BOS Agenda Packet 4.4.23 (linked)

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 70 of 100 Pagelb #: 70
including but not limited to: NE Edge, Raymond C. Green, S & J Storage Bros., § & Q Data, GF
Funding Swansea, LLC, BS] 254 Westfield, Stein Fibers, Bluevista Capital, et al.
294. Defendant Thomas Quinn demanded $890,000 from Plaintiffs by way of wire
transfers which occurred across state lines, as Quinn is located in the State of Rhode Island, NE
Edge, LLC is located in Connecticut, Blue Vista Capital Management, LLC Capital is located in
Illinois and Plaintiffs’ operating accounts are located in New Jersey and Massachusetts.
295. Count | Defendants knew that the funds being transferred were derived from the
unlawful activities of the NE Edge Loan Sharking Enterprise and other unlawful acts, including
numerous offenses listed under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), as detailed herein. As such, the Count I
Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1956 every time they transacted using funds illicitly derived
from the loan sharking transactions against Plaintiffs, and every time payments were made to any
one of the member defendants.
COUNT V
PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY: ENGAGING IN MONETARY
TRANSACTIONS IN PROPERTY DERIVED FROM SPECIFIED UNLAWFUL
ACTIVITY IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1957
296. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
297. This count is against all the Enterprise Corporation and Member Defendants
(collectively the “Count | Defendants”).
298. On information and belief, at all times material to this action, each Defendant was
the agent, partner, alter ego, subsidiary, and/or co-conspirator of and with the other Defendants,
and the acts of each were in the scope of that relationship. On information and belief, each
Defendant knowingly and intentionally agreed with the other to carry out the acts alleged in this
Complaint. On information and belief, in doing the acts and failing to act as alleged in this
Complaint, each Defendant acted with the knowledge, permission, and consent of the other, and
each Defendant aided and abetted the other.

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 71 of 100 PagelD #: 71
299. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1), violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 constitute a predicate
act of racketeering activity. One who “knowingly engages ... in a monetary transaction in
criminally derived property” violates 18 U.S.C. § 1957 if that property is “of a value greater than
$10,000 [and] derived from specified unlawful activity.”
290. This statute defines “criminally derived property” as property that constitutes
“proceeds obtained from a criminal offense”; it further defines “specified unlawful activity” as
the same unlawful activity defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1956, including acts constituting racketeering
activity under 18 U.S.C. § [961(1).
291, The money that the Count I Defendants derived through the loan sharking and
kickback scheme and fraudulent dealings were taken at the expense, and to the detriment of,
Plaintiff and its affiliates.
292. Relatedly, through the NE Edge Enterprise and related unlawful kickbacks and
other illicit activities, the Count 1 Defendants committed numerous criminal offenses constituting
racketeering activity as detailed herein, which also constitute “specified unlawful activity” under
18 U.S.C. § 1957.
293. Through this conduct, the Count I Defendants derived proceeds as the
perpetrators and beneficiaries of the “specified unlawful activity” from which the funds were
derived, and they knew that the money was the product of such activity.
294, By depositing these funds in at least one bank account held by an interstate
financial institution, the Count I Defendants engaged in monetary transactions as defined by 18
U.S.C. §1957(H)(1). When the Count I Defendants engaged in any subsequent withdrawal,
transfer, or exchange of these funds, they engaged in further monetary transactions, as defined by
18 U.S.C. §1957(1).
295. For the foregoing reasons, the Count I Defendants repeatedly violated 18
US.C. §1957, engaging in further racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1).
COUNT VI

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 72 of 100 PagelD #: 72
PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY
VIOLATION OF THE TRAVEL ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 1952
296. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
297. This count is against all the Enterprise Corporation and Member Defendants
(collectively the “Count | Defendants”).
298. Racketeering activity is further defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) to include
violations of the “Travel Act,” 18 U.S.C. § 1952, which criminalizes the use of “interstate
facilities” to “(1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or . . . (3) otherwise promote,
manage, establish, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying
on, of any unlawful activity.”
299. On information and belief, at all times material to this action, each Defendant was
the agent, partner, alter ego, subsidiary, and/or co-conspirator of and with the other Defendants,
and the acts of each were in the scope of that relationship. On information and belief, each
Defendant knowingly and intentionally agreed with the other to carry out the acts alleged in this
Complaint. On information and belief, in doing the acts and failing to act as alleged in this
Complaint, each Defendant acted with the knowledge, permission, and consent of the other, and
each Defendant aided and abetted the other.
300. The Travel Act defines “unlawful activity” to include “extortion, bribery, or arson
in violation of laws of the State in which committed or of the United States” as well as acts of
money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956 and 1957.
301. For purposes of 18 U.S.C. § 1952, “interstate facilities” are defined to include
email, mail, telephone calls, text messages, and wire transfers. The Count | Defendants made use
of interstate facilities in furtherance of their crimes of money laundering.
302. The Count | Defendants used wire transfers to make payments and on
information and belief communicated to each other via phone and/or e-mail in order to further
their money laundering activities.

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 73 of 100 PagelD #: 73
303. The Count I Defendants reside in various states, and used interstate facilities in
furtherance of their crimes of money laundering. For example, multiple wire transfers from
Plaintiffs’ operating accounts in Massachusetts and New Jersey went to the Defendants “shell
corporations” in other states, and other Enterprise member defendants domiciled in Georgia,
New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts, conducted business with Plaintiffs
with headquarters and/or principal places of business in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.
304. Any transactions that the Count I Defendants made with vendors or other business
partners located in Rhode Island and New York, were also interstate activities that furthered their
extortion, loan sharking, predatory investment activities and money laundering activities, with
respect to their loan sharking rackets.
305. Both to commit acts of extortion and money laundering and to facilitate these
acts, the Count I Defendants made use of “interstate facilities” to “distribute the proceeds of any
unlawful activity; or . . . otherwise promote, manage, establish, carry on. or facilitate the
promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of [their] unlawful activity.” Among
other things, they intentionally engaged in acts of extortion, skimming (kickbacks) and money
laundering through interstate channels, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1952 and 1956. Their
conduct thus constitutes racketeering activity in multiple forms according to 18 U.S.C.
§ 1961(1).
COUNT VII
PREDICATE ACTS OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY AMOUNT TO A PATTERN OF
RACKETEERING ACTIVITY UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5)
306. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
307. This count is against all the Enterprise Corporation and Member Defendants
(collectively the “Count 1 Defendants”).
308. On information and belief, at all times material to this action, each Defendant was
the agent, partner, alter ego, subsidiary, and/or co-conspirator of and with the other Defendants,
and the acts of each were in the scope of that relationship. On information and belief, each

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 74 of 100 PagelD #: 74
Defendant knowingly and intentionally agreed with the other to carry out the acts alleged in this
Complaint. On information and belief, in doing the acts and failing to act as alleged in this
Complaint, each Defendant acted with the knowledge, permission, and consent of the other, and
each Defendant aided and abetted the other.
309. The Count I Defendants committed and/or aided and abetted the commission of at
least two or more of the foregoing acts of racketeering. The acts alleged were related to each
other by virtue of common participants, a common victim (Plaintiffs), a common method of
commission (perpetration of loan sharking, money laundering and wire fraud schemes which
fraudulently induced Plaintiffs’ business and contracting decisions, to the benefit of the Count I
Defendants, as the plaintiffs were fraudulently induced at the execution of the investment and/or
loan contracts, then “bait and switched” into unfavorable loan and investment contracts.
310. The Enterprise schemes perpetrated by the Count I Defendants were
“horizontally” related. For example, among other things, the NE Edge defendants had a
connection to the Tech Defendants via Demirjian and to the Municipal Defendants, via the
conspiracy between attorneys and Police, etc.
311. Defendants had a common purpose (defrauding and otherwise extracting unlawful
payments from Plaintiffs for their personal financial gain, while concealing their unlawful
conduct. The Count I Defendants’ conduct thus constitutes a pattern of racketeering activity, as
defined by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).
312. As a direct and proximate result of the NE Edge Enterprise and the Count I
Defendants’ racketeering and other activities, Plaintiffs have been injured in their business and
property in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), which prohibits “any person who has received any
income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity ... in which such
person has participated as a principle ... to use or invest, directly or indirectly, any part of such
income, or the proceeds of such income, in acquisition of any interest in, or the establishment or

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 75 of 100 PagelD #: 75
operation of, any enterprise which is engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or
foreign commerce.”
313. Asa direct and proximate result of the Loan Sharking Enterprise Defendants’
racketeering activities, Plaintiffs have been injured in their business and property in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 1962(b), which prohibits “any person through a pattern of racketeering activity . . .
to acquire or maintain, directly or indirectly. any interest in or control of any enterprise which is
engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce.”
314. The Count I Defendants derived, both directly and indirectly, financial and other
benefits as a result of their unlawful loan sharking Enterprise, including but not limited to the
kickbacks and other payments they received as a result of their fraud and other enterprise
conduct.
315. The unlawful proceeds from Defendants’ Leased Transactions Enterprise were
used in part to operate defendants shill corporations, NE Edge LLC, Raymond C. Green, LLC
Stein Fibers, LLC Blue Vista Capital Management, LLC Capital, LLC and others, the
defendants’ other shell corporation “loan sharking fronts,” which member defendants Raymond
Green, Peter Spitalny, Thomas Quinn and George Mclaughlin, converted as alter egos for the
unlawful racketeering activities.
316. On information and belief, such defendants commingled their personal finances
with NE Edge, Stein Fibers et al funds and assets. Moreover, Defendants Green, Spitalny,
Quinn, Mclaughlin and Bornstein are listed as the owners of the various entities—notably NE
Edge LLC, formed by Defendants as a “shell corporation,” they have used to buy out from
underneath, back door and usurp from Plaintiffs, upwards of $6,500,000 in purchase contract
deposits, and upwards of $1,500,000,000 in data campus development acres. All the rightful
property and ownership interests of the Plaintiffs.
317. The Count I Defendants maintain control of the NE Edge Enterprise including
entities that engage in interstate commerce and whose activities affect interstate commerce.

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Documenti Filed 03/27/23 Page 76 of 100 PagelD #: 76
318. The Count I Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) by “conducting or
participating, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of
racketeering activity.”
319. The Count I Defendants also violated 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d). which prohibits “any
person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of’ 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962(a)-(c), because they
knowingly agreed to commit, and subsequently engaged in. a pattern of racketeering activity.
320. As a result of the Count | Defendants’ pattern of racketeering activity in violation
of 18 U.S.C. § 1962, Plaintiffs were injured in their business and property, within the meaning of
18 U.S.C. § 1964.
321. Asaresult of their misconduct, the Count 1 Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs for
losses in an amount to be determined at trial.
322. Pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), Plaintiffs are entitled to recover treble
damages, plus costs and attorneys’ fees, from the Count I Defendants.
COUNT VIII
DIRECT PURCHASE AND INVESTMENT ENTERPRISE THROUGH
DEFENDANT “SHELL CORPORATIONS” IN VIOLATION OF RICO
18 U.S.C. § 1962(A), (B), (C), (D)
323. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
324. This count is against Defendants’ Enterprise corporations and companies of the
Defendant Does (collectively the “Count II Defendants”).
325. Each Count II Defendant is a “person” as required by 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3).
326. On information and belief, at all times material to this action, each Defendant was
the agent, partner, alter ego, subsidiary, and/or co-conspirator of and with the other
Defendants, and the acts of each were in the scope of that relationship. On information and
belief, each Defendant knowingly and intentionally agreed with the other to carry out the acts
alleged in this Complaint. On information and belief, in doing the acts and failing to act as

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 77 of 100 PagelD #: 77
alleged in this Complaint, each Defendant acted with the knowledge, permission, and consent
of the other, and each Defendant aided and abetted the other.
327. The Direct Purchase and Investment Enterprise consisting of each Count If
Defendant, is an “enterprise” as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), associated for the common
purpose of profiting from acquisitions, investments. and business activities of Plaintiffs,
through fraud, tortious interference, perpetration of a loan sharking and unlawful debt
collection lawsuits and legal fee kickback schemes, in which business and payments were
made to Defendants in connection with the Plaintiffs legitmate Development and Investment
companies.
COUNT IX
CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS
VIOLATIONS OF 42 U.S. CODE § 1985
(Against Enterprise Member Defendants Peters and Brier)
328. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
329. Defendants Kevin Peters and Michael Brier, set out to harass and intimidate and
the wife of Piaintiff Nicholas Fiorillo, who has stated in open court that she has no “discovery
documents,” and knows nothing of her husband's businesses or real estate investments, as a
special needs educator and homemaker caring for her two children.
330. Despite her complete lack of involvement, Mrs. Fiorillo was ordered to appear at
a contempt hearing scheduled for June 6, 2022, without the benefit of counsel accompaniment,
as the Fiorillos had recently dismissed their attorney due to a conflict.
331. Mrs. Fiorillo expressed concern about not having the right to have legal guidance
at the hearing, the prospect of which caused her undue stress and exacerbated a pre-existing heart
condition which was made known to the Court.
332. Shortly before the scheduled June 6th deposition of Mrs. Fiorillo, Mr. Fiorillo
received a demand letter for tens of millions of dollars, which represented that if he entered into

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document 1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 78 of 100 PagelD #: 78
an agreement to pay this money which was neither due or owing to any of the parties involved,
his wife would not have to attend the deposition because it would be canceled.
333. After refusing to capitulate to this blackmail, Mrs. Fiorillo was deposed without
counsel by Mr. Peters and Mr. Brier, in clear violation of her civil rights.
334. As a direct result of the relentless brow-beating by Mr. Peters and threats to Mrs.
Fiorillo that she would be jailed if unable to answer the question, and without legal counsel to
prevent this, Mrs. Fiorillo had a cardiac episode and collapsed to the ground.
335. The conspiracy to violate the civil rights of Mrs. Fiorillo by Defendants Peters
and Brier, was the direct and proximate cause of injuries sustained by Plaintiff's wife.
COUNT X - 43 U.S.C. § 1983
(Conspiracy Claims against Defendants Peters, Powers and Dugal)
336. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
337. Municipal Defendants Officer Powers and Detective Dugal, conspired with
Enterprise Member Defendant attorney Kevin Peters, to reach an understanding as to how the
BPD would deprive plaintiff Nicholas Fiorillo of his constitutional rights on the day of Mrs.
Fiorillo’s Deposition of June 6, 2022. Defendants Powers, Dugal and Peters were all willful
participants in this joint activity between the Police as agents of the State, and this private citizen
attorney.
338. Although Defendant Peters was the aggressor in the aftermath of Mrs. Fiorillo’s
collapse in his office, as he would later concede to, Officer Powers and Detective Dugal went
along with the agreement previously made with Peters, that it would be Plaintiff Nicholas
Fiorillo who would be charged with the crime of assault and not him.
339, Each Defendant, knowingly acting for illegal purposes, threatened, intimidated,
and maliciously charged and prosecuted plaintiff Nicholas Fiorillo, in order to accomplish
unlawful ends, and then continued even after Defendant Peters admitted under oath that he
was not assaulted by Fiorillo, which constitutes a conspiracy.

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 79 of 100 PagelD #: 79
340. Each of the defendants, knowing that their conduct was illegal, unethical, and
unconstitutional, acted in concert for improper and illegal purposes, and assisted and
encouraged one another, in violating the plaintiff’s rights and continuing to proceed with
malicious prosecution of him for opposing the other defendants’ attempts to coerce him into
signing an unconscionable and usurious “settlement agreement.”
341. In Massachusetts and across the Country, a common law claim of civil conspiracy
lies where “a plaintiff sustains damages as a result of an act that is itself wrongful or tortious.”
Dunlap v. Cottman Transmission Sys,, LLC, 754 §.E.2d 313. 317 (Va. 2014). Massachusetts
law also recognizes a statutory claim of civil conspiracy where “two or more persons who
combine, associate agree, mutually undertake or concert together for the purpose of (i)
willfully and maliciously injuring another in his reputation, trade, business or profession by
any means whatever or (ii} willfully and maliciously compelling another to do or perform any
act against his will, or preventing or hindering another from doing or performing any lawful
act.” As alleged in the preceding paragraphs herein, Defendants have conspired to engage in
fraud, tortious interference with contractual and business relationships, and unlawful
racketeering and enterprise activity against Plaintiffs.
342. Under the statutory claim for civil conspiracy, Plaintiffs are entitled to recover
three-fold the damages by him sustained, and the costs of suit, including a reasonable fee to
plaintiff's counsel. Plaintiff is also entitled to “loss of profits.”
COUNT XI - 42 U.S.C. § 1983
(Claims against Defendants Powers, Dugal, and Doe Defendants for Malicious
Prosecution)
343. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
344, On or about June 6, 2022, Officer Powers, Detective Dugal and Doe Defendants
committed or conspired to commit a malicious prosecution of Plaintiff Nicholas Fiorillo, by
maliciously causing a judicial process to commence, through contrived criminal charges against
him, without evidence or probable cause, and with malice.

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 80 of 100 PagelD #: 80
345. Fabricated evidence was introduced in the criminal proceedings, based upon a
fraudulently conducted investigation into the subject incident at the law office of Defendant
Kevin Peters.
COUNT XII - 43 U.S.C. § 1983
(Supervisor Liability Claims against Doe Defendants Supervisors in the BPD)
346, Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
347. Under the facts involving the malicious prosecution of Nicholas Fiorillo, the Doe
Defendant police supervisors at the BPD are liable for the violation of his federal civil rights,
where said supervisor was not present but his or her conduct caused the injury. There is a causal
connection between supervisor conduct and injury to Nicholas Fiorillo, whose constitutional
rights were violated, a violation caused by a person acting under color of law. malicious
prosecution and municipal liability in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
COUNT XI
FRAUD
(Against Enterprise Member and Corporate Defendants)
348. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
349. In Massachusetts, a party alleging fraud must prove by clear and convincing
evidence (1) a false representation, (2) of a material fact, (3) made intentionally and
knowingly, (4) with intent to mislead, (5) reliance by the party misled. and (6) resulting
damage to him.
350. Defendants made false representations, because they represented and warranted to
Plaintiffs that: (i) they did not pay or receive any undisclosed referral or other fees to third
parties in relation to the Connecticut Gotspace Data Campus sites and contracts to purchase,
and (ii) the defendant's “pre-negotiated” NE Edge Purchase contracts were over-inflated and
not competitive fair market deals, executed in Plaintiffs’ best interests and in compliance with
all relevant laws of the Rhode Island, Connecticut and Massachusetts Board of Realtor and
licensor rules, and Attorneys Code of Conduct.

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 81 of 100 PagelD #: 81
351. The facts that Defendants misrepresented or omitted were material. As set forth
herein, a central component of Plaintiffs’ data land contracts, was the parties’ agreement that
“no” referral fees to third parties would be paid, and that employees responsible for ensuring
the execution of those transactions, would comply with all relevant laws and codes of conduct.
352. Plaintiffs’ execution of the Gotspace Data Land transaction was expressly
premised on the understanding that the Company was paying a competitive market price in an
arms-length transaction, not one unlawfully inflated by millions of dollars, due to Defendants’
fraud and kickback scheme.
353. Defendants knowingly and intentionally made the above and other
misrepresentations or omissions to Plaintiffs, to induce them to enter into land contracts and
purchase agreements which Defendants knew involved prohibited and/or undisclosed
payments.
354. The Count I Defendants knew at the time they covenanted not to pay third party
referral fees, that they would channel payments through their “shell corporations” via
kickback (“Independent Contractor") agreements with John Doe 3" party consultants, which in
turn resulted in payments to Enterprise members and others, in violation of applicable laws
and Attorneys Code of Conduct.
355. Count Il Defendants likewise intentionally recontracted the Gotspace Data
contract with Plaintiffs, at a price they knew was not the competitive market price represented
to them, in accordance with procurement standards, and in some cases 2 or 3 times more than
what had been previously negotiated with the sellers.
356. On information and belief, upwards of $50,000,000, a 2X to 3X increase in
purchase price, unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, was to be split between the Defendants and the
sellers, in an illicit kickback scheme.

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 82 of 100 PagelD #: 82
357. Defendants made these misrepresentations and omissions with the intent to
mislead Plaintiffs and fraudulently expropriate their lease and purchase contracts (on all of the
Gotspaec Data Campus Land Contracts for properties), so they could reap tens of millions of
dollars in unlawful fees, real estate commission kickbacks and other splits of upwards of
$50,000,000, from their inflated “pump, dump, back door” via NE Edge LLC’s repurchase of
land contracts.
358. Plaintiffs relied on Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions to their
detriment.
359. Plaintiff entered into lease transactions in reliance on Defendants’
misrepresentations that no undisclosed fees would be paid on the transactions, that the
transactions were in Plaintiff’s best interests, were in compliance with Attorneys Code of
Conduct, and that the price Plaintiff paid for these Data Campus sites, were competitive
market prices.
360. The Defendants knew that Plaintiffs would not have proceeded with the
transactions, had they known of the payments channeled to Defendants’ insiders, consultants
and relatives.
361. As a direct result of Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendants’ material
misrepresentations and omissions, they sustained at upwards of $30,000,000,000 (thirty billion
dollars) in damages, including but not limited to the realized development profits and equity
creation from the construction of Gotspace Data Partners’ (30) $1,000,000,000 hyper scale
data centers and 5 campus master development centers, and the costs and fees paid to
members of the NE Edge Enterprise, on loan and purchase contracts they procured through
fraud in the inducement of investment and loan contracts, and NE Edge kickback schemes
with the data land sellers.
362. Plaintiffs’ reliance on Defendants’ misrepresentations and/or omissions resulted
in damages to Plaintiffs.

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 83 of 100 PagelD #: 83
COUNT XIV
TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL
AND/OR BUSINESS RELATIONS
(Against Enterprise Member and Corporate Defendants)
363. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
364. The elements of tortious interference are: “(1) the existence of a valid contractual
relationship or business expectancy; (2) knowledge of the relationship or expectancy on the
part of the interferor; (3) intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or termination
of the relationship or expectancy; and (4) resultant damage to the party whose relationship or
expectancy has been disrupted.”
365, Plaintiffs entered into contractual relationships and/or business expectancies with
Defendants, their affiliates, and other partners as alleged herein.
366. Defendants had knowledge of these contracts, relationships, or business
expectancies.
367. Defendants acted intentionally to induce or cause a breach or termination of
Plaintiffs’ contractual relationships or business expectancies by, among other things, charging
fees that were not authorized by Plaintiffs, and/or were affirmatively prohibited by Plaintiffs’
contracts and/or business policies and practices, and otherwise engaging in unlawful conduct
that impeded or injured Plaintiffs’ contractual or business relationships with non-defendant
parties.
368. Plaintiffs have been harmed by, and are suffering from ongoing and imminent
threats of additional harm from, Defendants’ tortious interference with Plaintiffs’ contractual
and/or business relations as detailed above.
369. Injury and damages include, but are not limited to: irreparable harm to the
business relationships at the affected the Plaintiffs real property data sites; immediate
economic damages resulting from inflated and fraudulent transaction costs and
non-competitive bidding; damages associated with replacing NE Edge LLC et al, and other

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 84 of 100 PagelD #: 84
Defendant-affiliated entities at the affected sites, which transition involved substantial
business time, attorneys’ fees, and site responsibilities; and damages caused by site disruption,
development delays, and the associated loss of goodwill, and reputational harm.
370. Although many of these harms are compensable in money damages, the injury to
Plaintiffs ongoing business and business relationships is not, and regardless injunctive relief
is necessary to prevent the Defendants from spoliating evidence and assets essential to
recovery of monetary relief.
COUNT XV
INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
(Against Enterprise Member and Corporate Defendants)
371, Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
372. The defendants intended to inflict emotional distress on the plaintiff and should
have known that their conduct would inflict emotional distress on plaintiff Nicholas Fiorillo .
373. The defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous, beyond all bounds of
decency and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.
374. The distress suffered by the plaintiffs was severe and of the nature that no
reasonable person could be expected to endure.
375. As a result of the defendants’ unconstitutional and unlawful conduct, Plaintiff
Nicholas Fiorillo was threatened, intimidated, and maliciously prosecuted, to which he
objected because those acts were unlawful and unethical.
376. The plaintiff was disciplined, and suffered damage to his reputation, and severe
emotional distress, as a result of the defendants’ outrageous conduct.

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Documenti Filed 03/27/23 Page 85 of 100 PagelD #: 85
COUNT XVI
VIOLATION OF FOIA BY THE POLICE AND MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS FOR
FAILURE TO MAKE PROMPTLY AVAILABLE THE RECORDS SOUGHT BY
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS
(Against Municipal Defendants)
377. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
378. Plaintiff Nicholas Fioriollo has a legal right under FOIA to obtain Municipal
records and information he has requested in FOIA requests associated with the following as
described herein
379. There exists no legal basis for the Municipality’s failure to make these records
and this information available to the public.
380. The Municipal Defendants’ failure to make promptly available the records and
information sought by Mr. Fiorillo’s requests violates FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(A) and
(a)(6)(A)(ii) and applicable regulations promulgated thereunder.
COUNT XVII
BREACH OF CONTRACT
(Against Enterprise Member and Corporate Defendants)
381. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
382. The elements of a breach of contract action are (1) a legally enforceable
obligation of a defendant to a plaintiff; (2) the defendant’s violation or breach of that
obligation; and (3) injury or damage to the plaintiff caused by the breach of obligation.
383. Plaintiffs and their affiliates executed contracts with Defendants stating, among
other things, that Defendants did not have any third party broker, finder, or similar referral
contracts or arrangements in relation to the the Gotspace Data Land Contracts , and that the
loan sharking transactions and the defendants were providing competitive, fair market deals
executed in Plaintiff’s best interests and in compliance with all relevant laws and Attorneys
Code of Conduct.
384. Notably, the land contracts between Plaintiff and the Sellers and or affiliated
LLCs for the Gotspace Data land contracts data campus sites warranted that: (i) there “are no

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Documenti Filed 03/27/23 Page 86 of 100 PagelD #: 86
management agreements, service, maintenance or other contracts .. . relating to the Project
other than those” that were “disclosed in writing” to Plaintiff; (ii) the Defendant s “dealt with
no brokers, finders or the like in connection with this transaction,”; and (iii) Plaintiff (as
Tenant) would not have to pay or reimburse the Defendants -affiliated insiders for any “legal,
accounting, or professional fees and costs incurred in connection with lease negotiations.”
385. Defendants knew at the time they induced Plaintiffs to sign contracts concerning
the Gotspace Data Campus sites, that they had previously executed “referral” agreements as
part of the “pump and dump” kickback scheme, and that Defendants would in fact charge
undisclosed and prohibited amounts to Plaintiff, including to inflated commissions,
unauthorized site fees, and kickback payments they funneled through NE Edge LLC and other
Defendants many shell corporations.
386. Plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of Defendants’ knowing breach of their
contract provisions and warranties.
COUNT XVII
UNJUST ENRICHMENT
(Against Enterprise Member and Corporate Defendants)
387. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
388. In Massachusetts, a plaintiff may pursue a claim for unjust enrichment where he
demonstrates that he (1) conferred a benefit on the defendant, (2) the defendant knew of the
conferring benefit, and (3) the defendant accepted or retained the benefit under circumstances
which render it inequitable for the defendant to do so without paying for its value.
389. Plaintiffs conferred a benefit on Defendants in the form of awarding business
contracts, and payments which Defendants procured through fraud, unlawful and inequitable
conduct, collusion, and racketeering activity.
390. As alleged above, Defendants knew of the benefits that Plaintiffs conferred upon
them, due to fraudulent misrepresentation, and it is unjust that they should retain the benefits
of their unlawful activities.

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 87 of 100 PagelD #: 87
COUNT XIX
CONVERSION AND CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST
(Against Enterprise Member and Corporate Defendants)
391. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
392, Under Masshachusetts law, conversion occurs where one uses another's personal
property as his own and exercises dominion over it without the consent of the owner.
Conversion is any wrongful exercise or assumption of authority, personally or by procurement,
over another’s goods.. “A conversion may be committed by intentionally . . dispossessing
another of a chattel,” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 223 (1965), which can occur by
intentionally “obtaining possession of a chattel from another by fraud or duress, id, § 221.”
See also id. § 221 cmt. B (“One who by fraudulent representations induces another to
surrender the possession of chattel to him has dispossessed the other of the chattel [and] taking
possession of the chattel given under such circumstances is ineffectual to constitute a consent
to the taking.”).
393. Defendants and/or their affiliates intentionally obtained and exercised dominion
and/or control over Plaintiffs’ property through fraudulent and otherwise unlawful and
inequitable individual and enterprise conduct.
394. Defendants engaged in such conduct without Plaintiffs’ consent, and as a result
Plaintiffs are entitled to remedies for Defendants’ conversion of Plaintiffs’ property including
but not limited to assets identified in this complaint.

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 88 of 100 PagelD #: 88
COUNT XxX .
ALTER EGO/PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL
(Against Enterprise Member and Corporate Defendants)
395, Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
396. In Massachusetts, a court may pierce the corporate veil upon a showing that “(1)
the corporation was the alter ego, alias, stooge, or dummy of the other entity: and (2) the
corporation was a device or sham used to disguise wrongs, obscure fraud or conceal crime.
397. | With respect to the Defendants loan sharing and real estate kick back scheme NE
Edge LLC and other front companies known and unknown to plaintiffs, were alter egos of
Thomas Quinn, personally, and Doe Defendants, in executing the Direct Purchase Enterprise
agreements.
398. Companies NE Edge and CTDCD, LLC were registered to the same address as a
former Plaintiffs attorney now Defendant, George Mclaughlin, at Thomas Quinn’s employee’s
personal home address.
399, That former attorney is listed as the “Managing Director” of NE Edge LLC.
Another former Gotspace consultant, Christopher Regan, like Thomas Quinn, have signed
multiple offers and even purchase agreements with sellers who are contracted with the
Plaintiffs, including sellers in Groton, Griswold and Bozrah, CT.
400. These defendants likewise signed the purchase agreement between NE Edge,
LLC which has “backdoored” the Plaintiffs’ purchase of upwards of $100,000,000 in land
contracts, and now has put them at risk upwards of $10,500,000 of capital, which has been
invested into Plaintiffs’ pursuit of the Gotspace Data Master Development of Digital
Infrastructure in New England. .
401. NE Edge LLC, and other “front companies” both known and unknown to
Plaintiffs, were devices or sham entities used to disguise wrongs, obscure fraud, and/or
conceal other unlawful activities in connection with the sale of the Gotspace Data Campus

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document 1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 89 of 100 PagelD #: 89
sites to Plaintiffs, for at least a $50 million premium which the Defendants procured based on
false premises.
COUNT XXI
VIOLATION OF THE ALIEN TORT CLAIMS ACT
28 U.S.C. § 1350
(Against Technology Defendants)
402, Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
403. The Alien Tort Claims Act (“ATA”) provides redress for claims involving aliens
who have committed torts in violation of the law of nations (international law) or a treaty of the
United States.
404. Universally accepted norms of the law of nations and international law prohibit
systematic abuse of human rights, which includes acts of targeting, harassment, persecution,
intentional infliction of emotional distress, as well as acts of invasion of privacy, as enshrined in
the UDHR.
405. The aforementioned monitoring, surveillance, hacking and/or wiretapping of
Fiorillo’s iPhone constitutes actionable acts under the ATA for the torts of invasion of privacy.
The intentional actions aforementioned of invasion of privacy have harmed Fiorillo
in an amount to be proven at trial, and which may allow him to claim punitive damages due to
their egregious conduct.
COUNT XXII
VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL COMPUTER
FRAUD AND ABUSE ACT 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (a)
(Against Technology and Enterprise Member Defendants)
406. Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
407. On information and belief, at all times material to this case, each Defendant was
the agent, partner, alter ego, subsidiary, parent, and/or co-conspirator of and with the other
Defendant, and the acts of each Defendant were within the scope of that relationship; each
Defendant either knowingly and intentionally agreed with, or by negligence and omission

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Documenti Filed 03/27/23 Page 90 of 100 PageiD #: 90
failed to prevent, the other(s) to carry out the acts alleged in this Complaint; and in carrying
out the acts alleged in this Complaint, each Defendant acted with the knowledge, permission,
and consent of the other, and each Defendant aided and abetted the other.
408. Fiorillo is an Apple user. His devices are his subscriptions to Apple iPhone device
and iCloud. His iPhone is a “computer” as described by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18
U.S.C. §1030(e)(1). Pegasus software was installed remotely by Samuel Spitalny and/or Alfred
Demirjian, removing the need for physical proximity to Fiorillo's and the other targets’
smartphones, as well as eliminating any reliance on local mobile network operators. It also
circumvented security measures like the use of encryption, allowing Spitalny, Demirjian and
others, to access these infected devices as though they were the devices’ users.
409. Defendants Spitalny, Demirjian and others were aware that this software was
designed to subvert safeguards that would otherwise alert the targeted user to its presence, and
that on Apple iPhones, for example, Pegasus disabled the crash reporting to Apple, with
malicious processes that Pegasus runs on devices following an infection, which are then given
names similar to those of legitimate iOS system processes.
410. Fiorillo’s iPhone is a “protected computer” as defined by 18 U.S.C.
§1030(e)(2)(B) because it is “used in or affecting interstate commerce or communications” in the
United States.
411. NSO Tech Defendants Defendants violated and attempted to violate 18 U.S.C. §
1030(a)(2) because they intentionally accessed, negligently enabled access and attempted to
access the iOS operating system in Fiorillo’s iPhone and his iCloud account without
authorization and, upon information and belief, obtained information from Fiorillo’s iPhone and
iCloud account belonging to Plaintiff. Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1030(b) by conspiring
and attempting to commit the violations alleged in the preceding paragraphs, by deploying and
repeatedly accessing computer servers owned by U.S. technology company, Defendant Apple
Inc.

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document 1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 91 of 100 PagelD #: 91
412. NSO Tech Defendants Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(4) because they
knowingly and with the intent to defraud, aided Defendant Spitalny and Demitrjian’s access to the
operating system on Fiorillo’s iPhone, without authorization, using information from the Apple’s
servers, and then installed highly invasive spyware on Fiorillo’s iPhone,and by means of such
conduct furthered the intended fraud and obtaining of information about Plaintiff illegally. This
access was without authorization from Plaintiffs, as this spyware surreptitiously provided access
to the contents of targeted devices of Fiorillo, his family and associates, including cloud
accounts, contacts, emails, text messages, GPS locations, and search history.
413. Asa result of the fraud, NSO Tech Defendants Defendants obtained or facilitated
the obtaining of, something of extreme value: financial and confidential and privileged
information and communications between Plaintiff and others, including information and
communications concerning Fiorillo’s businesses, close business associates and his attorneys.
The Pegasus attacks have greatly disrupted Plaintiffs’ lives and work. These attacks have also
compromised Plaintiffs’ safety as well as the safety of their family members, friends and
business associates. Plaintiffs have also had to expend substantial resources to ensure their
personal safety, and to address serious physical and mental health issues resulting from these
attacks.
414. NSO Tech Defendants Defendants’ actions caused Plaintiff to incur a loss as
defined by 18 U.S.C. §1030(e)(11), in an amount in excess of $5,000.00 during a one-year
period, including the expenditure of resources to investigate and remediate NSO’s illegal
conduct. Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, as well
as injunctive relief or other equitable relief in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1030(g).

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 92 of 100 PagelD #: 92
Damage to Apple User Devices In Violation Of 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)
415. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs.
Defendant NSO Tech Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(A) because they knowingly
caused the transmission of a program, information, code, and/or command, specifically the
commands needed to carry out the exploits described above, as well as the Pegasus spyware
itself, to Apple’s servers, and as a result of such conduct intentionally caused damage without
authorization to the operating system on Apple’s users’ devices, including by installing their
Pegasus spyware.
416. Defendants NSO Tech Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1036(a)(5)(B) because
they intentionally accessed Appie’s users’ devices without authorization and as a result of such
conduct, recklessly caused damage to the operating system on Apple’s users’ devices, including
by installing their Pegasus spyware.
417. Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5)(C) because they intentionally
accessed Apple’s users’ devices without authorization and as a result of such conduct, caused
damage to the operating system on Apple’s users’ devices, including by installing their Pegasus
spyware.
418. Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(2)(C) because they intentionally accessed
and/or caused to be accessed Plaintiffs’ devices without authorization and obtained information
from those devices,
419. Defendants accessed and/or caused to be accessed Plaintiffs’ devices
without authorization through attacks that enabled the surreptitious installation of
Pegasus on Plaintiffs’ devices.
420. Defendants infected Plaintiffs’ devices with Pegasus to enable real-time
surveillance of those devices and to exfiltrate data from those devices to Defendants and their
clients. Once installed, Pegasus provided Defendants and their clients with essentially unlimited

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 93 of 100 PagelD #: 93
access to Plaintiffs’ devices, allowing them to remotely surveil and exfiltrate data contained on
those devices and in the cloud-based accounts connected to those devices.
COUNT XXIII
(Violation of M.G.L. c. 272, § 99)
421. It is a crime in the State of Massachusetts to use a device to secretly listen to or
record an oral or electronic communication. For nearly two years, Defendant Samuel Spitalny, in
conjunction with Defendant-attorney Kevin Peters and aided by Alfred Demirjian of Tech
Fusion, embarked upon an electronic eavesdropping campaign, conspiring to arrange for the
unlawful wiretapping ot the Apple iPhones of Nicholas Fiorillo, his family members and
associates.
422. Utilizing cyberstalking technology from Defendants NSO Tech Defendants,
Spitalny, Peters and others, had Demirjian set up Call Interception, in order to “patch into” live
phone calls taking place on the Target phones, in real time as they happen, forwarding the
Fiorillo’s telephonic communications to a predefined number known as a “Monitor Number,”
located in Toms River, New Jersey, where the Plaintiffs know no one and would not have good
cause to have a telephone number from this location, show up repeatedly on cell phone
statements.
COUNT XXIV - THIS IS NOT A CHARGE - OUT
EX PARTE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FED. R. CIV. P. 64, 65
423, Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs by reference.
424, All Defendants were engaged in commerce through their business dealings.
425. Defendants committed civil! RICO violations. fraud, tortious interference, civil
conspiracy, breach of contract, reformation, unjust enrichment. and conversion, when, in the
course of commerce, Defendants paid, received, or accepted money as part of the loan
sharking proceeds, kickback scheme and/or other unlawful activities committed by or through

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 94 of 100 PagelD #: 94
the Defendants, the Loan Sharking Enterprise and , and/or the Predatory Investment ;loan to
own ” Enterprise.
426. Plaintiffs were not aware of Defendants’ unlawful activities or Loan Sharking
activities and embezzlement kickback schemes.
427. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 addresses the authority of a district court to
issue “injunctions and restraining orders,” and Rule 65(b) states that a district court “may issue
a temporary restraining order without written or oral notice to the adverse party or its
attorney” where: “(A) specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly show that
immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse
party can be heard in opposition; and (B) the movant’s attorney certifies in writing any efforts
made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b).
428. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 64 complements Rule 65 in stating that. at “the
commencement of and throughout an action, every remedy is available that, under the law of
the state where the court is located, provides for seizing a person or property to secure
satisfaction of the potential judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 64. The rule goes on to state that the
“remedies available under this rule include,” among other things. “attachment, garnishment,
replevin, sequestration and other corresponding or equivalent remedies,” and that such
remedies are available “however designated and regardless of whether state procedure requires
an independent action.”
429. Massahusetts law permits a court to award an injunction whether the party against
whose proceedings the injunction be asked resides in or out of the jurisdiction where the
injunction is sought, and also to protect any plaintiff in a suit for specific property, pending
either at law or in equity, against injury from the sale, removal, or concealment of such
property.
430. Massachusetts law further and expressly permits pretrial attachment if the
plaintiff sufficiently shows that the defendant “[i]s converting, is about to convert or has

Case 1:23-cv-00121 Document 1 Filed 03/27/23 Page 95 of 100 PagelD #: 95
converted his property of whatever kind, or