dragon family lawsuit keenan complaint 11-23-2011 sdny

10/22/14, 9:00 PMSDNY CM/ECF Version 5.1.1

Page 1 of 5https://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DktRpt.pl?19395923024773-L_1_0-1

CLOSED,ECF

U.S. District CourtSouthern District of New York (Foley Square)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-08500-JMF

Keenan v. Bosco et alAssigned to: Judge Jesse M. FurmanCause: 28:1331 Fed. Question

Date Filed: 11/23/2011Date Terminated: 06/27/2012Jury Demand: PlaintiffNature of Suit: 890 Other Statutory ActionsJurisdiction: Federal Question

PlaintiffNeil F. Keenan Individually and as Agent for The DragonFamily, citizens of foreign states

represented by Justin Matthew Gardner Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP One North Lexington Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 (914)-287-6169 Fax: (914)-683-6956 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William Hughes Mulligan , Jr Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP One North Lexington Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 287-6131 Fax: (914) 683-6956 Email: [email protected] ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.DefendantDaniele Dal Bosco a citizen of a foreign stateDefendantThe Office of International TreasuryControl a foreign country ("OITC")DefendantRay C. Dam



("DAM"), individually and as President ofOITCDefendantDavid A. Sale ("SALE"), individually, and as DeputyChief of the Council for the Cabinet ofOITCDefendantThe United NationsDefendantBan Ki-moon Individually, and as Secretary General ofthe UN TERMINATED: 05/31/2012DefendantH.E. Ambassador Cesare MariaRagaglini Individually, and as a PermanentRepresentative of the Italian Mission to theUN in New York TERMINATED: 05/31/2012DefendantH.E. Ambassadaor Laura Mirachian Individually, and as PermanentRepresentative of the Italian Mission to theUN in GenevaDefendantThe Italian RepublicDefendantThe Italian Financial Police former Prime Minister of ItalyDefendantSilvio BerlusconiDefendantThe World Economic Forum U.S.A. Inc.TERMINATED: 05/31/2012



DefendantGiancarlo Bruno Individually, and as Head of the BankingIndustry of WEF, and various unknownindividual co-conspirators TERMINATED: 05/31/2012DefendantJohn Does A-Z

Date Filed # Docket Text11/23/2011 1 COMPLAINT against Silvio Berlusconi, Daniele Dal Bosco, Giancarlo Bruno, Ray C.

Dam, John Does A-Z, Ban Ki-moon, Laura Mirachian, Cesare Maria Ragaglini, DavidA. Sale, The Italian Financial Police, The Italian Republic, The Office of InternationalTreasury Control, The United Nations, The World Economic Forum U.S.A. Inc.. (FilingFee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 4654010702007)Document filed by Neil F. Keenan.(rdz)(Entered: 11/30/2011)

11/23/2011 SUMMONS ISSUED as to All Defendants. (rdz) (Entered: 11/30/2011)11/23/2011 Magistrate Judge Ronald L. Ellis is so designated. (rdz) (Entered: 11/30/2011)11/23/2011 Case Designated ECF. (rdz) (Entered: 11/30/2011)01/13/2012 2 INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE AND ORDER: Initial Conference

set for 3/9/2012 at 10:30 AM in Courtroom 17B, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY10007 before Judge Richard J. Holwell, and as further set forth in this document.(Signed by Judge Richard J. Holwell on 1/10/2012) (cd) (Entered: 01/13/2012)

01/25/2012 3 NOTICE OF MOTION to Intervene as Intervener-Plaintiff. (Attachments: # 1 part 2)(lmb) (Entered: 02/01/2012)

03/02/2012 MEMORANDUM TO THE DOCKET CLERK: REMINDER : The conferencescheduled for 3/9/11 at 10:30 a.m., "is adjourned sine die." Before the Honorable:Richard J. Holwell U.S.D.J. in courtroom 17-B 500 Pearl Street NYC. Due to theJudges Retirement. All conferences are being rescheduled and an alternate conferencedate will be set in the near future. Any problems please fax request to chambers : - FAX: ( 212 805- 7948 ) Any problems please use e-mail : William Donald This my e-mailaddress - [email protected], Courtroom Deputy - 212 805- 0122.(jfe) Modified on 3/2/2012 (jfe). (Entered: 03/02/2012)

04/16/2012 4 NOTICE OF CASE REASSIGNMENT to Judge Jesse M. Furman. Judge Richard J.Holwell is no longer assigned to the case. (sjo) (Entered: 04/16/2012)

04/26/2012 5 ORDER. WHEREAS this case was recently transferred to the undersigned, it is herebyORDERED that unless notified otherwise by the Court, any Scheduling Order or CaseManagement Plan remains in effect notwithstanding the case's transfer, except that anycurrently scheduled conference or oral argument with the Court is adjourned until



further notification. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each party must submit a letter tothe Court, not to exceed five pages, updating the Court on the status of the case no laterthan May 11, 2012, and as further set forth. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on4/26/2012) (rjm) (Entered: 04/26/2012)

05/15/2012 6 NOTICE OF INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for5/30/2012 at 03:30 PM in Courtroom 26A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007before Judge Jesse M. Furman and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by JudgeJesse M. Furman on 5/15/2012) Copies Mailed By Chambers. (lmb) (Entered:05/16/2012)

05/30/2012 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Jesse M. Furman: Initial PretrialConference held on 5/30/2012. Plaintiff's counsel present. Intervener-Plaintiff (Pro-Se)present. Court Reporter present. (ab) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

05/31/2012 7 ORDER that the complaint in this case be and hereby is dismissed without prejudice asto defendants Ban Ki-Moon, Ambassador Cesar Maria Ragaglini, World EconomicForum USA, Inc., and Giancarlo Bruno pursuant to FRCP 4(m). Plaintiff must serve theremaining Defendants within 90 days of this order, and as further set forth in thisdocument. ( Responses due by 6/29/2012 and Replies due by 7/27/2012 re ProposedIntervenor Strunk's pending motion to intervene. Conference set for 9/4/2012 at 03:00PM in Courtroom 26A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M.Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/31/2012) (cd) (Entered: 05/31/2012)

06/13/2012 8 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERECE held on 5/30/2012 before Judge JesseM. Furman. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Michael McDaniel, (212) 805-0300.Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the CourtReporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. Afterthat date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/9/2012.Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/19/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction setfor 9/14/2012.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 06/13/2012)

06/13/2012 9 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that anofficial transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 5/30/12 has been filed by thecourt reporter/transcriber in the above-captioned matter. The parties have seven (7)calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of thistranscript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronicallyavailable to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly)(Entered: 06/13/2012)

06/27/2012 10 NOTICE OF VOLUNTARY DISMISSAL Pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) of theFederal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiff(s) and or their counsel(s), hereby givenotice that the above-captioned action is voluntarily dismissed, without prejudiceagainst the defendant(s) All Defendants. Document filed by Neil F. Keenan. (Mulligan,William) (Entered: 06/27/2012)

06/27/2012 11 Letter addressed to Judge Jesse M. Furman from William Hughes Mullilgan, Jr. dated6/27/2012 re: As you know, we represent the plaintiff, Neil F. Keenan, in this matter.For your information, I attach a courtesy copy of Plaintiff's Notice of VoluntaryDismissal pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(1)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

C5UTKEEC 1

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

2 ------------------------------x

3 NEIL F. KEENAN, Individually and as Agent for THE DRAGON

4 FAMILY, citizens of foreign states,

5 Plaintiff,

6 v. 11 CV 8500 (JMF)

7 DANIELE DAL BOSCO, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 ------------------------------x

10 New York, N.Y. May 30, 2012

11 3:30 p.m.

12 Before:

13 HON. JESSE M. FURMAN,

14 District Judge

15 APPEARANCES

16 BLEAKLEY, PLATT & SCHMIDT Attorneys for Plaintiff

17 BY: WILLIAM MULLIGAN, JR.

18 CHRISTOPHER EARL STRUNK, Pro Se Proposed Intervenor

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

Case 1:11-cv-08500-JMF Document 8 Filed 06/13/12 Page 1 of 28

C5UTKEEC 2

1 (In open court)

2 DEPUTY CLERK: Matter of Keenan versus Dal Bosco, 11

3 Civ. 8500.

4 Counsel, please state your name for the record.

5 MR. MULLIGAN: Good afternoon, William Mulligan, Jr.,

6 member of the firm of Bleakley, Platt & Schmidt in White

7 Plains, New York, attorneys for the plaintiff.

8 THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Mulligan.

9 MR. STRUNK: My name is Christopher Earl Strunk, I'm

10 pro se self-represented without being an attorney. I'm a

11 proposed intervenor and I'm responding to the order of the

12 Court.

13 THE COURT: Good afternoon, Mr. Strunk.

14 Before I get to the motion to intervene, Mr. Mulligan,

15 I read your letter. I have reviewed the complaint. It's an

16 unusual one. Give me a little bit of a better sense of what

17 exactly is going on here and what the status is of your

18 efforts, if any, to serve the defendants.

19 MR. MULLIGAN: Yes, your Honor. Did you say you

20 perused the complaint?

21 THE COURT: I can't claim to have read in deep care

22 every single word, but I certainly read through the complaint

23 and have I sense of what is going on.

24 MR. MULLIGAN: Thank you, Judge. I did the best I

25 could to satisfy the judge's request for a status report and



C5UTKEEC 3

1 condensed that on 111 pages and being as straightforward as I

2 could be.

3 Nothing has changed since, your Honor, in that I have

4 not served any of the defendants yet for a variety of reasons.

5 I'm getting reports as recently as 12:48 a.m. this morning. I

6 still cannot locate Mr. Dal Bosco or Mr. Sale. We believe

7 Mr. Sale is in Thailand with Defendant Dam, who was the head of

8 the OITC.

9 It's funny now being able to talk about this case

10 after 15 months. And as one of the attorneys said to me, it

11 reads more like a screenplay than a complaint, and I said I

12 would take that as a compliment.

13 But we haven't served, Judge. I set forth as best I

14 could the reasons why. The primary reason is that I can't find

15 three of these guys. We wouldn't be here if Mr. Dal Bosco

16 hadn't stolen the bonds from my client, Mr. Keenan. And he is

17 on the run, so to speak.

18 I'm still gathering information, Judge. I'm being as

19 straightforward as I can. Some of it has to do with

20 jurisdictional issues. And as the months were going by, I

21 said -- I don't want to, for instance, serve the U.N., get a

22 timetable going there. To be frank, some defendants are going

23 to have defenses which might be more difficult to overcome than

24 others.

25 I had my eye on the 120 days. I had my on eye on the



C5UTKEEC 4

1 last sentence in Rule 4(m) about not applying to foreign

2 defendants, although I realize I may be in the wrong circuit

3 for that. But essentially I have come to the conclusion that

4 the defendants will be served to the extent that I can find

5 them. I believe it is likely that I will have to amend the

6 complaint. And I have never been in a situation like this. I

7 never had a case like this, obviously, that I was just waiting

8 for things to happen.

9 My client has been in Indonesia for three months. We

10 communicate by Skype sometimes, otherwise by e-mail, and I am

11 doing the best I can to try to get this thing off the ground.

12 My concern as the plaintiff, and in light of Rule 4(m), I would

13 rather not have the case discontinued, albeit without

14 prejudice. That's just an inherent defensive tactic, I don't

15 want to have the case discontinued. On other hand, I'll be

16 honest, I may well have to amend the complaint, which will

17 start the ball rolling again. I don't think I will have a

18 statute of limitations problem, because the essential tort here

19 is conversion. I think it's three years, and I think I have

20 until 2013. I'm being totally frank with you, Judge, what is

21 going on through my mind.

22 So as I put forth in my letter, my main concern at

23 this point was to appeal to the Court, even though it's not

24 formally presented by motion or anything, by the Court or

25 anyone else, that -- I'm hedging, I am hedging, I admit it, but



C5UTKEEC 5

1 my primary concern would be maybe to get the Court's permission

2 to have that 120 days extended. I realize it's been extended

3 by 60 days by fate with the replacement, I understand that.

4 THE COURT: Can I stop you for a second, and I will

5 get back to the service issues in a few minutes, but before I

6 address those, I had one threshold question which is, as you

7 know, the Court is required to raise sua sponte the question of

8 subject matter jurisdiction where there's any question about

9 it.

10 I have read that portion of your complaint with some

11 care, and I understand that you're claiming subject matter

12 jurisdiction on two grounds, and I wanted you to discuss that

13 in a little bit more detail because it's not clear to me that

14 there is subject matter jurisdiction here. The provision of

15 the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act that you cite has a

16 definitional provision defining what a foreign state is for the

17 purposes of the act. You invoke federal common law, but

18 certainly don't cite any authority in support of the

19 proposition that would give rise to subject matter

20 jurisdiction.

21 MR. MULLIGAN: Well, maybe not in the complaint, your

22 Honor, but in our research I do believe that what we have here

23 is the expropriation of United States Federal Reserve notes.

24 If you go on the Federal Reserve -- and I do believe it's

25 uniquely federal interest in that they are notes issued by the



C5UTKEEC 6

1 federal government -- withdrawn, not the federal government,

2 the Federal Reserve, which is not part of the government.

3 And I think that given that there are perhaps $134.5

4 billion worth of Federal Reserve notes floating around that

5 have been stolen, that would be subject to the auspices of the

6 Federal Reserve Bank in New York, that this Court, because

7 there are uniquely federal interests involved in the possible

8 black marketing, if you will, of United States Federal Reserve

9 notes, that a federal court, and certainly in New York where

10 the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is located, would have

11 jurisdiction.

12 one of the things I'm going after, Judge, goes to that

13 point. And I can't say I have the affidavit, but I have a

14 draft, which I received as recently as yesterday, and in

15 essence, Judge, what I would be arguing, if that issue were

16 specifically here -- I know you raised it sua sponte, which

17 you're entitled to do, but the argument would be that the

18 Dragon family is the largest single depositor holding assets

19 and counter assets managed by the Federal Reserve Bank of New

20 York.

21 Therefore, illegal use the Dragon family assets such

22 as gold, for which we in turn -- the "we" there, this would be

23 authored directly from a member of the Dragon family. This is

24 one of the first direct contacts I had from this family. It's

25 not to me but through my client. He cites to and we would cite



C5UTKEEC 7

1 to the responsibility of the New York Fed, which is to serve as

2 the fiscal agent of the United States for foreign central banks

3 and official international financial organizations. It acts as

4 the primary contact with other foreign central banks. This is

5 off their web site.

6 THE COURT: This is off the Fed's web site?

7 MR. MULLIGAN: That part, not the proposed affidavit

8 that I was reading from. And I said proposed, it's not signed,

9 I don't have it, but I'm being as straight as I can with you,

10 Judge.

11 I think that when pressed, if I have to brief it, that

12 I could do a better job than I'm doing right now about

13 explaining the federal common law jurisdiction.

14 THE COURT: I think you'll have to brief that. If you

15 would prefer to wait for that, I'm happy to let you. I will

16 tell you I'm not -- sitting here and without doing any

17 research, I can't tell you I'm inclined to think that the fact

18 that these are Federal Reserve notes alone suffices. Cash, I

19 have a $20 bill here, it says at the top "Federal Reserve

20 note." It would be hard to imagine that a federal court would

21 have subject matter jurisdiction in a case involving the theft

22 of a large amount of cash, or cash regardless of how much of it

23 was involved. So you can address it.

24 MR. MULLIGAN: I hear you, and it's not totally

25 unexpected. And I would also like to address the Foreign



C5UTKEEC 8

1 Sovereign Immunities Act and the commercial exception, which I

2 think would also apply here.

3 THE COURT: Please.

4 MR. MULLIGAN: I realize I may have a few more upon

5 information and belief allegations in my complaint than I

6 started out, but with respect to the role of the Italians --

7 and I would be happy to further that, your Honor, if you're

8 suggesting that you're putting it to me to explain or brief the

9 subject matter jurisdiction, I would like the time to do so and

10 I would be happy to do so.

11 THE COURT: I think there's a serious question going

12 to the Court's jurisdiction, so I am going to ask you to brief

13 that. Obviously you proffered two bases for it, you can brief

14 both of those. I think assuming that the foreign Sovereign

15 Immunities Act gives rise to jurisdiction over Italy and

16 Italian officials that you named, I would say you should also

17 address whether that is sufficient -- whether that gives rise

18 to jurisdiction over the whole matter or just with respect to

19 those parties.

20 MR. MULLIGAN: Certainly not all the defendants.

21 THE COURT: So we'll talk about a timeline for that,

22 but I think you have to address that.

23 Now a related matter also going to the Court's

24 jurisdiction is the fact that the United Nations and Ban

25 Ki-moon are named as defendants here. I think you probably



C5UTKEEC 9

1 know this, but under the Convention on the Privileges and

2 Immunities of the United Nations, the United Nations itself is

3 immune from "every form of legal process except insofar as any

4 particular case it has expressly waived its immunity." I take

5 it there has been no waiver here, certainly.

6 MR. MULLIGAN: Certainly not, your Honor. It's an

7 uphill battle, but I don't think that you can claim sovereign

8 immunity and offer $100 million bribes, whether the U.N. or Ban

9 Ki-moon or anyone else.

10 THE COURT: My understanding of the convention is

11 pretty basic, that the United Nations itself and Ban Ki-moon

12 may be in different positions in the sense that the United

13 Nations, I understand, is absolutely immune absent a waiver,

14 and the secretary general is immune with respect to acts

15 performed in his function as secretary general. So there may

16 be room with respect to the secretary general that there isn't

17 with respect to the United Nations.

18 MR. MULLIGAN: Certainly, Judge, it certainly comes as

19 no surprise that that would be the primary issue on your mind

20 and certainly on the U.N.'s mind if they were served, and that

21 will be an expected argument.

22 THE COURT: So we will get to the schedule on that as

23 well, but I think I will have you brief the question of whether

24 there is jurisdiction with respect to those defendants and/or

25 give you a date by which you can obtain a waiver of their



C5UTKEEC 10

1 immunity. I find it hard to believe that would be forthcoming.

2 MR. MULLIGAN: I don't think that will happen.

3 THE COURT: So we'll get back to that.

4 Again, before we run to the issue of service, I want

5 to address Mr. Strunk's motion to intervene. I understand from

6 your letter that you oppose the motion and wanted -- well, let

7 me hear from Mr. Strunk first what his interest is in the

8 matter that gives rise to his motion.

9 MR. STRUNK: Thank you, your Honor.

10 I have been researching the post World War II

11 arrangements of the U.S. government and its relationship to the

12 Society of Jesus in particular and the role of de Chardin

13 starting back -- Father de Chardin -- starting back in 2005 for

14 someone who hired me to do a zoning study in Dutchess County

15 which ended up in the River's Keeper program. De Chardin is

16 buried up there. And his involvement inside China was, other

17 than finding Peking Man and writing The Phenomenology of Man,

18 he dug up graves, and he was involved with the Office of Naval

19 Intelligence in transferring large amounts of gold outside of

20 China through our submarines in 1935 in exchange for Federal

21 Reserve gold bonds, and the monies were transfer to the Federal

22 Reserve Bank on the West Coast. So my own interest in history

23 and my ability to make money doing zoning research led me into

24 starting to research the history of the Japanese gold

25 settlements after World War II and the involvement of OSS. I



C5UTKEEC 11

1 was a Vietnam veteran.

2 And I knew Stephen Solarz, who was involved in

3 removing Ferdinand Marcos from government. I had conversations

4 with him before his death. He was my Congressman. So that I

5 was aware of many of the gold transfer problems and the fight

6 over where the buried gold was, and the Imelda Marcos case

7 where I saw the research, the testimony on the part of various

8 OSS officers as to the whereabouts of gold and how Imelda

9 Marcos ended up with the gold from concentration camp victims

10 in Citibank, and there was testimony on that in the late '90s.

11 So I have looked at a lot of this research, looked at

12 court testimony. I looked at Judge Holwell's decisions on the

13 matter of which I'm a -- I own two historic gold bonds, one

14 from 1913, 20 pounds, and one from 1942, a gold-based backed

15 bond also. And I read the complaint, I felt there were

16 weaknesses in it, and that since the Federal Reserve was an

17 essential player, its role is to oversee all of the operations

18 in the region that the theft occurred, and that I looked at the

19 agreements between the Securities and Exchange Commission and

20 the Swiss government on what I believe is an ongoing two-sided

21 platform in collateralizing the bonds by the Chinese

22 government, who are the only ones able to use the historic

23 bonds for the purposes of commercial transactions, and that I

24 believe is being done in Switzerland.

25 That was not in the report, but certainly Occam's



C5UTKEEC 12

1 razor, the only logical use of these historical bonds, which

2 they're considerable, is by the red Chinese government inside

3 Switzerland, and that for that interest -- I am interested in

4 the merging of the Taiwan government and the red Chinese

5 government under fair principles in that it appears to me it's

6 not going to happen in that the Chinese are getting both sides

7 of the coin.

8 But I intervene specifically, and I believe that my --

9 if you want to put it criticisms, bringing in the foreign bond

10 holders protection counsel is essential for any bond held by an

11 American or having to do with an American bond holder. They

12 were set out by Congress in 1933. They're an extension of the

13 United States corporation, which is a corporation in Maryland,

14 not properly up to date, and essentially they are the foreign

15 bond holders corporation of counsel is the front end operation

16 operating as if it were the United States corporation, which is

17 a very unusual when I start doing the research with the

18 Secretary of State in Maryland.

19 But that I feel that there are essential parties here,

20 the foreign bond holders protective counsel who have a duty

21 under treaty arrangements to essentially do an accounting for

22 the use these historical bonds and related bonds which are part

23 of the sinking fund which would guarantee payment in the event

24 that red China should come together with Taiwan I can get paid.

25 And I'm not here to get paid, I'm just here to make sure



C5UTKEEC 13

1 there's a level playing field and there's a proper accounting

2 of the proceeds which should be protected both by the federal

3 reserve as a party to this transaction going back to 1913

4 through 1942, and that --

5 THE COURT: Let me stop you for a moment. And I

6 appreciate all of this, and I appreciate your interest in this

7 matter, as your deep interest in this matter is quite evident.

8 As you may know under the law, in order to intervene

9 in the lawsuit, as opposed to just following it, you have to

10 have some kind of stake in the matter. So to sort of simplify

11 it, what I'm not entirely understanding from your papers or

12 from your comments now is what you have riding on this other

13 than your interest in it, which I understand to be a deep one.

14 If you can briefly explain that.

15 MR. STRUNK: To the extent that I believe that there's

16 certain mention of the protections necessary to protect the

17 sinking fund which would repay me through a two-sided platform,

18 and that they're using the bonds in order to collateralize, and

19 they don't ever -- they're there, the shadow of money, and to

20 the extent that collateralizing what would be my sinking fund,

21 I have an interest that that the portion of the Dragon family's

22 financial instruments be accounted for by the Federal Reserve,

23 and course the foreign bond holders counsel, which it's their

24 duty under U.S. law to do such.

25 And I'm here just looking out after my interests. And



C5UTKEEC 14

1 I did serve who I thought were parties to this case with the

2 summons and complaint, the World Economic Forum, Dan Carlo here

3 in New York, he was duly served, the Swiss ambassador was

4 served who had to be given notice in any case that this was

5 going on in his system, and the Italian ambassador was served

6 as well as Mr. Petty and the foreign bond holders counsel and

7 the New York City -- the Federal Reserve Bank of New York along

8 with Bollinger.

9 And I have just -- I'm just interested in all these --

10 if you're going to get involved in something as complicated as

11 this, then because the Chinese have just been given a position

12 with the Federal Reserve, now not only are they using the

13 sinking fund in Switzerland, they're now coming in and using it

14 here in New York by becoming, as the Hong Kong Shanghai Bank

15 was brought in, the red Chinese bank is coming in to run our

16 banking system, and I think these matters should be put before

17 the Court.

18 THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Strunk.

19 Now back to you, Mr. Mulligan, I'm not going to ask

20 you to address the particular merits at the moment, but I

21 understand you oppose the motion to intervene?

22 MR. MULLIGAN: Yes, your Honor. I reread your order.

23 My intent, responding to your request for the information, was

24 that since there had been no return dates set, obviously since

25 I haven't served anybody yet, that I would certainly expect



C5UTKEEC 15

1 that I would oppose it. And I think your Honor hit the main

2 point on the head, and I would anticipate that my argument will

3 be there's just no connection between my case and that case.

4 With all due respect to Mr. Strunk, if he wants to bring a

5 lawsuit, go ahead, but there's no connection. I can't imagine

6 that Rule 24 would be properly invoked here.

7 THE COURT: OK, well, I think --

8 MR. MULLIGAN: But I really haven't briefed it all.

9 THE COURT: I understand, and I'm going to be giving

10 you a few assignments today, one of which is to address that.

11 I think it makes sense. You're correct, there was no return

12 date, but it makes sense today to set a briefing schedule and

13 take a brief from you and then allow Mr. Strunk an opportunity

14 to respond if he would like it.

15 That brings us to the issue of service which you

16 started to address before, and I wanted to just return to,

17 number one, can you just help me -- you have referenced the 120

18 day rule and Rule 4(m).

19 MR. MULLIGAN: Yes, your Honor.

20 THE COURT: I want to sort of make sure we're on the

21 same page as to who is and who isn't subject to that rule.

22 MR. MULLIGAN: Yes, your Honor. By my account, your

23 Honor -- and I read rule 4(m), the last sentence says what it

24 says, that the 120 day rule does not apply to essentially

25 service of process overseas, at least under 4(i) and 4(j).



C5UTKEEC 16

1 It's in my letter. And I read yesterday in this circuit there

2 are plenty of cases, there was an '87 Second Circuit case, but

3 that was under the predecessor to Rule 4(m) which said that you

4 at least have to show that you tried to serve somebody. And

5 that does seem to be the law in this circuit, and it's been

6 cited by many district courts, as opposed to law in some other

7 circuits. And so I recognize that.

8 THE COURT: That's good.

9 MR. MULLIGAN: Yes.

10 THE COURT: Let's start by figuring out who is and who

11 is not subject to 4(m).

12 MR. MULLIGAN: Eleven of the 14 that I have that I

13 would argue -- when and if I have to, and if I have to do it

14 now I will do the best I can -- who would not be subject to the

15 120 day rule automatically would be Dal Bosco.

16 THE COURT: Since the other group seems to be smaller,

17 why don't you identify for me who you think is subject to --

18 MR. MULLIGAN: I would say World Economic Forum

19 U.S.A., the U.N., Ban Ki-moon. I'm having trouble reading my

20 own writing here.

21 THE COURT: Why not Cesare Maria Ragaglini?

22 MR. MULLIGAN: Ragaglini I have a question mark. I

23 think she has a residence here.

24 THE COURT: What about Giancarlo Bruno?

25 MR. MULLIGAN: Well, Bruno I allege, and I think he



C5UTKEEC 17

1 does have a residence here, so that's a possible. I consider

2 him to be a resident of Italy, but that's an arguable point.

3 THE COURT: OK.

4 MR. MULLIGAN: So my eleven might be -- I have three,

5 U.N., Ban Ki-moon, Ragaglini. If I said eleven, I probably

6 should have ten, your Honor.

7 THE COURT: And talk to me about the OITC, what

8 exactly that is.

9 MR. MULLIGAN: Well, that's a great question as to

10 what they are. The addresses that they claim are in Kumphawapi

11 City in Udon Thani, Thailand, and Kampong Karmon (ph), Phnom

12 Penh, Cambodia. There is a web sit which lists an address at

13 1133 Connecticut Avenue Northwest in Washington DC, also.

14 THE COURT: Do you have reason to doubt that?

15 MR. MULLIGAN: I'm just not sure, Judge, to be honest.

16 I'm not sure if that's real or not.

17 THE COURT: OK. Is the organization real?

18 MR. MULLIGAN: Oh, it's real. They have a web site.

19 I think that they're a highly questionable organization, but

20 they have certainly been around, and I stand by all the

21 allegations in my complaint concerning them. Ray Dam, who was

22 their leader, has been in and out of jail. He's either in

23 Cambodia or Thailand right now, to the best of my knowledge.

24 Dal Bosco, present whereabouts unknown. Dam, not certain.

25 David Sale, unknown, but possibly in Thailand with Dal Bosco.



C5UTKEEC 18

1 OITC we talked about. I do have a West End Avenue address for

2 Giancarlo Bruno. I will speak with Mr. Strunk, I think he just

3 mentioned that he served him. World Economic Forum U.S.A.,

4 Inc. at 3 East 54th Street.

5 Sorry, Judge, I'm not sure where I'm going. Should I

6 run through for you what --

7 THE COURT: By my count there are, at least according

8 to your complaint, probably five defendants who have presence

9 in the United States, if not New York: The United Nations, Ban

10 Ki-moon, Ambassador Ragaglini, World Economic Forum and

11 Giancarlo Bruno. I don't see how any of those five would not

12 be subject to the 120 day rule. Do you have a different

13 position?

14 MR. MULLIGAN: No, your Honor, I don't.

15 THE COURT: OK.

16 MR. MULLIGAN: I think that would be -- certainly as

17 to three of them, but looking at my notes here and my own

18 question marks, you're certainly not wrong.

19 THE COURT: OK. And are there others aside from those

20 five who you would conceive or acknowledge are subject to the

21 120 day rule?

22 MR. MULLIGAN: No, I don't think so, Judge.

23 THE COURT: Focusing on those five for the present,

24 talk about why you have not served them as of now. And by your

25 acknowledgment, I think it is closer to 180 days at this point



C5UTKEEC 19

1 than 120.

2 MR. MULLIGAN: The reasons I stated in the letter,

3 Judge, I really didn't want to initiate a piecemeal litigation

4 and have different timetables for all types of different

5 people. We were determined to find Mr. Dal Bosco first. We

6 haven't been able to. I have also felt I probably will have to

7 amend the complaint, so I took the approach of let's wait,

8 let's see what happens. And if the case is going to be

9 discontinued, I would have rather discontinued it on my own,

10 albeit that the rule also states clearly it's without

11 prejudice, and I would refile.

12 And frankly, I looked forward to coming here today, as

13 I did two months ago with Judge Holwell, so I could just get to

14 the bottom of this and see which way -- I admit, it's sort of a

15 hedge. I would like the Court's permission to extend the time

16 so it's not discontinued, but if it's discontinued, I will

17 regroup and I will refile. And the complaint might be amended

18 or not. It might not be as long, a couple of defendants might

19 not be included, but this is the first opportunity I have had

20 to sort of bring it to a head, so I appreciate where you're

21 headed.

22 THE COURT: And what steps, if any, have you taken

23 with respect to the foreign defendants to serve them?

24 MR. MULLIGAN: I can't find three, as I said, and I

25 have not physically attempted to serve them. Again, I have



C5UTKEEC 20

1 been taking a wait and see attitude to see when everything was

2 going to come together, waiting for my people to get me more

3 information on whereabouts of Dal Bosco, and when the complaint

4 is served, that everyone is served in reasonably the same

5 period of time so we don't have twelve different schedules

6 going forward.

7 THE COURT: And what about the defendants, other than

8 those three, that is the foreign defendants that you do know

9 where they are?

10 MR. MULLIGAN: I have not attempted to serve them,

11 Judge, straight out.

12 THE COURT: OK. I have to say I appreciate your

13 concern about not proceeding in a piecemeal fashion. The flip

14 side is I'm not interested in this case remaining on the

15 Court's docket for years and years and years because you're not

16 able to locate a particular defendant and we're waiting for

17 that defendant.

18 MR. MULLIGAN: I understand.

19 THE COURT: I would actually rather hold you to the

20 rules and hold you to a relatively strict timetable. And to

21 extent that you can comply with that, I will allow it to

22 proceed, and to the extent you can't, you will have to suffer

23 the consequences. But to that end, I mean I guess I haven't

24 previously given you notice that I might dismiss as to the

25 domestic defendants pursuant to Rule 4(m) and giving you an



C5UTKEEC 21

1 opportunity show good cause for failure to serve them. I am

2 happy to do that now, although in some respects I think you

3 already made your proffer.

4 MR. MULLIGAN: I think I have. I attempted to do that

5 in the letter. I'm like you, I'm not into playing games with

6 this, and I'm being as straightforward I can.

7 THE COURT: I will be straight with you, which is I

8 don't think you have showed me good cause for failure to serve

9 those defendants. I'm happy to give you an opportunity to

10 brief that as well if you want an opportunity to show good

11 cause or persuade me that what you have said -- cite cases

12 showing me that qualifies for a good cause, but you can tell me

13 that you don't want to proceed in that fashion or you can try

14 and persuade me, but at the moment I'm not persuaded.

15 MR. MULLIGAN: I understand that, Judge, and I don't

16 think -- I could ask for two weeks to try to persuade you, and

17 I don't think it would work because I have nothing more to tell

18 you, straight out, than what I have said either in my letter or

19 here. So to the extent that I would ask for 60 more days, I

20 take it that would be denied.

21 THE COURT: Correct.

22 Now let's talk about schedule with respect to the

23 foreign defendants, who I take to be there are 14 defendants

24 total, correct?

25 MR. MULLIGAN: I think so, Judge.



C5UTKEEC 22

1 THE COURT: So talking about nine.


3 THE COURT: Let's talk about how much time you need to

4 locate and serve these defendants.

5 MR. MULLIGAN: I would ask for 60 days, Judge.

6 THE COURT: OK. In your letter you talk about the

7 need to go through the Hague Conventions and have things

8 translated and so forth. I would rather give you more time if

9 you feel that more time is necessary and require you to update

10 me periodically.

11 MR. MULLIGAN: I got a little shy.

12 THE COURT: Hang on. You tell me how much time you

13 need, I will give you that time, and in the interim I will ask

14 you to update me on the steps you are taking to locate and

15 serve. I will hold you to that, and if you demonstrate

16 diligence in doing so, so be it, I will give you the time that

17 you ask for now. If you don't, then I will end up dismissing

18 for failure to prosecute and failure to serve in the time. So

19 I want you to --

20 MR. MULLIGAN: Under Rule 4, without prejudice.

21 THE COURT: Correct.

22 I want you to be realistic. You know about more these

23 defendants than I do. Needless to say, I don't think Italy is

24 hard to locate. I don't think Silvio Berlosconi is hard to

25 locate. I don't think the Italian Financial Police are hard to



C5UTKEEC 23

1 locate. There may be practical considerations with serving

2 those entities, but you tell me.

3 MR. MULLIGAN: I will stick with the 90 days I asked

4 for in my letter rather than the 60.

5 THE COURT: Meaning that you're OK if I set a deadline

6 of 90 days from today to serve those defendant?

7 MR. MULLIGAN: To serve those defendants. And so I

8 understand, as to the domestic defendants, the case is

9 discontinued?

10 THE COURT: I am going to dismiss as to the five

11 defendants who I believe, based on your complaint, have a

12 presence. I'm not going to dismiss as to the United Nations

13 because I think the United Nations is in a different position,

14 and I strongly suspect that I will dismiss to them as to

15 different grounds. But I will dismiss as to the other four

16 defendants who are subject to the 120 day rule by your

17 concession, that is Giancarlo Bruno, World Economic Forum

18 U.S.A., Cesare Maria Ragaglini and Ban Ki-moon, for failure to

19 serve within 120 days and failure to show good cause for that

20 failure. That is pursuant to Rule 4(m), and pursuant to that

21 rule is obviously without prejudice.

22 MR. MULLIGAN: Then the 90 days or the same thing

23 would occur with respect to the foreign defendants?

24 THE COURT: 90 days or the same thing will occur with

25 respect to the remaining defendants. Obviously you're entitled



C5UTKEEC 24

1 to make a case that you have good cause to the additional time.

2 I'm going to ask you in 45 days to submit a letter to the Court

3 apprising me of what steps you have taken to locate and serve

4 the defendants to demonstrate that you are exercising due

5 diligence throughout the period, and I will expect in that

6 letter that you will have exercised due diligence in that

7 regard.

8 MR. MULLIGAN: Yes, your Honor.

9 THE COURT: I think that takes care of the service

10 issues. Let's set a briefing schedule first on the motion to

11 intervene.

12 Mr. Mulligan, how much time do you need to file a

13 memorandum of law opposing the motion to intervene?

14 MR. MULLIGAN: Could I ask for 30 days, Judge?

15 THE COURT: 30 days from -- I will give you until

16 Friday, June 29.

17 MR. MULLIGAN: OK.

18 THE COURT: And then Mr. Strunk, I will give you an

19 opportunity to respond to Mr. Mulligan's memorandum. By

20 June 29 he will file memorandum with the Court and serve a copy

21 on you. You can discuss with him how best to do that, and then

22 I will give you four weeks after that to file something in

23 response, so by July 27.

24 MR. STRUNK: That's generous, thank you.

25 THE COURT: So that will deal with that issue. And



C5UTKEEC 25

1 then Mr. Mulligan, the last remaining issue is the question of

2 subject matter jurisdiction. How about I give you the same

3 period of time until June 29 to file memorandum on that.

4 MR. MULLIGAN: That's fine.

5 THE COURT: And just so we're clear on what to address

6 in that, I would like you to address the question of whether

7 the Court has subject matter jurisdiction in general, over the

8 entire case that is, and specifically as well whether there is

9 subject matter jurisdiction with respect to the United Nations

10 in the absence of a waiver of immunity. And if by that time

11 you are able to obtain a waiver of immunity, obviously that

12 would be one way to address that issue, but in the absence of a

13 waiver, your memorandum of law should address what the subject

14 matter jurisdiction is with respect to the United Nations.

15 Are we clear on that?


17 THE COURT: Anything else that we need to deal with?

18 MR. MULLIGAN: On the Foreign Sovereign Immunities

19 Act, do you also want me to --

20 THE COURT: As I understand, you are premising subject

21 matter jurisdiction for the Court on the Foreign Sovereign

22 Immunities Act and federal common law.

23 MR. MULLIGAN: Correct.

24 THE COURT: Your memorandum of law should address both

25 of those issues and also address specifically the question of



C5UTKEEC 26

1 whether there is jurisdiction over the United Nations either by

2 obtaining a waiver, or in the absence of a waiver, why the

3 absolute immunity of the United Nations doesn't deprive the

4 Court of jurisdiction.

5 MR. MULLIGAN: OK.

6 THE COURT: Let me give you some page limits and

7 things. On the subject matter jurisdiction memorandum I will

8 give you up to 25 pages. On the motion to intervene,

9 Mr. Mulligan, I will give you 20 pages. And Mr. Strunk I will

10 give you the same 20 pages to respond, and I think that's all I

11 need to do on that front.

12 MR. MULLIGAN: OK.

13 MR. STRUNK: Your Honor, is that single or double?

14 THE COURT: Double spaced.

15 MR. STRUNK: All right. Judge Rakoff normally

16 discussed single.

17 THE COURT: No, I prefer double spaced, sir.

18 Then I am going schedule another conference for --

19 Mr. Strunk, you don't need to show up unless the motion to

20 intervene has been granted, but to discuss the issues of

21 service. 90 days from today would be -- why don't we set it

22 for right after Labor Day. That gives you a few days beyond

23 the 90 days. That is not to say that that deadline is changed,

24 but just our next appearance will be right after Labor Day.

25 September 4th at 3:00 p.m. And again, Mr. Strunk, no need for



C5UTKEEC 27

1 you to appear unless your motion has been granted, but you're

2 obviously welcome, the Court is open to the public.

3 Anything further for today?

4 MR. MULLIGAN: It occurs to me, Judge, thinking out

5 loud, in light of the dismissal as to the domestic defendants,

6 that may cause me to more seriously consider more quickly

7 filing an amended complaint, which might moot -- I will advise

8 your Honor. Does is that sound right to you, if I amend the

9 complaint, the 120 days would start all over again, as I

10 understand?

11 THE COURT: Well, let's take it a step at a time. You

12 can look into that. You're welcome to amend the complaint if

13 you like, and if, based on your research, that triggers another

14 120 days, so be it. I don't think it moots the question of

15 subject matter jurisdiction, so that brief should be filed --

16 MR. MULLIGAN: Understood.

17 THE COURT: -- by the deadline that we set.

18 MR. MULLIGAN: Understood.

19 THE COURT: It doesn't moot the issue of intervention,

20 so that should also be filed.

21 MR. MULLIGAN: Understood, Judge.

22 THE COURT: It may obviously bring the defendants --

23 the five defendants who are present in this country back into

24 the matter, in which case we'll address those as we do, but I

25 think I have made it clear that I'm not interested in letting



C5UTKEEC 28

1 this thing linger on the Court's docket, and I expect you to

2 proceed diligently with respect to all defendants, those who

3 are subject to the 120 days and those who are not. In that

4 regard, if you determine that filing an amended complaint

5 brings them back in it, don't assume you can wait to serve

6 those defendants simply because there are other defendants you

7 haven't located. OK?

8 MR. MULLIGAN: Yes, sir.

9 THE COURT: Anything further for today?

10 MR. MULLIGAN: I don't think so.

11 THE COURT: Mr. Strunk, anything further?

12 MR. STRUNK: Thank you for hearing us.

13 THE COURT: Thank you. We are adjourned.

14 o0o

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25





which will be filed electronically with the Court today. I believe this filing effectivelymoots the Court's outstanding Orders issued in open Court on May 30, 2012, whichcalled for the submission of the following by June 29, 2012. 1. Plaintiff s Memorandumof Law pertaining to assertion of subject matter jurisdiction, i.e., the Foreign SovereignImmunities Act and federal common law, as well as the issue of subject matterjurisdiction with respect to the defendant United Nations in the absence of a waiver ofimmunity. 2. Plaintiff's response to Motion of Proposed Intervenor Christopher-EarlStrunk. Document filed by Neil F. Keenan. (djc) (Entered: 06/27/2012)

06/27/2012 12 NOTICE OF DISMISSAL: TAKE NOTICE that Neil F. Keenan, plaintiff, dismissesthis action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41 (a)(l)(A)(i) of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure. ENDORSEMENT: The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.Any pending motions are moot. Counsel is reminded that in the event this case or asimilar case is refiled in this District, that must be brought to the Court's attention onthe civil cover sheet. In that event, the Clerk of Court is directed to assign the newmatter to the undersigned. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/27/2012) (djc)(Entered: 06/27/2012)

PACER Service CenterTransaction Receipt

10/22/2014 23:54:35PACERLogin: sa5487:3858862:0 Client Code: sa5487

Description: Docket Report SearchCriteria:1:11-cv-08500-JMF

Billable Pages: 4 Cost: 0.40

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the

Southern District of New York

Neil F. Keenan, Individually and as Agent for The Dragon Family, citizens of foreign states,

Plaintiff

v. See Attached Schedule A

Defendant

) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No.

JUDGE HOlWEll SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To: (Defendant's name and address) SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE A

A lawsuit has been filed against you.

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) - or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) - you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, whose name and address are: William H. Mulligan, Jr.

Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP One North Lexington Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 (914) 949-2700

You entered complaint. Date: 1 f/22/2011 -------------------

Case 1:11-cv-08500-JFK Document 1 Filed 11/23/11 Page 1 of 114

AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any) was received by me on (date)

o I personally served the summons on the individual at (place) ------------------------------------------------- on (date) o I left the summons at the individual's residence or usual place of abode with (name)

;or

, a person of suitable age and discretion who res ides there,

Date:

----------------------------------on (date) , and mailed a copy to the individual's last known address; or ----------------o I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)

on (date) -------------------------------------------------o I returned the summons unexecuted because o Other (specify):

My fees are $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Server's signature

Printed name and title

Server's address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

,who is

; or

; or

0.00


SCHEDULE A - DEFENDANTS

1. DANIELE DAL BOSCO

2. THE OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TREASURY CONTROL

3. RAY C. DAM, individually, and as President ofOITC

4. DAVID A. SALE, individually, and as Deputy Chief of the Council for the Cabinet of OITC

6. THE UNITED NATIONS

7. BAN KI-moon, individually, and as Secretary General of the UN

8. H.E. Ambassador CESARE MARIA RAGAGLINI, Individually, and as Permanent Representative of the Italian Mission to the UN in New York

9. H.E. Ambassador LAURA MlRACHIAN, Individually, and as Permanent Representative of the Italian Mission to the UN in Geneva

11. ITALIAN REPUBLIC

12. ITALIAN FINANCIAL POLICE

13. SILVIO BERLUSCONI, Former Prime Minister of Italy

14. THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM

15. WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM U.S.A., INC.

16. GIANCARLO BRUNO, individually, and as Head of the Banking Industry of WEF


William H. Mulligan, Jr. (WM 2945) Justin M. Gardner (1M 6169) BLEAKLEY PLATT & SCHMIDT LLP One North Lexington Avenue White Plains, New York 10601 (914) 949-2700 Tel. (914) 683-5956 Fax [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

NEIL F. KEENAN, Individually and as Agent for THE DRAGON FAMILY, citizens of foreign states,

Plaintiff,

-against-

DANIELE DAL BOSCO, a citizen of a foreign state, THE OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TREASURY CONTROL, a foreign corporation ("OITC"), RAY C. DAM ("DAM"), individually, and as President of OITC, DAVID A. SALE ("SALE"), individually, and as Deputy Chief of the Council for the Cabinet of OITC, the UNITED NATIONS, BAN KI-moon, individually, and as Secretary General of the UN, H.E. Ambassador CESARE MARIA RAGAGLINI, Individually, and as Permanent Representative of the Italian Mission to the UN in New York, H.E. Ambassador LAURA MIRACHIAN, Individually, and as Permanent Representative of the Italian Mission to the UN in Geneva, the ITALIAN REPUBLIC, the ITALIAN FINANCIAL POLICE, Former Prime Minister of Italy, SILVIO BERLUSCONI, THE WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM ("WEF") a foreign corporation, WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM U.S.A., INC., GIANCARLO BRUNO, individually, and as Head of the Banking Industry of WEF, and various unknown individual co-conspirators, JOHN DOES A-Z,

Defendants.

JUDGE HOLWELL Index No. 11 Civ. _ ( )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Demands Trial By Jury for All Applicable Claims


Plaintiff, NEIL F. KEENAN (hereinafter, "KEENAN"), individually, and as agent and

assignee of THE DRAGON F AMIL Y, citizens of various foreign states, by and through his

attorneys, Bleakley Platt & Schmidt, LLP, as and for his complaint herein, alleges as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION AND JURISDICTION

1. This is a civil claim arising out of the concerted, knowing, malicious scheme and

international conspiracy engaged in by the Defendants for the designed purpose of defrauding

plaintiff KEENAN, the designated Agent of his Principal, the "Dragon Family," for the express

purpose of expropriating, stealing and converting certain negotiable financial instruments

lawfully owned by the Dragon Family and entrusted to KEENAN in early 2009. These assets

(hereinafter referred to as the "Dragon Family Financial Instruments" or the "DFFI") had been

intended for participation in select, registered and authorized Private Placement Investment

Programs (or "PPPs") for the benefit of a wide range of global humanitarian purposes. At the

time of the criminal and deceitful acts of the Defendants, the approximate face value of the

stolen DFFI was One Hundred Forty-Five and One Half Billion ($145,500,000,000.00) United

States Dollars with an approximate accrued interest value of One Trillion

($1,000,000,000,000.00) United States Dollars.

2. The stolen DFFI, which had been entrusted to KEENAN in early 2009 by the

Dragon Family, are comprised of the following:

(i) Two-Hundred Forty-Nine (249) United States 1934 Series Federal

Reserve Notes (or "FRNs") which, according to a Federal Reserve System

Inventory List (SC1226-71-DOO4-D45184101 A) prepared at the time of

issuance, were contained in "Box No. D 45184101 A" bearing Bond Nos.

"D 45184101 A- D 45184350 A" (one sheet No. D 45184349 A missing) 2


each with a face value of $500 Million ($500,000,000.00) United States

Dollars in the total amount of One Hundred Twenty-Four Billion Five-

Hundred Million United States Dollars ($124,500,000,000.00).

(a) KEENAN does not have personal knowledge of the

circumstances which gave rise to the original issuance of any of

the DFFI. The knowledge he has obtained is based largely upon

the representations made by Mr. Akihiko Yamaguchi (hereinafter,

"Yamaguchi"), Signatory of the Dragon Family, in various

documents Yamaguchi has executed over the years in connection

with his attempts to place the DFFI into legitimate PPPs in

furtherance of the Dragon Family's objectives to provide

humanitarian global assistance when and where needed.

(b) Upon information and belief, between 1927 and 1938, as a

result of arrangements made between China and the United States,

the United States purchased some 50 million ounces of silver and

leased vast amounts of gold from the Nationalist Chinese

Government, known as Kuomintang. During this period, China

was partly occupied by Japanese troops and there was a fear of

China being overrun by the Japanese.

(c) Upon information and belief, in return for the precious

metals delivered by the Chinese, certificates were given pursuant .

to private agreement made between China and the United States.

These certificates became the underlying funds of the Kuomintang. 3


(d) Upon information and belief, following the promulgation in

1934 of the Gold Reserve Act, the law required all bullion gold

and gold coin to be surrendered to the Federal Reserve, a private

corporation that is chartered to operate as the Central Bank of the

United States and the issuer of the United States Dollar.

( e) Upon information and belief, domestically owned gold was

purchased. Foreign Gold held by the Treasury was also

surrendered to and thus leased to the Federal Reserve, which

resulted in the issuance of the series of 1934 Notes by the Federal

Reserve. These Dragon Family FRNs have never been redeemed

and, upon information and belief, the accrued interest was met by

the subsequent issue of certain 1968 series of Kennedy Bonds (see

2 (iii), infra) and later further issues of the 1934 series FRNs

which, upon information and belief, were issued through the period

of the Chinese civil war to assist Kuomintang operations in China

and later in Burma. These 1934 FRNs guarantee the lease

payments and helped to allow the Chinese Government to continue

financially. KEENAN has no personal knowledge as to whether

the FRN s with which he was entrusted were original or

subsequently issued Notes.

(f) Upon information and belief, this gold was documented

into accounts through the Union Bank of Switzerland, placed under

protection of the Swiss Attorney General, registered through the 4


Swiss National Bank:into the Bank for International Settlements

("BIS") International Collateral Combined accounts and then from

within the BIS, blocked to form the Institutional Parent

Registration Accounts of the Federal Reserve System.

(g) Upon information and belief, and in accordance with

procedures that would be expected to occur in the event the Note

Holder of record wished to redeem it, the Holder would do so by

first remitting the number of the Note to the Federal Reserve with a

major project or a list of projects for approval. Once the projects

have been approved, the Note would be recognized and the

F edsystem would then make arrangements for the Note to be

deposited into a bank which would provide a specific credit line,

perhaps of30% up to 80% of the face value. The Fedsystem

would then provide immunity to the Holder to present the Note at a

specific Bank where a Credit Line has been pre-arranged.

Attempting to present these Notes outside this system will see the

note arbitrarily denied and the illegal presenter incarcerated.

(h) Upon information and belief, in order to effectuate this

process, the Notes were printed to appear as if they were not

produced from official origin and bear obvious imperfections,

therefore easily deniable. However, when proper procedures are

followed, the number of the Note and other linking identic data

allows ultimate authentication and verification through the Federal 5


Reserve System screening process and the presenting of the Note

under the immunity shield allows effective use.

(i) As of April 20, 2009, the Dragon Family had calculated the

total value of these FRNs alone, with interest accrued since 1934,

as approximately Nine-Hundred Sixty-Eight Billion United States

Dollars ($968,000,000,000.00).

(ii) Two (2) 57th Series Japanese Government Bearer Bonds, Nos. A

1306 (construction bond) and A 1310 (the "Japanese Bonds"), which were

issued on April 30, 1983 by the Ministry of Finance, Government of

Japan, each having a face value of Japanese Yen Five Hundred (500)

Billion, which is equivalent to an amount in excess of Nine and One-Half

(9.5) Billion United States Dollars. Upon information and belief, these

Japanese Bonds are but two (2) of Five Hundred (500) such Bonds owned

by the Dragon Family, each having the same face value, according to a

statement of Yamaguchi dated April 20, 2009 concerning the Bond

History relating to these specific Japanese Bonds.

(iii) One (1) United States Kennedy Bond with a face value of One (1)

Billion United States Dollars, bearing registration number APII 024068 A.

(a) As with the FRNs, KEENAN has no personal knowledge of

the circumstances which gave rise to the issuance of the 'Kennedy

Bond bearing registration number APII 024068 A, issued in 1998

and which had been entrusted to him by Yamaguchi on May 5,

2009. The knowledge he has obtained is based largely upon his 6


communications witIi Yamaguchi including the representations

made by Yamaguchi in various documents he has executed over

the years in connection with his attempts on behalf of the Dragon

Family to place various Kennedy Bonds into legitimate PPPs in

furtherance of their objective to provide humanitarian global

assistance when and where needed.

(b) In a sworn statement by Yamaguchi, dated August 4,2010,

entitled "Kennedy Bond History," and which relates to the details

of ten (l0) other Kennedy Bonds, virtually identical to that

entrusted to KEENAN in May 2009 except for the registration

numbers, Yamaguchi stated that the "US government borrowed

huge amount funds from the Dragon Family many years ago. The

base of the lent funds from the Dragon Family to the US

Government were the Gold and Silver. Therefore the US

government was able to issue huge USD as currencies via FRB

then." Yamaguchi proceeded to state: "We, the Dragon Family,

requested some interest to the US Government on 1998 by use of

some securities/certificates got expired as same as the 57th Series

Japanese Government Bonds. And, we have received the Kennedy

Bonds, issued in 1998, as one of the interest payments from the US

Government. I recognize as my position that the Kennedy Bonds

were issued by the US Government as the interest only for the

Dragon Family." 7


( c) Upon information and belief, the Kennedy Bonds represent

a series of notes printed for the purpose of creating a settlement

fund for the gold and other precious metals transferred to the

United States under the terms of the Green Hilton Memorial

Agreement (GHMA), November 11, 1963 which was executed by,

among others, President John F. Kennedy and President Soekarno,

the first President of Indonesia, who had previously been entrusted

with the care of the gold. Upon information and belief, these

Bonds were originally issued in 1968 by way of specially

denominated 1968 Kennedy Bonds, "Z" series. These bonds were

not commercially negotiable, or cashable, but were redeemable

through the Federal Reserve System in what was intended to be an

effective, beneficial, and well-aimed program that was intended for

better global development. President Soekarno was deposed in

1967 by General Suharto, thus disrupting the entire program

causing a failure to institute the planned development program

intended for Indonesia and the Asian region.

(d) Upon information and belief, few, if any, of the 1968

Kennedy Bonds had been used within the original 30 year period, a

fact to which Yamaguchi may have been referring in his above

statement. Thus, theoretically, the gold that had been lent by the

Dragon Family had not been paid for and therefore had not fully

transferred to the Federal System. Upon information and belief, 8


this resulted in a situation where the gold was no longer being

purchased at the gold price of 1963 but at the increased 1998 price.

Thus, a new "A" series of bonds, which Yamaguchi may also have

been describing in his statement above, were issued in 1998

reflecting that price and the old "Z" series became defunct and

worthless.

3. As referenced above, and discussed in more detail below, the DFFI had been

entrusted to KEENAN in early 2009 by the Dragon Family. Months thereafter, in September

2009, KEENAN was fraudulently induced through the conspiratorial actions and schemes of the

Defendants to transfer and entrust the DFFI for temporary safekeeping and custodianship to

defendant Daniele DAL BOSCO (hereinafter, "DAL BOSCO").

4. Thereafter, unbeknownst to KEENAN, DAL BOSCO, in a malevolent, conscious

and concerted scheme and enterprise of staggering proportions, plotted and conspired with the

other Defendants in a variety of ways to defraud KEENAN and to convert the DFFI for their

own personal financial gain and to the complete financial detriment of KEENAN and the Dragon

Family, as described in more detail throughout the Complaint below.

5. In summary, this conspiracy included: (a) the expropriation, stealth and

conversion by DAL BOSCO of the very same DFFI with which he had been temporarily

entrusted; (b) the repeated and unsuccessful attempts to bribe KEENAN in the total amount of

One Hundred Million ($100,000,000.00) Dollars (half of which was to be kept by DAL

BOSCO), in an effort to obtain KEENAN's consent to release the DFFI to others without

disclosing such theft to the rightful owners of the DFFI, the Dragon Family; (c) a plan whereby

the DFFI would be converted and placed into a so-called "UN Sovereign Program" wholly under 9


the auspices, protection and umbrella of the: "sovereign immunity" allegedly accorded to the

defendants by the actions of certain of the defendants, including the UNITED NATIONS and the

ITALIAN REPUBLIC; (d) the execution of a written agreement between DAL BOSCO and

defendants OITC and SALE, with the full knowledge and authority of DAM, whereby DAL

BOSCO openly repudiated his duties as custodian of the DFFI; (e) the issuance of an illegal and

utterly baseless Cease and Desist Order under which OITC asserted the thoroughly and

knowingly false proposition that the DFFI was, in fact, in the lawful possession of OITC, which

has acted for decades with impunity and under the asserted umbrella of protection allegedly

accorded by the UNITED NATIONS; (f) the longstanding and unlawful complicity of the

UNITED NATIONS in allowing the blatantly false, but to date, unremedied representation to the

world at large by OITC that it was organized under a non-confirmable and apparently non-

existent UN Charter Code provision; (g) the unlawful, concerted and malicious attempt, through

the actions of various of the defendants to utilize not only the stolen DFFI, which are the focal

point of this matter, but also numerous various other financial instruments either stolen or seized

under color of police authority of the ITALIAN FINANCIAL. POLICE or obtained by others, to

purchase Banca Commerciale di Lugano, Lugano CH (Switzerland), or some other Swiss

registered bank into which they could deposit stolen assets, and to capitalize the bank's assets

with profits obtained from such actions. Upon information and belief, such bank capitalization

was to include yet another approximately One-Hundred Thirty-Four Billion, Five-Hundred

Million Dollars ($134,500,000,000.00) Dollars of financial instruments also owned by the

Dragon Family, including FRNs and Kennedy Bonds virtually identical to the DFFI, which were

seized on the Italian/Swiss border in June 2009. (See 63-69 supra, "The Chiasso Incident").

10


Subject Matter Jurisdiction:

6. This Court has "original jurisdiction without regard to amount in controversy"

over this action brought against a foreign state as defined in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities

Act (hereinafter "FSIA"), 28 U.S.C. 1603(a), namely defendants the ITALIAN REPUBLIC

and the ITALIAN FINANCIAL POLICE, which defendants are not entitled to immunity either

under 28 U.S.C. 1605-1607 or under any applicable international agreement. Specifically,

defendants the ITALIAN REPUBLIC and the ITALIAN FINANCIAL POLICE and their agents

acting on their behalf with actual authority, while actively participating in the conspiracy to

defraud KEENAN and convert the DFFI, engaged in inherently commercial activities when said

defendants and their agents attempted to bribe KEENAN in the total amount of One Hundred

Million ($100,000,000.00) Dollars for the purpose of obtaining the DFFI, from KEENAN, for

their own personal profit by and through the investment of the DFFI in a United Nations

Sovereign Program largely through actions taken in New York, New York. Said commercial

activity further has a direct effect in the United States in that a significant portion of the DFFI,

namely the 249 FRNs and the Kennedy Bond, are an of the U.S. Federal Reserve

System, and in order to negotiate said financial instruments, the holder of these instruments must

work directly with the U.S. Federal Reserve System to have the instruments verified before

anticipated placement into an approved PPP. Additionally, and upon information and belief, the

actions of the said defendants and their agents, as described in more detail below, constitute an

expropriation of the DFFI in clear violation of international law, and said DFFI are currently held

by said defendants in New York for investment in a UN Sovereign Program.

7. This Court also has original jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1331 as federal common law is applicable to the claims asserted herein, which claims involve 11


uniquely federal interests. Specifically, this action involves an international conspiracy to

defraud KEENAN and convert (i) Two-Hundred Forty-nine (249) United States 1934 Series

Federal Reserve Notes each with a face value of $500 Million ($500,000,000.00) United States

Dollars in the total amount of One Hundred Twenty-Four Billion Five-Hundred Million United

States Dollars and (ii) One (1) United States Kennedy Bond with a face value of One (1) Billion

United States Dollars, bearing registration number APII 024068 A issued by the U.S. Federal

Reserve and/or the U.S. Treasury Department to the Dragon Family in exchange for the Dragon

Family's extensive gold and other precious metal deposits, which were then placed in the U.S.

Federal Reserve System for the benefit and underwriting support of the United States Dollar,

which was to become and currently remains the global reserve currency. This international

criminal conspiracy involving a sovereign nation and international organizations as co-

conspirators, including the ITALIAN REPUBLIC, the ITALIAN FINANCIAL POLICE,

BERLUSCONI, BRUNO, the UNITED NATIONS and the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM,

implicates the Dragon Family's right to be compensated for the gold and precious metal deposits

it made into the Federal Reserve System pursuant to the original agreements between the United

States and the Dragon Family, as well as KEENAN's rights as Agent of the Dragon Family to

place the DFFI into the PPPS intended and to be compensated in accordance with his own rights

as such Agent. Alternatively, the conspiracy implicates the Dragon Family and its Agent

KEENAN's right to the return of the gold and precious metal deposits with interest-a right

which clearly implicates the uniquely federal interest of the United States in the U.S. Federal

Reserve System, the federally chartered central banking system of the United States. Because

this action involves issues that are of such a peculiarly federal concern, namely the obligations of

the federally chartered central banking system of the United States, the underwriting support of 12


the U.S. Dollar and its continued viability as the global reserve currency, this action is governed

by federal common law.

8. The Court also has jurisdiction over any remaining claims under principles of

supplemental jurisdiction as such claims "are so related to claims in the action within such

original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy" pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1367.

VENUE

9. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) (2) as a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred, or, upon information and belief, a

substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this district, and

under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b) (3) as certain defendants, namely the UNITED NATIONS

(hereinafter, the "UN"), BAN KI-moon, H.E. Ambassador CESARE MARIA RAGAGLINI

(hereinafter, "RAGAGLINI"), GIANCARLO BRUNO, (hereinafter, "BRUNO"), and the

WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM USA, INC. (hereinafter "WEF USA") are in the district. Venue

is also proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (d) as certain defendants are foreign aliens,

namely DANIELE DAL BOSCO, THE OFFICE OF INTERNATIONAL TREASURY

CONTROL (hereinafter, "OITC"), RAY C. DAM (hereinafter "DAM"), DAVID A. SALE

(hereinafter "SALE"), the WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM (hereinafter "WEF") and SILVIO

BERLUSCONI (hereinafter "BERLUSCONI"), the former Prime Minister of Italy, and as such

may be sued in any district. Lastly, venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391 (f) (1)

as this action is against a foreign state and a political subdivision or agency thereof, namGly

defendants the ITALIAN REPUBLIC (hereinafter "ITALY") and the ITALIAN FINANCIAL

POLICE, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred, or, 13


upon infonnation and belief, a substantial of property that is the subj ect of the action is

situated in this district.

PARTIES

The Plaintiff Neil Francis Keenan

10. At all relevant times, plaintiff KEENAN was an individual citizen of the United

States, who currently is a resident of Bulgaria. KEENAN was introduced to Yamaguchi and the

Dragon Family in or about August 2008 in connection with their efforts to place certain Japanese

Bonds and Kennedy Bonds into a PPP after proper Bank verification. KEENAN acted as an

intennediary in introducing the Dragon Family to Alpha Bank, located in Cyprus, for which

Yamaguchi expressed great appreciation. On account of the assistance and political connections

KEENAN provided at that time, Yamaguchi persistently sought out KEENAN to provide direct

services on his behalf related to international banking and trading transactions in furtherance of

Dragon Family humanitarian programs. KEENAN eventually agreed to accept the

responsibilities attendant to representing the Dragon Family in numerous transactions in the

world of private financing, international banking, and governmental trading.

11. As a result of the actions of the defendants which gave rise to this action,

described in greater detail in the succeeding paragraphs, on October 28,2010, Yamaguchi

executed a certain Special Power of Attorney by which he, with the approval of General Haan,

the Head of the Dragon Family, authorized KEENAN to act on his behalf and that of the Dragon

Family, for the private placement of or legal return of the DFFI "which were stolen by Daniele

Dal Bosco (and others) from you," effectively assigning any cause of action which the Dragon

Family might possess as the legal holder of the DFFI. Any such causes of action would be in

addition to KEENAN's personal and representative claims as the Dragon Family's designated 14


Agent under his Special Powers of Attorney, as the victim of the theft and conversion of the

DFFI by DAL BOSCO and the various and sundry other conspiratorial and illegal actions of the

other defendants.

12. This Special Power of Attorney explicitly superseded and extended prior Powers

of Attorney granted to KEENAN by which KEENAN was authorized to coordinate with the

appropriate programs in the United States, Asia and Europe for investment purposes utilizing the

DFFI as collateral. In addition to the wide range of responsibilities granted to KEENAN

regarding the negotiation of the DFFI and their investment in proper PPPs in a fully secured

investment facility, KEENAN, "and only" KEENAN, was specifically authorized to determine

what legal proceedings should be initiated in order to recover the stolen DFFI, how to finance it,

and seek all damages arising therefrom. KEENAN was authorized to coordinate all aspects of

the litigation and determine "what to do with any proceeds from any outcome" as "the bonds

were stolen from you and you are financing their retrieval and you are taking all the risks." In

effect, Yamaguchi assigned to KEENAN any and all causes of action he or the Dragon Family

may have in seeking the recovery of the DFFI or damages arising from their theft "as the legal

holder" of the DFFI. KEENAN was placed "solely in control over the legal recovery of said

bonds and all aspects of it."

Keenan's Disclosed Principal- the Dragon Family

13. Upon information and belief, the 1934 FRNs described, supra, at 2 (i), came

under the control of the Kuomintang from whom the gold was received in return for the lease

payments, and allowed the Chinese Nationalist Government in Taiwan to continue financially.

Many of the FRNs were left in Communist China

dragon family lawsuit keenan complaint 11-23-2011 sdny

Documents

italian mission

judge richard

pmsdny cmecf version

sale sale

judge jesse

defendantdaniele dal

magistrate judge ronald

jr bleakley platt schmidt