Timothy C. Rote, Pro Se 

24790 SW Big Fir Rd. 

West Linn 97062 

Oregon, USA 

tel: (503) 702-7225 

fax: 

FILED18 tm '16 09:491.JSDC-ORP 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

PORTLAND DIVISION 

Timothy C. Rote, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Silicon Valley Bank, Inc., 

Chester Te, SVB, 

LiveVox, Inc., 

Eric Grothe 

Golden Gate Capital, 

Carlos A. Samour, 

Beiging, Shapiro & Barber, LLP, 

Duncan Barber, atty., 

Julie Trent, atty., 

Adam Michelin, atty., 

The Receivers, Inc., 

John Does 1-10 

Defendants 

Page 1 of 32 

3'16 CV- 0 4 71 

Case No. 

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR 

DECLARATORY RELIEF & 

DAMAGES RACKETEERING 

CONSPIRACY TO 

ENGAGE IN A PATTERN OF 

RACKETEERING ACTIVITY, 

AIDING & ABETTING & 

RELATED CLAIMS 

JURY DEMANDED: 

18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.; 

18 u.s.c. 1964 

(Civil RICO Remedies) 

Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 1 of 43
INTRODUCTION 

1. This is a complex civil action for RICO remedies authorized by 

the federal statutes at 18 u.s.c. 1961 et seq.; for 

declaratory and injunctive relief; for actual, consequential 

and exemplary damages and for all other relief which this 

honorable Federal Court deems just and proper under all 

circumstances which have occasioned this Initial COMPLAINT. 

See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1964 (a) and (c) ("Civil RICO"). 

2. The primary cause of this action is a widespread criminal 

enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity 

across State lines, and a conspiracy to engage in racketeering 

activity involving numerous RICO predicate acts during the 

past ten (10) calendar years. 

3. The predicate acts alleged here cluster around criminal 

extortion, bribery, financial statement fraud, tampering with 

and retaliation against a qualified Witness, destruction of 

property, retaliation against whistleblower, obstruction of 

justice & obstruction of criminal investigations. 

U.S.C. §§ 1512 and 1513 respectively. 

See 18 

4. Other RICO predicate acts, al though appearing to be isolated 

events, were actually part of the overall conspiracy and 

pattern of racketeering activity alleged herein, 

extortion, bribery and financial statement fraud. 

U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1344, respectively. 

e.g. 

See 18 

5. The primary objective of the racketeering enterprise has been 

to inflict severe and sustained economic hardship upon 

Page 2 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 2 of 43
Plaintiff, with the intent of destroying the business 

interests of Plaintiff, sponsoring unrelated litigation 

against Plaintiff, impairing, obstructing, preventing and 

discouraging Plaintiff from writing & publishing on this and 

related behaviors of Investment Bank Partners with Silicon 

Valley Bank. 

JURISDICTION 

6. This honorable Federal Court has original jurisdiction 

pursuant to the civil RICO remedies at 18 U.S.C. 1964, and the 

holdings of the U.S. Supreme Court in Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 

U.S. 455 (1990), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 

Circuit in Lou v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, hn. 4 (9th Cir. 

1987) . 

PARTIES 

7. Plaintiff Timothy C. Rote ("Rote") is an individual resident of 

the state of Oregon. 

8. Defendant Silicon Valley Bank, Inc. ( "SVB") is a for-profit 

corporation organized under the laws of the state of Delaware. 

9. Defendant Li vevox, Inc. ( "Vox") is a for-profit corporation 

organized under the laws of the state of California and 

employer of Saffell. 

10. Telformance ("Tel") is a for-profit company of unknown 

organization form & under the laws of a state unknown, 

employer of Rieple and believed to be a related Party to 

LiveVox. 

Page 3 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 3 of 43
11. Defendant Chester Te ("Te") is an individual resident of the 

state of California and Assistant Legal Counsel for SVB. 

12. Defendant Carlos A. Samour ("Samour") is an individual 

resident of the state of Colorado and Chief Judge of 

Eighteenth Judicial Court. 

13. Defendant Golden Gate Capital ("Golden") is a for-profit 

corporation organized under the laws of the state of 

California, a venture partner of SVB and owner of LiveVox. 

14. Defendant Beiging, Shapiro and Barber, LLP, is a for profit 

Limited Liability Company organized under the laws of the 

state of Colorado, representing Silicon Valley Bank. 

15. Defendant Duncan Barber ("Barber") is an individual resident 

of the state of Colorado, outside legal counsel for SVB in 

this matter and a partner in Defendant Beiging, Shapiro and 

Barber, LLP. 

16. Defendant Julie Trent ("Trent") is an indi victual resident of 

the state of Hawaii, outside legal counsel on this matter and 

a partner in Beiging, Shapiro and Barber, LLP. 

17. Defendant Adam Michelin ("Michelin") is an individual 

resident of the state of California and was the operating CEO 

just before and during the Receivership. Michelin received 

compensation of approximately $600,000 from SVB in a six month 

period. 

18. Defendant Eric Grothe ("Grothe") is an individual resident 

of the state of Colorado, owns The Receivers and was the 

appointed Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank's foreclosure of 

the secured assets owned by Touchstar, Inc. 

Page 4 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 4 of 43
19. 

20. 

21. 

22. 

23. 

24. 

25. 

Defendant The Receivers, Inc. ("Receivers") is a for-profit 

corporation organized under the laws of the state of Colorado 

and owned by Grothe and his spouse. Plaintiff asserts that SVB 

or SVB counsel made an investment in the Receiver prior to the 

trial and had family members working for the Receiver 

resulting undie influence on the Receiver & Eric Grothe .. 

BackKround 

In 2008 a company owned by Plaintiff "Rote" entered into a 

contract with a now liquidated company called Touchstar, Inc. 

Said company Touchstar was a customer of and debtor to SVB. 

In March 2009 rote discovered that Touchstar was for sale 

at a price of $15 million, owed SVB approximately $7 million 

and was in default. Foreclosure of the assets was imminent. 

At the same time Touchstar was in default to Rote's company 

NOT on contract performance issues and was attempting to 

terminate software licenses key to Rote's companies 

profitability. 

A lawsuit was filed in April 2009 by Rote's company to 

enforce its contract and force Touchstar to remove licenses 

set to expire in breach of the contract provisions not 

permitting Touchstar to install temporary licenses. 

Adam Michelin was the interim CEO at that time and used the 

temporary licenses to attempt to extort money from Rote and 

NOT. Michelin agreed to remove the expiring licenses 

permanently and entered into agreement with Rote's company. 

Michelin breached that agreement as well as the underlying 

Touchstar agreement when he discovered that Rote was talking 

to a prospective buyer of Touchstar. 

In June 2009 Rote discovered that Michelin was 

disseminating financial information on Touchstar he should 

have known to be false and was using that information to 

garner a sales price for Touchstar of $15, 000, 000. Michelin 

had already entered in an agreement with SVB to sell the 

Page 5 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

' { 

i 

t 

I 

t 

I I 

! 

I 

I 

l 

J 

f 

r 

l 

f 

£ 

! 

! 

t 

I 

~ 

! 

I 

I 

t 

l 

t 

I 

l 

I 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 5 of 43
assets of Touchstar and for which he was to receive a fee of 

5% of the sales price. 

26. "SVB" foreclosed on the assets of Touchstar in June 2009 

and in conjunction with that foreclosure a Receiver was 

appointed. Said Receiver was "Grothe" an owner and employee of 

"Receiver". 

27. SVB and Michelin continued to present false financials 

through the discovery stage of the sale for the assets of 

Touchstar to Noble Systems, which Rote communicated. 

28. After foreclosure Michelin's contract with Touchstar was 

reaffirmed with the Receiver and SVB assumed the obligation 

for paying Michelin. 

29. After foreclosure but before the sale of the assets Rote 

discovered that the sale of the assets was to be in two parts, 

the first for $10,000,000 and second for $2 million. 

30. Rote also discovered that SVB had no intention of paying 

the unsecured creditors by structuring the first sale of the 

assets into two parts, the first to be cash of $4 million and 

the second to be stock in the buyer of $6 million, recognizing 

the $4 million in cash only. 

31. SVB sold the first group of assets of Touchstar on August 

31, 2009 in a transaction of part cash and part stock in the 

buyer. Shortly thereafter the second group of assets were sold 

for approximately $2 million. 

32. Prior to selling the assets of Touchstar, there were a 

number of unsecured creditors and litigants against Touchstar 

and one such litigant was the company owned by Rote. The 

unsecured creditors received nothing from the sale of the 

Touchstar assets. 

33. Over the course of the next 5 years the enterprise 

comprised of the Defendants and their employees systematically 

sought to destroy Rote's property (including NDT and its 

affiliated companies) through a series of bribes and 

intimidation intended to benefit SVB and its enterprise 

affiliates. Chester "Te" of SVB managed the enterprise, 

Page 6 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 6 of 43
principally assisted by Duncan "Barber" & Julie "Trent". 

Enterprise members also included LiveVox", Eric "Grothe", The 

Receivers, Inc. ("Receiver"), Carlos A. "Samour" & "Golden" 

Gate Capital. 

34. "Leapfrog", a debtor to SVB and customer of NOT was tasked 

with cancelation of its contracts with Rote's company. 

Leapfrog was at the time those contracts were canceled a new 

customer of SVB with no less than a $10,000,000 loan from SVB. 

The annual contract revenue to Rote's company and its 

affiliates was $2.5 million and the losses Rote sustained as a 

result are separate, material and measureable. 

35. Chase Bank informed NOT that its association with Leapfrog 

and the business channel it's in presented exposure to money 

laundering concerns and terminated its relationship with NOT a 

short time thereafter. Leapfrog was a customer of Chase Bank 

up to that time. 

36. Golden Gate Capital is a strategic business partner of SVB 

and had control over LiveVox during the trial. 

37. Li veVox has control over Saffell as an employee and with 

the assistance of TE and Barber directed him to provide false 

testimony during the trial and in affidavits from 2009 through 

the trial date. And Saffell did provide false testimony. 

38. Telformance is believed to be a related party to LiveVox 

but there is insufficient information to name Telformance as a 

Defendant. The form of organization is unknown. Its state of 

organization is unknown. Its investors are unknown but 

believed to be SVB. It is engaged in the same business as 

Li veVox and is believed to have a relationship with Li veVox. 

It maintains a corporate off ice in Colorado but is not 

registered to do business in Colorado. Chris Rieple worked 

with LiveVox and is now an Executive Vice President with 

Telformance. Chris Rieple gave false testimony during the 

trial that had a material impact on the trial. 

39. Arapahoe County Court, specifically Judges Carlos Samour 

and Elizabeth Weishaupl were contacted by SVB counsel with the 

Page 7 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 7 of 43
intent of influencing the litigation in favor of SVB. It is 

unknown as to what if any compensation was involved. "Samour" 

did not preside over the trial, but did exercise influence 

over Weishaupl, who did assist SVB in destroying property 

owned by Rote. 

40. Michelin was employed by SVB to operate and manage and help 

sell the assets of Touchstar. Michelin gave false testimony at 

the trial. 

41. In violation of the agreement between Touchstar and NDT, 

Michelin had ordered Touchstar personnel to install expiring 

licenses on the software licensed by NDT from Touchstar, in 

direct violation of the agreement. On numerous occasions 

Michelin attempted to extort money from Rote and NDT. 

42. Michelin allowed the licenses to expire on July 31, 2009. 

43. NDT had secured un-expiring licenses, they believed from 

Touchstar, and installed them. 

44. On or around August 3rct 2009, Michelin determined that NDT 

was still operating & acknowledged his intent to have shut NDT 

down and destroy NDT's business. 

45. 

46. 

47. 

48. 

In April 2009 NOT had filed a case in U.S. Federal District 

Court of Oregon seeking emergency relief in removing the 

expired licenses. 

In June 2009 a Receiver was appointed to oversee the 

liquidation of Touchstar's assets. 

An emergency TRO hearing was held in early July 2009, when 

and where Receivership counsel requested the case be 

transferred to the U.S. District Court of Denver. Said case 

was transferred to U.S. District Court of Denver Colorado on 

or around July 23, 2009 with a stern recommendation from the 

Portland Judge to Michelin and Touchstar to not shut NOT down. 

While NDT was hiring counsel in Colorado, Michelin 

contacted SVB and secured permission to shut NOT down and they 

did so on August 6, 2009. SVB correspondence at the time 

confirmed that the decision to shut NOT down was made "to 

eliminate the current litigation by NDT against SVB". Michelin 

Page 8 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 8 of 43
was employed by SVB as a contractor. The shutdown was 

accomplished by Michelin, SVB and Touchstar employees by an 

unauthorized access to NDT's database server (not a Touchstar 

asset) , from which assailant accessed other network servers 

and destroyed Touchstar software as well as other property. 

Unauthorized access by Touchstar was a violation of the 

Computer Fraud & Abuse Act & a complaint was filed with the 

FBI. The FBI investigated the CFAA violation and made a 

recommendation to The U.S. Attorney's Office in Portland to 

prosecute SVB. 

49. On August 23, 2009 NDT prevailed in The U.S. District Court 

of Denver on an emergency TRO to force Touchstar to reinstall 

the software they had destroyed. Michelin refused to order 

Touchstar to perform. The legal fees incurred by NDT as of 

that time were in excess of $100,000. 

50. On or around August 27, 2009 SVB (in its sole capacity and 

without the participation of the Receiver) sought and secured 

a one week stay on the Federal Order, ex-parte, from Judge 

Carlos Samour. Only the Receiver had the authority to pursue 

and secure that stay. Judge Samour was the Receivership Judge 

at that time. 

51. By the time the stay was lifted SVB had sold the assets of 

Touchstar and did not perform on the Federal Order. Samour was 

well aware that the stay would allow Touchstar to not perform 

on the Order. 

52. The party that acquired Touchstar' s assets did reinstall 

the software in November 2009, 

operational for outbound calling. 

a different platform. 

and the software remained 

Inbound calls were moved to 

53. Because Samour claimed exclusive judicial authority over 

the Touchstar estate, NDT moved the case to Samour' s court. 

And at that time replaced counsel believing that Samour 

disdained the attorneys NDT used in the Denver Federal Court 

action. However, new counsel quickly concluded that there was 

strong bias in favor in SVB. 

Page 9 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 9 of 43
54. As a result of that conclusion and because tort claims were 

asserted against Michelin, the Receiver and SVB, NDT requested 

a jury trial. 

55. SVB moved to strike the request for a jury trial and Samour 

ruled in SVB' s favor, sanctioning NDT $11, 000 in legal fees 

for the benefit of SVB. 

56. NDT requested that the fee payment be deferred until the 

end of the trial, noting that NDT had already prevailed in its 

interim action in Federal Court and at a cost of $100, 000, 

which it would seek at trial. 

57. Samour dismissed NDT's claims until NDT paid the sanctions 

to SVB. Once paid by Rote personally, Samour reversed the 

dismissal. 

58. As a result of SVB' s shutdown, NDT suffered a loss of 

profits close to $1. 6 million and pursued those claims in 

Arapahoe County, as required by the Receivership Judge Carlos 

Samour. NDT affiliates suffered a much larger claim but were 

not permitted by Judge Samour to join the lawsuit. 

59. Judge Weishaupl replaced Judge Samour on this case one year 

before trial. Judge Weishaupl found in favor of NDT on pretrial summary judgment motions. 

60. In March 2014 there was a week-long trial in Arapahoe 

County Colorado. 

61. On the first day of trial SVB counsel recommended that 

Judge Weishaupl contact Judge Samour on matters they claimed 

were decided by him in summary judgement, maintaining that she 

had reversed his earlier decisions. After the lunch break, 

Weishaupl became hostile towards NDT and Rote, limiting the 

evidence Rote was allowed to offer while expanding 

opportunities of evidence for SVB. Weishaupl has judicial 

immunity. 

62. Rote suffered a commensurate loss of value of the NDT and 

affiliate company stock, loss of loans to NDT, loss of 

compensation and loss of dividend income, through these acts 

Page 10 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 10 of 43
before the trial and beyond. SVB secured their advantage 

through fraud and Racketeering. 

63. Defending and prosecuting its claims against SVB ultimately 

destroyed Rote's affiliated group of companies. 

64. During the trial, Michelin, Grothe, Chris Rieple 

Telformance), Carl Saffell (of Livevox) provided 

testimony that advanced the interests of SVB and 

enterprise participants. 

(of 

false 

the 

65. At issue at trial was whether SVB and Touchstar had a right 

to shut down NOT in violation of a written agreement against 

it and whether Touchstar and SVB were in breach for failing to 

properly provision hardware to provision the necessary 

telephone lines to support the software. 

66. A significant part of that trial included testimony from 

Saffell, Rieple and Michelin on a portion of the contract 

between Touchstar and NOT regarding a provisioning mandate 

called the "line to agent ratio." 

67. The line to agent ratio is the number of telephone lines 

required to be provisioned on each server. The contract 

required a line to agent ration of 3 to 1 on each of the two 

servers provisioned, each server to be provisioned with 96 

licenses and 288 telephone lines. 

68. Touchstar had provisioned 384 lines on server #1 and 192 

telephone lines on server #2. 

69. Rieple testified that the contract language of "288 lines 

and 96 licenses" for server #1 and sever #2 was not a line to 

agent ratio of 3 to 1 and Touchstar was not required to 

provision them, nor was it a material part of the contract. 

70. Rieple did not admit that he was paid by SVB for his 

witness time at the time of trial, but was in fact compensated 

by SVB & has subsequently admitted that. 

71. Rieple worked for Telformance at the time of trial and 

still works for Telformance. 

72. Telformance's website 

flexibility in delivering 

Page 11 of 32 

specifically 

higher line to 

advertises 

agent ratios 

its 

and 

Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 11 of 43
takes a position that this is material to the platforms 

performance. Rieple previsously worked for Touchstar as a 

senior V.P., then worked at Livevox and then onto Telformance. 

73. Telformance is not registered as an entity doing business 

in Colorado. The Plaintiff believes Telformance received 

capital from SVB or its agent Li veVox on around the time of 

Rieple's testimony. 

7 4. Carl Saffell, like 

Touchstar and testified 

portion of the contract. 

Rieple was a 

on the same 

senior executive for 

"line to agent ratio" 

75. Saffell's testimony was the same as Rieple's that there was 

no "line to agent ratio" requirement in the contract and that 

provisioning them disproportionately did not violate the 

written terms of the contract. Saffell was paid for his 

testimony. 

7 6. Saffell works for Li vevox and was coached and directed to 

provide false testimony by Te, Barber and his employer 

Livevox. 

77. Michelin's testimony was the same as Rieple' s that there 

was no "line to agent ratio" requirement in the contract and 

that provisioning them disproportionately did not violate the 

written terms of the contract. Michelin was paid for his 

testimony. 

78. Golden Gate Capital is a Venture Partner with SVB and 

executed control over LiveVox, acquiring a majority of the 

stock just one week after the end of the trial in March 2014. 

Prior to that time Golden Gate was the largest shareholder but 

did not own more than 50% of the stock. 

7 9. Li veVox' s website specifically advertises its flexibility 

in delivering higher "line to agent ratios" and takes a 

position that this is material to the platform's performance. 

80. The position taken by Rieple and Saffell is contrary to the 

public testimony of the companies they work for, which 

reference line to agent ratios as a material provision in the 

Page 12 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 12 of 43
contract and subsequently their testimony was false on its 

face. 

81. Michelin testified as to the contract requirement of 288 

telephone lines to a 96 agent ratio and his testimony was the 

same as Saffell and Rieple. Michelin was paid for his 

testimony. Michelin's testimony was intentionally false. 

82. Deli very of disproportionate line to agent ratios was a 

material breach and NOT refused to pay for the balance owed 

until the breach was cured. It was never cured by Touchstar or 

SVB. 

83. The Receiver was owned by Grothe and his spouse. Prior to 

the trial an investment was made in The Receivers by SVB 

counsel for the benefit of SVB. Barber's daughter and another 

family member work for The Receivers, Inc. 

84. Grothe did not disclose the investment by SVB or its 

agents, the related parties to SVB counsel nor any investment 

by SVB or agents in Receiver. 

85. Grothe testified that he ordered the shut down of NOT 

without reviewing the contract and based on a recommendation 

made by Michelin. And Michelin made the recommendation based 

on SVB's decision, which was designed to "shutdown NDT's 

ongoing litigation" per evidence acquired just before trial. 

86. Grothe received compensation of more than $250,000. 

87. Grothe while in possession of key discovery documents, 

provided very few documents claiming they had not been found, 

which included his correspondence between Michelin, SVB and 

Grothe on the shutdown. The discovery response and testimony 

was false. 

88. Counsel for SVB was Barber and Trent and the law firm of 

which they are partners, which garnered more than $600,000 in 

legal fees on this matter. 

8 9. Barber and Trent knew and did not disclose the investment 

SVB made to the parties influencing and exercising control 

over Grothe, Michelin, Rieple and Saffell, as well as the fees 

paid to witnesses. 

Page 13 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 13 of 43
90. Trent also tampered with a material witness of NDT 

threatening said witness with criminal prosecution. Trent made 

that threat ex-parte during a period of time when the witness 

was represented. SVB had long maintained that the licenses NDT 

secured were pirated. They directed the piracy statements as 

to Rote during the trial. The licenses were not pirated. 

91. The licenses are specific to and registered to a server and 

provisioned with Touchstar software and were not pirated. The 

piracy claim was actively marketed against Rote and NDT and 

its affiliates with malicious intent. 

92. Barber and Trent prepared and coached the SVB witnesses 

including Grothe, Rieple, Michelin, Saffell and SVB employees, 

did not disclose the witness compensation and facilitated the 

false testimony, thereby tampering with the witnesses. 

93. Chester Te assisted in arranging for the compensation and 

tampering of witnesses, influencing LiveVox, Golden, The 

Receivers, Inc., Michelin, Grothe, Rieple and Saffell. 

94. On July 31, 2014, the 5th anniversary date of the NDT 

shutdown, Judge Weishaupl issued an opinion in favor of SVB. 

The choosing of that date was by design. 

95. The opinion vacated the written agreement in favor of one 

not requiring specified line to agent ratios concluding that 

the section was not material. Had Weishaupl not reached this 

conclusion, SVB would have materially breached the agreement 

first. 

96. The opinion also reached conclusions of fact designed 

exclusively to protect Colorado counsel from criminal 

prosecution and malpractice claims. 

97. The opinion also overturned the plain written meaning of 

section 2 (c) of the contract (which was written to preclude 

SVB from shutting NDT down licenses already paid for) . By 

reversing this section, the court endorsed the use of 

extortion techniques and reversed a decision made by the 

Federal Court on the same contract provision including the 

same parties. 

Page 14 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 14 of 43
98. Judge Weishaupl addressed many areas not called on by 

either party to the action, shoring up positions favorable to 

SVB & Colorado counsel. 

99. Subsequent to Trial and just recently, Plaintiff has become 

aware Judge Carlos Samour influenced the litigation between 

NDT and SVB that resulted in the destruction of Rote's assets. 

100. SVB counsel had a prior personal relationship with Samour 

which ultimately resulted in Judge Samour recusing himself 

from this case, but several years into the case. 

101. Te, SVB & SVB counsel managed the parties and are complicit 

in these acts. 

102. Key SVB employee Diane Lemay testified in deposition that 

Te ordered the shutdown. The email evidence suggests that SVB 

employee Diane Lemay ordered the shutdown. Nonetheless the 

email evidence was withheld from NOT for four years. 

103. Key SVB employee Lemay testified in deposition that SVB did 

not recognize the $4 million loss from the sale of the assets 

for 2.5 years after the sale. 

104. Rote filed a complaint with the SEC regarding the material 

understatement of the loss in SVB's lOQ and year end financial 

statements for 2009, 2010 and 2011. The sale originally 

represented a $2 million gain on the sale of the assets, which 

SVB and the parties did not disclose to the unsecured 

creditors. Alternatively there was no gain, but rather a 

sizeable loss, which was not recognized by SVB. 

105. Concealing funds likely available to the unsecured 

creditors could only be done with Grothe's participation. 

106. Grothe did not accurately report the gain on the sale or 

the loss derived on modifications to the sales agreement. 

107. Rote acknowledges that losses sustained by Rote's company 

NOT have been adjudicated and are now closed, but was secured 

by a pattern of racketeering between the Defendants & 

discovered after the Judge's decision on July 31, 2014. The 

racketeering activity destroyed Rote's affiliated group of 

Page 15 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 15 of 43
corporations and it is the loss of that shareholder value Rote 

is asserting as damages. 

108. Subsequent to the litigation SVB and Te have continued to 

support litigation against NDT brought by unrelated parties by 

financing the legal fees of parties adverse to Rote and his 

companies and particularly designed to stop Rote from writing 

about the RICO abuses described in his blog and other 

publications. The actions by the Defendants are that of an 

Enterprise of parties engaged in Racketeering. 

PARTIAL LIST OF RICO PREDICATE ACTS 

AND OTHER ACTS OF WITNESS RETALIATION 

109. Particular attention of this honorable Court is now drawn 

to Exhibits A, B and C. 

110. Exhibit A is the legislative history of the Computer Fraud 

& Abuse Act. 

111. Exhibit B is a partial list of Documented Retaliations 

which Plaintiff had suffered prior to the date on which this 

federal case was first filed. 

112. Exhibit C is a subset of those Documented Retaliations 

which also qualify as one or more of the RICO Predicate Acts 

that are itemized at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 (1) (B), (1) (D), and (5). 

113. Moreover, further acts and events occurred after July 1, 

2009' which also qualify as RICO predicate acts that 

constitute further probable causes for all the relief 

requested infra. 

114. Plaintiff herein alleges that obstruction of justice did in 

fact occur when Plaintiff was deprived of specific relief from 

the district courts in Arapahoe Colorado and as a result of 

Page 16 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 16 of 43
false testimony sponsored, aided and abetted by SVB and its 

enterprise affiliates. 

COUNT ONE: 

Acquisition and Maintenance of an Interest in and Control of 

an Enterprise Engaged in a Pattern of Racketeering Activity: 

18 u.s.c. §§ 1961(5), 1962(b) 

115. Plaintiff now re-alleges each and every allegation as set 

forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if 

all were set forth fully herein. Substance prevails over 

form. 

116. At various times and places partially enumerated in 

Plaintiff's documentary material, all Defendants did acquire 

and/or maintain, directly or indirectly, an interest in or 

control of a RICO enterprise of individuals who were 

associated in fact and who did engage in, and whose activities 

did affect, interstate and foreign commerce, all in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 (4), (5), (9), and 1962 (b). 

117. During the ten (10) calendar years preceding March 15, 2016 

A.D., all Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in 

the commission of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts 

that are itemized in the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) (A) 

and (B), and did so in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 

1962 (b) (Prohibited activities). 

118. Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit 

two ( 2) or more of the offenses itemized above in a manner 

which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to 

Page 17 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 17 of 43
threaten continuity, i.e. a continuing threat of their 

respective racketeering activities, also in violation of the 

RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) supra. 

119. Pursuant to the original Statutes at Large, the RICO laws 

itemized above are to be liberally construed by this honorable 

Court. Said construction rule was never codified in Title 18 

of the United States Code, however. See 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 

904, Oct. 15, 1970. 

120. Respondeat superior (principal is liable for agents' 

misconduct: knowledge of, participation in, and benefit from a 

RICO enterprise). 

COUNT TWO: 

Conduct and Participation in a RICO Enterprise 

through a Pattern of Racketeering Activity: 

18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(c) 

121. Plaintiff now re-alleges each and every allegation as set 

forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if 

all were set forth fully herein. Substance prevails over 

form. 

122. At various times and places partially enumerated in 

Plaintiff's documentary material, all Defendants did associate 

with a RICO enterprise of individuals who were associated in 

fact and who engaged in, and whose activities did affect, 

interstate and foreign commerce. 

123. Likewise, all Defendants did conduct and/or participate, 

either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs 

of said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering 

Page 18 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 18 of 43
activity, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 (4), (5), (9), 

and 1962(c). 

124. During the ten (10) calendar years preceding March 15, 2016 

A. D., all Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in 

the commission of two (2) or more of the RICO predicate acts 

that are itemized in the RICO laws at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) (A) 

and (B), and did so in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 

1962 (c) (Prohibited activities). 

125. Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit 

two (2) or more of the offenses itemized above in a manner 

which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to 

threaten continuity, i.e. a continuing threat of their 

respective racketeering activities, also in violation of the 

RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) supra. 

126. Pursuant to 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970, the RICO 

laws itemized above are to be liberally construed by this 

honorable Court. Said construction rule was never codified in 

Title 18 of the United States Code, however. 

superior (as explained above) . 

COUNT THREE: 

Conspiracy to Engage in a 

Pattern of Racketeering Activity: 

18 u.s.c. §§ 1961(5), 1962(d) 

Respondeat 

127. Plaintiff now re-alleges each and every allegation as set 

forth above, and hereby incorporates same by reference, as if 

all were set forth fully herein. Substance prevails over 

form. 

Page 19 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 19 of 43
128. At various times and places partially enumerated in 

Plaintiff's documentary material, all Defendants did conspire 

to acquire and maintain an interest in a RICO enterprise 

engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 

18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(b) and (d). 

129. At various times and places partially enumerated in 

Plaintiff's documentary material, all Defendants did also 

conspire to conduct, participate in and or aided and abetted 

said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering 

activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(c) and (d). 

See also 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 (4), (5) and (9). 

130. During the ten (10) calendar years preceding March 15, 2006 

A. D., all Defendants did cooperate jointly and severally in 

the commission of two (2) or more of the predicate acts that 

are itemized at 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(1) (A) and (B), in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (d). 

131. Plaintiff further alleges that all Defendants did commit 

two (2) or more of the offenses itemized above in a manner 

which they calculated and premeditated intentionally to 

threaten continuity, i.e. a continuing threat of their 

respective racketeering activities, also in violation of 18 

U.S.C. 1962(d) (Prohibited activities supra). 

132. Pursuant to 84 Stat. 947, Sec. 904, Oct. 15, 1970, the RICO 

laws itemized above are to be liberally construed by this 

honorable Court. Said construction rule was never codified in 

Page 20 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 20 of 43
Title 18 of the United States Code, however. Respondeat 

superior (as explained above). 

RELIEF REQUESTED 

Wherefore, pursuant to the statutes at 18 U.S.C. 1964 (a) 

and (c), Plaintiff requests judgment against all named Defendants 

as follows: 

ON COUNT ONE: 

1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and 

thereby find that all Defendants, both jointly and 

severally, have acquired and maintained, both directly and 

indirectly, an interest in and/or control of a RICO 

enterprise of persons and of other individuals who were 

associated in fact, all of whom engaged in, and whose 

activities did affect, interstate and foreign commerce in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (b) (Prohibited activities). 

2. That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, 

employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active 

concert or in participation with them, be enjoined 

temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently 

thereafter, from acquiring or maintaining, whether directly 

or indirectly, any interest in or control of any RICO 

enterprise of persons, or of other individuals associated 

in fact, who are engaged in, or whose activities do affect, 

interstate or foreign commerce. 

Page 21 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 21 of 43
3. That all Defendants and all of their directors, officers, 

employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active 

concert or in participation with them, be enjoined 

temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently 

thereafter, from committing any more predicate acts in 

furtherance of the RICO enterprise alleged in COUNT ONE 

supra. 

4. That all Defendants be required to account for all gains, 

profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of 

racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b) and 

from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal 

law(s). 

5. That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against all 

Defendants for Plaintiff's actual damages, and for any 

gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all 

violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b), according to the best 

available proof. 

6. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff treble (triple) 

damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), for any 

gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all 

violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b), according to the best 

available proof. 

7. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff all damages sustained 

by Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants' several 

violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962(b), according to the best 

available proof. 

Page 22 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 22 of 43
8. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff His costs of the 

lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all 

necessary research, all non-judicial enforcement and all 

reasonable counsel's fees, at a minimum of $400.00 per hour 

worked (standard professional rate at start of this 

action). 

9. That all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, 

profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from 

their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 

u.s.c. 1962(b) and from all other violation(s) of 

applicable State and federal law ( s) , be deemed to be held 

in constructive trust, legally foreign with respect to the 

federal zone [sic], for the benefit of Plaintiff, His heirs 

and assigns. 

10. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this 

Court deems just and proper, under the circumstances of 

this action. 

ON COUNT TWO: 

1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and 

thereby find that all Defendants have associated with a 

RICO enterprise of persons and of other individuals who 

were associated in fact, all of whom did engage in, and 

whose activities did affect, interstate and foreign 

commerce in violation of the RICO law at 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) 

(Prohibited activities). 

Page 23 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 23 of 43
2. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and 

thereby find that all Defendants have conducted and/or 

participated, directly or indirectly, in the affairs of 

said RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering 

activity in violation of the RICO laws at 18 U.S. C. §§ 

1961 (5) ("pattern" defined) and 1962 (c) supra. 

3. That all Defendants and all of their directors, officers, 

employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active 

concert or in participation with them, be enjoined 

temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently 

thereafter, from associating with any RICO enterprise of 

persons, or of other individuals associated in fact, who do 

engage in, or whose activities do affect, interstate and 

foreign commerce. 

4. That all Defendants and all of their directors, officers, 

employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active 

concert or in participation with them, be enjoined 

temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently 

thereafter, from conducting or participating, either 

directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of 

any RICO enterprise through a pattern of racketeering 

activity in violation of the RICO laws at 18 U.S. C. §§ 

1961(5) and 1962(c) supra. 

5. That all Defendants and all of their directors, officers, 

employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active 

concert or in participation with them, be enjoined 

Page 24 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

I 

I 

I I 

I 

J 

~ 

l 

~ 

f, 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 24 of 43
temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently 

thereafter, from committing any more predicate acts in 

furtherance of the RICO enterprise alleged in COUNT TWO 

supra. 

6. That all Defendants be required to account for all gains, 

profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of 

racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) supra and 

from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal 

law(s). 

7. That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against all 

Defendants for Plaintiff's actual damages, and for any 

gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all 

violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) supra, according to the 

best available proof. 

8. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff treble (triple) 

damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), for any 

gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all 

violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) supra, according to the 

best available proof. 

9. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff all damages sustained 

by Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants' several 

violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (c) supra, according to the 

best available proof. 

10. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff His costs of the 

lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all 

necessary research, all non-judicial enforcement and all 

Page 25 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 25 of 43
reasonable counsel's fees, at a minimum of $400.00 per hour 

worked (standard professional rate at start of this 

action). 

11. That all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, 

profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from 

their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 

U.S.C. 1962 (c) supra and from all other violation(s) of 

applicable State and federal law ( s), be deemed to be held 

in constructive trust, legally foreign with respect to the 

federal zone [sic], for the benefit of Plaintiff, His heirs 

and assigns. 

12. That Plaintiff have such other and further relief as this 

Court deems just and proper, under the full range of 

relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant 

action. 

ON COUNT THREE: 

1. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and 

thereby find that all Defendants have conspired to acquire 

and maintain an interest in, and/or conspired to acquire 

and maintain control of, a RICO enterprise engaged in a 

pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1961(5), 1962(b) and (d) supra. 

2. That this Court liberally construe the RICO laws and 

thereby find that all Defendants have conspired to conduct 

and participate in said RICO enterprise through a pattern 

Page 26 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 26 of 43
of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 

1961(5), 1962(c) and (d) supra. 

3. That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, 

employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active 

concert or in participation with them, be enjoined 

temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently 

thereafter, from conspiring to acquire or maintain an 

interest in, or control of, any RICO enterprise that 

engages in a pattern of racketeering activity in violation 

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(5), 1962(b) and (d) supra. 

4. That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, 

employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active 

concert or in participation with them, be enjoined 

temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently 

thereafter, from conspiring to conduct, participate in, or 

benefit in any manner from any RICO enterprise through a 

pattern of racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1961(5), 1962(c) and (d) supra. 

5. That all Defendants and all their directors, officers, 

employees, agents, servants and all other persons in active 

concert or in participation with them, be enjoined 

temporarily during pendency of this action, and permanently 

thereafter, from committing any more predicate acts in 

furtherance of the RICO enterprise alleged in COUNT THREE 

supra. 

Page 27 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 27 of 43
6. That all Defendants be required to account for all gains, 

profits, and advantages derived from their several acts of 

racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (d) supra and 

from all other violation(s) of applicable State and federal 

law (s). 

7. That judgment be entered for Plaintiff and against all 

Defendants for Plaintiff's actual damages, and for any 

gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all 

violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (d) supra, according to the 

best available proof. 

8. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff treble (triple) 

damages, under authority of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c), for any 

gains, profits, or advantages attributable to all 

violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (d) supra, according to the 

best available proof. 

9. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff all damages sustained 

by Plaintiff in consequence of Defendants' several 

violations of 18 U.S.C. 1962 (d) supra, according to the 

best available proof. 

10. That all Defendants pay to Plaintiff His costs of the 

lawsuit incurred herein including, but not limited to, all 

necessary research, all non-judicial enforcement, and all 

reasonable counsel's fees, at a minimum of $400.00 per hour 

worked (standard professional rate at start of this 

action). 

Page 28 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 28 of 43
11. That all damages caused by all Defendants, and all gains, 

profits, and advantages derived by all Defendants, from 

their several acts of racketeering in violation of 18 

U.S.C. 1962(d) supra and from all other violation(s) of 

applicable State and federal law ( s) , be deemed to be held 

in constructive trust, legally foreign with respect to the 

federal zone [sic], for the benefit of Plaintiff, His heirs 

and assigns. 

12. That Plaintiff has such other and further relief as this 

Court deems just and proper, under the full range of 

relevant circumstances which have occasioned the instant 

action. 

Page 29 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 29 of 43
SUMMARY OF DAMAGES 

Summary of Reasonable Counsel's Fees: TBA 

Summary of Consequential Damages: TBA 

Summary of Actual Damages (partial list) : 

Debt loaned and guaranteed by Rote: $ 541,000.00 

triple damage multiplier (3x): $ 1,623,000.00 

Lost Salary & Dividends, actual: $ 1,200,000.00 

triple damage multiplier \3x}: $ 3,600,000.00 

Value of Destroyed Business: $ 7,000,000.00 

triple damage multiplier (3x): $ 21,000,000.00 

Subtotal: $ 26,223,000.00 

Summary of Punitive Damages (3x): $100,000,000.00 

TOTAL DAMAGES (minimum) : $126,223,000.00 

The damage matrix is three-dimensional: for each 

Defendant, there are actual, consequential, and punitive damages 

(3 columns) on each of three counts (3 rows). 

Page 30 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 30 of 43
JURY DEMAND 

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury on all issues 

triable to a jury lawfully convened. 

LIST OF EXHIBITS 

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1961(9), Plaintiff now formally 

incorporates His documentary material by reference to all of the 

following Exhibits, as if set forth fully here, to wit: 

Page 31 of 32 

Exhibit "A" with Cover Sheets 

Exhibit "B" with Cover Sheets 

Exhibit "C" with Cover Sheets 

Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 31 of 43
VERIFICATION 

I, Timothy C. Rote, Pro Se, Plaintiff in the above entitled 

action, hereby verify under penalty of perjury, under the laws of 

the United States of America, without the "United States" 

(federal government), that the above statement of facts and laws 

is true and correct, according to the best of my current 

information, knowledge, and belief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

1746(1). See the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution for the 

United States of America, as lawfully amended (hereinafter "U.S. 

Constitution") . 

Dated: March 15, 2016 

Signed: 

Printed: 

Page 32 of 32 Rote vs Silicon Valley Bank et.al 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 32 of 43
ROTE VS SILICON VALLEY BANK, ET AL. 

COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT 

EXHIBIT A 

18 U.S. Code § 1030 - Fraud and related activity in 

connection with computers 

Current through Pub. L. 114-38. (See Public Laws for the current Congress.) 

• US Code 

• Notes 

(a)Whoever-

(1) 

having knowingly accessed a computer without authorization or exceeding authorized 

access, and by means of such conduct having obtained information that has been 

determined by the United States Government pursuant to an Executive order or statute to 

require protection against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or foreign 

relations, or any restricted data, as defined in paragraph y. of section 11 of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954, with reason to believe that such information so obtained could be used 

to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation willfully 

communicates, delivers, transmits, or causes to be communicated, delivered, or 

transmitted, or attempts to communicate, deliver, transmit or cause to be communicated, 

delivered, or transmitted the same to any person not entitled to receive it, or willfully 

retains the same and fails to deliver it to the officer or employee of the United States 

entitled to receive it; 

(2)intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access, 

and thereby obtains-

(A) 

information contained in a financial record of a financial institution, or of a card issuer as 

defined in section 1602(n) w of title 15, or contained in a file of a consumer reporting 

agency on a consumer, as such terms are defined in the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 

1681 et seq.); 

(B) 

information from any department or agency of the United States; or 

(C) 

information from any protected computer; 

(3) 

intentionally, without authorization to access any nonpublic computer of a department or 

agency of the United States, accesses such a computer of that department or agency that is 

1 Exhibit A 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 33 of 43
exclusively for the use of the Government of the United States or, in the case of a computer 

not exclusively for such use, is used by or for the Government of the United States and such 

conduct affects that use by or for the Government of the United States; 

(4) 

knowingly and with intent to defraud, accesses a protected computer without authorization, 

or exceeds authorized access, and by means of such conduct furthers the intended fraud 

and obtains anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the thing obtained consists 

only of the use of the computer and the value of such use is not more than $5,000 in any 1-

year period; 

(5) 

(A) 

knowingly causes the transmission of a program, information, code, or command, and as a 

result of such conduct, intentionally causes damage without authorization, to a protected 

computer; 

(B) 

intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such 

conduct, recklessly causes damage; or 

(C) 

intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, and as a result of such 

conduct, causes damage and loss.w 

(&)knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any 

password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without 

authorization, if-

(A) 

such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or 

(B) 

such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States; ru 

(7)with intent to extort from any person any money or other thing of value, transmits in 

interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any-

(A) 

threat to cause damage to a protected computer; 

(B) 

threat to obtain information from a protected computer without authorization or in excess of 

authorization or to impair the confidentiality of information obtained from a protected 

computer without authorization or by exceeding authorized access; or 

(C) 

demand or request for money or other thing of value in relation to damage to a protected 

computer, where such damage was caused to facilitate the extortion; 

shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. 

(b) 

2 Exhibit A 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 34 of 43
Whoever conspires to commit or attempts to commit an offense under subsection (a) of this 

section shall be punished as provided in subsection (c) of this section. 

(c)The punishment for an offense under subsection (a) or (b) of this section is-

(1) 

(A) 

a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of 

an offense under subsection (a)(l) of this section which does not occur after a conviction for 

another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under 

this subparagraph; and 

(B) 

a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than twenty years, or both, in the case 

of an offense under subsection (a)(l) of this section which occurs after a conviction for 

another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under 

this subparagraph; 

(2) 

(A) 

except as provided in subparagraph (B), a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more 

than one year, or both, in the case of an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3), or (a)(6) 

of this section which does not occur after a conviction for another offense under this section, 

or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; 

(B)a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of 

an offense under subsection (a)(2), or an attempt to commit an offense punishable under 

this subparagraph, if-

(i) 

the offense was committed for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain; 

(ii) 

the offense was committed in furtherance of any criminal or tortious act in violation of the 

Constitution or laws of the United States or of any State; or 

(iii) 

the value of the information obtained exceeds $5,000; and 

(C) 

a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of 

an offense under subsection (a)(2), (a)(3) or (a)(6) of this section which occurs after a 

conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense 

punishable under this subparagraph; 

(3) 

(A) 

a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both, in the case of 

an offense under subsection (a)(4) or (a)(7) of this section which does not occur after a 

conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense 

punishable under this subparagraph; and 

3 Exhibit A 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 35 of 43
(B) 

a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than ten years, or both, in the case of 

an offense under subsection (a)(4),w or (a)(7) of this section which occurs after a 

conviction for another offense under this section, or an attempt to commit an offense 

punishable under this subparagraph; 

(4) 

(A)except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment 

for not more than 5 years, or both, in the case of-

(i)an offense under subsection (a)(S)(B), which does not occur after a conviction for 

another offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted 

offense, would, if completed, have caused)-

(!) 

loss to 1 or more persons during any 1-year period (and, for purposes of an investigation, 

prosecution, or other proceeding brought by the United States only, loss resulting from a 

related course of conduct affecting 1 or more other protected computers) aggregating at 

least $5,000 in value; 

(II) 

the modification or impairment, or potential modification or impairment, of the medical 

examination, diagnosis, treatment, or care of 1 or more individuals; 

(Ill) 

physical injury to any person; 

(IV) 

a threat to public health or safety; 

(V) 

damage affecting a computer used by or for an entity of the United States Government in 

furtherance of the administration of justice, national defense, or national security; or 

(VI) 

damage affecting 10 or more protected computers during any 1-year period; or 

(ii) 

an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; 

(B)except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment 

for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case of-

(i) 

an offense under subsection (a)(S)(A), which does not occur after a conviction for another 

offense under this section, if the offense caused (or, in the case of an attempted offense, 

would, if completed, have caused) a harm provided in subclauses {I) through (VI) of 

subparagraph (A)(i); or 

(ii} 

an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; 

(C)except as provided in subparagraphs (E) and (F), a fine under this title, imprisonment 

for not more than 20 years, or both, in the case of4 Exhibit A 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 36 of 43
(i) 

an offense or an attempt to commit an offense under subparagraphs (A) or (B) of 

subsection (a)(S) that occurs after a conviction for another offense under this section; or 

(ii) 

an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; 

(D)a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both, in the case 

of-

(i) 

an offense or an attempt to commit an offense under subsection (a)(S)(C) that occurs after 

a conviction for another offense under this section; or 

(ii) 

an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph; 

(E) 

if the offender attempts to cause or knowingly or recklessly causes serious bodily injury 

from conduct in violation of subsection (a)(S)(A), a fine under this title, imprisonment for 

not more than 20 years, or both; 

(F) 

if the offender attempts to cause or knowingly or recklessly causes death from conduct in 

violation of subsection (a)(S)(A), a fine under this title, imprisonment for any term of years 

or for life, or both; or 

(G)a fine under this title, imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or both, for-

(i) 

any other offense under subsection (a)(S); or 

(ii) 

an attempt to commit an offense punishable under this subparagraph. 

(d) 

(1) 

The United States Secret Service shall, in addition to any other agency having such 

authority, have the authority to investigate offenses under this section. 

(2) 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation shall have primary authority to investigate offenses 

under subsection (a)(l) for any cases involving espionage, foreign counterintelligence, 

information protected against unauthorized disclosure for reasons of national defense or 

foreign relations, or Restricted Data (as that term is defined in section 11 y of the Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954 (42 U.S.C. 2014(y)), except for offenses affecting the duties of the 

United States Secret Service pursuant to section 3056(a) of this title. 

(3) 

Such authority shall be exercised in accordance with an agreement which shall be entered 

into by the Secretary of the Treasury and the Attorney General. 

(e)As used in this section-

(1) 

5 Exhibit A 

I 

i 

i 

r 

1: 

f 

f 

f 

l 

f 

l 

l 

~ 

I 

I 

1 

f 

! 

f 

[ 

! 

i 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 37 of 43
the term "computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high 

speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and 

includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating 

in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or 

typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device; 

{2)the term "protected computer" means a computer-

{A) 

exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the 

case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the 

United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or 

for the financial institution or the Government; or 

{B) 

which is used in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a 

computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate 

or foreign commerce or communication of the United States; 

(3) 

the term "State" includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 

any other commonwealth, possession or territory of the United States; 

{4)the term "financial institution" means-

{A) 

an institution, with deposits insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; 

{B) 

the Federal Reserve or a member of the Federal Reserve including any Federal Reserve 

Bank; 

{C) 

a credit union with accounts insured by the National Credit Union Administration; 

{D) 

a member of the Federal home loan bank system and any home loan bank; 

{E) 

any institution of the Farm Credit System under the Farm Credit Act of 1971; 

{F) 

a broker-dealer registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to 

section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; 

{G) 

the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; 

{H) 

a branch or agency of a foreign bank (as such terms are defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) 

of section l(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978); and 

{I) 

an organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) 

6 Exhibit A 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 38 of 43
1 

of the Federal Reserve Act; 

(5) 

the term "financial record" means information derived from any record held by a financial 

institution pertaining to a customer's relationship with the financial institution; 

(6) 

the term "exceeds authorized access" means to access a computer with authorization and to 

use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not 

entitled so to obtain or alter; 

(7) 

the term "department of the United States" means the legislative or judicial branch of the 

Government or one of the executive departments enumerated in section 101 of title 5; 

(8) 

the term "damage" means any impairment to the integrity or availability of data, a 

program, a system, or information; 

(9) 

the term "government entity" includes the Government of the United States, any State or 

political subdivision of the United States, any foreign country, and any state, province, 

municipality, or other political subdivision of a foreign country; 

(10) 

the term "conviction" shall include a conviction under the law of any State for a crime 

punishable by imprisonment for more than 1 year, an element of which is unauthorized 

access, or exceeding authorized access, to a computer; 

(11) 

the term "loss" means any reasonable cost to any victim, including the cost of responding to 

an offense, conducting a damage assessment, and restoring the data, program, system, or 

information to its condition prior to the offense, and any revenue lost, cost incurred, or 

other consequential damages incurred because of interruption of service; and 

(12) 

the term "person" means any individual, firm, corporation, educational institution, financial 

institution, governmental entity, or legal or other entity. 

(f) 

This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or 

intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political 

subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States. 

(g) 

Any person who suffers damage or loss by reason of a violation of this section may maintain 

a civil action against the violator to obtain compensatory damages and injunctive relief or 

other equitable relief. A civil action for a violation of this section may be brought only if the 

conduct involves 1 of the factors set forth in subclausesrn (I), (II), (III), (IV), or (V) of 

subsection (c)(4)(A)(i). Damages for a violation involving only conduct described in 

7 Exhibit A 

I 

I 

l 

I 

? 

t 

I 

! 

f, 

r 

t 

I 

I 

l 

! 

I 

r 

! 

i 

I f 

r 

! 

J 

I 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 39 of 43
subsection (c)(4)(A)(i)(I) are limited to economic damages. No action may be brought 

under this subsection unless such action is begun within 2 years of the date of the act 

complained of or the date of the discovery of the damage. No action may be brought under 

this subsection for the negligent design or manufacture of computer hardware, computer 

software, or firmware. 

(h) 

The Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury shall report to the Congress 

annually, during the first 3 years following the date of the enactment of this subsection, 

concerning investigations and prosecutions under subsection (a)(5). 

(i) 

(l)The court, in imposing sentence on any person convicted of a violation of this section, or 

convicted of conspiracy to violate this section, shall order, in addition to any other sentence 

imposed and irrespective of any provision of State law, that such person forfeit to the 

United States-

(A) 

such person's interest in any personal property that was used or intended to be used to 

commit or to facilitate the commission of such violation; and 

(B) 

any property, real or personal, constituting or derived from, any proceeds that such person 

obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of such violation. 

(2) 

The criminal forfeiture of property under this subsection, any seizure and disposition 

thereof, and any judicial proceeding in relation thereto, shall be governed by the provisions 

of section 413 of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 (21 

U.S.C. 853), except subsection (d) of that section. 

(j)For purposes of subsection (i), the following shall be subject to forfeiture to the United 

States and no property right shall exist in them: 

(1) 

Any personal property used or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission 

of any violation of this section, or a conspiracy to violate this section. 

(2) 

Any property, real or personal, which constitutes or is derived from proceeds traceable to 

any violation of this section, or a conspiracy to violate this section Lfil 

(Added Pub. L. 98-473, title II, § 2102{a), Oct. 12, 1984, 98 Stat. 2190; amended Pub. L. 

99-474, § 2, Oct. 16, 1986, 100 Stat. 1213; Pub. L. 100-690, title VII, § 7065, Nov. 18, 

1988, 102 Stat. 4404; Pub. L. 101-73, title IX, § 962{a){5), Aug. 9, 1989, 103 Stat. 

502; Pub. L. 101-647, title XII. § 1205{e), title XXV, § 2597(j), title XXXV, § 3533, Nov. 29, 

1990, 104 Stat. 4831, 4910, 4925; Pub. L. 103-322, title XXIX, § 29000l{b)-(f), Sept. 13, 

1994, 108 Stat. 2097-2099; Pub. L. 104-294, title II.§ 201, title VI, § 604(b)(36), Oct. 11, 

1996, 110 Stat. 3491, 3508; Pub. L. 107-56, title V, § 506{a), title VIII, § 814(a)-(e), Oct. 

26, 2001,115 Stat. 366, 382-384; Pub. L. 107-273, div. B, title IV, §§ 4002(b)(l), (12), 

8 Exhibit A 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 40 of 43
4005(a)(3), (d)(3), Nov. 2, 2002, 116 Stat. 1807, 1808, 1812, 1813; Pub. L. 107-296, title 

II, § 225Cg), Nov. 25, 2002, 116 Stat. 2158; Pub. L. 110-326, title II, §§ 203, 204{a), 205-

208, Sept. 26, 2008, 122 Stat. 3561, 3563.) 

9 Exhibit A 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 41 of 43
ROTE VS SILICON VALLEY BANK, ET AL. 

LIST OF PREDICATE ACTS 

EXHIBIT C 

1. FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT OF CONTRACT. PRE SVB. 

2. BREACH OF CONTRACT. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD BY REMOVING SOFTWARE SOLD TO 

ROTE'S COMPANY WHILE KEEPING THE $200,000 PAID BY NDT.BY SVB, MICHELIN. 

3. EXTORTION EVENTS ONE THROUGH FIVE. PRE SVB. MICHELIN. 

4. EXTORTION EVENTS SIX THROUGH EIGHT, TEMPORARY SHUTDOWNS IN VIOLATION OF 

CONTRACT. BY SVB, MICHELIN. 

5. FRAUDULENT FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TOUCHSTAR. BY SVB, MICHELIN, RECEIVER. 

6. UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTER AND DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. VIOLATION OF THE 

COMPUTER FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT. BY SVB, MICHELIN, RECEIVER, & GROTHE 

7. REFUSAL TO PERFORM ON A FEDERAL ORDER & BY THAT INCREASING DAMAGE TO ROTE. BY 

SVB, SVB COUNSEL, MICHELIN, RECEIVER. 

8. EX PARTE CONTACT WITH SAMOUR, ORDER OF STAY WITHOUT RECEIVER. BY SVB, SVB 

COUNSEL, RECEIVER. 

9. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, COLLUSION AND CONSPIRACY. SVB. 

10. CONCEALING ASSETS AVAILABLE FOR THE UNSECURED CREDITORS. BY SVB, RECEIVER, GROTHE. 

11. FAILING TO DISCLOSE LOSSES ON FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC. SVB. 

12. FALSE REPORTS BY RECEIVER FOR THE BENEFIT OF SVB. GROTHER, RECEIVER, SVB, SVB 

COUNSEL. 

13. CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD VENDOR NDT AND UNSECURED CREDITORS. THE RECEIVER. BY SVB 

COUNSEL, GROTHE. 

14. WITHHOLDING CRITICAL DISCOVERY. BY SVB. 

15. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE COUNSEL REALTIONSHIP WITH CARLOS SAMOUR AND EXERCISING 

INFLUENCE OVER THE COURT. BY SVB COUNSEL, SVB. 

16. COACHING AND INFLUENCING WITNESSES TESTIMONY. BY SVB, COUNSEL, LIVEVOX, GOLDEN, 

TELFORMANCE. 

17. TAMPERING WITH NDT WITNESSES. SVB COUNSEL, SVB. 

18. FALSE TESTIMONY. SVB COUNSEL, SVB, MICHELIN, RIEPLE, SAFFELL, GROTHE, LIVEVOX, 

TELFORMANCE, GOLDEN. 

19. TARGETING ROTE AFTER THE LITIGATION TO STOP THE PUBLIC DISSEMINATION OF TRIAL 

TESTIMONY, WITNESS TAMPERING & IN RETALIATION FOR CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS. SVB. 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 42 of 43
ROTE VS SILICON VALLEY BANK, ET AL. 

PARTIAL LIST OF DOCUMENTED RETALIATION 

EXHIBIT B 

1. EXTORTION DEMAND AND SHUTDOWN EVENTS SIX THROUGH EIGHT. BY SVB, MICHELIN. 

2. UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO COMPUTER AND DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. CFAA BY SVB, 

MICHELIN. 

3. DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS ALLEGING SOFTWARE PIRACY. SVB, MICHELIN, RECEIVER. 

4. REFUSAL TO PERFORM ON A FEDERAL ORDER AND EXTENDING SHUTDOWN. BY SVB, SVB 

COUNSEL, MICHELIN, RECEIVER. 

5. INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, CONSPIRACY& COLLUSION. SVB, LEAPFROG. 

6. ABUSE OF LITIGATION PROCESS INTENDED TO DESTROY PLAINTIFF. SVB. 

7. WITHHOLDING CRITICAL DISCOVERY. BY SVB, GROTHE, RECEIVER. 

8. FAILURE TO DISCLOSE PAST SVB COUNSEL REALTIONSHIP WITH CARLOS SAMOUR. BY SVB 

COUNSEL, SVB, GROTHE. 

9. AIDING AND ABETIING FALSE TESTIMONY. BY SVB, COUNSEL, LIVEVOX, GOLDEN, 

TELFORMANCE. 

10. COLLUSION WITH RECEIVER ON ASSETS OF THE ESTATE. SVB, RECEVIER, GROTHE. 

11. EXCESSIVE PAYMENTS TO WITNESSES. SVB, SVB COUNSEL, LIVEVOX. 

12. TAMPERING WITH NDT WITNESSES. SVB COUNSEL, SVB. 

13. FALSE TESTIMONY. SVB COUNSEL, SVB, MICHELIN, RIEPLE, SAFFELL, GROTHE, LIVEVOX, 

TELFORMANCE, GOLDEN. 

l 

t 

I '

f 

! 

! 

I 

I 

t 

t 

I 

I 

I 

J 

I 

l 

t 

f 

Case 3:16-cv-00471-SI Document 1 Filed 03/18/16 Page 43 of 43