Plaintiffs v. AIP2

223.
On August 1st and later August 3rd, the Plaintiff wrote to the Defendants
for some reassurance. She expressed that she needed details and wanted to know if
the Defendants would refund her money if the Agency were to close. Defendant
Anderson responded that the adoptions were just slowed down with Orson’s
departure. He told her “he expected her LOI to be issued soon.”
224. On or about August 3, 2007, Plaintiff sent a note demanding her money
back. She had spent over $22,000 and 15 months at that point with nothing to show for
her time, efforts and heartache. (See Exhibit rr)
225. On or about September 17, 2007, Plaintiff e-mailed Defendants to inquire
why other AIP clients had received a Notice of Dissolution of AIP but she didn’t have
one sent to her. Defendant Anderson responded by sending her a notice and stated “We
are trying to find out who would be willing to transfer their adoptions to Heritage.
The transfer is not finalized at this time, but will be shortly.” (See Exhibit ss)
226. Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Defendants on or about September 19, 2007
again demanding her money back as a transfer was not part of the contract and the
Defendants had breached the contract. Plaintiff also requested her files back from
Defendants. Plaintiff has been damaged financially and emotionally by the Defendant’s
illegal activities
Plaintiffs Meenach
227. Plaintiffs Chad and Michelle Meenach (“Plaintiffs”) contracted to adopt a
child through the Defendants. On or about August 15, 2006, Defendants presented a
photo listing of child #58, representing that this was a healthy female infant
approximately 3 months old and in good health with no special medical or psychological
49
needs. Defendants assured the Plaintiffs that they could have this child #58 if they sent
their fees.
228. The Plaintiffs sent their fees and began the process of completing their
dossier and home study. Once the money was sent to the Defendants, the Defendants
promised to hold the child they had selected and assured the Plaintiffs that the baby
would be their referral.
229. On or about February 2007, the Plaintiffs had sent the dossier to the
Defendants and inquired about whether it had been reviewed yet. The Plaintiffs wanted to
know the timeline for travel but Defendant Mozes said that Defendant Anderson was in
charge of the timeline. The Plaintiffs were sent updated pictures of the child the
Defendants had referred to them.
230. On or about March 19, 2007, Defendants told the Plaintiffs to wire money
to Roza Ligay in Uzbekistan and advised them that the balance of the foreign fees would
be $12,500 after wiring the money to Roza.
231. On or about May 23, 2007, Plaintiffs receives their visa information from
Defendants. Defendant Anderson instructed the Plaintiffs to lie on the application about
where they were staying while in Kaz. (See Exhibit tt)
232. In early June 2007, after submitting the visa application on May 24, 2007,
Plaintiff Michelle Meenach wanted information on travel dates but was told by
Defendants that the travel agency is having trouble getting flights. Defendants advised
Plaintiff to go on a waiting list for flights and to put her travel plans on hold.
233. On or about July 9, 2007, Plaintiffs ask Defendant Anderson about a
rumor that Defendant Mozes had left the agency. Defendant Anderson confirmed that
50
Defendant Brown is now the director. Defendants told Plaintiffs that their LOI should be
coming in approximately 5 days. (See Exhibit uu)
234. On or about July 12, 2007, Plaintiffs asked about the prices for the
apartments, what the baby girl’s name is and whether the child was still available.
Defendant Anderson advises “the child’s name is Janna and that he has sent an e-mail
to see if she is still available.” (See Exhibit vv)
235. On or about August 8, 2007, Plaintiffs tried to access the Defendants
website for photo listings but find it has been taken off line. Defendants told Plaintiffs
that the site is just down for a few days.
236. On or about August 23, 2007, Plaintiffs advised the Defendants if they
cannot complete the adoption, the Plaintiffs want a full refund sent to them. Defendant
Anderson writes to the Plaintiffs “The current status is that AIP’s dossiers are sitting
on the desk of Raissa, who is the head of the Ministry of Education in Kazakhstan.
Christen spoke to her last week and was told that she has been holding them due to
the fact that the US Embassy has put pressure on her to do so…..” (See Exhibit ww)
237. On or about September 12, 2007, Defendants sent the Plaintiffs the
Transfer Notice and Notice of Dissolution of the Agency. Plaintiff’s questioned the
Defendants and Defendant Anderson advised that Heritage Adoptions is working with the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Kaz to complete the adoptions. (See Exhibit xx)
238. In October 2007, Plaintiffs decided to use a new agency to complete a Kaz
adoption.
51
239. The Plaintiffs have suffered both emotionally and financially. The
Plaintiffs have been victimized by the Defendants fraudulent inducement and
misrepresentation.
Plaintiffs Young
240. Plaintiffs Annmae and Christopher Young (“Plaintiffs”) decided to add to
their family by adopting a baby. In May 2005, they sent an e-mail to the Defendants to
inquire about baby # 749, Natalia, they found on Adopting.com’s photo listings for AIP.
Defendants instruct Plaintiffs to send signed contracts and $12,850 to AIP and once he
gets his payment he will remove baby #749 from the photo listings and no one else can
adopt her. Defendants assure the Plaintiffs that he can hold the child pending home study
completion. (See Exhibit yy)
241. As Plaintiffs prepare their home study and dossier papers, and 24 hours
after sending the $12,850, the Defendants ask the Plaintiffs to wire via Western Union
$5000 foreign fees to the Ukraine as soon as possible. The Plaintiffs are asked to wire the
money to Maryam Ramazoanova. Plaintiffs comply.
242. On or about July 28, 2005, Defendants send an e-mail to all clients listing
the employees of AIP and what their roles are within the agency. (See Exhibit zz)
243. On or about September 13, 2005, Plaintiffs are told that they must hire
Nina Vzorova to translate their documents. In the past the Kaz embassy handled the
translation but now Plaintiffs needed to send $600 for the translations. AIP clients are
reminded that their contract allows Defendants to charge additional expenses without
notice. Plaintiffs were sent updated pictures for baby #749. (See Exhibit AAA)
52
244. On or about November 20, 2005, Plaintiffs discovered baby #749, Natalia,
on the Sapp family’s on line adoption blog. The Sapp family were also adopting through
the Defendants agency. When Plaintiffs confronted Defendants they are told “We have
checked and this is not the same girl you are adopting.”
245. After receiving this assurance from the Defendants, the Plaintiffs
contacted the Sapp family via e-mail and explained what had happened. Plaintiffs asked
the Sapp family to check on their baby #749 as both children were in the same baby
house and the Defendants has assured them that these were two separate babies.
246. On November 24, 2005, Plaintiffs were notified that baby #749, Natalia,
was indeed being adopted by the Sapp family through the Defendants. Even though their
hearts were breaking the Plaintiffs had the grace to congratulate the family who was
adopting this little girl, now named Leah.
247. On or about November 25, 2005, Plaintiffs write to Defendants to tell
them how heartbroken they are over the loss of their referral. Plaintiffs explain how
devastating this event has been to their little boy and how they have had to attempt to
explain it to him as well. Defendants respond to Plaintiffs questions on how their baby
could be coming home with another AIP family by stating “I am so sorry this has never
happened before; but we will find you the greatest baby. There is nothing I can say
that will make it better at this time. It will take sometime to heal this bad
situation…..” (See Exhibit BBB)
248. On or about November 25, 2005, Plaintiffs receive another letter of
explanation from the Defendants. This letter blamed the mistake on the Kaz coordinators
and told the Plaintiffs “Please try and keep the stupid mistake in your own family
53
because I am so embarrassed by this and so is everyone else involved.” (See Exhibit
CCC)
249. On or about December 12, 2005, even though their hearts were breaking
the Plaintiffs had the grace to congratulate the family who was adopting this little girl,
now named Leah. (See Exhibit DDD)
250. On or about February 26, 2006, Defendants finally sent new photos of two
babies for the Plaintiffs to review, and instructed to pick the baby they would like to
accept to adopt.
251. Plaintiffs accepted this 2nd referral, however by May 2006, again the
Plaintiffs find out via online communication with other adoptive parents (in Kaz at the
time) that this referral is being adopted by an Irish family who are with a different
adoption agency. When the Plaintiffs again confront the Defendants about the status of
their 2nd referral, the Defendants ask for proof of this claim in the form of a photo. The
Plaintiffs e-mailed the photo and the Defendants advise that they will check this
information for accuracy. Upon Defendants investigation into the adoption of the 2nd
referral to another family, the Plaintiffs are notified by telephone that indeed referral
number 2 had been adopted by a family in Ireland.
252. Having been emotionally traumatized again, the Plaintiffs request baby
#1011, another photo listed baby that captured their hearts. This request was again
granted by the Defendants and became the Plaintiff’s 3rd referral. In early June 2006,
Plaintiffs were instructed to make travel arrangements to arrive in Kaz by June 21, 2006.
The Plaintiffs comply and become hopeful. Airline tickets and VISA’s are paid for and in
the Plaintiff’s hands. On June 17, 2006, the Defendants notify plaintiffs by telephone that
54
travel plans must be chanted to mid-July as “the baby house director is on vacation and
adoptions will not take place until her return.” Again the Plaintiffs comply at the added
expense of travel date changes. The night before traveling to Kaz, the Plaintiffs were
informed by Defendants that this 3rd referral was no longer available and a 4th referral
was emailed to the Plaintiffs.
253. Prior to departure on or about July 11, 2006 the Plaintiffs called the
Defendants on last time prior to boarding the plane to inquire about the 4th referral’s
status, and were told verbally by the Defendant “I don’t know what child you will be
getting, I don’t know what is going on over there.”
254. On or about July 11, 2006, Plaintiffs fly to Kaz emotionally drained and
doubtful that there is a female baby under 12 months (as contracted for with Defendants)
available for adoption. Upon arrival to the baby house, the Plaintiffs are presented with
baby #1011, the 3rd referral whom they were told by Defendants was no longer available.
Defendant’s in-country staff told Plaintiffs that this child had been turned down by three
other families prior to the Plaintiff’s arrival in Kaz, but it is this child that the Plaintiffs
would ultimately bond with and adopt in Kaz. The Plaintiffs have their court date and on
August 3, 2006, Leah Natalya’s adoption was approved by the Kaz court.
255. While in Kaz on the return trip to take custody of their child, Plaintiffs
learn from the Kaz coordinator that both Defendants and the Sapp’s that adopted child
#749, knew that she was referred to the Plaintiffs. However, the Defendants allowed the
other family to adopt child #749 because the Sapp’s had their dossier in order first. The
Defendants couldn’t locate a female child of age 5 available for adoption as the Sapp’s
had originally contracted for with the Defendants.
55
256. On or about August 21, 2006, the required 15 day waiting period was
complete and the Plaintiffs could return to Kaz to bring home their daughter. However
the Defendants claim a delay in the paperwork, therefore the return trip is also delayed.
257. On or about September 22, 2006, the Plaintiffs return to Kaz to take
custody of their daughter. The Plaintiffs return home with their daughter on October 6,
2006.
258. The Plaintiffs have suffered both emotionally and financially. They have
been the victims of the Defendants bait and switch baby scheme and have had to endure
much to complete their adoption. The Plaintiffs have been victimized by the Defendants
fraudulent inducement and misrepresentation.
Plaintiffs Wason
259. On or about February 18, 2006, Plaintiffs Kathleen and Billy Mark Wason
(“Plaintiffs”) inquired of Defendants about child #919 on the photo listings. Defendant
Mozes explained the fees in an e-mail to Plaintiffs and told them to call and speak to
Defendant Anderson. Defendants told the Plaintiffs “…20% of the time clients will lose
their referral because a birth parent or relative comes back to claim the child or
some other unforeseen circumstance happens….” (See Exhibit EEE)
260. Plaintiffs told Defendants know that they were hesitant to send $11,850 to
the Defendants without knowing if child #919 was really available. Defendant Mozes
advised that they wouldn’t check to make sure the child is available until the check from
the Plaintiffs arrived at his office.
261. On or about February 20, 2006, Plaintiffs advised Defendants that they
would like updated information on child #919 or want information on other children
56
because another family may be interested in child #919. Plaintiffs were still hesitant to
send money with the Defendant’s no refund policy. Defendant Mozes responds “You will
not get nay (sp) more information until you go over, we cannot get updates. We do
too many adoption and not enough manpower. Plus they do not like it very much in
the foreign country sorry.” (See Exhibit FFF)
262. Plaintiffs asked Defendants how long it would be before they would travel
to Kaz once their homestudy was been completed. Defendants advised 2 months.
263. On or about March 3, 2006, Plaintiffs inquired on the possibility of
adopting a second child in the same region. Defendants advised that the fees are $4,000
for the second child, a reduction of $1000 on the foreign fee for the second child but it
must be done through blind travel. Defendants offered to locate a child 1 month before
the Plaintiffs traveled to Kaz.
264. On or about April 10, 2006, Defendants e-mailed the Plaintiffs that they
have “never had a problem with a child that has come to the states older or
younger…” Defendants cautioned the Plaintiffs that child #919, named Marina, may
have issues when she is adopted. Next the Defendants offered to swap children if it
doesn’t work out. Defendant Mozes states “If you prefer when you get there we can
also prepare an infant girl for you to adopt Caucasian beautiful in case you cannot
handle an older girl. The foreign fee will be $16,000 in the case of a girl under three.
Just to let you know…..” (See Exhibit GGG)
265. On or about May 17, 2006, Plaintiffs contacted the Defendants about
traveling to another country to adopt during the summer to accommodate their son’s
school schedule. The Plaintiffs reasoned that with no guaranties that Marina was
57
available, it may be a better choice. Defendants respond “Marina is there they told me
for sure.” (See Exhibit HHH)
266. Throughout June and July 2006, Plaintiffs tried to get the Defendants to
advise the region where Marina was located so they could make travel plans. Defendants
refused to tell the Plaintiffs the region where they would be traveling until they have been
invited to travel.
267. On or about July 16, 2006, Defendants sent Plaintiffs an e-mail advising
that a family member has returned to “claim your girl.” Defendants immediately offer
to replace the girl with another and tell Plaintiffs that their trip won’t be delayed at all.
They are told there is an 80% chance that they will travel to Almaty region. (See Exhibit
III)
268. On or about July 23, 2006, Plaintiffs received their LOI but no visa.
Defendants promise to send additional pictures of young girls for the Plaintiffs to review.
When Plaintiffs advise that the Defendants had promised other pictures and referrals
quickly, they are told “Adoption is not perfect.”
269. On or about August 17, 2006, the Plaintiffs prepared to travel to Germany
and then to Kaz. Prior to traveling, the Plaintiffs were asked to wire $2,000 to a person
named Roza in Kaz and then another $4,000 the night before they traveled. They planned
to travel to Shymkent but asked if they can change regions quickly if needed. Defendant
Mozes assures them that it wouldn’t be a problem to change regions and there were
“thousands of children available for adoption.”
270. On or about August 29, 2006, while in Germany, the Plaintiffs received an
e-mail from the Defendants advising them that the LOI from Shymkent cannot be
58
changed to another region and there is only a four year old boy available for adoption.
Plaintiffs had to turn around and fly back to Texas. (See Exhibit JJJ)
271. Plaintiffs contacted the American Embassy in Washington and were
assured that their adoption agency should not turn their backs on the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
repeatedly try to reach the in-country coordinator, Nigmat. Nigmat doesn’t answer their
calls. Defendants told Plaintiffs that Nigmat was trying to get them changed into another
region.
272. Plaintiffs told Defendants that the Defendants or Nigmat should reimburse
Plaintiffs air fair and fees for the aborted trip.
273. On or about October 5, 2006, Plaintiffs expressed their frustration with
Defendants and Nigmat in not finding another child for adoption and Nigmat’s apparent
inability to have the regions switched for the Plaintiff’s adoption. (See Exhibit KKK)
274. In late October 2006, Orson called the Plaintiffs and told them that they
needed to wire $4,000.00 and be ready to travel the next day to Kaz because Nigmat had
finally gotten their LOI changed to another region. Plaintiff Mark explained to
Defendants that they couldn’t wire the money because it was a Sunday and the banks
were closed. He explained to Defendant Mozes that they would not wire any more
money. Defendant Mozes began cussing at Plaintiff and the Plaintiff hung up the
telephone. Afraid to jeopardize their adoption, the money was paid and Plaintiff Kathleen
left for Kaz.
275. Plaintiff Kathleen traveled back to Kaz, traveling blind to the Ust region
and began the bonding process with little Valeena. Plaintiff paid Nigmat $2500 to request
the Court to waive the second trip requirement. The Judge denied the waiver and Nigmat
59
told the Plaintiff he would refund that money on her second trip. Nigmat was advised the
second trip will be on December 5, 2006. Nigmat then asked Plaintiff for an additional
$2500.00 to expedite the return trip when she returns to get custody of Valeena.
276. Plaintiffs Mark and Kathleen Wason were induced and extorted into
wiring additional funds to complete their adoption of Valeena. The Plaintiffs were
induced into adopting through illegal photo listings and fraudulent promises by the
Defendants. Plaintiffs have been damaged financially and emotionally by the Defendant’s
illegal activities.
Plaintiffs Wessel
277. Plaintiffs Stefan and Claudia Wessel (“Plaintiffs”) are the owners of two
very successful Bed & Breakfast Inn’s in the east. On or about March 20, 2006, Plaintiffs
inquired of Defendants about child #946 on the photo listings on the website
precious.org. The Plaintiffs questioned the Defendants about adopting more than one
child. When they received the information from the Defendants they were told “We can
only hold one child for you because the second child must be in the same area as the
first and we can only hold one child before you go not two.” (See Exhibit LLL)
278. The Plaintiffs inquired about photo listing #946 and the Defendants sent
information about beginning the process of adoption. In this information, the Defendants
begin the message with “We can hold this child while you do your home study and
immigration and get your dossier together.” (See Exhibit MMM)
279. The next day, they were told that the baby boy #946 was no longer
available.
60
280. The Defendants then sent the Plaintiffs another referral for baby boy #989,
Danil Velekodoni. The Plaintiffs opened a FedEx account and sent a check of $11,250.00
in certified funds noting that the funds were for referral #989-Danil Velekodoni.
281. The Plaintiffs asked for and received numerous assurances from
Defendants that this baby boy was available and that he would be removed from all photo
listings. A few weeks later the Plaintiffs found that baby boy #989 was listed on another
website run by a different adoption agency. When questioned about this, the Defendants
said that the Plaintiffs must be mistaken. The Plaintiffs told Defendants that it was clearly
their referral posted. One week later, the photo listing was removed.
282. On or about October 2006, the Plaintiff’s dossier was completed and
submitted to the Defendants for baby boy #989. (See Exhibit NNN)
283. Plaintiffs were sent their LOI on or about January 30, 2007. (See Exhibit
OOO)
284. On or about February 14, 2007, Defendants sent the Plaintiffs an e-mail
titled “Good News and Bad News”, to tell them that the baby boy #989 was no longer
available. But that they had found another boy, Andrey who would be available for them
to adopt. Defendant Mozes said “I do not have the heart to tell you this by phone. I
apologize but I cannot do this in person on the phone. ….. It is best to keep this
confidential and please do not let anyone see the child I am sending you he is not on
any site.” (See Exhibit PPP) supra ¶92.
285. When the Plaintiffs inquired why it was taking so long to complete the
travel arrangements in March 16, 2007, they received a message from the Defendants
stating “I am so sorry the boy is not available and they are looking for another boy
61
that you can adopt….” (See Exhibit QQQ) Later the Plaintiffs found out that the
Defendants had promised this boy to Plaintiff’s De Lorenzo and Wessel at the same time.
286. On March 20, 2007, Plaintiff Claudia Wessel sent an e-mail to the
Defendants explaining the physical and emotional toll that the loss of two referrals has
taken on her due to the news of the lost referral. (See Exhibit RRR)
287. In late April and early May 2007, the Plaintiffs received their Visa’s and
traveled to Kaz to visit their third referral, a lovely little girl, Anastasia. The Plaintiffs
were finally able to complete the adoption of Anastasia and bring their daughter home.
288. Plaintiffs Stefan and Claudia Wessel were induced and extorted into
wiring additional funds to complete their adoption of Anastasia. The Plaintiffs were
induced into adopting through illegal photo listings and fraudulent promises by the
Defendants. Plaintiffs have been damaged financially and emotionally by the Defendant’s
illegal activities. The Plaintiffs have spent over $57,846 to complete this adoption. These
costs do not include the loss of business by being gone from the Inn’s during peak
season.
Plaintiffs Heinrich
289. Plaintiffs Deanna and Brent Heinrich (“Plaintiffs”) inquired about
adoption through the Defendants. On or about March 20, 2006, Plaintiffs inquired of
Defendants about child #947 on the photo listings on the website precious.org. Still
deliberating about adoption, the Plaintiffs inquired again in October 2006. Finally in
December 2006, the Plaintiffs decided to adopt. On or about December 10, 2006, the
Defendants asked the Plaintiffs to wire one-half of the initial $8850.00 and the other half
in one month and instructed the Plaintiffs to begin gathering information for their dossier.
62
290. On or about June 12, 2007, the Plaintiffs spoke to Defendant Mozes about
their LOI and he told them it was coming within 2 weeks.
291. On or about July 5, 2007, Defendant Anderson advised the Plaintiffs that
Mozes was no longer with AIP and that he “had taken Orson’s position.” Later the same
day, Defendant Anderson stated in an e-mail “I have sent the coordinator an email to
check to make sure the child is still available. The child is in the Shymkent region. I
will let you know as soon as I hear from our coordinator.” (See Exhibit SSS)
292. The same day Defendant Anderson advised the Plaintiffs that “the owner
is going over to Kazakhstan to completely separate Orson from AIP…” (See
Exhibit TTT)
293. On or about August 23, 2007, after a few more months of frustration,
Plaintiffs contacted a Kazakhstan facilitator that had helped other AIP families try to
complete their adoptions – Ekatrina. When the Plaintiffs inquired whether she could help,
she wrote that she would charge $13,000.00 USD and an additional $2,000.00 for
expediting the process. Ekatrina wanted the Plaintiffs to send a new Power of Attorney
for Natalia Goltsman. When the Plaintiffs advised Ekatrina that they had already sent a
Power of Attorney for Natalia through the Defendants, Ekatrina commented “I am
surprized to learn that your dossier contains already PA for Natialia Goltsman, as we
have never worked in Shymkent.” (See Exhibit UUU)
294. In September 2007, the Plaintiffs were contacted by Defendant Anderson
who had begun working for Heritage Adoptions. Heritage was attempting to get the AIP
clients to move over to their agency and Heritage would complete the adoptions.
63
295. On September 13, 2007, Plaintiffs asked Defendant Anderson to return
their money. Plaintiffs didn’t get a response to that request. (See Exhibit VVV)
296. On or about October 22 2007, Plaintiffs were able to verify with the U.S.
Embassy in Almaty that neither the MOE or Ministry of Foreign affairs had the
Plaintiff’s dossier. The last person’s that had the Plaintiff’s dossier’s were either
Defendant Anderson or Nigmat. (See Exhibit XXX) Plaintiffs have never had their
dossiers returned.
297. Plaintiffs Brent and Deanna Heinrich were induced into wiring funds to
for their adoption of Baby #947. The Plaintiffs were induced into adopting through illegal
photo listings and fraudulent promises by the Defendants. Plaintiffs have been damaged
financially and emotionally by the Defendant’s illegal activities. The Plaintiffs have spent
over $17,576.31 to adopt a child that may never have been available. The Plaintiffs
personal information and dossier have never been returned.
Plaintiffs Jarema
298. After three years of infertility, the Plaintiffs Dawn and Jeffery Jarema
(“Plaintiffs”) called and spoke to Defendants about adopting child “Denis” #471 on the
photo listings. On or about September 9, 2004, Plaintiffs sent the initial fees of $7,850.00
which Defendant Mozes told them would “hold the child.” When Plaintiff Dawn asked
Defendant Mozes why AIP agency charges higher rates than other agencies he replied
“you get what you pay for.” Plaintiff Dawn Jarema also asked how long the process
would take and Mozes said “four to six months.”
299. On September 15, 2004, Plaintiffs were asked to send an additional
$5,000.00 to Kaz to get the paperwork started for the referral.
64
300. On or about October 29, 2004, the Plaintiffs sent their dossier to the
Defendants for translation but the translation was not completed until January 14, 2005.
301. On or about February 22, 2005, the Plaintiff’s dossiers were approved by
the Embassy.
302. On or about February 23, 2005, the Plaintiffs were told to wire $2,500.00
for their son who was waiting for them. Defendant Mozes told the Plaintiffs the money
was for additional paperwork.
303. On or about April 7, 2005, Plaintiffs sent Defendant Mozes an e-mail
telling him that according to the timing he had presented when they contracted with the
agency, it had passed.
304. During the process of adopting Denis, the Plaintiffs were inquired about
adopting a second child, a girl. Plaintiffs wired an additional $22,500.00 to the
Defendants. They were sent a breakdown of fees and estimate of money needed when
they were to travel to Kaz to pick up the children and complete the adoptions. (See
Exhibit YYY)
305. On or about May 12, 2005, Defendant Mozes asked the Plaintiffs to wire
an additional $7,500.00 to get the paperwork ready for the second child. The Plaintiffs
were ready to travel but Defendant Mozes kept delaying their travel dates.
306. Finally the Plaintiffs were able to travel on June 3, 2005. The day before
they left the spoke to Defendant Mozes who assured the Plaintiffs that their son and
daughter were waiting for them.
307. On or about Sunday, June 5, 2005, the Plaintiffs arrived in Kaz. They
immediately went to the apartment that the Defendants had arranged for them to live in
65
while in Kaz. The apartment was surrounded by garbage and graffiti outside but it was
tolerable inside.
308. Later the same day, Nigmat came to the Plaintiffs and told them that he
believed a family member had come to claim the little boy, Denis but he would check
into it on Monday, June 6, 2005.
309. On Monday, June 6, 2005, Plaintiffs were told that the boy was no longer
available. When they spoke to Defendant Mozes he said “they will find you a child
don’t worry”.
310. Even though the Plaintiffs had been told that they wouldn’t have any in-
country travel, they were now told to go purchase plane tickets to Aktobek, then
Shymkent and finally Ust-Kamerngorsk (“Ust”).
311. On Wednesday, June 8, 2005, the Plaintiffs arrived in Ust and were taken
to another dirty apartment. Then they traveled to a baby-house only to be told that there
were no children that met the profile the Plaintiffs had submitted. They were offered an
older unhealthy girl and a special needs baby boy. The Plaintiffs had to refuse these
children as they had not been approved to adopt or care for special needs children over 3
years old.
312. The drivers took the Plaintiffs back to the dirty apartment in Ust and
dropped them off. The Plaintiffs tried repeatedly to call the Defendants or their in-country
representatives/facilitators and no one would return their calls.
313. The Plaintiffs called the translator who answered after 15 separate
attempts. The translator called at the same time the police were banging on the door of
the apartment. The Plaintiffs did get through to the first translator in Almaty and asked
66
her to have Defendant Mozes call them at the apartment. She never called back but later
told the Plaintiffs that she would be fired if she helped them in any way.
314. The Defendant’s in-country staff finally came to the apartment and paid
the police off to leave the Plaintiffs alone. Defendant Mozes called the Plaintiffs and
screamed at them calling them stupid. He told them that they must go back to the baby-
house or he would not refund any of the Plaintiffs money. He accused the Plaintiffs of not
having an “open mind.”
315. The Plaintiffs had paid Defendants approximately $46,000.00 at this point
and Defendant Mozes told them that he was keeping it all unless they went back to the
baby house.
316. On or about June 9, 2005, the Plaintiffs went back to the baby-house and
were shown the same children and no babies. That evening the police came back to the
apartment demanding more money.
317. The Plaintiffs had to flee the apartment at 10:00 pm because the
Defendants had placed them in danger by having them travel to Ust. While at the baby
house, the Plaintiffs had met another family who were able to keep the Plaintiffs safe.
Plaintiffs were fearing for their lives and wanted out of Kaz.
318. On or about June 10, 2005, the Plaintiffs flew back to the United States
broken hearted. They had shown Denis’ picture to family and friends and now had no
hopes of adopting the boy.
319. Defendants did refund a portion of the money spent by the Plaintiffs
calling the experience “bad luck”. But the Plaintiffs still paid over $17,401.00 that was
never refunded.
67
320. Plaintiffs Dawn and Jeffery Jarema were induced into wiring funds to for
their adoption of Baby #417. The Plaintiffs were induced into adopting through illegal
photo listings and fraudulent promises by the Defendants. Plaintiffs have been damaged
financially and emotionally by the Defendant’s illegal activities. The Plaintiffs had spent
over $46,000.00 with $17,401.00 still not refunded, to adopt a child that may never have
been available.
Plaintiffs Penny
321. The Plaintiffs Gerri and Iain Penny (“Plaintiffs”) contacted Defendant AIP
on or about October 2004. On or about November 2, Defendant Mozes stated in an e-mail
to the Plaintiffs “Immigration always gives you the worst case scenario….So say 4
months for home study and immigration and you will be on the plane about two
months later.” On or about November 5, 2004, the Plaintiffs had been working with
Defendant Mozes on completing their dossiers and confirmed that the mailing address for
the I-660A was Bryn Mawr, Pennsylvania. (See Exhibit ZZZ)
322. On or about November 15, 2004, Plaintiffs expressed disappointment with
Defendants when they had been charged for a video that had never been taken. Defendant
Mozes responded by instructing the AIP employee Molly to refund the Plaintiff’s
$200.00. In response to the Plaintiff’s complaints, Defendant Mozes wrote “I cannot
break the ethical way I work just because you asked for a video.” (See Exhibit
AAAA)
323. On or about November 26, 2004, Plaintiffs chose a little girl from the
photo listings and sent in their payment to “hold” her. Defendant Mozes responded “We
are taking her off the site now.” (See Exhibit BBBB)
68
324. On or about November 29, 2004, Plaintiffs sent the Defendants a list of
questions about the little girl who they were told was being held for them to adopt. They
were told that her name was Anelia Sultanova and that she was in Karaganda.
325. On or about December 6, 2004, Plaintiffs asked Defendant Mozes the
name of the orphanage in Karaganda. Defendant Mozes replied “We will not have that
information until you get there sorry. Too many people trying to bother them so our
lawyer does not give this out.” (See Exhibit CCCC)
326. On or about March 5, 2006, the Plaintiffs had a telephone conversation
with Defendant Mozes where he told them that if the current child didn’t work out, the
Plaintiffs could go to an alternate baby house. When following up on that conversation
on Tuesday, March 8, 2005, Defendant Mozes stated in an e-mail “I am sure we could
find a child in Karaganda and if that did not work out you could go elsewhere but
you would go where the best children would be at the time.” (See Exhibit DDDD)
327. In mid-March 2005, the Plaintiffs began to get worried because they had
not received updated pictures or videos of Anelia from the Defendants. Plaintiffs asked
what percentage of Defendants clients actually meet/adopt the child they chose from
photolisting. Defendant Mozes wrote back “90%.” (See Exhibit EEEE)
328. The Plaintiffs now were without confidence that Anelia was really
available. Despite paying for updates and Defendant Mozes assuring the Plaintiffs several
times that she was available, the Plaintiffs asked to switch to photo listing #711.
329. On or about April 4, 2005, Defendant Mozes sent the Plaintiffs
information on photolisting #711 along with the standard information sent to all
prospective parents at that time. (See Exhibit FFFF)
69
330. On or about May 2, 2005, the Plaintiffs asked Molly if the child was still
being held for them. Molly responded “your child is still being held for you, from what
I hear. We’re excited to get you over to adopt her soon too!....” (See Exhibit GGGG)
331. By May 18, 2005, problems now surfaced with this adoption with
Defendant Mozes advising the Plaintiffs “They checked; and when they reached the
orphanage director she said the police just told her they located two other siblings
a boy and a girl in another orphanage that no one knew about. She can be
adopted only with them. I asked how old they were and how much to adopt them
also. I know you might not want to but maybe for another client. Let me know if
you would like to continue with her under these conditions. Nigmat said if you do
not want to adopt her he can show you wonderful girl’s similar age. He said the
best thing would be to go blind because there are many little girls off the registry
that he cannot send us information on because they are for people with documents
who come blind and adopt them immediately and he cannot get information
before hand. Sorry about the news” (See Exhibit HHHH)
332. The Plaintiffs were distraught and angry and demanded their money back
from the Defendants. On or about May 19, 2005, Defendants offered to return $5750 of
the agency fee and half of the foreign fees of $2250. (See Exhibit IIII)
333. On or about June 1, 2005, the Plaintiffs sent an e-mail to Defendant Mozes
listing the many lies and incorrect statements provided to the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiffs
pointed out the pattern of behavior that seemed to be how the Defendants operated.
Defendant Mozes responded by telling the Plaintiffs how successful he was for over 15
70
years and that his clients were happy and only 2 families were unhappy. Mozes closed
by stating “I do not do what you say I do. Life gets in the way.” (See Exhibit JJJJ)
334. On or about January 2006, the Plaintiffs wrote to Defendants to remind
them that they had agreed to return the Plaintiffs dossiers and that the Defendants had
provided false statements throughout the adoption process so a full refund would be
expected. Mozes responded that the documents were sent back to the Plaintiffs from
the Ministry. When the Plaintiffs told Defendant Mozes that he needed to refund the
money or they would consult an attorney, Mozes responded “Consult the whole
world. Do you think I was born yesterday you have no case.” (See Exhibit
KKKK)
335. On or about April 24, 2006, Plaintiffs sent an e-mail to Defendant Mozes
outlining another problem a family had with the in-country facilitator in Kaz.
Defendant Mozes responded saying “…You see I do care about my clients.
Remember everyone that goes over does come back with beautiful children if they
stay there to do that. It is not a perfect science but we do our best. Just look at our
website since you left. We are doing more adoptions than ever….” (See Exhibit
LLLL)
336. Plaintiffs hired Defendants to facilitate an adoption. The Defendants did
nothing to assist the Plaintiffs but induced them into an adoption process by offering
children that were not available through an illegal process, leaving the Plaintiffs
financially and emotionally devastated. Plaintiffs have been damaged financially and
emotionally by being induced into a fraudulent adoption scheme through the Defendants
illegal activities.
71
DEFENDANT ADOPTION INTERNATIONAL PROGRAM’S
SCHEME TO DEFRAUD
337. Defendant AIP has engaged in a scheme to defraud people seeking to
become parents. The Defendant AIP conducted this scheme to defraud through a system of
offering children to the new parents and demanding a signed illusory contract and a wire of
thousands of dollars.
338. Through this scheme, the Defendant AIP gathered money and requested
wired payments for additional unspecified fees with the threat that if these fees aren’t
paid, the adoption will cease.
339. Throughout the course of the process, the Defendant AIP engaged in a series
of fraudulent representations designed to induce the continued interest and to gain
additional money from the parents.
340. The Defendant AIP is willing to engage in such brazenly criminal activity
given the hyper-sensitive and vulnerable state of people who desperately want to be
parents.
341. Moreover, the Defendant AIP faces little to no threat of civil action by the
adoptive parents because of the constant threat of the Defendant AIP stopping any
adoption that is currently in the system. In fact, it is suspected that there are hundreds of
families like the Plaintiffs in this case who were so scared of the Defendant AIP that they
could not come forward for fear of losing their adoption.
342. Once the Defendant AIP had obtained the money from the prospective
parents, the Defendant AIP abruptly stopped communicating and informed the
72
prospective parents that “they are too impatient” when they ask too many questions
regarding the adoption process.
343. Defendant AIP would promise to “hold” a child for adoptive parents when
the Defendants knew it was illegal by the Kaz government to have photo listings, referrals
or to hold children.
344. Defendant AIP would wait until the adoptive parents were within a week or
less of traveling to Kaz, to tell the parents that the child they had been tricked into
believing was their child, was no longer available. Thereby forcing the emotionally
shocked parents into traveling blind to choose a child which was the approved procedure
of the Kaz government.
345. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs were victimized by the Defendant
AIP’s scheme to defraud to the extent they relied upon the Defendant AIP’s fraudulent
“factual” representations regarding the adoptions, the ability to “hold” a child, birth
mother or family returning for children, status of dossier, the Kaz attorneys and in-country
coordinators involved in the adoptions and the status of the adoptions.
346. Since September 2004, Plaintiffs have been the victim of the Defendant
AIP’s scheme to defraud to the extent that they incurred substantial expense pursuing an
adoption that would not come to fruition unless they succumbed to the Defendant AIP’s
scheme to defraud and to the extent Plaintiffs relied on the Defendant AIP’s fraudulent
representations that these adoptions would take place. The Defendant AIP has refused to
return money and personal property and continue to use these for its own illegitimate
benefit. To this day, Plaintiffs continue to be so victimized by the Defendant AIP’s
scheme to defraud. See supra ¶¶ 26 –336.
73
347. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that other unknown
prospective parents have sustained and continue to sustain similar injuries by reason of the
Defendant AIP’s scheme to defraud.
DEFENDANTS’ MOZES, BROWN AND ANDERSON’S SCHEMES TO

SOLICIT BRIBES, EXTORT, AND DEFRAUD
348. Defendants Mozes, Brown and Anderson have engaged in schemes to solicit
bribes and extort money and property from prospective parents seeking to adopt children
from Kazakhstan. Defendants Mozes, Brown and Anderson have conducted their scheme
of bribe solicitation and extortion through enterprises consisting of their corporate entity
and/or an association-in-fact enterprise consisting of the Corporate Defendant AIP.
349. Through their patterns of bribe solicitation and extortion, Defendants’
Mozes, Brown and Anderson seek to wrongfully obtain money from prospective parents
who are desperately hoping to adopt a child.
350. Plaintiffs were victimized by the schemes of bribe solicitation and extortion
of Defendants’ Mozes, Brown and Anderson in that, Defendants’ Mozes, Brown and
Anderson caused the Plaintiffs to send money for adoptions that have not been completed,
may not ever be completed or adoptions that were already completed and the money was
sent due to the fear of Defendants’ Mozes, Brown and Anderson preventing its completion.
351. Defendants’ Mozes, Brown and Anderson repeated schemes to defraud
caused Plaintiffs to incur substantial expenses pursuing a dream of being parents that would
never come to fruition unless Plaintiffs succumbed to the patterns of bribe solicitation,
extortion or fraud.
74
352. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs allege that other unknown
prospective parents have sustained and continue to sustain similar injuries by reason of
Defendants’ Mozes, Brown and Anderson schemes of bribe solicitation, extortion and
mail/wire fraud.
ACTS VIOLATING THE MAIL AND WIRE FRAUD STATUTES

18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343
353. Pursuant to the events described in paragraphs 26 –336, supra, the
Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson knowingly devised or knowingly participated
in the schemes or artifices to defraud Plaintiffs or to obtain the money or property of
Plaintiffs by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.
354. Pursuant to the events described in paragraphs 26 –336, supra, the
Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson could foresee that the mails would be used
“for the purpose of” advancing, furthering, executing, concealing, conducting, participating
in or carrying out the schemes, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343. In
particular, Defendants could foresee that the mails would be used to receive and/or deliver,
inter alia, money and false or fraudulent representations regarding the adoptions, facilitators
and the agreement among the parties; the status of ongoing adoptions and the remedies for
problems with adoptions. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson continued
possession of Plaintiffs money and private information; gained through Defendants AIP,
Mozes, Brown and Anderson bribe solicitation and extortionist demands.
355. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson acting singly and in concert,
personally or through their agents, as co-conspirators, or as aiders and abettors, used the
mails or caused the mails to be used “for the purpose of” advancing, furthering, executing,
75
concealing, conducting, participating in, or carrying out the schemes, within the meaning of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343.
356. In advancing, furthering, executing, concealing, conducting, participating in,
or carrying out the schemes, the Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson specifically
used the wires/ mails or caused the wires/mails to be used to receive or deliver, inter alia,
every email, facsimile, letter or telecommunication described in paragraphs 26 –336, supra.
357. In advancing, furthering, executing, concealing, conducting, participating in,
or carrying out the schemes, the Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson also
specifically used the wires/mails or caused the wires/mails to be used to receive or deliver,
inter alia, the emails, facsimiles, letters or telecommunications with the Plaintiffs regarding
all adoption matters.
358. Each and every use of the mails and wires described above was committed
by the Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson with the specific intent to defraud
Plaintiffs or for obtaining the money or property of Plaintiffs by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises.
359. Defendants’ acts of mail and wire fraud are in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§
1341 and 1343 and constitute racketeering activity as defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)(B).
COUNT ONE
RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT
18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)
(Defendant AIP)
360. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 359 as if restated herein.
361. At all relevant times, some or all of the following individuals constituted an
“enterprise,” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4) and 1962(c), in that they were “a
76
group of individuals associated in fact”: Adoption International Program, Inc., Orson
Mozes, Christen Brown and Kevin Anderson.
(a) Adoption International Program, Inc., (the “AIP”) is
individually a “person,” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 1961(3) and 1962(c), who associated with and/or
participated in the conduct of said enterprise’s affairs.
(b) From at least September 2004 and continuing through the
present, the Defendant AIP, personally or through their agent
or agents, conducted, participated in, engaged in, conspired to
engage in, or aided and abetted, the conduct of the affairs of
the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1), 1961(5)
and 1962(c). The Defendant AIP’s pattern of racketeering
activity consisted of:
(i) a scheme to defraud (see supra ¶¶ 26 –336) that AIPs

knowingly and intentionally devised by the
Defendant AIP to obtain Plaintiffs money or property
by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations, or promises; and, for the purpose of
executing such scheme, the Defendants placed or
caused to be placed in a post office, or authorized
depository for mail, matter that furthered the scheme
to defraud (including but not limited to the
communications described in ¶¶26 –336); each
Defendant committed mail fraud, in violation of 18
U.S.C § 1341, each time it used or caused the mails to
be used to distribute the materials described in
paragraphs 23 –285 and elsewhere;
(ii) a scheme to defraud (see supra ¶¶ 26 –336) that was

knowingly and intentionally devised by Defendant
AIP to obtain Plaintiffs money or property by means
77
of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or
promises; and, for the purpose of executing such
scheme, the Defendant AIP transmitted or caused to
be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television
communication in interstate or foreign commerce
matter that furthered the scheme to defraud (including
but not limited to the communications described in ¶¶
26 –336); each Defendant committed wire fraud, in
violation of 18 U.S.C § 1343, each time it used or
caused interstate wires to be used to distribute the
materials described in paragraphs 26 –336 and
elsewhere;
(iii) receiving and/or possessing Plaintiffs property, in

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2315, valued at $5,000 or
more, which crossed a state or international boundary
after the Defendant AIP stole, unlawfully converted,
or took Plaintiffs property and which the Defendants
knew was stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken
(including but not limited to the events described in
paragraphs 26 –336 and elsewhere);
(v) transporting, transmitting, or transferring in interstate

commerce any goods, wares, merchandise of the
value of $5,000 or more, knowing the same to have
been stolen converted or taken by fraud, each and
every time that the Defendant AIP caused Plaintiffs to
transmit property across state or international
boundaries and each time that the Defendant AIP
transmitted Plaintiffs property to third-parties across
state or international boundaries as (including but not
limited to the events described in paragraphs 26 –
336), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2314.
These acts all occurred after the effective date of RICO and more than two such acts
occurred within ten years of one another.
362. At all relevant times, the enterprise alleged in paragraphs 26 –336 was
engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate commerce and foreign commerce.
363. All of the predicate acts described above were related so as to establish a
pattern of racketeering activity, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), in that their
78
common purpose was to defraud Plaintiffs or other similar prospective adoptive parents of
property or money; their common result was to defraud Plaintiffs or other similar
prospective adoptive parents of property or money; the Defendant AIP, through their
agent or agents, directly or indirectly, participated in all of the acts and employed the
same or similar methods of commission; Plaintiffs or other similar prospective adoptive
parents were the victims of the fraudulent acts; and/or the acts were otherwise interrelated
by distinguishing characteristics and were not isolated events.
364. All of the predicate acts described above were continuous so as to form a
pattern of racketeering activity in that:
a) The Defendant AIP engaged in the predicate acts described
above over a substantial period of time (from at least
September 2004 through the present); or
b) The pattern of racketeering activity engaged in by the
Defendant AIP continues or threatens to continue because it
has become a regular way of conducting the Defendant AIP’s
on-going business activities.
365. As a direct and result of, and by reason of, the activities of the Defendant
AIP, and their conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), Plaintiffs have been injured
in their business or property, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c). Among other
things, Plaintiffs have suffered damages to the extent they invested time and resources in
pursing what they thought and were led to believe was a legitimate international adoption,
to the extent their ability to adopt was delayed by the Defendant AIP’s wrongful actions,
and to the extent their property has been misappropriated. Plaintiffs are, therefore,
79
entitled to recover threefold the damages that they have sustained together with the cost of
the suit, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.
COUNT TWO

18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
(Defendant Adoption International Program, Inc.)
367. Defendant AIP conspired with Defendants Mozes, Brown and Anderson to
conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering activity (as described in paragraphs 26 –336) in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). In particular, Defendant AIP intended to further an endeavor of
Mozes, Brown and Anderson which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a
substantive RICO criminal offense and adopted the goal of furthering or facilitating the
criminal endeavor.
368. As a direct and proximate result of, and by reason of, the activities of the
Defendant AIP, and their conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d), Plaintiffs have
been injured in their business or property, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
Among other things, Plaintiffs have suffered damages to the extent they have invested
time and resources in pursing what they thought and was led to believe was a legitimate
international adoption opportunity with Defendant AIP, to the extent their ability to
complete the adoptions were delayed by the Defendant AIP’s wrongful actions, and to the
extent their property has been misappropriated. Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to
80
recover threefold the damages that they have sustained together with the cost of the suit,
including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.
COUNT THREE

18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)
(Mozes, Brown and Anderson)
370. At all relevant times, AIP constituted an “enterprise,” within the meaning of
18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(4) and 1962(c), in that it was a corporation.
(a) Mozes, Brown and Anderson are an individual “persons,”
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1962(c),
who associated with and/or participated in the conduct of said
enterprise’s affairs.
(b) For an unknown and indefinite period of time, Mozes, Brown
and/or Anderson has conducted, participated in, engaged in,
conspired to engage in, or aided and abetted, the conduct of
the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1), 1961(5)
and 1962(c). Mozes, Brown and Anderson’s pattern of
racketeering activity consisted of:
(i) bribe solicitation (see supra ¶¶ 85, 86, 181, 275) that
was designed to extract direct or indirect personal
rewards from Plaintiffs in exchange for AIP’s
recommendation to the Kazakhstan officials that they
assist in Plaintiffs or other prospective adoptive
parents’ adoptions;
81
(ii) extortion (see supra ¶¶ 26 –336) that was designed to
extract direct or indirect personal rewards from
Plaintiffs; if Plaintiffs or another prospective adoptive
refused to succumb to Mozes, Brown and/or
Anderson demands for money or foreign and
administrative fees, they would stop the adoption or
adoption activities and prevent the Plaintiffs from
moving forward in the adoption, for personal gain; all
or some said acts of extortion were in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1951;
(iii) a scheme to defraud (see supra ¶¶ 26 –336) that was

knowingly and intentionally devised by Mozes,
Brown and/or Anderson to obtain Plaintiffs money or
property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses,
executing such scheme, Mozes, Brown and/or
Anderson placed or caused to be placed in a post
office, or authorized depository for mail, matter that
furthered the scheme to defraud (including but not
limited to the communications described in ¶¶ 26 –
336); Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson committed
mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1341, each time
they used or caused the mails to be used to distribute
the materials described in paragraphs 26 –336 and
elsewhere.
(iv) a scheme to defraud (see supra ¶¶ 26 –336) that was

Anderson transmitted or caused to be transmitted by
means of wire, radio, or television communication in
interstate or foreign commerce matter that furthered
the scheme to defraud (including but not limited to
the communications described in ¶¶ 26 –336); Mozes,
Brown and/or Anderson committed wire fraud, in
elsewhere;
(v) receiving and/or possessing Plaintiffs property, in

82
after Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson stole,
unlawfully converted, or took Plaintiffs property and
which Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson knew was
stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken (including but
not limited to the events described in paragraphs 26 –
336 and elsewhere);
(vi) transporting, transmitting, or transferring in interstate

every time that Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson
caused Plaintiffs to transmit property across state or
international boundaries and each time that Mozes,
Brown and/or Anderson transmitted Plaintiffs
property to third-parties across state or international
boundaries as (including but not limited to the events
described in paragraphs 26 –336), in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2314;
(viii) traveling in interstate and foreign commerce or using the mail

or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce with intent to
distribute the proceeds of extortion or otherwise promote,
manage, establish, or carry on a scheme to extort and
thereafter performed or attempted to perform said acts, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952.
371. In the alternative to paragraph 370, at all relevant times, some or all of the
following individuals constituted an “enterprise,” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§
1961(4) and 1962(c), in that they were “a group of individuals associated in fact”:
Adoption International Program, Inc., Orson Mozes, Christen Brown and/or Kevin
Anderson.
(a) Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson are each individual “persons,”
within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1962(c), who
83
associated with and/or participated in the conduct of said enterprise’s
affairs.
(b) For an unknown and indefinite period of time, Mozes, Brown
and/or Anderson have conducted, participated in, engaged in,
conspired to engage in, or aided and abetted, the conduct of
the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering
activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1), 1961(5)
and 1962(c). Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson’s patterns of
racketeering activity consisted of:
(i) bribe solicitation (see supra ¶¶ 85, 86, 181, 275) that
was designed to extract direct or indirect personal
rewards from Plaintiffs in exchange for AIP’s
recommendation to the Kazakhstan officials that they
assist in Plaintiffs other prospective adoptive parents’
adoptions;
(ii) extortion (see supra 26 –336) that was designed to

extract direct or indirect personal rewards from
Plaintiffs; if Plaintiffs or another prospective adoptive
refused to succumb to Mozes, Brown and/or
Anderson’s demands for money or foreign and
administrative fees, they would stop the adoption or
adoption activities and prevent the Plaintiffs from
moving forward in the adoption, for personal gain; all
or some said acts of extortion were in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 1951;
(iii) a scheme to defraud (see supra ¶¶ 26 –336) that was

Anderson placed or caused to be placed in a post
office, or authorized depository for mail, matter that
furthered the scheme to defraud (including but not
limited to the communications described in ¶¶ 26 –
84
336; Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson committed mail
fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1341, each time they
used or caused the mails to be used to distribute the
elsewhere.
(iv) a scheme to defraud (see supra ¶¶ 26 –336) that was

Anderson transmitted or caused to be transmitted by
means of wire, radio, or television communication in
interstate or foreign commerce matter that furthered
the scheme to defraud (including but not limited to
the communications described in ¶¶ 26 –336); Mozes,
Brown and/or Anderson committed wire fraud, in
elsewhere;
(v) receiving and/or possessing Plaintiffs property, in

after Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson stole,
unlawfully converted, or took Plaintiffs property and
which Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson knew was
stolen, unlawfully converted, or taken (including but
not limited to the events described in paragraphs 26 –
336 and elsewhere);
(vi) transporting, transmitting, or transferring in interstate

every time that Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson
caused Plaintiffs to transmit property across state or
international boundaries and each time that Mozes,
Brown and/or Anderson transmitted Plaintiffs
property to third-parties across state or international
boundaries as (including but not limited to the events
described in paragraphs 26 –336), in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2314;
85
(viii) traveling in interstate and foreign commerce or using the mail
or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce with intent to
distribute the proceeds of extortion or otherwise promote,
manage, establish, or carry on a scheme to extort and
thereafter performed or attempted to perform said acts, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1952.
372. At all relevant times, the enterprises alleged in paragraphs 370-371 were
engaged in, and their activities affected, interstate commerce and foreign commerce.
373. All of the predicate acts described above were related so as to establish a
pattern of racketeering activity, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), in that their
common purpose was to solicit bribes, extort and defraud Plaintiffs or other similar
prospective adoptive parents of money or property; Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson each
personally or through their agents or agents, directly or indirectly, participated in all of the
acts and employed the same or similar methods of commission; Plaintiffs, other similar
prospective adoptive parents, were the victims of the fraudulent acts; and/or the acts were
otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and were not isolated events.
374. All of the predicate acts described above were continuous so as to form
patterns of racketeering activity in that:
a) Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson engaged in the predicate acts
described above over a substantial period of time; or
b) The patterns of racketeering activity engaged in by the
Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson continue or threaten to
continue because the patterns have become a regular way of
86
conducting Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson on-going
business activities (see, e.g., ¶27,28,31,32,45,53,54,63,67,70,
75,89,90,95,99,109,117,118,121,124,127,129,130,135,137,
140,141,143,148,151,153,154,155,159,163,164,171,172,181,
182,187,192,193,194,197,200,207,208,210,214,215,221,222,
223,228,231,241,244,247,248,251,253,259,261,264,274,277,
278,284,286,291,292,298,309,314,321,322,323,325,326,327,
330,331,333,334,335).
375. As a direct and result of, and by reason of, the activities of Mozes, Brown
and/or Anderson, and their conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c), Plaintiffs have
been injured in its business or property, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).
Among other things, have suffered damages to the extent the Plaintiff invested time and
resources in pursuing what they thought and were led to believe was a legitimate adoption
opportunity with AIP, to the extent its ability to complete adoptions and or facilitate
adoptions was delayed by Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson’s wrongful actions, and to the
extent their property has been misappropriated. Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to
recover threefold the damages they sustained together with the cost of the suit, including
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.
COUNT FOUR

18 U.S.C. § 1962(d)
(AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson)
87
377. AIP conspired with Mozes, Brown and Anderson to conduct or participate,
directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise through a pattern of
racketeering activity (as described in paragraphs 370-371) in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1962(d). In particular, AIP intended to further an endeavor of Mozes, Brown and/or
Anderson’s which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive RICO
criminal offense and adopted the goal of furthering or facilitating the criminal endeavor.
378. Mozes conspired with AIP, Brown and Anderson to conduct or participate,
§ 1962(d). In particular, Mozes intended to further an endeavor of AIP, Brown and
Anderson which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive RICO
(See supra, e.g, ¶ 85, 86, 181, 275.)
379. Brown conspired with AIP, Mozes and Anderson to conduct or participate,
§ 1962(d). In particular, Brown intended to further an endeavor of AIP, Mozes and
Anderson which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive RICO
(See supra, e.g, ¶ 85, 86, 181, 275.)
380. Anderson conspired with AIP, Mozes and Brown to conduct or participate,
88
§ 1962(d). In particular, Anderson intended to further an endeavor of AIP, Mozes and
Brown which, if completed, would satisfy all of the elements of a substantive RICO
(See supra, e.g, ¶ 85, 86, 181, 275.)
381. As a direct and proximate result of, and by reason of, the activities of AIP,
Mozes, Brown and Anderson, and their conduct in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(d),
Plaintiffs have been injured in their business or property, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C.
§ 1964(c). Among other things, Plaintiffs have suffered damages to the extent they
invested time and resources in pursing what they thought and were led to believe was a
legitimate adoption opportunity with AIP, to the extent the ability to complete adoptions
and or facilitate Kazakhstan adoptions were delayed by AIP, Mozes, Brown and
Anderson wrongful actions, and to the extent their property has been misappropriated.
Plaintiffs are, therefore, entitled to recover threefold the damages that they have sustained
together with the cost of the suit, including reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.
COUNT FIVE
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
383. AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson have, directly or indirectly, wrongfully
received all or part of Plaintiffs property and money related to the adoptions.
384. Despite Plaintiff’s repeated requests, AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson
have refused to fully compensate Plaintiffs for the value of the property and money
related to the adoptions received.
89
385. As a result, AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson have been unjustly enriched.
386. By reason of the foregoing, and as a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs
are entitled to a judgment in an amount to be determined by the Court, but which is in
excess of seventy-five thousand ($75,000).
COUNT SIX
CONVERSION
388. AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson have converted to their own use and
benefit Plaintiffs property and money related to the adoptions.
389. As a direct and proximate result of AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson’s
conversion of Plaintiffs assets, Plaintiffs have incurred and/or will continue to incur
substantial damages in an amount to be determined by the Court, but which is in excess
of seventy-five thousand ($75,000).
COUNT SEVEN
CIVIL CONSPIRACY
391. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson illegally, maliciously, and
wrongfully conspired with one another with the intent to and for the illegal purpose of
committing fraudulent adoptions through a bait and switch scheme, an adoption
90
scheme that offered illusory promises and conversion of the money and property of the
Plaintiffs.
392. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson, in combination, conspired
to obtain money through their fraudulent adoption schemes.
393. This conspiracy resulted in the illegal, unlawful, or tortious activity of
fraud and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.
394. As a result of the conspiracy and Defendant AIP, Mozes, Brown and
Anderson’s illegal, wrongful, or tortious acts, Plaintiffs sustained the following
damages: loss of money for adoptions, administrative fees, translation fees, travel fees,
lodging costs, fees for hiring adoption facilitators, foreign fees, loss of employment and
housing, emotional damages and other damages that may have yet to be determined.
395. As a direct and proximate result of AIP, Mozes, Brown and Anderson’s
conspiracy to obtain Plaintiff’s assets, Plaintiffs have incurred and/or will continue to
incur substantial damages in an amount to be determined by the Court, but which is in
excess of seventy-five thousand ($75,000).
COUNT EIGHT
FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
397. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson’s intentionally made
false representations of material facts to Plaintiffs regarding the success of the
adoptions, the ability of selecting a child from photo listings, the ability of the
Defendants to “hold” a child for adoption, the ability of Defendants to complete
91
adoptions due to their relationship with Kazakhstan officials, the ability to switch
regions while in the process of adoptions, the cost of services, the availability of
children available to adopt, as set forth in the preceding paragraphs.
398. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson’s representations were
false when they were made.
399. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson knew that the
representations were false when they were made or made them recklessly, without
knowing whether they were true.
400. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson intended that Plaintiffs
rely on the representations.
401. Plaintiffs relied on Defendant’s false representations by signing an illusory
Adoption Contract in the hopes of adopting a child.
402. As a direct and proximate result of AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson
fraudulent misrepresentation, Plaintiffs have incurred and/or will continue to incur
COUNT NINE
INNOCENT MISREPRESENTATION
(AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson)
403. Plaintiffs reallege and restate paragraphs 1 through 402 as if restated herein.
404. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson’s representations, as set
forth in the preceding paragraphs, were made in connection with the making of a
contract between Plaintiffs and Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson.
92
405. Plaintiffs would not have entered into the contract to adopt a Kazakhstann
child if Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson had not made the
representations.
406. Plaintiffs suffered substantial economic losses as a result of entering into
the contract, and these losses benefited Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or
Anderson.
407. As a direct and proximate result of AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson
fraudulent misrepresentation, Plaintiffs have incurred and/or will continue to incur
COUNT TEN
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

409. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson’s fraudulent
representations and illegal activities were made intentionally, outrageously and
maliciously and have caused Plaintiffs to suffer humiliation, outrage, indignation,
sleepless nights, and severe emotional distress.
410. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson continued in their
enterprise of fraudulent behavior with reckless disregard to the emotional impact to the
Plaintiffs.
411. As a direct and proximate result of AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson’s
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Plaintiffs have incurred and/or will continue
93
to incur emotional distress and substantial damages in an amount to be determined by
the Court, but which is in excess of seventy-five thousand ($75,000).
COUNT ELEVEN
NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

413. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson’s fraudulent
representations and illegal activities were made intentionally, outrageously and
maliciously and have caused Plaintiffs to suffer humiliation, outrage, indignation,
sleepless nights, and severe emotional distress.
414. Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson continued in their
enterprise of fraudulent behavior with reckless disregard to the emotional impact to the
Plaintiffs and their spouses or partners.
415. As a direct and proximate result of AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or Anderson’s
Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress, Plaintiff’s spouses and family members have
incurred and/or will continue to emotional distress and substantial damages in an
amount to be determined by the Court, but which is in excess of seventy-five thousand
($75,000).
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment from the Court as follows:
1. To award damages against Defendants AIP, Mozes, Brown and/or
Anderson, jointly and severally, for a sum of money equal to the amount of
damages and/or losses Plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain;
94
2. To treble the amount of said damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1964(c);
3. To award prejudgment interest on the amount of damages and/or
losses that Plaintiffs have sustained;
4. To award all costs of litigation incurred by Plaintiffs, including
their reasonable attorneys’ fees and experts’ fees, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
1964(c), ; and
5. To award damages in an amount in excess of $75,000 resulting
from Defendant’s intentional and malicious actions;
6. And to award such other and further relief as the Court deems just
and equitable.
FIXEL LAW OFFICES, PLLC
Dated:____________ ___________________________________
Joni M. Fixel (P56712)
Marlo D. Bruch-Barrett (P70362)
4990 Northwind Drive, Suite 121
East Lansing, MI 48823
Telephone: (517) 332-3390
jfixel@fixellawoffices.com
John Attiani (69278)

Law Offices of Maribeth Blessing, LLC
Local Counsel for Plaintiffs
310 Huntingdon Pike
Rockledge, PA 19046
(215) 663-9016
jattiani@mbfamilylaw.com
95
Jury Demand
Plaintiffs demand a Jury Trial.
FIXEL LAW OFFICES, PLLC
Dated:____________ ___________________________________
Joni M. Fixel (P56712)
Marlo D. Bruch-Barrett (P70362)
4990 Northwind Drive, Suite 121
East Lansing, MI 48823
Telephone: (517) 332-3390
jfixel@fixellawoffices.com
John Attiani (69278)

Law Offices of Maribeth Blessing, LLC
Local Counsel for Plaintiffs
310 Huntingdon Pike
Rockledge, PA 19046
(215) 663-9016
jattiani@mbfamilylaw.com
96

Plaintiffs v. AIP2

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Plaintiffs v. AIP2

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

223.

departure. He told her “he expected her LOI to be issued soon.”

her time, efforts and heartache. (See Exhibit rr)

225. On or about September 17, 2007, Plaintiff e-mailed Defendants to inquire

226. Plaintiff sent an e-mail to Defendants on or about September 19, 2007

227. Plaintiffs Chad and Michelle Meenach (“Plaintiffs”) contracted to adopt a

would be their referral.

Defendants had referred to them.

be $12,500 after wiring the money to Roza.

where they were staying while in Kaz. (See Exhibit tt)

233. On or about July 9, 2007, Plaintiffs ask Defendant Anderson about a

coming in approximately 5 days. (See Exhibit uu)

to see if she is still available.” (See Exhibit vv)

235. On or about August 8, 2007, Plaintiffs tried to access the Defendants

that the site is just down for a few days.

Plaintiffs have been victimized by the Defendants fraudulent inducement and

240. Plaintiffs Annmae and Christopher Young (“Plaintiffs”) decided to add to

completion. (See Exhibit yy)

money to Maryam Ramazoanova. Plaintiffs comply.

adopting this little girl, now named Leah.

247. On or about November 25, 2005, Plaintiffs write to Defendants to tell

situation…..” (See Exhibit BBB)

248. On or about November 25, 2005, Plaintiffs receive another letter of

now named Leah. (See Exhibit DDD)

number 2 had been adopted by a family in Ireland.

was emailed to the Plaintiffs.

getting, I don’t know what is going on over there.”

had originally contracted for with the Defendants.

fraudulent inducement and misrepresentation.

some other unforeseen circumstance happens….” (See Exhibit EEE)

the Plaintiffs arrived at his office.

the foreign country sorry.” (See Exhibit FFF)

263. On or about March 3, 2006, Plaintiffs inquired on the possibility of

the Plaintiffs traveled to Kaz.

Just to let you know…..” (See Exhibit GGG)

for sure.” (See Exhibit HHH)

quickly, they are told “Adoption is not perfect.”

“thousands of children available for adoption.”

271. Plaintiffs contacted the American Embassy in Washington and were

Plaintiffs air fair and fees for the aborted trip.

273. On or about October 5, 2006, Plaintiffs expressed their frustration with

left for Kaz.

immigration and get your dossier together.” (See Exhibit MMM)

any site.” (See Exhibit PPP) supra ¶92.

289. Plaintiffs Deanna and Brent Heinrich (“Plaintiffs”) inquired about

their LOI and he told them it was coming within 2 weeks.

is going over to Kazakhstan to completely separate Orson from AIP…” (See

Power of Attorney for Natalia through the Defendants, Ekatrina commented “I am

have never worked in Shymkent.” (See Exhibit UUU)

294. In September 2007, the Plaintiffs were contacted by Defendant Anderson

personal information and dossier have never been returned.

would take and Mozes said “four to six months.”

299. On September 15, 2004, Plaintiffs were asked to send an additional

$5,000.00 to Kaz to get the paperwork started for the referral.

was for additional paperwork.

303. On or about April 7, 2005, Plaintiffs sent Defendant Mozes an e-mail

agency, it had passed.

adopting a second child, a girl. Plaintiffs wired an additional $22,500.00 to the

daughter were waiting for them.

into it on Monday, June 6, 2005.

Shymkent and finally Ust-Kamerngorsk (“Ust”).

representatives/facilitators and no one would return their calls.

having an “open mind.”