods and/orHaglund equaled a majority of the associated investment, and each of theindividual Defendants personally profited from the scheme.

5.13.3 The majority of investors' funds in the trust account weretransferred on direction by Wilde and executed by Haglund as follows: • Approximately $2,170,000 was claimed to be paid to over thirtydifferent intermediaries, advisors, and business consultants for thepurpose of acquiring purported bank instruments.• Over $1,500,000 went to pay for Wilde's personal expenses, including:• Approximately $800,000 to the bank account of Wilde's wife, MaureenWilde †11, †12, †14, †15;• $323,500 to Shillelagh Capital Corporation †11, †12, †14, †15, anothercorporate entity under Wilde's control;• $200,000 to Wilde's bank account in Europe †11, †12, †14, †15;• $55,000 to the assisted living facility of Wilde's parents †11, †14;• $1,150,000 in fees to Gelazela (to a bank account in the name ofIBalance LLC †11, †12, †14, †15, a corporate entity for which Gelazela servesas a managing member);• $565,000 in fees to Woods, which equaled roughly half of the totalinvestor money Woods brought in to the scheme †11, †12, †14, †15; and • $472,500 in fees to Haglund †11, †12, †14, †15.

5.13.4 Relief Defendants Maureen Wilde, Shillelagh CapitalCorporation, and IBalance LLC had and have no right or legitimateclaim to any investor funds that they received.

5.13.5 In early May 2010, less than $200 (two hundred dollars) of the$6.3 million raised for the Bank Guarantee Scheme remained in thetrust account.

IMPEACHMENT OF RICO Defendant Haglund’s Answer. Doc. 164 at 5, lines 5-8:

The aforementioned is impeached by Defendant Haglund’s declaration made inHaglund's SEC Comp. Answer, SEC Action (Doc. 4 at 10), Pla. Exhibit 272 (Doc. 200-1 at 10).

¶ 79. “In answer to ¶ 79, Answering Defendant [Haglund] admits that all$6.3 million of the investors' funds were exhausted by attempts toacquire "bank guarantees," fees paid to or for the benefit of Wilde,Woods, Gelazela, fees to Answering Defendant, and payments of $1 0,000to each of two separate investors.



¶ 80. “In answer to ¶ 80, Answering Defendant admits the allegationsof this paragraph.”

[“80. Each investor's money was wired out of the trustaccount soon after it arrived. In some instances, fees to Wilde,Gelazela, Woods and/or Haglund equaled a majority of theassociated investment, and each of the individual Defendantspersonally profited from the scheme.”] (SEC v. Wilde, et al., ¹ 8:11-cv-00315-DOC-AJW, CD Cal. Feb 24, 2011 at 14)

¶ 81. “In answer to ¶ 81, Answering Defendant admits that (i)approximately $2,170,000 was paid to over 30 different intermediaries,advisors, and business consultants for the purpose of acquiring bankinstruments, (ii) approximately $1,500,000 was paid to Wilde, MaureenWilde, Shillelagh, law firms that represented Wilde, and to the assistedliving facility of Wilde's parents, (ii) approximately $1,150,000 was paidto Gelazela and/or IBALANCE, (iv) approximately $565,000 was paid toWoods, and (v) approximately $472,500 was paid to AnsweringDefendant in fees. Other than as expressly admitted herein, AnsweringDefendant denies each of the remaining allegations of ¶ 81.”

3.6 Haglund’ statement is wholly fraudulent, unsupported by any verifiable material

evidence, lacks authentication and is wholly and unquestionably controverted, thusly

impeached, by his own declaration entered in the Record of the United States District Court

for the Central District of California.


3.7.1 RICO Defendant’s Haglund’ Answer. Doc. 164 at 11, line 25:

“Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs9.5, 9.5.1 through 9.5.7.”

Referring to Plaintiffs’ FAC (Doc. 36 at 111):



“9.5.3 The Defendants, directly and indirectly, made use of the meansand instrumentalities of interstate commerce and extensively usedthe domestic communication wires in connection with the Defendantsacts, practices, and courses of business alleged herein within theNorthern District of Texas, Calgary Alberta, Canada, and elsewhere.”

IMPEACHMENT OF RICO Defendant Haglund’s Answer. Doc. 164 at 11:

The aforementioned is impeached by Defendant Haglund’s declaration made in

Haglund's SEC Comp. Answer, SEC Action (Doc. 4 at 2), Pla. Exhibit 272 (Doc. 200-1 at 2).

¶7. “In answer to ¶ 7, Answering Defendant admits that he resides,conducted transactions, and maintains his trust account in the CentralDistrict of California.”

¶ 8. “In answer to ¶ 8, Answering Defendant admits that he made use ofthe means of instrumentalities of interstate commerce in connectionwith the acts and courses of business alleged in the Complain[t].”






3.9.1 RICO Defendant’s Haglund’ Answer. Doc. 164 at 5, line 7:

“Defendant denies the allegations contained in Paragraphs5.14, 5.14.1 through 5.14.11.”

Referring to Plaintiffs’ FAC (Doc. 36 at 81):

“5.14.5 In 2007, Haglund served as an escrow attorney for anotherprime bank investment scheme that failed and resulted in nearly allinvestors losing their money. As a result of his involvement in that



investment program, an investor filed a complaint against Haglundwith the State Bar of California.”

IMPEACHMENT OF RICO Defendant Haglund’s Answer. Doc. 164 at lines 7-8:

The aforementioned is impeached by Defendant Haglund’s declaration made in

Haglund's SEC Comp. Answer, SEC Action (Doc. 4 at 12), Pla. Exhibit 272 (Doc. 200-1 at 12).

¶ 101. “In answer to ¶ 101, Answering Defendant admits that a partywho deposited funds into his trust account filed a complaint with theSate Bar of California …”





SUMMARY & CONCLUSION

3.11 IN SUMMARY, the record evidence clearly and convincingly establishes that

Bruce H. Haglund has engaged in a pattern of misconduct in this litigation that includes

making false statements to the Court by means of his overt act of perjury. There is no

escaping that when Haglund signed his Answer to this Court under pain of perjury, that he

knew he was about to file a perjured document. He was well aware that his answer to this

Court contradicted what he declared in the U.S. District Court in California.

3.12 The record evidence shows clearly and convincingly that Haglund was not

truthful and knowingly made misrepresentations in his pleadings, i.e. false statements

within his Answer, and deliberately presented a perjured instrument, in order to explain

away his commission of predicate crimes and participations in the actions of the various

criminal enterprises. The record unequivocally establishes by clear and convincing



evidence that Haglund committed fraud upon the Court by overt acts of perjury.

3.13 Accordingly, Haglund's conduct falls squarely within the definition of “fraud on

the court” and is a clear abuse of the judicial process. An appropriate sanction is11 12

warranted as there is no question that Haglund's conduct constitutes a serious abuse of13

the litigation process.

3.14 The inherent authority of a court to impose sanctions for bad-faith, if not

criminal conduct, reaches RICO Defendant, where Haglund in his Answer presents

extensive fraud to the Court. Were the rule otherwise, a charging party would have a

powerful incentive to commit fraud, perjury, and to suborn that perjury, for in that event, a

charging party could engage in discovery fraud with impunity and if successful the

charging party would obtain an unfair advantage in the litigation.

§ IV. PRAYER

It is Plaintiffs’ belief and contention that additional sanctions should be awarded for

reasonable costs associated with preparing and tiling this Motion to Strike. Plaintiffs shall

effect notice of sanctions for which they shall separately file pursuant to the Rules unless

Court has spoken to such as the Court has the inherent authority to award costs or other

sanction when a party has “acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive

See, e.g., Nichols v. Klein Tools, 949 F.2d 1047, 1048-49 (8th Cir. 1991) (imposing sanctions for "fraud on11

the court" where plaintiff concealed a material fact); Yanez v. America West Airlines, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS20706, at *19 (D. Md. Oct. 13, 2004) (holding that plaintiff perpetrated a "fraud on the court" by providingintentionally false deposition testimony and deliberately failing to meet discovery obligations to hideevidence of obvious high relevance to his claim for damages).

A federal court has the inherent authority to impose sanctions for fraud on the court or abuse of the12

litigation process. See, United Slates v. Shaffer Equip. Co., 11 F.3d 450,462 (4th Cir. 1993) ("[W]e recognizehere that when a party deceives a court or abuses the process at a level that is utterly inconsistent with theorderly administration of justice or undermines the integrity of the process, the court has the inherent powerto dismiss the action.")

Cf. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991).13



reasons.” Moreover, it appears that Haglund has the financial means to pay an award of14

monetary sanctions for this Motion. Further, permitting such an award would likely

dissuade Haglund and other defendants that have demonstrated the same conduct

identified in the Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint from pursuing similar conduct and

demeanor in these proceedings.

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray an appropriate Order will issue from this Court

striking completely, RICO Defendant Bruce H. Haglund’s ANSWER OF DEFENDANT BRUCE

H. HAGLUND TO PLAINTIFFS’ RICO COMPLAINT with prejudice and for any other sanction

or relief the Court deems appropriate .

Respectfully Submitted on Friday, September 14, 2012.

s/

R. LANCE FLORESLead Attorney

3314 Pleasant DriveDallas, Texas 75227 USATel. (Dallas): +1 (214) 272-0349Tel. (Fax): +1 (210) 519-6528ECF & Case Management E-mail:[email protected]

Attorney for the Plaintiff

s/

VICKI CLARKSON

2416 - 36 Street SWCalgary, AB T3E 2Z5

Tel. (Calgary): +1 403-244-9980Tel. (Fax:) +1 (403) 246-3331ECF & Case Management E-mail:[email protected]

Attorney for the Plaintiff

Id., at 45-46.14



VERIFICATION OF CLARKSON

I, Vicki Clarkson hereby declare, verify and certify under penalty of perjury as

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that I am a Plaintiff in the above-styled and -numbered cause

of action, that I have read the foregoing motions to strike Defendant’s pleadings for fraud

upon the Court and perjury, that I am familiar with the contents therein, and that the

matters contained in the motions are true and correct to my own knowledge, except those

matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief and, as to those matters, I

believe them to be true and correct.

SUBSCRIBED AND EXECUTED on Friday, September 14, 2012 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:

s/

VICKI CLARKSON

VERIFICATION OF FLORES

I, R. Lance Flores hereby declare, verify and certify under penalty of perjury as

provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1746 that I am a Plaintiff in the above-styled and -numbered cause

of action, that I have read the foregoing motions to strike Defendant’s pleadings for fraud

upon the Court and acts of perjury, that I am familiar with the contents therein, and that

the matters contained in the motions are true and correct to my own knowledge, except

those matters herein stated to be alleged on information and belief and, as to those

matters, I believe them to be true and correct.

SUBSCRIBED AND EXECUTED on Friday, September 14, 2012 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:

s/

R. LANCE FLORES



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

On Friday, September 14, 2012, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with

the Clerk of Court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the

electronic case filing system (CM/ECF) of the Court. I hereby certify that I have served all

counsel and/or pro se parties of record electronically or by another manner authorized by

Federal rule of Civil Procedure 5 (b)(2).

For the Plaintiffs:

s/

R. LANCE FLORES



CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Plaintiff Flores certifies that on Friday, August 31, 2012, Plaintiffs jointly attempted to

confer with Bruce H. Haglund. Plaintiffs called the phone number provided by RICO

Defendants John Divens, Bruce Haglund, Francis Wilde, and Nominal Defendant Maureen

Wilde. Mr. Divens answered the Plaintiff’s phone call, however, he refused to speak with

Plaintiffs after being informed that Plaintiffs were calling to confer with him, Bruce

Haglund, Francis Wilde, and Maureen Wilde, concerning Plaintiffs’ motion for extension of

time and their sanctions motions. None of the aforementioned Defendants came to the

phone. Mr. Divens placed the call on hold and a Mr. Irving Parchman took the call. He was

informed of Plaintiffs’ need to speak and confer with the defendants whose phone numbers

given in their answers as (310) 601-3168, the number which Plaintiffs had called. Mr.

Parchman spoke with Plaintiffs and stated he would leave messages with defendants Bruce

H. Haglund, Francis E. Wilde, and Maureen Wilde, but did not call the defendants to the

phone. Since that time Plaintiffs have not been able to contact any of the aforementioned

defendants, nor have the aforementioned defendants returned Plaintiffs’ calls or

responded to Plaintiffs’ request for conference.

For the Plaintiffs:

Friday, September 14, 2012

s/

R. LANCE FLORES



Doc. 201 -- Plantiffs Motion to Strike Bruce H. Haglund's Answer

Documents

internal quotation marks

assisted living facility

answering defendant admits

rico defendant bruce

verifiable material evidence

strike bruce haglund

strike defendants pleadings

haglunds sec comp