Lawsuit Against Paul Vogel, Argos Partners

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc.
#: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 1 of 121 PageID #: 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
SUZANNE GLISSON, LEWIS VOLLMAR,
M.D., NORTHWEST INVESTMENTS, INC.,
MARK BERNSTEIN, LEWIS BERNSTEIN,
MARJORIE BERNSTEIN, NORTHWEST
PROPERTIES (1973) LTD., BRAD
WERNER, Trustee of J. H. Werner Revocable
Trust, and PHILLIP ROSEMANN,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
PAUL VOGEL and ARGOS PARTNERS
LLC,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 4:14-cv-01472
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
COMPLAINT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NATURE OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
JURISDICTION AND VENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
THE BRITISH LENDING PROGRAM (PONZI SCHEME) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
PAUL VOGEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
VOGEL, ARGOS, AND ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT . . . . . . . . . . 8
VOGELS CLIENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
THE BERNSTEINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
THE HAMPTONS CONDOMINIUM PROJECT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
VOGEL LEARNS ABOUT THE BLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 2 of 121 PageID #: 2
VOGEL FORMS TWO COMPANIES

TO FACILITATE HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE FRAUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
VOGEL ADOPTS SIGILLITOS EXIT STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
VOGELS EXIT STRATEGY HAS SUCCEEDED THUS FAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
FAR FROM A VICTIM, VOGELS CONDUCT WAS CRIMINAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
VOGEL ADVISES THE BERNSTEINS TO INVEST IN THE BLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
VOGEL ADVISES THE BERNSTEINS TO INVEST IN THE HAMPTONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A. VOGEL HELPS SIGILLITO FIND A HOME FOR THE PONZI SCHEME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
B. VOGEL AND SIGILLITO COMPLETE THEIR QUID PRO QUO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
C. CLARIFICATION OF CRYPTIC EMAIL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
VOGEL CONVINCES CHARLOTTE GARRETT TO INVEST IN THE BLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
VOGEL USES HIS DUE DILIGENCE REPORT TO
LULL THE BERNSTEINS AND MISLEAD POTENTIAL INVESTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
SMITH AND DISTINCTIVE PROPERTIES DEFAULT
ON THEIR LOAN AGREEMENTS WITH NORTHWEST 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
VOGEL STEALS HIS DADS MONEY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
VOGEL DECEIVES THE BERNSTEINS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
VOGEL DECEIVES MR. WERNER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
VOGEL CONVERTS DR. VOLLMARS IRA FOR BENEFIT OF THE HAMPTONS PROJECT . . . 50
SIGILLITO REPAYS CRANMERS $1 MILLION LINE OF CREDIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
VOGEL AND SIGILLITOS RELATIONS WITH ROSEMANN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
VOGEL TRIES TO BORROW MONEY FROM ENTERPRISE AND ST. LOUIS BANK . . . . . . . . . 61
ENTERPRISE AND ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL REFUSE TO LOAN MONEY TO VOGEL . . . . . . 64
KNOWING THE BLP WAS A SCAM, ARGOS REFUSES TO INVEST IN THE BLP . . . . . . . . . . 69
VOGEL HAS ONLY HIS EXPENDABLE CLIENTS INVEST IN THE BLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
ii
VOGEL ENGAGES IN RACKETEERING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

$1 MILLION OF ROSEMANNS MONEY IS TAKEN AS INVESTMENT IN THE HAMPTONS . . . 78
MRS. GLISSON INVESTS IN A PONZI SCHEME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
MR. WERNER INVESTS IN A PONZI SCHEME . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
COUNT I - (AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
COUNT II - (NEGLIGENCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
COUNT III - (NEGLIGENCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
COUNT IV - (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
COUNT V - (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
COUNT VI - (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT TO CONTRACT) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
COUNT VII - (FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
COUNT VIII - (VIOLATION OF MISSOURI MERCHANDISING
PRACTICES ACT, REV. STAT. MO. 407.010) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
COUNT IX - (CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED
AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
ASSOCIATION-IN-FACT RICO ENTERPRISE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
RICO ENTERPRISE HAD THE OPERATION OF THE BLP AS ITS COMMON PURPOSE . . . . . 103
RICO ENTERPRISE HAD WELL-DEFINED STRUCTURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
RICO ENTERPRISE HAD CONTINUITY OF PERSONNEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
RICO ENTERPRISE HAS ASCERTAINABLE STRUCTURE
WHICH FUNCTIONED SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE
PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY RELATED TO THE BLP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
NEXUS BETWEEN RICO ENTERPRISE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
RICO CONSPIRACY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
iii
VOGEL AND ARGOS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RICO ENTERPRISE

AND AGREED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE ENTERPRISE . . . . . . . . . 108
PLAINTIFFS RICO INJURY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
COUNT X - (CONSPIRACY) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
COUNT XI - (FRAUD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
COUNT XII - (FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
iv
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs Suzanne Glisson, Lewis Vollmar, M.D., Northwest Investments, Inc., Mark
Bernstein, Lewis Bernstein, Marjorie Bernstein, Northwest Properties (1973) Ltd., Brad
Werner, Trustee of J.H. Werner Revocable Trust, and Phillip Rosemann, for their Complaint
against Defendants Paul Vogel and Argos Partners, LLC, allege:
NATURE OF ACTION
1.
On April 13, 2012, Martin T. Sigillito (Sigillito), a St. Louis lawyer and
American Anglican Bishop, was convicted of twenty counts of fraud for bilking Plaintiffs
and other victims out of more than $51 million in connection with a scam known as the
British Lending Program. Sigillito is serving forty years in federal prison, and by this
Complaint, Plaintiffs bring claims against Defendants Paul Vogel (Vogel) and Argos
Partners LLC (Argos) for their participation in Sigillitos fraud.
2.
Sigillito operated one of the largest, if not the largest, Ponzi schemes in St.
Louis history. None of the victims money supposedly loaned to an overseas borrower was
invested in real estate developments in England as promised. Rather, Sigillito stole victims
money to support an extravagant lifestyle and to assist his co-conspirators, and used other,
later victims money to sustain the Ponzi and embezzling scheme and pay purported interest
payments to existing investors.
3.
Vogel, individually and as a member of and agent for Argos was an active and
willing participant in the fraud and thoroughly complicit.

1
4.
Argos was controlled and influenced by Vogel and used to perpetrate and
perpetuate the fraud.

5.
Plaintiffs Northwest Investments, Inc., Lewis Bernstein, Marjorie Bernstein,
Mark Bernstein, and Northwest Properties (1973) Ltd., were clients of Vogel and Argos.
6.
Vogel had actual knowledge of, and participated in, Sigillitos Ponzi and
embezzling scheme. When the scheme collapsed in 2010, Vogel denied any knowledge or
involvement in Sigillitos criminal activities.
7.
Vogel acknowledged receiving approximately $150,000 in finders fees for
referring investors to the BLP.

8.
After the Ponzi scheme came to light in 2010, Vogel claimed to be a victim of
Sigillitos fraud just like everyone else. Vogel emphasized his familys $590,000 investment
and loss in the BLP, but he actually made a net profit of over $2 million from the BLP.
9.
Vogel testified in June 2010 that he learned from the FBI and Plaintiff Phillip
Rosemann that, contrary to what Sigillito had told him, not all the money given to Sigillito
for investment in the BLP had been transferred to the borrower in England.
10.
Plaintiffs Northwest Investment, Inc., Mark Bernstein, Lewis Bernstein,
Marjorie Bernstein, Northwest Properties (1973) Ltd., Suzanne Glisson, and Brad Werner,
in a representative capacity, invested in the BLP at times when Vogel was participating in
Sigillitos Ponzi and embezzling scheme and bring claims against Defendants to recover their
investments and other damages.
2
11.
Plaintiff Lewis Vollmar, M.D., invested in the BLP and a portion of his
investment was misappropriated by Vogel and Sigillito in connection with the Ponzi and
embezzling scheme and to further Vogels fraud. Dr. Vollmar brings claims against
Defendants to recover those misappropriated funds and other damages.
12.
Plaintiff Phillip Rosemann brings a claim against Vogel for misconduct in
connection with his investment in a residential real estate development at Lake of the Ozarks,
Missouri.
13.
Between May 15, 2008 and May 24, 2010, Plaintiffs lost approximately
$4,812,039 as a result of Defendants misconduct. By this action, Plaintiffs seek recovery of

these funds, plus at least seven times that amount in punitive damages for Defendants
reckless disregard for Plaintiffs rights, with an exact amount of actual and punitive damages
to be determined at trial.
14.
Sigillito preferred to have individuals with IRA accounts invest in the BLP.
IRA accounts hold funds invested for retirement and account holders invested in the BLP
typically renewed their loans annually. The continued rollovers allowed the BLP to avoid
making cash distributions to the IRA account holders. The rollovers also allowed accrued
interest to accumulate in the account. IRS rules require IRAs to have a custodian and banks
such as Enterprise serve as custodians to administer the IRA account and make sure that IRA
funds are invested in permissible investments. Enterprise served as custodian for most of the
IRA accounts invested in the BLP from June 2008 until the Ponzi scheme blew up in 2010.
3
15.
Vogel participated in the Ponzi scheme and obtained funds for the BLP by
making various misrepresentations to some of the Plaintiffs. He represented that Plaintiffs

investment funds would be sent to Smith. He also represented that Smith and his English
development company had a long track record of success and had repaid every loan, and had
not defaulted on any loan he had obtained in the last ten years. Vogel misrepresented the
listed values of Smiths assets and understated the amount of Smiths liabilities. Not only did
Vogel make various misrepresentations to convince people to invest, he concealed that he
and Sigillito were receiving substantial fees.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
16.
This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.
17.
Plaintiffs state law claims are so related to claims in the action that they
form part of the same case or controversy giving this Court supplemental jurisdiction over
those claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(a).
18.
Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1391(a)(2) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim
occurred in St. Louis County, Missouri, which is located in this district. See 28 U.S.C.
105(a)(1).
PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS
19.
Plaintiff Suzanne Glisson (Glisson) is an individual residing in the State of
Florida.
20.
Plaintiff Lewis Vollmar, M.D. (Dr. Vollmar), is an individual residing in the
State of Missouri.
21.
Northwest is a Missouri corporation in good standing, with its principal place
of business located in St. Louis County, Missouri at 12100 Monter Drive, Bridgeton, MO
63044. Northwest is a wholly owned subsidiary of Plaintiff Northwest Properties (1973) Ltd.
(Northwest 1973).
22.
Plaintiff Mark Bernstein is an individual residing in the State of Missouri. He
is also a Director of Plaintiff Northwest Investments, Inc. (Northwest).

23.
Plaintiff Lewis Bernstein (Mr. Bernstein) is an individual residing in the
State of Missouri. He is also President of Northwest 1973.

24.
Plaintiff Marjorie Bernstein (Mrs. Bernstein) is an individual residing in the
State of Missouri. She is also Secretary of Northwest 1973.

25.
Northwest 1973 is a Canadian corporation in good standing, with its principal
place of business located at 101 10025 115 St., Edmonton, Alberta T5K 1S9.
26.
Plaintiff Brad Werner (Werner) is an individual residing in the State of
Missouri and trustee of the J.H. Werner Revocable Trust.

27.
Plaintiff Phillip Rosemann (Rosemann) is an individual residing in the State
of Nevada.
28.
Vogel is an individual residing in St. Louis County at 25 Deerfield Road in
Ladue.
29.
Argos is a Missouri limited liability company in good standing, with its
principal place of business located in St. Louis County, Missouri at 7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite
1375, Clayton, Missouri.
THE BRITISH LENDING PROGRAM (PONZI SCHEME)
30.
From 1999 to 2010, Sigillito organized and operated a fraudulent loan program
which marketed one year loans for an English developer, Derek Smith (Smith) and his
English companies, Bradgreen Properties Limited (Bradgreen) and Distinctive Properties
(UK) Ltd. (Distinctive Properties) for purported investments in real estate development in
England. The loan program, known as the British Lending Program (BLP), operated as a
classic Ponzi scheme in which loan payments on existing loans were paid with money from
new loans.
31.
Sigillito deposited and directed lenders to transfer money for loans in the BLP
into his Interest on Lawyers Trust Account (IOLTA account). An IOLTA account is a
fiduciary account where an attorney as fiduciary holds money for the benefit of others.
Plaintiffs money deposited into the IOLTA account was supposed to be held by Sigillito,
in a fiduciary capacity, in the account for their benefit. The IOLTA account created the false
appearance that fiduciary funds transferred in and out of the account were being used for
legitimate purposes.
32.
Instead of sending Plaintiffs funds intended for investment in the BLP in
England, Sigillito laundered the money by manipulating his IOLTA account. He made it
appear as if those funds were invested in the BLP and accruing interest, when actually,
Sigillito was fraudulently siphoning the funds out of his IOLTA account for distribution to
himself and his co-conspirators.
33.
Sigillitos Ponzi and embezzlement scheme required access to the banking
system and an IOLTA account was vital to his ability to defraud the Plaintiffs. One
marketing brochure for the BLP stated that the process to initiate a loan starts when money
is either deposited via check or wire into Martin Sigillitos trust account, that is set up for this
sort of purpose and the money is then dispensed to Derek Smith for permitted purposes.
34.
A federal grand jury in St. Louis indicted Sigillito on April 28, 2011 and he
was charged with money laundering, mail fraud, and wire fraud. The indictment alleged in
part that Sigillito as an attorney maintained an attorney trust bank account and that loan
funds were usually sent by wire communication to . . . Sigillitos attorney trust account.
35.
At Sigillitos month-long trial, thirty-eight witnesses testified and over 1,000
exhibits were admitted into evidence, including 1,750 pages of bank records.
36.
The jury found Sigillito guilty of money laundering, mail fraud, and wire fraud
and he was sentenced to forty years in federal prison and ordered to forfeit $51.5 million.
Sigillitos co-conspirator, J. Scott Brown (Brown) earlier plead guilty and was sentenced
to three years in federal prison.
PAUL VOGEL
37.
Vogel is a St. Louis lawyer like Sigillito and a member of the bar in Missouri
and Illinois.
38.
Vogel earned a Bachelors degree in Accounting, as well as a Masters degree
in Accounting with an emphasis in tax, from the University of Missouri in Columbia. Vogel
earned his law degree from the University of Missouri in Columbia and his Master of Law
in taxation from Washington University in St. Louis. Vogel is a Certified Public Accountant.
7
39.
Vogel was 32 years old when he accepted Enterprises invitation to lead its
new Trust Company. Reflecting on that decision in 2002, Vogel was quoted in the St. Louis
Business Journal, I was 32. If youre going to take a risk in life, that was the age to do it.
40.
Vogel is chairman and CEO of Argos, a private multi-family office created to
address the professional, investment, and personal service needs of a limited number of ultra
affluent, multi-generational families. The ultra wealthy members of Argos made Vogel a
member of the company and they, along with the ultra wealthy clients of Argos, have decided
to share the care and control of their fortunes with Vogel.
41.
Vogel also practices law at Vogel Law Firm which shares offices with Argos.
VOGEL, ARGOS, AND ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT

42.
In 2007, while Vogel was still President and CEO of the Trust Division at
Enterprise, he and the bank discussed his plans to establish a new business to provide wealth
management services and financial advice to high net-worth persons and families.
43.
In October 2007, Vogel told clients he would be leaving Enterprise to form his
own new investment company serving very high net-worth families. That company was
Argos.
44.
Vogel left Enterprise in 2007 to help found Argos as its president and CEO.
Vogel at all relevant times acted as agent, employee, and servant of Argos and within the
course and scope of his agency.
45.
Vogel founded Argos with two other professionals and three ultra high net
worth families, two of whom the Holekamp and Wetterau families remain members of
Argos.
46.
Paul Tice is a director of Argos and serves as Chief Financial Officer of Argos
Investment Advisors, LLC. He has experience in evaluating direct investment in real estate.
47.
On or about December 31, 2007, Vogel, Argos and third party Enterprise
Financial Services Corporation (Enterprise Financial) entered into a consulting agreement.

Under the terms of the agreement, Vogel agreed to serve as a financial, wealth management,
and general business advisor to Enterprise Financial and its clients. Enterprise Financial
agreed to pay Vogel an annual consulting fee of $150,000.
48.
The consulting fee payable under the consulting agreement was paid to Argos
and did not go directly to Vogel personally.

49.
The consulting agreement provides in Paragraph 1.2 as follows:
50.
The consulting agreement in Exhibit A provides as follows:

9
51.
The term of the consulting agreement was indefinite but the agreement allowed
Enterprise Financial or Vogel to terminate it for any reason or no reason upon proper written
notice. Vogel, when asked by one of his clients how long he would continue to serve clients
at Enterprise under this arrangement, replied, as long as they continue to pay me.
52.
Vogel signed the consulting agreement individually and on behalf of Argos.
53.
The consulting agreement granted Vogel legal power to act on behalf of Argos,
Enterprise Financial, and third party Enterprise Bank & Trust (Enterprise) and the
agreement gave him such power in his capacity as chairman and CEO of Argos.
VOGELS CLIENTS
54.
Vogel, as their investment advisor, either recommended an investment in the
BLP, or exercised his discretion in making an investment in the BLP, for his following
advisory clients at Enterprise: Northwest of the Bernstein family; BJD, LLC of the Dunning
family (Dunning); Garrett; Kent J. Sturhahn (Sturhahn); and Phyllis Middleton
(Middleton).
10
THE BERNSTEINS
55.
Mark Bernsteins parents, Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein, are the shareholders of
Northwest 1973. Northwest is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northwest 1973.

56.
Northwest signed an Investment Advisory Agreement (the Northwest IAA)
with Enterprise in 2002.

57.
Under the terms of the Northwest IAA, Enterprise agreed to act as an
investment advisor to Northwest with discretionary authority to act on its behalf in related
matters.
58.
Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein and Mark Bernstein (together, the Bernsteins) signed
a Financial Advisory Agreement (the Bernstein FAA) with Enterprise in 2002.

59.
Under the terms of the Bernstein FAA, Enterprise agreed to act as a financial
advisor to the Bernsteins with discretionary authority to act on their behalf in related matters.
60.
Among the individuals advising the Bernsteins and Northwest was Vogel, then
president and CEO of the Trust Division of Enterprise.

61.
Vogel at all material times knew that Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein, through
Northwest 1973 and Northwest, owned extensive and valuable real estate holdings.
Sometime after the Bernsteins transferred their accounts to Enterprise, Vogel suggested to
Mark Bernstein the possibility of doing a real estate deal together. Vogel later approached
Mark about a commercial real estate project in Springfield, Missouri. Marks third party
consultants advised him against the project and Mark declined Vogels proposal.
11
62.
After Vogel left Enterprise in 2007, Vogel, Argos, and Enterprise continued
serving as financial advisors to the Bernsteins, Northwest, and Northwest 1973.

63.
As Northwest 1973s investment and financial advisors, Vogel and Argos had
fiduciary relationships with the company.

64.
As Northwests investment advisors, Vogel and Argos had fiduciary
relationships with the company.

65.
As the Bernsteins financial advisors, Vogel and Argos had fiduciary
relationships with each of them.

THE HAMPTONS CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
66.
The Hamptons Condominiums, LLC was organized as a Missouri limited
liability company in December 2006. The original members of The Hamptons

Condominiums, LLC, were Deerfield Investors, LLC (Deerfield Investors), a company
owned or controlled by Vogel; Aspen Chase Investment Property 9, LLC (Aspen Chase),
a company owned or controlled by Sturhahn; and Blake Properties, Inc. (Blake Properties),
a company owned or controlled by Mark Kelly (Kelly), a condominium developer at Lake
of the Ozarks.
67.
Beginning in or around 2006, The Hamptons Condominiums, LLC began
developing luxury condominiums known as The Hamptons on the Lake located at 1184
Jeffries Road in Osage Beach, Missouri. Phase One and construction of the first building was
completed in or around 2007, and the condominiums were publically listed for sale in June
2007.
12
68.
Upon information and belief, The Hamptons project was financed through
Great Southern Bank and Corn Belt Bank. As of November 25, 2007, The Hamptons had
project costs of approximately $15,647,564 which included $5,100,000 for land, $2,960,064
for development, $1,250,000 in interest, and $6,337,500 in construction of the first building.
69.
By early 2008, not a single condominium on the market at The Hamptons had
sold. The soft real estate market and other factors forced Vogel and his partners to fund the
project costs and debt service, and the lenders were demanding additional equity to renew
the loan.
70.
Vogel had another problem in early 2008: He personally guaranteed some of
The Hamptons debt. In 2008, Vogel was facing financial ruin.

VOGEL LEARNS ABOUT THE BLP
71.
Vogel and Sigillito were introduced in or around 2005 and were well-
acquainted by 2008. Each was a member of the exclusive Racquet Club in St. Louis where,
beginning in January 2008, they sat together on the Clubs board.
72.
Sigillito, in response to Vogels inquiry in early 2008, told Vogel that he
practiced international business law, primarily placing his clients money abroad and
predominantly in investments in the United Kingdom.
73.
Vogel recalled in June 2010 his reaction to Sigillitos description of what he
did for a living: I said, Okay. Thats interesting. We got to talking about that. And he
[Sigillito] had inquired as to whether me or any of my clients might have an interest. I said,
Well, possibly. I would have to know more about it, but certainly possibly.
13
74.
Vogel further testified in 2010, [W]e began talking about Distinctive
Properties, and Derek Smith, and how that worked. And he [Sigillito] explained the process
to me.
75.
As far as investing in what Sigillito described about Smith and Distinctive
Properties, Vogel testified, I indicated I would have an interest, or our family would. And
that, possibly, I knew a few clients who would have an interest, in essence, even though its
a mode of real estate style investment.
76.
In April 2008, Millennium Trust Company, the IRA custodian for victims
invested in the BLP through their IRA account, knew or suspected the BLP was a fraud and
was forcing Sigillito to find a new custodian. Without an IRA custodian, as well as new
investors, the Ponzi scheme would collapse. Sigillito, like Vogel, was facing financial ruin,
or worse.
77.
In 2008, Sigillito told Vogel he needed to find a successor custodian for the
IRA accounts invested in the BLP. More importantly, Sigillito needed to find a person with
connections who could introduce him to a successor custodian willing to accept IRA
accounts with alternative investments, many of which were in default, and who would not
ask too many questions.
78.
Sigillito found that person. Vogel, as former president and CEO, had
unparalleled access to the Trust Company at Enterprise. Vogel also had connections to an
impressive list of potential investors and he could easily introduce Sigillito to both Enterprise
and potential investors, and Vogel knew it.
14
79.
Mindful of his problems at Lake of the Ozarks, Vogel realized in 2008 that the
combination of his stellar connections and Sigillitos pressing problem might provide Vogel
with a unique opportunity.
80.
When Sigillito explained the BLP and how it worked, Vogel saw a way to
solve his financial problems. Vogel, with his extensive education, financial expertise, and
banking experience, realized that the real estate style investment Sigillito described was
really a Ponzi scheme and one that Vogel could manipulate to his advantage.
81.
On May 16, 2008, Sigillito gave Vogel check number 1161 for $30,000 from
his IOLTA account. When asked about this check, Sigillito told his assistant Elizabeth
Stajduhar that he had entered into an agreement with Paul Vogel. Under the agreement,
Sigillito explained, he would help Vogel with his problem and Vogel would help Sigillito
with his.
VOGEL FORMS TWO COMPANIES
TO FACILITATE HIS PARTICIPATION IN THE FRAUD
82.
In May 2008, before his family or any of his clients invested in the BLP, Vogel
formed two companies, Brad-Green Development LLC (Brad-Green) and Cranmer

Associates LLC (Cranmer). These companies were the vehicles Vogel used to embezzle
and divert investor money from the BLP to himself undetected. Brad-Green and Cranmer
did not function as real companies. They existed simply to support Vogels participation in
Sigillitos fraud.
15
83.
Vogel carefully chose the name Brad-Green so that funds diverted from the
BLP to Brad-Green would appear as if they were going to England when, in fact, the funds
were going to Vogel. Bradgreen is a name associated with the BLP. Before Smith began
operating as Distinctive Properties (UK) Ltd., in 2006, he did business as Bradgreen
Properties, Ltd.
84.
Vogels sophisticated fraud scheme rested on a hyphen. Vogel knew the
association of the name Bradgreen with the BLP would make a money transfer to
Brad-Green for his benefit appear to a casual observer like a money transfer to Bradgreen
for Smiths benefit.
85.
Vogels fraud scheme was sophisticated enough to fool the United States. The
federal government when it investigated Sigillito never realized that funds transferred to
Brad-Green went to Vogel for his benefit instead of to the BLP or investors in the BLP.
86.
Cranmer was created for the purpose of obtaining a $1 million line of credit at
Enterprise for Vogel. Vogel at all material times managed and exercised control of Cranmer
and had check writing authority for its bank accounts. The members of Cranmer Sigillito
and Dr. Vollmar were merely straw members whose role was to guarantee the line of credit.
87.
The members of Brad-Green were Cranmer, Northwest, and Gorefield
Management, LLC (Gorefield). Similar to his involvement with Cranmer, Vogel at all
material times managed and exercised control over Brad-Green and had check writing
authority for its bank accounts as well.
VOGEL ADOPTS SIGILLITOS EXIT STRATEGY
16
88.
Sigillito realized early in the scheme that victim status, or having a family
member as a victim, would help him avoid suspicion and hopefully escape unscathed if the
BLP ever collapsed. This exit strategy required Sigillito to invest his own money as well as
his mothers money in the BLP. By appearing as much a potential victim as any other
investor, Sigillito could minimize investor suspicion and deflect regulatory scrutiny.
89.
Co-conspirator Brown and his attorney tested this strategy in 2002 when
Kansas securities regulators started asking serious questions about the BLP. Brown and his
attorney simply pointed to Browns personal and family investments in the alleged scheme
as evidence that the BLP was not a fraud. The regulators bought it and went away.
90.
The strategy of appearing to be as much a potential victim as anyone else was
key to both the longevity of the fraud and the protection of its knowing participants.
91.
As soon as Vogel agreed to participate materially in the Ponzi scheme, he
adopted Sigillitos exit strategy. On or about June 6, 2008, Vogel invested $100,000 in the
BLP from two gift trusts for his stepchildrens education.
92.
Vogel assumed that nothing could place him further above suspicion than
investing his stepchildrens money.

93.
From May 2008 until the Ponzi scheme collapsed in 2010, Vogel invested a
total of $590,000 of family money into the BLP as follows:
17
Vogels Investments of Family Money
Amount
Date
HAJ Irrevocable Gift Trust (stepdaughter)
$40,000
June 6, 2008
KJ Irrevocable Gift Trust (stepson)
$60,000
June 6, 2008
Lynn Ann Whaley Vogel IRA (wife)
$35,000
July 17, 2008
Ann I. Whaley Trust (mother-in-law)
$200,000
March 10, 2009
LeRoy Vogel SEP IRA (father)
$105,000
May 29, 2009
Ann I. Whaley Trust
$150,000
June 8, 2009
Paul L. Vogel IRA (self)
-----$0-----
-----xx-----
Argos Clients (the ultra wealthy families)
-----$0-----
-----xx-----
Total Vogel Family Money in BLP
$590,000
VOGELS EXIT STRATEGY HAS SUCCEEDED THUS FAR

94.
Vogel deployed his exit strategy as soon as the Ponzi scheme came to light. He
publically and repeatedly emphasized that his family members had invested in the BLP and
lost $590,000. He claimed not to know that his name and his wifes name appeared on the
Loan Agreements. He claimed that the only benefit he received from any of the BLP loans
were some finders fees which he stressed he never tried to hide.
95.
Vogels exit strategy also involved talking behind closed doors with federal
law enforcement about his limited knowledge and involvement in the BLP. Vogel never
explained to federal investigators the subtle distinction between Brad-Green and Bradgreen
or that the checks to Brad-Green went to pay his debt on The Hamptons instead of to the
BLP or other investors. Vogel never explained to investigators why he formed Brad-Green
and Cranmer or the role these companies played in his diverting over $2 million from the
BLP for personal benefit. Vogel never explained to the FBI or the IRS the agreement he
18
reached with Sigillito or the quid pro quo between himself and Sigillito in or around May
2008.
96.
Federal authorities investigating Sigillitos Ponzi scheme had no idea after
talking with Vogel that he received a greater benefit from the BLP than Brown or that he
diverted funds to pay debts on a residential housing development at Lake of the Ozarks,
Missouri.
97.
Recounting his meeting with federal investigators, Vogel in what he intended
to sound like contrition, but was actually bragging told friends he met with the FBI and
cried like a baby.
98.
Vogel played the federal government for a fool and, unfortunately for the
victims of the Ponzi scheme, the government was duped by Vogel.

FAR FROM A VICTIM, VOGELS CONDUCT WAS CRIMINAL
99.
Vogels investment of family money in the BLP tells just a fraction of the
100.
Middleton at all material times was an advisory client of Vogel, Enterprise and
story.
Argos. In 2009, Vogel knowingly used his discretionary investment authority to steal
$250,000 from Middletons account at Enterprise to pay, for his benefit, debts owed on The
Hamptons.
101.
On June 5, 2009, Vogel emailed Blume and Dana Muskopf (Muskopf) at
Enterprise, As you know the Middleton accounts have been converted to custody and
Georges three accounts have been emptied and can be closed once final interest posts. As
for Phyllis account that remains please wire $250,000 to Martin Sigillitos trust account as
we have done in the past for a Distinctive properties note.
19
102.
On June 5, 2009, Muskopf emailed Vogel and Stajduhar at 11:06 am: Martys
trust account will receive $250,000 today from Enterprise for Phyllis H. Middleton
Revocable Trust. Please send me a receipt at your earliest convenience with the interest rate
and maturity date. At 11:30 that morning, Vogel emailed Sigillito: If the Middleton money
hits today can we send that to Hamptons today as well? Sigillito replied by email, No.
Monday.
103.
Vogel was up early and ready to go on Monday, June 8, 2009. That morning
he emailed Sigillito at 7:07 am: I plan on coming by about 8:15 am to get the 250k check
so I can get the potential lien filers paid this morning. Sigillito promptly emailed back:
Very good. Later that morning, Sigillito gave Vogel check number 1274 from his IOLTA
account for $250,000 payable to Brad-Green. The check memo reads for Phil Rosemann.
20
104.
Vogel at all material times knew check number 1274 payable to Brad-Green
for $250,000 was not for Phil Rosemann. After receiving Middletons money by the check
from Sigillito, Vogel sent an email to Great Southern Bank on June 8, 2009 at 9:06 am
advising: Just wired $250,000 to the Hamptons account at Great Southern. Final $282,000
to arrive later today or tomorrow.
105.
Vogel knowingly siphoned more than $2 million in net profit from the BLP
but, upon information and belief, never reported the profit as income.
Money to Vogel From the BLP
Amount
Date
Checks to Brad-Green from Fiduciary Funds:

Check No. 121 (Southwest Bank)
Check No. 1237 (St. Louis Bank IOLTA)
Check No. 1274 (St. Louis Bank IOTLA)
Check No. 1043 (Southwest Bank)
$50,000
$18,000
$100,000
$250,000
$240,000
$42,000
May 4, 2009
May 5, 2009
June 5, 2009
June 8, 2009
June 9, 2009
July 29, 2009
Bernstein Investment in Brad-Green
$500,000
May 19, 2009
Additional Investor Funds Diverted to Cranmer:

Check No. 1567 (St. Louis Bank)
Check No. 1039 (St. Louis Bank)
$160,000
$40,000
March 2, 2009
March 2, 2009
Investor Funds Diverted to Pay Cranmer Line of Credit
$1,000,000
Various
Investor Funds Diverted to Pay Interest and Fees on

Cranmer Line of Credit
$50,000 (approx.)
Various
Vogel Finders Fees
$150,000 (approx)
Various
Ann I. Whaley Trust Interest paid
$81,072.06
Various
Total Money to Vogel from BLP
$2,681,072.06
Total Vogel Family Money in BLP
($590,000)
Net Amount to Vogel from BLP
$2,191,072.06
21
106.
When the FBI and IRS agents looked at check number 1274, they concluded
it, and others like it, went to the BLP for Rosemanns benefit. The government never
suspected or understood that the funds transferred to Brad-Green in that check, and all the
others like it, actually went to Vogel for his benefit.
107.
Vogel often used Rosemann as the straw lender in his fraud using the Brad-
hyphen-Green chicanery to divert BLP funds to The Hamptons.

108.
Everyone investigating the BLP beginning in 2010 saw the name Brad-Green
in the documents and financial records and assumed it referred or related to Smith in
England. This oversight was strategic to Vogels strategy. When it comes to the BLP and
Vogels involvement in the fraud, there is literally an ocean of difference between Bradgreen
and Brad-Green. From the beginning, the hyphen was absolutely crucial to Vogels scheme.
109.
Vogel purposely avoided being a member of Cranmer with Sigillito and Dr.
Vollmar in case the BLP fell into trouble. Indicative of Cranmers fraudulent setup, Sigillito
and Dr. Vollmar each guaranteed $500,000 of Cranmers debt but derived no benefits. Vogel,
as manager, directed borrowed funds to The Hamptons, and the company existed solely for
Vogels benefit.
110.
The United States indicted Brown for taking $1.4 million out of the BLP, and
this amount does not reflect credit for any money he invested in the scheme. Brown chose
to plead guilty and appropriately is sitting in a federal prison somewhere serving a three year
sentence.
22
111.
Not all Ponzi schemers are created equal. Vogels skill set was uniquely
wellsuited for the BLP.

Participant
Time in Program
Net Profit
Profit/Mo.
Sigillito
132 months
$6 million
$46,212
Brown
132 months
$1.4 million
$10,606
Vogel
13 months
$2.2 million
$169,231
VOGEL ADVISES THE BERNSTEINS TO INVEST IN THE BLP

112.
In early 2008, Vogel introduced the Bernsteins to a potential investment
opportunity in England. Mr. Bernstein is English, and Vogel brought up the BLP after Lewis
mentioned foreign currency exchange rates at a quarterly client meeting for Northwest.
113.
In or around May 2008, Vogel facilitated a meeting between Mr. Bernstein,
Mark Bernstein and Sigillito. Over lunch at the Racquet Club, Sigillito explained to the
Bernsteins how the BLP worked. He gave them an exemplar loan agreement and a marketing
memo outlining important aspects of the BLP. Vogel intimated during that lunch that he was
invested in the BLP.
114.
In May 2008, after the meeting with Sigillito, the Bernsteins met Vogel at
Argos offices to discuss investing in the BLP. The Bernsteins noted that Northwest 1973
had $1 million Canadian dollars in an account in Canada available for investment. Vogel on
behalf of Argos, advised them to invest that money with Sigillito.
115.
During the meeting in May 2008 at Argos with the Bernsteins, Vogel explained
that money invested in the BLP went into a pool of funds made available to middle level
23
borrowers in England. These borrowers, based on financial needs and timing of their real
estate projects, would make arrangements to borrow what they needed from the pool of
funds. This arrangement, Vogel explained, meant that lenders typically did not learn the
borrowers identity until after the loan papers were prepared.
116.
Beginning in 2002, Vogel advised the Bernsteins on virtually all of their
financial and investment matters. The Bernsteins understood and considered Vogels
recommendation of investing in the BLP in 2008 part of the overall financial and investment
advisory services that Vogel and Argos were providing the Bernsteins, as well as the overall
financial and investment advisory services that Vogel and Enterprise were providing the
Bernsteins, as well as Northwest, under the Northwest IAA and Bernstein FAA.
117.
On May 15, 2008, based solely on the advice of Vogel, Northwest 1973 entered
into two loan agreements with Smith and Distinctive Properties.

118.
Under the terms of the first Loan Agreement dated May 15, 2008, Northwest
1973 loaned $250,000 to Smith and Distinctive Properties, with repayment due May 14,
2009. The loan bore an interest rate of 16% per annum with interest payable at redemption.
119.
Under the terms of the second Loan Agreement dated May 15, 2008, Northwest
1973 loaned 381,291.31 to Smith and Distinctive Properties, with repayment due May 14,
2009. The loan bore an interest rate of 16% per annum with interest payable at redemption.
120.
No interest payments were made under the first or second Loan Agreement.
121.
After both Loan Agreements came due, Vogel represented to the Bernsteins
and Northwest 1973 that he was communicating with Sigillito and the lenders, Smith and
Distinctive, on their behalf.
24
122.
On September 9, 2009, based solely on the advice of Vogel, the Bernsteins and
Northwest 1973 entered into a third Loan Agreement with Smith and Distinctive Properties.
123.
Under the terms of the third Loan Agreement dated September 9, 2009, the
Bernsteins and Northwest 1973 loaned $1,300,000 to Smith and Distinctive Properties, with
repayment due March 8, 2010. The loan bore an interest rate of 10% per annum with interest
payable monthly.
124.
No interest payments were made on the third Loan Agreement after April 15,
125.
The BLP with Smith and Distinctive Properties was bogus, without the funding
2010.
and assets or plans represented to the Bernsteins and Northwest 1973.

126.
All three Loans have come due, and the amounts due on the Loans have not
been paid.
127.
There is no possibility of recovering the amounts due under the Loan
Agreements because of the fraudulent nature of the scheme. Upon information and belief,
Smith, Distinctive Properties and Sigillito are effectively insolvent.
128.
The Bernsteins at all times material believed the $1 million had been
transferred from Northwest 1973 to Smith and Distinctive Properties.

129.
Vogel did not disclose to the Bernsteins, Northwest 1973 or any of the other
Plaintiffs that he received a significant finders fee each time he brought money to the BLP.
25
VOGEL ADVISES THE BERNSTEINS TO INVEST IN THE HAMPTONS

130.
In May 2008, Vogel told the Bernsteins about an investment opportunity in a
condominium project at Lake of the Ozarks. Vogel disclosed his involvement in The
Hamptons and described the opportunity as a loan secured by real estate with a 6%
guaranteed rate of return and 25% of the profits as a preferred member of The Hamptons
Condominiums LLC. Vogel failed to disclose to the Bernsteins that Sigillito was an investor
in The Hamptons.
131.
Vogel assured Mark Bernstein that the project was not distressed or under any
problems; instead, the lender had changed the equity parameters and was requiring additional
equity funding to renew the financing.
132.
Vogel told Mark that because the condominiums were already constructed, The
Hamptons was an opportunity to invest in a project ready to sell and to produce almost
immediate profit with no risk.
133.
The Bernsteins understood and considered Vogels recommendation to invest
in Brad-Green and The Hamptons in 2008 part of the overall financial and investment
advisory services that Vogel and Argos were providing the Bernsteins, as well as the overall
financial and investment advisory services that Vogel and Enterprise were providing the
Bernsteins, as well as Northwest, under the Northwest IAA and Bernstein FAA.
134.
Based solely on the advice of Vogel, and without knowledge of his false
statements, the Bernsteins invested in The Hamptons through an investment in Brad-Green.

The Amended and Restated Operating Agreement of The Hamptons Condominiums, LLC
26
dated May 9, 2008 identifies Brad-Green as a preferred member with an initial capital
contribution of $1,500,000 and a one-third (1/3) ownership interest in the company.
135.
In May 2008, Vogel and Sigillito initiated a quid pro quo. Cranmer obtained
a $1 million line of credit from Enterprise approved by John Meek (Meek) and Michael
Murphy at Enterprise transferred $500,000 from Northwests account to BradGreen.
QUID PRO QUO
Benefit to Vogel
Date
$1,000,000 Cranmer Line of Credit
May 15, 2008
$30,000 Finders Fee
May 16, 2008
$500,000 Investment in Brad-Green
May 19, 2008
Benefit to Sigillito
$1,000,000 Bernstein BLP Investment
June 2, 2008
Vogel Parks BLP at Enterprise
June 6, 2009
$100,000 Children BLP Investment
June 9, 2008
$435,000 Garrett BLP Investment
$17,100 Finders Fee
June 12, 2008
$1,547,100
Total Benefit
$1,535,000
A. VOGEL HELPS SIGILLITO FIND A HOME FOR THE PONZI SCHEME

136.
As part of his agreement with Sigillito, Vogel contacted Enterprise in May
2008 and arranged a meeting between Sigillito and a senior officer of the trust department
on the pretext of discussing new business.
137.
On or about June 2, 2008, Vogel walked a Ponzi scheme through the banks
front door for the benefit of Sigillito. Vogel and Sigillito met with Marti Gurley (Gurley),
Senior Vice President and Trust Counsel for Enterprise and discussed transferring
27
approximately fifty Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) to Enterprise and having the
Trust Division serve as successor custodian.
138.
Sigillito at this meeting explained that the IRAs held investments in the BLP,
and he skimmed over the details of how the BLP worked. Gurley accepted Sigillitos
description of the IRAs and sketchy narrative of the BLP without challenge.
139.
Vogel intended Enterprise to view his presence at the meeting as his vouching
for Sigillito, and his presence and reputation were intended to allay, to Plaintiffs detriment,
any issues or concerns Enterprise might have about the BLP.
140.
Following Sigillito and Vogels meeting with Gurley, and Sigillitos
introduction to Rick Blume, a relationship manager in the Trust Division, Enterprise

welcomed Sigillito and his clients into the bank. The Trust Division at Enterprise agreed to
become the successor IRA custodian to Millennium for approximately fifty individuals who
had invested in the BLP through their IRA account.
B. VOGEL AND SIGILLITO COMPLETE THEIR QUID PRO QUO
141.
Less than four weeks after the Bernsteins invested $500,000 in Brad-Green,
Vogel and Sigillito completed their quid pro quo.

142.
Vogel had obtained $1.5 million in new equity for the Hamptons and Sigillito
had found a home for the BLP and had received $1,535,000 of new money for the Ponzi
scheme. Consistent with their agreement reached in May, as described to Stajduhar, each had
helped the other solve his problem.
28
C. CLARIFICATION OF CRYPTIC EMAIL

143.
Sigillito and Vogels agreement and quid pro quo in 2008 help clarify
Sigillitos cryptic message to Vogel in 2009. In July 2009, the Ponzi scheme was starving
for new money and Sigillito was threatening litigation against Metis Insaat ve Ticret A.S
(Metis), a company in Ankara, Turkey that owed money to Rosemann.
144.
On July 9, 2009, Sigillito emailed Vogel to remind him: The threat of that
possibility [of litigation against Metis] moved everyone into high gear this week! You and
I are the only two people who know or who can know the whole story! Nor does anyone
know of our relations with each other or with Phil [Rosemann]. None of their business! Any
questions?
VOGEL CONVINCES CHARLOTTE GARRETT TO INVEST IN THE BLP

145.
Garrett signed an undated Financial Advisory Agreement (Garrett FAA) with
Enterprise.
29
146.
Under the terms of the Garrett FAA, Enterprise and Vogel agreed to act as a
financial advisor to Garrett with discretionary authority to act on her behalf in related
matters.
147.
As Garretts financial advisors, Vogel and Argos each had a fiduciary
relationship with her.

148.
Vogel was among the individuals advising Garrett under the FAA. In 2008,
Vogel advised Garrett to liquidate her entire IRA and invest the proceeds in the BLP.
149.
Based solely on the advice of Vogel, Garrett signed an authorization for
Enterprise to distribute assets out of its custody from the above referenced [IRA] account
at the instruction of Paul L. Vogel Argos Partners LLC.
150.
On June 6, 2008, Gurley advised the Trust Division staff that Vogel had
instructed the bank to wire all of the cash out of Garretts account and to keep enough in the
account to cover the fees. Gurley also instructed the staff to let her know when that was
completed so that we can let Paul and Marty know when the additional cash will be in
Martys account to purchase the note in the BLP.
151.
In June 2008, based solely on the advice of Vogel, Garrett liquidated her IRA
account at Enterprise and entered into a Loan Agreement dated June 9, 2008 between herself,
Smith and Distinctive Properties.
152.
Under the terms of the Loan Agreement, Garrett loaned $435,000 to Distinctive
Properties and Smith, with repayment due on June 8, 2009. The loan bore an interest rate of
17% per annum with interest payable at redemption.
30
153.
When Garrett invested in the BLP in June 2008, Vogel knew that Garrett had
two minor children whose father, her husband, had been killed in a recent hunting accident.
Vogel, despite this knowledge, advised Garrett to invest her entire IRA in a scheme he knew
was fraudulent.
154.
Vogel intended Garretts investment in the BLP to benefit himself and Sigillito
and knew that he could siphon her money out of the BLP through transactions involving
Brad-Green.
155.
After Vogel siphoned Garretts money, she was of no more use to him, and
Vogel could not be bothered having her as an advisory client. Vogel discarded Garrett by
convincing her to sign a letter to Enterprise stating:
I wish to discontinue investment advisory services for my above-mentioned
IRA account with Enterprise Bank & Trust and use your custodial services
only. In addition, Enterprise Trust is directed to accept and to rely fully upon
all instructions with respect to the purchase or sale of, and other transactions
in securities, given by Paul L. Vogel of Argos Partners LLC, and no further
authorization shall be required from me. Therefore, Enterprise Trust shall have
no liability as a result of these instructions.
156.
Vogel accepted check number 1164 for $17,000 from Sigillitos IOLTA
account as a finders fee, for bringing Garretts money into the BLP as well as bringing
another $100,000 into the BLP on June 6, 2008.
157.
In June 2009, without notice, consent or direction from Garrett, Enterprise
reinvested the principal sum due under the $435,000 June 2008 Loan Agreement into a
new Loan Agreement with a maturity date of June 8, 2010 and bearing an interest rate of
17% per annum with interest payable at redemption.
31
158.
No interest payments were made on the Loan Agreement except $1,750 on
September 25, 2009.

159.
and assets or plans represented to Garrett.

160.
The new Loan Agreement has come due, and the amounts due on the Loan
have not been paid.

161.
Agreement because of the fraudulent nature of the scheme. Upon information and belief,
VOGEL EMBEZZLES MONEY
162.
On June 9, 2009, one day after he took Middletons money, Vogel went to
Sigillitos office to get checks for Brad-Green. That morning, Sigillito emailed Vogel:
Come by this morning for the next check. Vogel promptly emailed back, On my way.
32
163.
Later that day, June 9, 2009, Sigillito gave Vogel check number 1273 for
$100,000 and check number 1277 for $240,000, both payable to Brad-Green, out of
Sigillitos IOLTA account. The check memo of both checks, like the check the day before,
stated they were for Rosemann. Vogel accepted those checks from Sigillito knowing that the
checks were not for Rosemann.
164.
Sigillitos IOLTA account balance on Tuesday morning, June 9, 2009, was
insufficient to cover check numbers 1273 and 1277. Sigillito earlier had received from Vogel
and deposited in the IOLTA account a check for $150,000 from the Ann I. Whaley Trust.
The Whaley check did not clear until late Tuesday morning. At 11:09 a.m. on June 9, 2009,
Sigillito advised Vogel by email: Your check for the Hamptons will be good at noon.
VOGEL USES HIS DUE DILIGENCE REPORT TO

LULL THE BERNSTEINS AND MISLEAD POTENTIAL INVESTORS
165.
After Northwest 1973 invested in the BLP in 2008, the Bernsteins wanted to
follow up on Smith and Distinctive Properties and conduct additional due diligence.
166.
Mr. Bernstein, while in England in November 2008, tried contacting Smith but
without success. Mark Bernstein called Vogel about his fathers concerns about not reaching
Smith.
33
167.
On December 1, 2008, Vogel emailed Sigillito to advise, I got a call from
Mark today and Lewis returned from London and is panicked because things seem bad over
there and he did not get to meet Derek. I need to call Lewis to calm him down but wanted to
see if I could get some information first. Is it okay if I have Liz give me the number of notes
Derek has through you and the interest and principal payments made in 2008? In retrospect,
I should have had them to do quarterly interest so he could see the cash flow. (Emphasis
added).
168.
In December 2008, Vogel met with Mark Bernstein and Mr. Bernstein at
Argos. Mark suggested at the meeting arranging to have someone go to England and meet
with Smith and examine the various properties. Vogel told Mark and Mr. Bernstein that there
was no need for that because Vogel was already scheduled to go to England at the end of
January 2009 to meet with Smith and examine the various properties.
169.
Vogel assured Mark and Mr. Bernstein in December 2008 that he would
prepare a report after his meeting with Smith and his thorough inspection of the properties.
Vogel suggested the Bernsteins wait until they read his report before deciding whether to
pursue plans to meet with Smith.
170.
Relying on Vogels representations and assurances, the Bernsteins in 2008 did
not pursue efforts to meet with Smith or inspect the various properties in England.
171.
After returning from England, Vogel wrote a memorandum dated February 10,
2009 addressed to Client Files re: Due Diligence Visit for Distinctive Properties UK, Ltd.
and Derek Smith. (Due Diligence Report) The top of the Due Diligence Report reads
Vogel Law Office, LLC.
34
172.
In February 2009, the Ponzi scheme needed money. On February 6, 2009,
Sigillito emailed Brown to alert him that, The late payment from Metis has put us in a
terrible bind. . . I will have a very nice third-party authored report next week; on what day,
I do not know. You/he can have it upon receipt.
173.
In 2009, Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein attended a social function at Enterprise at
8077 Maryland Avenue. Vogel, it appeared to Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein, was waiting for them
and, with some flourish, greeted them warmly and with a copy of his Due Diligence Report
in hand.
174.
Unbeknownst to the Bernsteins, Sigillito helped Vogel write the Due Diligence
Report. Earlier, on February 10, 2009, Vogel emailed a draft of the Due Diligence Report to
Sigillito. Sigillito responded: Very nice. Spell check for Maidenhead (one word); cover
letter from you to me authorizing distribution would be helpful; as would some oblique
reference to Dereks contracts which will now allow him to purchase additional assets at very
favorable prices. Vogel advised Sigillito by email: Will revise as soon as I can.
175.
Vogel revised the report and on February 10, 2009 emailed Sigillito: Per your
request, I have attached hereto the due diligence report I prepared on Derek Smith and
Distinctive Properties UK, Ltd scrubbed so that none of my clients identities would be
revealed. As such, you may share this report with other individuals with whom you are
speaking provided you do explain to them that I do not in fact represent them and I would
encourage any lender to do his or her own individual investigation.
35
176.
Vogel revised the Due Diligence Report on February 10, 2009 to include
Sigillitos suggested paragraph under the heading Additional Opportunities.

177.
Sigillito was not finished editing the Due Diligence Report. The next day,
February 11, 2009, he emailed Vogel and suggested adding a paragraph that read: In
addition to meeting with principals in the lending program in both countries, I have also had
the opportunity to meet with several lenders in the program. Each of them (and they
collectively account for loans in the program in the several millions of dollars) has been very
pleased with both returns and the service they have been provided. One in particular stands
out: a retired Oxford University academic (Brasenose College, law) who attributes his
comfortable retirement to having placed the bulk of his retirement funds with this borrower
more than six years ago. Over a long, relaxed dinner in London, he mentioned more than
once that his retirement lifestyle had been greatly enhanced through his participation in this
program. His one regret seems to be that he does not have more available cash to put into
these notes. The fact that lenders seem to be so pleased over the course of many years (some
as long as twelve years) affords me great additional comfort.
178.
Vogels trip to England in February 2009, upon information and belief, did not
include any long, relaxed dinner in London discussing the comforts afforded by the BLP with
any retired Oxford University academic. Sigillito, by his email of February 11, 2009,
proposed adding fictional statements or embellished events to the Due Diligence Report
intended to deceive the reader, lull investors, and allay concerns of potential investors about
investing in the BLP.
36
179.
Vogel knowingly added Sigillitos deceptive narrative to his Due Diligence
Report and emailed a copy of his revised report to Sigillito with a request: Please review
one more time.
180.
Vogels Due Diligence Report, it seemed to Mark Bernstein when he read it,
was written for the Bernsteins. It addressed favorably many of the concerns Mark and his
father had raised at the meeting with Vogel in December.
181.
Sigillito and Vogel were both strapped for cash in February 2009 and intended
for the Due Diligence Report, in part, to attract new investors into the BLP. On February 14,
2009, Sigillito sent Mark Merlotti an email at 10:53 am stating, Here is Pauls report.
182.
Later that day, February 14, 2009, Vogel emailed Sigillito at 4:35 pm asking,
Any word on available cash? On February 17, 2009 Vogel again emailed Sigillito, Any
possibility of Phil [Rosemann] forward funding $100,000 of his million out of other cash?
Sigillito replied by email, No, Everything is tied up.
37
183.
Three days later, on February 20, 2009, Sigillito sent Vogel an email reporting,
Home run with Mark [Merlotti]. $500k or so within two weeks. You dont know this! Just
got the call. Vogels Due Diligence Report was working.
184.
Vogel personally benefitted from writing the Due Diligence Report. On
February 20, 2009, Sigillito gave Vogel check number 1214 for $10,000 from his IOLTA
account as a fee for authoring the report. The check memo simply reads Smith/fees.
185.
Two days before receiving his fee for authoring the report, Vogel successfully
lulled Sturhahn away from creating problems for the Ponzi scheme. On February 18, 2009,
Vogels advisory client and partner in The Hamptons, Kent Sturhahn emailed Vogel, I also
have about $90K that is invested with UK Properties from what is/was my Keough from
years ago. Can that be sold and moved into the private stock as well? Is there a penalty for
doing that?
186.
Vogel sent Sturhahn a email advising him not to take his money out of the
Ponzi scheme. On February 18, 2009, Vogel responded by email, KJ, You want to leave the
UK note as is. It cant be cashed in early and is paying you 17% per year. Vogel intended
to deceive Sturhahn because he knew that Smith and Distinctive Properties were not paying
interest under the Loan Agreements to anyone, including Sturhahn.
187.
Mark Bernstein had some questions after he read the Due Diligence Report.
On February 26, 2009, Bernstein sent Vogel an email inquiring, I have a few questions after
review of your report. Derek Smith has had the three properties you discussed in length
dating back to his original financial sheet, but I am not sure I understand how our funds,
38
supplied by M. Sigillito (Several million dollars) , are being put to use by Mr. Smith. Is Mr.
Smith using the funds in other means and/or investments other than the properties you
reference, or are these funds being used specifically for down payment, development, soft
costs, etc? Are other funds collected by M. Sigillito being used for other developers like
Derek Smith, and if so, did you know who are these other borrowers? I understand that our
deal is with Mr. Smith alone, but it is hard to understand the actual usage that our funds are
going towards and the continuing need to borrow by Mr. Smith going forward.
188.
Vogel promptly forwarded Mark Bernsteins email to Sigillito. On February
26, 2009, Vogel emailed Sigillito, Marty. I am boarding plane. Will call from STL. I would
like to respond to the below [email from Mark Bernstein] prior to your departure. I think we
need to take them out if we can. Although with the pound decline they may not want to.
Paul. (Emphasis added).
SMITH AND DISTINCTIVE PROPERTIES DEFAULT

ON THEIR LOAN AGREEMENTS WITH NORTHWEST 1973
39
189.
Vogel could not ignore Mark Bernsteins questions about the Due Diligence
Report. On April 1, 2009, Vogel responded by email. Mark, Sorry it has taken me so long
to get back to you. As to your question of what Derek is using the cash for, the note states
that the purpose of the loan is to fund ongoing operations. However, more specifically, Derek
has been using cash to pay the planning consultant to move the planning permission process
along on Little Farm Nursery and to pay his share of the consultant on the larger Bracknell
development. I have the entire Bracknell development report to show you at our upcoming
meeting. Another use of fund has been to acquire additional ingress/egress
easements/options on Little Farm Nursery to make that full 10 acres developable as
residential property as opposed to only a portion of it. When Dereks updated statement
comes out you will see a higher value on Little Farm due to that additional option.
(Emphasis added).
190.
Vogels email on April 1, 2009 was intended to mislead Mark Bernstein.
Vogels statements that, [M]ore specifically, Derek has been using cash to pay the planning
consultant and Another use of fund has been to acquire additional ingress/egress
easements/options were intended to give Bernstein the false impression and belief that
Derek was using cash invested in the BLP for those purposes.
191.
As the maturity date for the Bernsteins loans approached, Vogel continued
to believe that he and Sigillito needed to get the Bernsteins out of the BLP. On April 16,
2009, he emailed Sigillito, Anything from Brown to confirm money on or before April 30?
Talked to Bernstein and the best thing is still to take them out on May 15th.
40
192.
In addition to the $1 million needed to cash out the Bernsteins, Vogel also
needed new equity to renew The Hamptons loan. On April 28, 2009, Vogel emailed Sigillito:
Any word from Brown? The Hamptons loan renews next week and they wont renew
without the equity. They also held up the dock order ending the capital coming in. Paul.
193.
On May 13, 2009, Mark Bernstein emailed Vogel and Sigillito about Smiths
loan repayment to Northwest 1973: Tomorrow is the redemption date for the Derek Smith
notes and I have yet to receive any confirmation requested from Marty. Paul has indicated
his understanding that Marty is aware of our position and assured us that the transaction will
go through as planned. While I understand that Marty may have been out of town, I too am
out of town and check my email regularly. I would appreciate some response correspondence
from Marty as to the wire transfer logistics tomorrow. A simple I have all that I need and
I will email you when the transaction is forwarded to your bank. would suffice. I don't think
that is too much to ask when you lend someone a million dollars.
194.
On May 14, 2009, Smith and Distinctive Properties defaulted on the loans from
Northwest 1973. The weeks following the default were filled with a series of emails from
Sigillito to Mark Bernstein filled with a mix of excuses, promises of imminent payment, and
false assurances of favorable developments.
195.
On May 18, 2009, Sigillito emailed Brown to tell him: Things are on the verge
of really turning ugly. We could even lose Enterprise if money does not come soon.
41
196.
On May 22, 2009, Sigillito sent an email to Bernstein and Vogel that said,
Mission Accomplished! and read, Have a great weekend. Will alert you the moment funds
are in my account. Thank you for your patience; I know your dad will rest much easier when
this is completely finished next week.
197.
Later that day, May 22, 2009, Mark Bernstein replied: I do not consider this
mission accomplished. We are put on hold for another week. Mission accomplished would
mean the funds are in your account and ready to transfer. I am starting to feel like some
cheap prom date being led on here. We have gone from, there will be no problem, to by
the end of the week, to no later than a week today. This is VERY disappointing. My dad
currently is in London and is considering legal action at this point. I am hopeful that it won't
come to that, however you must understand that all we have are a bunch of promises at this
point, and the track record on keeping earlier promises haven't been all that successful.
198.
On May 22, 2009, Vogel sent a lulling email to Mark Bernstein, First off,
want to apologize to you and your Dad for any issues this delay has caused. I want to assure
you that Marty has updated me on the issues and the circumstances have been absolutely out
of Marty and Smith's control. As for Lewis consideration of legal action, I understand his
concern but feel confident the funds will be here on or before the 29th as indicated so I don't
feel legal action is warranted at this time since the note plus penalty will be paid off by the
42
time the action is filed. I have worked with Marty and Smith on several clients and have
never had this issue before.
199.
Vogel intended to mislead Mark Bernstein with his email to Mark on May 22,
2009. Vogels statements, I want to assure you that Marty has updated me on the issues,
and I have worked with Marty and Smith on several clients and have never had this issue
before were intended to give Mark Bernstein the false impression and belief that Vogel had
an arms length relationship with Sigillito. Vogels email was also materially misleading
because it failed to disclose Vogels divided loyalties, involvement with the BLP, use of BLP
funds for personal benefit, or true relationship with Sigillito.
VOGEL STEALS HIS DADS MONEY
43
200.
By May 29, 2009, Vogel knew Smith and Distinctive were in default on a $1
million loan from the Bernsteins. He was trying to keep an investor with a $90,000
investment from leaving the BLP while trying to get rid of an investor with $1 million
invested. Despite clear indications against loaning more money to Smith and Distinctive,
Vogel was in such dire financial straights that he stole his dads money. Presumably, Vogel
assured his father that putting $105,000 in the BLP was a good investment for his retirement
funds.
201.
On May 29, 2009, Vogel sent Muskopf and Stajduhar an email advising,
Martys trust account [IOLTA] will receive 105,000 today from Enterprise for my dad's
SARSEP. Dan will give you proper titling. The rate is 16% with interest payable quarterly.
202.
A week later, on June 9, 2009, the day after he came and took the Middleton
money, Vogel asked for and received check number 1273 from Sigillitos IOLTA account
payable to Brad-Green for $100,000. The Middleton check was number 1274.
VOGEL DECEIVES THE BERNSTEINS
203.
By July 2009, Smith and Distinctive were still in default and the Bernsteins still
had not received their money back from the BLP. The Bernsteins contacted Vogel and
demanded that he contact Smith and obtain a security interest in Smiths property in favor
of Northwest 1973.
204.
On July 6, 2009, Vogel wrote a letter to Smith on behalf of Northwest 1973.
The letter read: In order to patiently await the resolution of the collection of the amount
44
owing to you, my client desires a security interest in real estate owned by Distinctive
Properties UK Limited or you personally in addition to the existing repayment obligations
under the notes in question along with the penalty interest and currency conversion
concessions previously agreed to by you. Upon review of the Statement of Assets and
Liabilities provided by you, my client suggests that a second mortgage on either the Hinton
Grange Hotel in Bath or Little Farm Nursery in Maidenhead should suffice to provide
security on the loans in question. Please notify me immediately of your interest in
accommodating my client's request so that they can determine how they should proceed with
regards to this matter.
205.
On July 16, 2009, Vogel emailed Sigillito: Is Derek [Smith] up to speed on
this if we need to actually grant a security interest? Sigillito emailed in reply: He will do
whatever I tell him to! (Emphasis added).
45
206.
On September 8, 2009, Sigillito sent an email to Vogel advising: I am having
Liz fax you the mortgage document which has been signed in blank by Derek et al. We are
authorized to fill in the details (which, of course, were still unknown when Derek signed).
Once the details have been agree, I am authorized to forward the filled-in original to Mark
or to anyone he designates.
207.
Vogel delayed until 2010 preparing what appears to be a Mortgage Deed on
Smiths Hinton Grange Hotel dated January 5, 2010. Vogel never had the Mortgage Deed
recorded.
208.
In October 2009, Vogel directed Stajduhar to prepare a Loan Agreement for
Smiths signature between Northwest 1973 as lender and Smith and Distinctive as borrower.
On October 8, 2009, Vogel sent Stajduhar an email at 4:50 am and told her: Liz, Please
prepare a note for Smiths signature. The Lender is the same Bernstein entity as their original
note, Northwest, etc. The date of the note is 9-08-09 and it is due on 3-8-10 or 6 months. The
interest rate is 10% annually, payable monthly. In this case we need to add a paragraph that
the note will be secured by real [estate] of the borrower. The note needs to be FedExed to
Marty at the Chesterfield for delivery on Mon or Tues, preferably Mon so he can make a
change if he needs to. Also, I need you to call discuss a letter we need to send for Smith in
the same Fed Ex package and discuss checks. Paul. The amount shown advanced in this
Loan Agreement is $1,300,000.
46
209.
After he reviewed the Loan Agreement prepared by Stajduhar as he directed,
Vogel instructed Stajduhar to prepare the letter we need to send for Smith mentioned in
his October 8, 2009 email to Stajduhar at 4:50 am.
210.
Later that morning, October 8, 2009, Vogel emailed Sigillito at 5:04 am and
told her: Liz, please prepare the letter below for Fed Ex tomorrow. Make up a letter head
for Smith, Marty any changes? Dear Mr. Bernstein: Please accept this letter as my written
agreement that certain promissory note dated 9-08-09 between Distinctive Properties and you
is due and payable on 3-08-2010, that said note will be paid at the earliest to occur (a) its due
date (b) the date upon which my claim against Braithwaite and/or Metis is satisfied or (c) the
successful sale of my property in Bracknell known as Amen Corner for an amount over and
above the option payment due upon such a sale. I appreciate your patience in this matter.
Sincerely, Derek Smith. (Emphasis added).
211.
The letter that Vogel instructed Stajduhar to prepare on or about October 8,
2009 reflects an agreement that Mark Bernstein asked Vogel to try to obtain from Smith.
VOGEL DECEIVES MR. WERNER
212.
In or around August 2009, third party Roland Baer (Baer) introduced Mr.
Werner to Vogel. On or about August 4, 2009, Vogel, Werner, and Baer met at the St. Louis
Club for a breakfast meeting. Baer introduced Vogel as, and Vogel acknowledged that he
was, Vogel from Argos.
47
213.
Over breakfast, Vogel conveyed to Werner and Baer his confidence and due
diligence findings in Sigillito, Smith, and the BLP. Mr. Werner asked Vogel if Smith had
ever defaulted on any of the loans received through the BLP.
214.
At their breakfast meeting on or about August 4, 2009, Vogel told Werner and
Baer, and assured Werner, that Smith had never defaulted on any of the loans received
through the BLP.
215.
Vogel never disclosed to Werner or Baer that Smith and Distinctive Properties
had defaulted on their loan agreement with Northwest 1973 in May 2009.
216.
Vogel never disclosed to Werner or Baer that Vogel, in August 2009, was part
of a scheme with Sigillito to string along and deceive the Bernsteins as alleged herein.
217.
Vogel never disclosed to Werner or Baer that a few months earlier Vogel had
stolen Middletons money and his dads money intended for investment in the BLP and
diverted it for use in The Hamptons.
218.
Vogel never disclosed to Werner or Baer that Vogel was engaged in acts of
racketeering as alleged herein to improperly divert funds intended for the BLP to The
Hamptons.
219.
Vogel never disclosed to Werner or Baer that Vogel had invested family money
in the BLP as part of an exit strategy designed to make Vogel look like a victim of the BLP
in case the Ponzi scheme collapsed.
220.
Vogel never disclosed to Werner or Baer that by August 2009, Vogel had
received more than $700,000 from the BLP.
48
221.
Based upon Vogels representations about Sigillito, Smith and the BLP,
including Vogels assurances that Smith had never defaulted on any loan received through
the BLP, Mr. Werner invested in the BLP as alleged herein.
VOGEL AGREES TO PUTTING HIS NAME AND HIS WIFES NAME ON LOAN
AGREEMENTS BECAUSE PONZI SCHEME CANNOT AFFORD ENGLISH SOLICITORS
222.
In 2009, Sigillito could no longer afford to pay English solicitors, Swinburne
& Jackson, the fees demanded for putting the firms name on the Loan Agreements. The
amount of money Vogel was diverting from the BLP was the primary reason Sigillito could
no longer afford the English lawyers. Vogel offered to let Sigillito use Vogel Law Firm on
the Loan Agreements instead in exchange for a nominal fee. This arrangement was expected
to save the BLP hundreds of thousands of dollars.
223.
The name Lynn Whaley Vogel Attorney at Law is on the cover of the Loan
Agreement dated September 9, 2009 that Stajduhar prepared at Vogels direction on October
8, 2009.
224.
On November 13, 2009, Mark Bernstein sent an email to Sigillito and Vogel
informing them: I have a loan agreement prepared by Lynn W Vogel for the principal sum
of 1.3 MM[.] Vogel never corrected Bernsteins belief that the Loan Agreement Bernstein
had for the principal sum of $1.3 million was prepared by Lynn W. Vogel.
225.
On January 23, 2010, Lynn Ann Whaley Vogel forwarded an email to Vogel
that Don Horner (Horner), a victim of the Ponzi scheme, had sent to her on January 22,
2010. Horner, in Vogels view, wanted to pursue Smith in connection with the BLP.
49
226.
Later that day, January 23, 2010, Vogel emailed Sigillito to advise: Please see
below the email Lynn Ann received. This is why we can[not] use she and I on the docs
anymore as this guy wants to pursue Derek. Are you available to talk tomorrow or later this
evening.
227.
Vogel at all relevant times was aware and knew that Lynn Ann Whaley Vogels
name and his name were being used from time to time on Loan Agreements in connection
with the BLP. Horners desire to pursue Smith is the reason Vogel gave Sigillito for why
Vogel and Sigillito could no longer use Lynn Ann Whaley Vogel and Vogels name on the
Loan Agreements in connection with the BLP.
228.
When events in the BLP began focusing unwanted attention on Smith, Vogel
saw potential problems with having his wife listed on the Loan Agreements. He sent
instructions to Stajduhar by email on January 29, 2010 stating: Just a reminder that we need
to go back to using the UK firm for the notes and not Lynn Ann.
VOGEL CONVERTS DR. VOLLMARS IRA FOR BENEFIT OF THE HAMPTONS PROJECT
229.
Dr. Vollmar considered Sigillito one of his closest friends and he began
investing in the BLP in 2000. By 2008, Dr. Vollmar had invested more than $1 million in the
BLP through his IRA account.
230.
Dr. Vollmars IRA account was among those transferred from Millennium
Trust to Enterprise in 2008. Sigillito is the only investment advisor designated in Dr.
Vollmars Custody Agreement with Enterprise.
50
231.
By December 2008, Enterprise had not received Dr. Vollmars BLP Loan
Agreements from Millennium Trust. The November 2008 account statement from Enterprise
shows zero assets in Dr. Vollmars IRA. The December 2008 account statement does not list
any BLP Loan Agreements in Enterprises custody during that month either.
232.
Vogel contacted Enterprise in 2008 and began inquiring about Dr. Vollmars
IRA account. On December 29, 2008, Vogel emailed Blume and asked, Marty Sigillito
indicated that the Valmer IRA has or will have soon $500,000 in cash. Do you have it yet?
If so, then I will get you a note for the next IRA investment.
233.
The next day, December 30, 2008, Blume replied by email at 2:52 pm, Should
this be for Dr. Vollmar? If it is, I do not have the cash yet. Also, I still have not received the
notes from Millennium yet. Enterprise received the cash for Dr. Vollmars account later that
day.
234.
On December 30, 2008, Enterprise received check number 1256 from
Sigillitos IOLTA account for $413,000 and check number 1037 from MTSAXXX4828 for
$87,000. Instead of accepting these checks as payment on Cranmers line of credit,
Enterprise transferred the funds to Cranmer which, in turn, sent the money back to Enterprise
as payment on its line of credit. Enterprise designated the funds as early pay off of Cranmers
line of credit and released Dr. Vollmar from his personal guaranty.
235.
On December 31, 2008, Stajduhar emailed Blume to advise: Rick, The
$500,000 sent to you on behalf of Dr. Vollmar's IRA is an early payoff of his note which
matures on January 23, 2009 and a partial payoff of his note which matures on February 23,
2009.
51
236.
Vogel continued inquiring about Dr. Vollmars IRA account in 2009. On
January 7, 2009, Vogel emailed Blume: Touching base to see if Dr. Vollmars IRA has
received its cash yet? If so, I will have a new note prepared between Enterprise Trust as
custodian and Cranmer Associates, LLC as maker for $500,000. Blume responded: I will
give you a call tomorrow.
237.
On January 9, 2009, Blume emailed Sigillito concerning Dr. Vollmars IRA
account: Per the custody agreement that Dr. Vollmar signed, Enterprise Trust is directed to
accept and to rely fully upon all instructions with respect to the purchase and sale of, and
other transactions in securities given by your firm. Could you please send me your
instructions for the $500,000 promissory note with Cranmer Associates.
238.
Later that day, January 9, 2009, Sigillito emailed Blume: I am out of the office
until Monday. Can you accept this as an interim instruction to transfer funds? Blume within
minutes replied Marty: I can. Thanks and have a great weekend. Rich Blume.
239.
Vogel followed up with Blume by email: Please find attached the executed
note from Cranmer Associates, LLC in favor of the Lewis Vollmar, Jr., SEP IRA. Please
deposit 500k in the Cranmer Associates checking account at Enterprise that is numbered
97674. Blume replied by email: I will get this taken care of for you. Could you please
forward the original note to me to be held in the vault.
240.
Later on January 9, 2009, Sigillito emailed Vogel to inquire: Everything work
all right with Rick? Vogel responded by email the next morning: Yes. Money was
52
transferred. It dawned on me this morning that we may need a little more than $500k to pay
the interest and extinguish the debt [of Cranmer to Enterprise on the line of credit]. I will
handle that when we do yours next week.
241.
Enterprise discussed Dr. Vollmars IRA account activity with Vogel in 2008
and 2009 even though Vogel was not on the account or designated as Dr. Vollmars
investment advisor. Similarly, Enterprise had nothing showing that Dr. Vollmar was Vogels
client.
242.
In 2008, Vogel participated in the business and banking activities of Enterprise
and directed the activities of Enterprise employees, who accepted and acted on his direction,
all with the banks knowledge and consent. During this time Vogel also sat on various
committees and participated in decision making at the bank.
243.
Vogel directed Enterprise to transfer $500,000 from Dr. Vollmars IRA to pay
Cranmers debt to Enterprise in exchange for a promissory note from Cranmer. Enterprise
at all material times acted on Vogels direction knowing that Dr. Vollmar had a fifty percent
(50%) interest in Cranmer and that the promissory note from Cranmer that Vogel gave the
bank was essentially a promise by Dr. Vollmar to pay himself $250,000.
244.
The line of credit Cranmer obtained from Enterprise benefitted Vogel because
the money went to pay debts owed on The Hamptons. Similarly, Vogel benefitted from
Enterprises transfer at his direction of $500,000 from Dr. Vollmars IRA account to pay
down that line of credit.
SIGILLITO REPAYS CRANMERS $1 MILLION LINE OF CREDIT
53
245.
In January 2009, Sigillito sent a series of payments to Cranmer to repay
Cranmers $1 million line of credit at Enterprise on the dates and in the amounts shown
below.
Date
Amount
Source
Destination
January 9, 2009
$500,000
EBT Vollmar
Cranmer
January 16, 2009
$215,000
MTS Personal
Cranmer
January 16, 2009
$15,000
MTS Personal
Cranmer
January 16, 2009
$20,000
MTS Personal
Cranmer
January 16, 2009
$250,000
MTS cashier
Cranmer
VOGEL AND SIGILLITOS RELATIONS WITH ROSEMANN

246.
Rosemann is one of the victims of Sigillitos Ponzi scheme. He considered
Sigillito a friend and used him as his attorney and investment advisor. Rosemann, in addition
to investing millions of dollars in the BLP, loaned $5 million to Metis in 2007.
247.
Rosemann loaned the $5 million to Metis through Braithwaite Consulting
Limited (Braithwaite), a company that Sigillito organized in Belize for Rosemann. Sigillito
negotiated the loan with Metis as Rosemann and Braithwaites lawyer and the loan had a
maturity date of January 19, 2009.
248.
In July 2008, Rosemann met Sigillito and Vogel for lunch to discuss
investment in The Hamptons. Rosemann agreed to fund The Hamptons project through
Brad-Green after he was repaid by Metis and to invest more money in the BLP.
249.
Vogel sent Sigillito an email on April 7, 2010 reminding him that, When we
met with Phil in July of 08 he signed an Irrevocable Commitment to fund at least 500,000
54
to the Hamptons project through Brad Green Development. The document was drafted that
way due to the fact that we had not yet had a chance to meet with Phil to finalize the amount.
At our lunch it was agreed that Phil would fund $1 million in the Hamptons and $1 million
into the UK lending program from the proceeds of the $5 million note from Metis to be paid
in January 09. Since the commitment had been drafted with the language of at least 500,000
we did not prepare a new commitment but merely communicated to Hamptons bank the
agreed upon amount.
250.
Upon information and belief, Vogel used Rosemanns commitment as new
equity and collateral with Great Southern Bank and Corn Belt Bank, the banks providing
funding for The Hamptons.
251.
In or around November 2008, Rosemann became an investor in a condominium
development project in Valley Park, Missouri known as Parkside Commons (Parkside).

Rosemann made financial commitments to Parkside that he could meet if, but only if, Metis
repaid in January 2009 the $5 million it owed (the Metis Money).
252.
Sigillito knew the Metis Money was crucial to continuing the Ponzi scheme.
In an email to Brown on January 14, 2009, Sigillito predicted, I continue to receive inquiries
. . concerning the expected Metis payment next week. . . Without these funds, the sky truly
will fall.
253.
On January 19, 2009, the loan to Metis matured and Metis defaulted (the
Metis Default).
55
254.
The Metis Default had negative ripple effects. Until Metis cured the default,
which in 2009 appeared by no means certain (and, in fact, never happened), Vogel would not
have the $1 million he was expecting for use at The Hamptons. Similarly, Sigillito would not
have the $1 million he was expecting for the BLP. The Metis Default created an even bigger
problem: Without the Metis Money, Rosemann did not have the funds he needed for
Parkside. For Vogel and Sigillito, that was bad news.
255.
By January 2009, Rosemann had all of his money tied up in the BLP or with
Metis and his only funding alternatives were calling a Loan Agreement with the BLP or
getting a bridge loan for use until Metis repaid its loan. As Sigillito explained to Brown in
an email on January 27, 2009, If Phil, for whatever reason, decides to pull a plug, we are
out of business.
256.
While they waited to see what Rosemann would do, Vogel and Sigillito
focused on adjusting lender expectations on The Hamptons. On January 23, 2009, Vogel
emailed Sigillito: I am sending a letter to you shortly that I need you to send Mike Stuck [at
Great Southern Bank] today along with your memos.
257.
On January 23, 2009, Sigillito sent Vogels letter regarding The Hamptons to
advise the bank of a brief delay in my client, Phillip Rosemann, receiving the $5 million
principal amount on his note due from Metis. As you are aware, it is out of this $5 million
in proceeds from which Mr. Rosemann will fund his $1 million commitment to Brad-Green
Development, which [is] the equity investor in the Hamptons. . . . the chairman of Metis has
56
indicated that Metis is more than happy to issue an additional warrant that the note payment
is forthcoming.
258.
On January 27, 2009, Vogel emailed Sigillito regarding Corn Belt Bank: Here
is the letter. Please email to Eileen Spratt at CornBelt Bank and mail the original. Vogels
letter to Spratt states: I am writing to discuss the $1.5 million of equity already invested in
The Hamptons and the additional $1 million due to be invested shortly.
259.
The Metis Default and prospect of Rosemann calling a BLP loan motivated
Vogel and Sigillito to help Rosemann get a bridge loan for Parkside from Enterprise. The
proposal was for Enterprise to give Rosemann a loan secured by his investment in the BLP.
Della Moon (Moon) was the commercial lending officer at Enterprise assigned to help
Rosemann with the loan process.
260.
On February 1, 2009, Vogel and Sigillito flew to England.
261.
One reason Vogel went to England in February 2009 was to verify the assets
on Smiths balance sheet.

262.
Vogel agreed to help Sigillito encourage Rosemann not to call any of his BLP
loans. Sigillito and Vogel also agreed that Vogel should use his contacts and influence at
Enterprise to help Rosemann get a bridge loan for the Parkside project.
263.
On February 2, 2009, Vogel sent a lulling email to Rosemann at 11:50 am:
Just to update you. We [are] supposed to have a follow up mtg today from the one we had
57
Friday re: Metis. However, London had unprecedented snow which closed all bus, most rail
and most taxi service so we are now mtg tomorrow.
264.
A little over an hour later, at 1:50 pm on February 2, 2009, Vogel contacted
Enterprise CEO Steve Marsh (Marsh) by email about A favor and wrote, I have a
friend, Phil Rosemann who is the equity behind a developer buying a development in Valley
Park. . . Phil is worth $15 or $20 million and will close on this deal (approx $1.2 mil to
Southwest), he just needs some time to liquidate a few things. If need be is there anybody
you might be able to call? Marsh replied within minutes and simply said, Paul, happy to
help in any way I can. Vogel forwarded his email exchange with Marsh to Rosemann at
5:41 pm that evening with the message: See below for an email from the CEO at
Enterprise.
265.
On February 4, 2009, Vogel continued to lull Rosemann with an email stating:
We made significant progress last night. Marty and I are boarding plane now. Marty will
update you tomorrow but it currently appears we should have around half of the money by
2-15 or earlier and the rest no later 2-28. Metis advisor said he would attempt to confirm this
today and let us know for sure tomorrow or Friday. I think you could get Marty on the phone
with Southwest and get this resolved rather quickly.
266.
A month later, on March 4, 2009, Vogel emailed Rosemann about finding a
solution to his Parkside funding issues: I spoke to Marty and he suggested that maybe you
58
offer them something on a weekly basis in the way of a payment while we get this resolved.
Say maybe $5,000. The other option is to just say that we are going to close it is just going
to take some time and play poker with them as to whether they really have another
opportunity or not. If Enterprise and Della are confident that they can provide bridge funding
within 10 days, another option is to pay them an amount for a final 2 weeks extension
knowing that Enterprise will need to close on the bridge in order to keep the deal. What do
you think?
267.
Later that day, March 4, 2009, Vogel sent Rosemann another lulling email to
update him on Metis: Based on meetings today with Metis counsel, Mr. Sigillito feels the
funds will be released very soon. I will forward to you the email from Metis counsel
explaining what is forthcoming.
268.
On March 23, 2009, Vogel emailed Moon to say: Just looking for an update
on the Rosemann 60 day bridge loan. Moon replied by email later that day: We will be
unable to extend bridge loan funds by Wednesday. We have several questions and issues. We
understand that Distinctive Properties UK would guaranty payment via early partial payoff
on one of the investments; however, we will not be able to take a guaranty of a foreign
individual or company. We also do not believe we can attach the receivable. I understand
from Phil that arrangements have been made to accommodate the closing even without the
bridge loan. Please let me know if you have any questions.
269.
In or around April 2009, Brown suggested a way to steer Rosemann away from
calling his BLP loans. Brown proposed assigning shares in Metis to Enterprise as collateral.
59
On April 1, 2009, Sigillito forwarded Browns suggestion to Vogel and asked, Paul: Will
this play with Enterprise?
270.
Vogel considered Rosemanns money and the BLP a private source for funding
beyond just The Hamptons project. In May 2009, Vogel also needed money for real estate
dealings in Branson, Missouri. On May 21, 2009, Vogel emailed Sigillito rather than
Rosemann: Assuming Metis comes through, I would like to discuss $100k for the
Springfield/Branson real estate as I have some needs there to be covered by months end.
271.
In August 2009, there was indication that the Metis Money might arrive. On
August 3, 2009, Vogel emailed Stajduhar: Lets talk tomorrow about what to do with the
Smith portion of the Metis funds once received. We need to pay the Bernsteins, the shortterm Whaley and Garrett notes and I think something else. The phrase the Smith portion
of the Metis funds in Vogels email is a reference to the portion of Metis funds, once
received, invested in the BLP.
272.
That same day, August 3, 2009, Sigillito drafted a letter to Metis stating: I
have been advised as the attorney for Braithwaite that updated interim financial statements
have been requested by J. Scott Brown, Esq. Upon my direction and as of this date such
statements have not been provided. That afternoon, on August 3, 2009, Vogel emailed
60
Stajduhar Did the letter go to Metis? Stajduhar emailed back, No. Marty wanted me to
get it okayed by Scott [Brown] and you.
273.
On August 6, 2009, Vogel emailed Rosemann with an update on Metis: Just
got off of the phone with Marty . . .there is one wrinkle. Metis has resisted in providing
financial statements more recent than the last audit for obvious reason (defer the takeover of
the Company). . . . Marty and I think that the best thing to do is . . . provide the guarantees
the buyer seeks. The worst case is you end up buying the Metis note back. Are you
available today to sign the guarantee.
274.
Vogel was able to step back from his relationship with Rosemann after Sigillito
hired a lawyer in or around October 2009 and the lawyer filed a lawsuit on October 27, 2009
to recover Rosemanns $5 million.
VOGEL TRIES TO BORROW MONEY FROM ENTERPRISE AND ST. LOUIS BANK
275.
Cranmers line of credit with Enterprise was important to Vogels strategy for
funding The Hamptons. Vogel directed the use of BLP funds to pay off the Cranmer line of
credit early in January 2009. The early payoff was intentional. As a banker, Vogel knew he
could use Cranmers early payoff to establish a favorable credit history and use the credit
history to convince Enterprise to increase Cranmers credit line.
276.
By early February 2009, the groundwork for increasing Cranmers line of
credit had been laid. Vogel had a letter from Enterprise dated February 2, 2009 advising that
61
Cranmers $1 million loan has been paid in full. Therefore, please find enclosed your paid
note.
277.
The Metis Default disrupted Vogels plans to fund the Hamptons with Metis
Money and made his need for money more acute. The Metis Default forced Vogel to seek
funding from a bank, first from St. Louis Bank and then from Enterprise.
278.
In February 2009, Vogel contacted St. Louis Bank about borrowing money to
invest in the BLP.

279.
On February 9, 2009, Vogel emailed Craig Hingle, Sigillitos personal banker
at St. Louis Bank, and stated: [I] wanted to check in with you re: the borrowing of a million
or 500k to put in Martys investment program where interest from the program will pay
interest and the promissory notes plus unencumbered real estate can serve as collateral.
Hingle replied by email on February 13, 2009: In this market it is awfully tough to get an
unconventional loan like this one done. It doesnt look like I am going to be able to help you
at this time.
280.
During the third week of February 2009, Vogel contacted Meek at Enterprise about
62
taking out two loans with Enterprise. The first loan was for The Hamptons. Vogel needed to
borrow money to buy out a second mortgage on the project.
281.
The second loan Vogel wanted from Enterprise in February 2009 was a
personal loan for $1 million. Vogel said he wanted to invest $1 million in the BLP. He
proposed securing the second loan with the BLP Loan Agreement and his house.
282.
After speaking with Meek, Vogel took his lending request to the top man at the
bank. Vogel spoke to Enterprise Financial President and CEO, Peter Benoist (Benoist)
about the two loans Vogel wanted from Enterprise.
283.
On February 24, 2009, Vogel emailed Meek at 10:55 am: John. Just touching
base to see if Peter [Benoist] has spoken with you on the 2 loans I mentioned to you last
week. The one to buy out a 2nd mortgage on Hamptons is not quite as pressing and I will get
you the deal detail by next Monday. The 2nd $1 million was to me personally to purchase
Notes from a UK borrower to be secured by the note and my house. The Trust department
holds a bunch of these so you can see the solid payment history. While we do not need to
fund right away I was hoping to get some indication of willingness this week. Please let me
know. Thanks. Paul.
63
284.
Enterprise declined to loan Vogel money for The Hamptons or the BLP. Also,
on May 5, 2009, Vogel emailed Sigillito to say, Enterprise passed on lending to Cranmer
again despite having done it last time. They cannot get comfortable with their ability to
collect on the notes if it comes to that. This is the same issue they had with Phil.
ENTERPRISE AND ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL REFUSE TO LOAN MONEY TO VOGEL
285.
By mid January 2009, Enterprise had received $1 million in early repayment
from Cranmer and had earned approximately $50,000 in interest and fees from the loan.
286.
As of February 24, 2009, none of the BLP loans in any of the IRA accounts or
advisory client accounts at Enterprise were in default.

287.
On February 24, 2009, as alleged herein, Vogel contacted Meek by email to
see if Benoist had spoken to him about Vogels loans that Vogel had mentioned to Meek the
64
week before one to buy out a 2nd mortgage on Hamptons and $1 million to purchase Notes
from a UK borrower.
288.
After he received Vogels email on February 24,2009, Meek did two things.
First, at 11:09, he told Vogel: I will have an opportunity to catch up with them both
tomorrow. Next, at 11:12 am, he forwarded Vogels email to Marsh and said: Steve, Has
Peter mentioned anything to you regarding these requests. I would like to visit with you
before this starts to build any momentum. Thanks. John. (Emphasis added).
289.
The word this in the phrase before this starts to build any momentum in
Meeks email on February 24, 2009 is a reference to Sigillito, the BLP, and Vogels proposed
investment in the BLP.
290.
After Vogel asked to borrow money to invest in the BLP, Enterprise began
investigating and taking a closer look at Sigillito and the BLP.

291.
Meek worked at Allegiant Bank in 2001 when it served as custodian for the
IRA accounts invested in the BLP and around the time Allegiant suspected Sigillito of fraud.
In 2009, Meek had concerns and suspicions about Sigillito and the BLP which he shared with
top management at Enterprise and Enterprise Financial.
65
292.
By April 2009, top management at Enterprise and Enterprise Financial
suspected and concluded the BLP was a Ponzi scheme and allowed the scheme to continue
with the banks participation.
293.
The President of Enterprises Trust Division, discussed the BLP with Patrick
Schumann (Schumann), an investment officer at the bank in an email on July 9, 2009: I

am familiar [with the BLP] at a very high level, while not necessarily very comfortable with
the risk involved. Marti, Christy, and I discussed briefly with regards to Christy's discussion
with Michael Staenberg. I need you to be comfortable and would suggest that Paul Vogel is
the best source.
294.
Michael Staenberg is a prominent and successful St. Louis businessman whom
Vogel knew and regarded as a potential investor in the BLP. On June 2, 2009, Vogel emailed
Sigillito about Staenberg: Talked to Christy. Staenberg knew of me and wants to quiz me
tomorrow. He is going to call me from Pittsburgh as he can. Later that day, on June 2, 2009,
Vogel replied, My guess is he will do $2 million on my reputation but will want me to know
what is being bought. Vogel followed up with Sigillito by email later that day: Talked to
Michael. He is interested but wants to come see me on Monday to discuss further.
295.
The conclusions reached by Enterprise and Enterprise Financials senior
management about Sigillito and the BLP filtered through the bank and were no secret among
management. A senior lending officer in Enterprises Sunset Hills branch who was helping
Rosemann with Parkside had heard about it. She told her boss in an email on July 20, 2009:
[Rosemann] is the guy who sold his interest in a national tool & die company. He invested
66
his $25MM with a Martin Sigillito who invested abroad. Paul Vogel is familiar with
investments. To me it sounds like it could very well be a ponzi scheme but Paul Vogel thinks
otherwise.
296.
This Enterprise senior lending officers understanding of what Vogel thought
about the BLP did not come from Vogel. She never spoke to Vogel about whether the BLP
was a Ponzi scheme. Her understanding of what Vogel thought on that point came from
talking to other people at the bank.
297.
In August 2009, the Bernsteins attended a quarterly meeting with their financial
advisor and another banker at Enterprise. The President of the Trust Division, joined the
meeting to say hello. Vogel was not in attendance but discussion turned to Vogel, and the
Bernsteins made a comment about their investment in the BLP that Vogel had recommended.
Mrs. Bernstein commented to the Enterprise bankers that she hoped the investment was not
a Ponzi scheme. The bankers laughed and one of them replied, Well, if it is, you want to get
your money out first. Less than a month later, the bank fired Vogel from his consulting job.
298.
On September 4, 2009, Enterprise Financial sent Vogel a termination letter.
The letter stated simply, Section 4, 4.1.1 of the Consulting Agreement entered into by
Enterprise Financial Services Corp. (Enterprise), Paul L. Vogel (Vogel) and Argos
Partners. LLC (Entity), dated December 31, 2007, provides that 'Vogels engagement may
be terminated at any time by Enterprise ... upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to Vogel
for any reason or no reason ... Pursuant to this Section, Enterprise hereby gives Vogel said
thirty (30) days prior written notice as of the execution date of this letter. Payment of the
67
consulting fee pursuant to the consulting agreement will continue through September 30,
2009. Upon prior verbal agreement between Enterprise and Vogel, Enterprise will pay Vogel
a lump sum of nine thousand dollars ($9000) in consideration for Vogel continuing to consult
with the Murphy family throughout the transition of their business.
299.
By early January 2009, Cranmer had a favorable credit history showing early
pay off of a $1 million loan. Yet, when Vogel, the former President of Enterprises Trust
Division, tried to renew the line of credit for Cranmer, the bank said no. When Vogel tried
to get a loan on the Hamptons and a loan to invest in the BLP, the bank said no again. By
April 2009, Enterprise would not loan Vogel so much as a $1.
300.
On July 16, 2010, a banker at Enterprise sent an email to the President of
Enterprise Trust to advise that an advisory client of Enterprise and Vogel had notified the
bank she was leaving and taking her accounts elsewhere. The banker observed, She has a
complicated estate plan partially crafted by Paul Vogel. She has a messy investment plan
created by Paul Vogel. She owns UK Notes sold to her by Paul Vogel.
301.
The President of Enterprise Trust responded later that day, on July 16, 2010,
by email, Thanks for your assessment, I believe it to be accurate. I placed a call to [her] last
night and we spoke briefly. We discussed talking again early this afternoon. This relationship
has been at risk since Mike Murphy left and subsequently since we terminated our contract
with Paul [Vogel]. I don't see that there was anything that could have been done differently,
Brendan. (Emphasis added).
KNOWING THE BLP WAS A SCAM, ARGOS REFUSES TO INVEST IN THE BLP
68
302.
On December 11, 2009, Sigillito emailed Merlotti at 7:59 am regarding UK
wish lists to give him an overview and summary description of bogus investment
opportunities on the table in the BLP. Sigillito forwarded this email to Vogel at Argos at
8:01 am and wrote: Would this provide something that perhaps we could get Paul [Tice] 2
to look at for your Argos clients? A couple of these are very attractive!! Could be a quick fix
for several issues.
303.
Vogel was a member of Argos when he received Sigillitos email and Vogel
knew that the investment opportunities in Sigillitos email and described as very attractive
were a fiction.
304.
Vogel and Argos also knew when Vogel received Sigillitos email that the
phrase quick fix for several issues referred to new money from Argos being used to meet
cash flow problems in the BLP, which Vogel knew was a Ponzi and embezzlement scheme.
305.
Argos, by and through Vogel, responded on December 11, 2008 at 8:16 am to
Sigillitos email: I will ask. Most of our guys are real estate heavy.
69
306.
Vogels response on behalf of Argos was false and intended to mislead Sigillito
because most members of Argos were not real estate heavy. Vogel and Argos had no
intention of having or asking its ultra wealthy members to invest in the BLP, and Vogel told
Sigillito that most members of Argos were real estate heavy as an excuse for its members not
to invest in the BLP.
307.
Sigillito replied to Vogel by email on December 11, 2008 at 8:18 am: Indeed,
but not with the returns we could get them? Vogel knew that the word returns in
Sigillitos reply referred to the high interest rates found in bogus loan agreements used in the
BLP.
308.
Argos, by and through Vogel, continued resisting Sigillitos suggestion that
Argos invest in the BLP. At 8:31 am that day, Vogel asked Sigillito: Are we at risk of losing
some options at Bracknell? Sigillito responded by email with another pitch at 8:37 am: No
risk of loss. Have a line on an additional million US within a few weeks via Hal in
Arkansas.
70
309.
Argos never seriously considered investing in the BLP, and Vogel never
presented the BLP as a serious investment opportunity to any of his ultra wealthy partners
in Argos. Argos, by and through Vogel, at all relevant times knew the BLP was a Ponzi
scheme. Vogel also knew he risked losing his lucrative position as CEO and President of
Argos if he steered Argos money into the BLP and the Ponzi scheme was discovered or
collapsed.
VOGEL HAS ONLY HIS EXPENDABLE CLIENTS INVEST IN THE BLP
310.
The files Vogel turned over to the federal government in United States v.
Sigillito, et al., No. 4:11-CR-168 LRR included the following chart:
311.
In 2008, Enterprise earned more than $450,000 from all of Vogels clients.
312.
As their financial advisor, Vogel had a fiduciary relationship with each of his
clients who invested in the BLP. As a lawyer, Vogel had a grasp of his fiduciary obligations
to each of them. The facts lead to the inescapable conclusion: Vogel, as lawyer and
71
investment advisor, intentionally recommended to each of them investing in a Ponzi scheme

with knowledge they would almost certainly lose their money.
313.
Vogel only recommended an investment in the BLP to some of his clients.
Those were the clients that Vogel believed he could take advantage of, or who could afford
to lose the money if the BLP collapsed, or both. Vogel put his self interests ahead of those
clients best interests and allowed greed and deceit to become substitutes for loyalty and fair
dealing.
314.
Vogel treated the Bernsteins as expendable by:

(a).
recommending that they invest in the BLP knowing it was a Ponzi

scheme;
(b).
sacrificing their financial well-being as part of a quid pro quo with

Sigillito and agreement to engage in fraud and money laundering for
Vogel and Sigillitos mutual benefit;
(c).
Failing as the Bernsteins financial advisor to inform them of the risks

and true nature of the BLP and The Hamptons;
(d).
Lulling them with a false and misleading Due Diligence Report and
failing as their investment advisor to disclose that deception;
(e).
Providing them with a false and misleading response to their questions

about the Due Diligence Report and failing as their investment advisor
to disclose that deception;
72
(f).
Fabricating a letter from Smith and failing as their investment advisor

to disclose that deception; and
(g).
Failing as their investment advisor to disclose the true nature and full
extent of his relationship with Sigillito.
315.
Vogel treated Garrett as expendable by:

(a).
recommending that she invest in the BLP knowing it was a Ponzi

scheme;
(b).
sacrificing her financial well-being as part of a quid pro quo with

Sigillito and agreement to engage in fraud and money laundering for
Vogel and Sigillitos mutual benefit;
(c).
Failing as Garretts financial advisor to inform her of the risks and true
nature of the BLP; and
(d).
Dumping her as an advisory client after draining the cash out of her
IRA account.
316.
Vogel treated third party advisory client Dunning as expendable by:

(a).

scheme;
(b).
Denying that the BLP was a Ponzi scheme when Dunning asked Vogel
before investing whether the investment was a Ponzi scheme and
falsely telling her that it was not a Ponzi scheme;
(c).
Failing as Dunnings financial advisor to follow her instructions in

2009 to liquidate her investment in the BLP; and
73
(d).
Lulling Dunning in 2010 by telling her my family has significant UK

notes as well and I am comfortable with our investment at this time.
317.
Vogel treated third party advisory client Middleton as expendable by:

(a).

scheme; and
(b).
Stealing her money within a week of it being transferred at Vogels

direction to Sigillitos IOLTA account.
VOGEL ENGAGES IN RACKETEERING
318.
Vogel engaged in wire fraud and money laundering by making transfers from
Cranmer accounts funded by BLP investor monies to pay the debts of Cranmer and The
Hamptons as follows:
Date
12/31/08
BLP Investor
Money Taken
From
IOLTA
Deposited
into
Cranmer
XXX-97674
Withdrawn
from Cranmer
XXX-97674
MTSA-XXX4828
MTSA-XXX4828
MTSA-XXX5739
Enterprise
paid Cranmer
line of credit
$87,000
Enterprise
paid Cranmer
line of credit
$40,000
Brad-Green
paid debt of
The Hamptons
$160,000
Brad-Green
paid debt of
The Hamptons
$40,000
03/02/09
03/02/09
$413,000
$87,000
12/31/08
03/02/09
Use of
Laundered
Money
$413,000
01/15/09
12/31/08
Destination of
Laundered
Money
$160,000
03/02/09
74
319.
Vogel engaged in further acts of wire fraud and money laundering by making
additional transfers from Brad-Green accounts funded by BLP investor monies to pay the
debts of Cranmer and The Hamptons as follows:
Date
BLP Investor
Money Taken
From
Deposited into
Brad-Green
XXX-7666
05/04/09
Southwest XX0793
$50,000
Withdrawn
from
Brad-Green
XXX-7666
05/04/09
05/05/09
IOLTA
IOLTA
IOLTA
IOLTA
Southwest XX0793
$18,000
Brad-Green
paid debt of
The Hamptons
$100,000
Brad-Green
paid debt of
The Hamptons
$250,000
Brad-Green
paid debt of
The Hamptons
$240,000
Brad-Green
paid debt of
The Hamptons
$42,000
Brad-Green
paid debt of
The Hamptons
$42,000
07/29/09
320.
paid debt of
The Hamptons
$240,000
06/09/09
07/29/09
Brad-Green
$250,000
06/08/09
06/09/09
$50,000
$100,000
06/05/09
06/08/09
Use of
Laundered
Money
$18,000
05/05/09
06/05/09
Destination of
Laundered
Money
Count 17 of Sigillitos Indictment alleged in paragraph 2 that Sigillito engaged
in wire fraud by withdrawing $347,089.67 from his account number XXX-6385 at St. Louis
Bank to fund cashier's check 103512 payable to Commonwealth Title to purchase a country
home in Marthasville, Missouri using funds belonging to investors of the BLP.
321.
Similarly, Vogel engaged in wire fraud with funds from the BLP as follows:
75
(a).
Withdrawing $447,710.14 from Cranmer account number XXX-9757

at Enterprise to fund an unnumbered check payable to Enterprise to pay
Cranmers debt owed on loan number XXX-9757 at the bank using
funds belonging to investors of the BLP;
(b).
Depositing $250,000 into Cranmer account number XXX-9757 at

Enterprise by a cashiers check funded with money in Sigillitos
IOLTA account at St. Louis Bank that belonged to investors in the
BLP;
(c).
Depositing $215,000 into Cranmer account number XXX-9757 at

Enterprise by check number 1034 drawn on Sigillitos account number
XXX-4828 at Enterprise that belonged to investors in the BLP;
(d).
Wire transfer in the amount of $250,000 to Great Southern Bank

funded by Brad-Green with check number 1274 for $250,000 from
Sigillitos IOLTA account, as part of an investment in a residential real
estate project at Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri; and
(e).
Wire transfer in the amount of $340,000 to Great Southern Bank

funded by Brad-Green with check number 1273 for $100,000 and
check number 1277 for $240,000 from Sigillitos IOLTA account as
part of an investment in a residential real estate project at Lake of the
Ozarks, Missouri.
322.
Vogel engaged in the following money laundering transactions with funds from
the BLP obtained by wire fraud described as:

76
(a).
Unnumbered check in the amount of $447,710.14 payable to Enterprise

funded by Cranmer with a cashiers check for $250,000 from Sigillitos
IOLTA account, check number 1034 for $215,000 from Sigillitos
IOLTA account; check number 1045 for $20,000 from Sigillitos
account XXX-3930 at Southwest Bank, and check number 1212 for
$15,000 from Sigillitos account at Southwest Bank, as repayment on
a $1 million line of credit with Enterprise; and
(b).
Unnumbered check for $500,000 from Cranmers account number

XXX-9767 to Enterprise funded by BLP funds as repayment of the
portion of the $1 million line of credit with Enterprise guaranteed by
Dr. Vollmar.
323.
Defendants conduct as alleged herein constitutes a pattern of racketeering.
Vogel engaged in two or more related acts of wire and mail fraud and money laundering that
amount to a pattern of continued criminal activity.
324.
Vogel and Argos pattern of racketeering activity as alleged herein had the
same or similar purposes, results, participants, victims, methods of commission, and were
otherwise interrelated by distinguishing characteristics and were not isolated events.
325.
Defendants conduct of racketeering as alleged herein was a series of related
predicate acts and offenses extended from May 2008 when Vogel formed Brad-Green and
Cranmer to the summer of 2010 when Vogel met with federal regulators to discuss the BLP.
77
326.
Defendants pattern of racketeering activity is, as alleged herein, specific to the
time, place, and content of Vogels false representations, as well as the details of Vogels
fraudulent acts, including when the acts occurred, who engaged in them, and what was
obtained as a result. Plaintiffs have alleged herein the who, what, where, when, and how
of Defendants fraud.
$1 MILLION OF ROSEMANNS MONEY IS TAKEN AS INVESTMENT IN THE HAMPTONS
327.
In 2008, Rosemann signed an Irrevocable Commitment to Fund and agreed to
provide The Hamptons Condominiums, LLC with an equity infusion of at least Five
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000). Rosemann invested in Brad-Green for the purpose
of making this equity infusion.
328.
Rosemann finished investing $1 million in The Hamptons as promised by early
October 2009. On October 6, 2009, Vogel sent an email to Stajduhar advising her: [Sigillito
gave me] a check for $42k which was in fact Phils final portion of his Hamptons pledge.
When [new] cash comes in next week, Marty need[s] that back and Book as a loan from Phil
to Smith.
MRS. GLISSON INVESTS IN A PONZI SCHEME
329.
In September 2008, Mrs. Glisson entered into a loan agreement dated
September 26, 2008 with Smith and Distinctive Properties as part of the BLP.
78
330.
Under the terms of the Loan Agreement, Mrs. Glisson loaned $250,000 to
Smith and Distinctive Properties, with repayment due on September 25, 2009. The loan bore
an interest rate of 6.5% per annum, with interest paid quarterly.
331.
Mrs. Glisson renewed the Loan Agreement on September 26, 2009.
332.
After January 25, 2010, no quarterly interest payments were made under the
Loan Agreement.
333.
and assets or plans represented to Mrs. Glisson.

334.
The renewed Loan Agreement came due on September 25, 2010, and the
amounts due on the Loans have not been paid.

335.
Agreement because of the fraudulent nature of the scheme. Upon information and belief,
336.
Mrs. Glisson invested in a Ponzi scheme that Vogel and Argos knowingly
directed, facilitated, and perpetuated.

MR. WERNER INVESTS IN A PONZI SCHEME
337.
In December 2009, Werner, as trustee of the J.H. Werner Revocable Trust,
entered into a loan agreement dated December 4, 2009 between the Trust and Smith and
Distinctive Properties as part of the BLP.
79
338.
Under the terms of the first Loan Agreement, the Trust loaned $500,000 to
Smith and Distinctive Properties, with repayment due on March 3, 2010. The loan bore an
interest rate of 2% per month, with interest paid at redemption.
339.
Mr. Werner renewed the first Loan Agreement on March 4, 2010 for three
months with repayment due June 3, 2010.

340.
In March 2010, Werner, as trustee of the J.H. Werner Revocable Trust, entered
into another loan agreement dated March 6, 2010 between the Trust and Smith and
Distinctive Properties as part of the BLP.
341.
Under the terms of the second Loan Agreement, the Trust loaned $500,000 to
Smith and Distinctive Properties, with repayment due on June 10, 2010. The loan bore an
interest rate of 2% per month, with interest paid at redemption.
342.
No interest payments were made under the first or second Loan Agreement.
343.
and assets or plans represented to Werner.

344.
Both Loan Agreements have come due and the amounts due on the Loans have
not been paid.

345.
Agreements because of the fraudulent nature of the scheme. Upon information and belief,
80
346.
Mr. Werner invested in a Ponzi scheme that Vogel and Argos knowingly
directed, facilitated, and perpetuated.

COUNT I
(AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD)
Plaintiffs, as Count I of their Complaint against Defendants for aiding and abetting
fraud, allege:
347.
Each of the other paragraphs of this Complaint is incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth herein.

348.
Sigillito was operating a scheme to defraud Plaintiffs.
349.
Vogel and Argos, acting by and through Vogel, and others, knew of Sigillitos
fraudulent scheme.
350.
Defendants actively provided substantial assistance to Sigillito in his scheme
to defraud Plaintiffs. As more fully described throughout this Complaint, Defendants

assistance included finding a home for the Ponzi and embezzling scheme at Enterprise,
facilitating the transfer and acceptance of IRA accounts invested in the BLP from
Millennium Trust to Enterprise as successor custodian; recommending to advisory clients of
Enterprise investment in the BLP with knowledge of the fraud; preparing a bogus Due
Diligence Report intended to lull existing investors and encourage additional investment in
the scheme; failing to disclose the nature and extent of Vogels involvement and relationship
with Sigillito; making false and misleading statements as alleged; denying that the BLP was
a Ponzi scheme with intent to conceal the true nature of the BLP when asked if the
investment was a Ponzi scheme; directing the preparation of false documents and
81
communications concerning the BLP with intent to conceal the BLPs true nature; directing
the preparation of BLP loan agreements; placating and lulling investors into not calling their
loans or believing their money was safe; and responding to concerns of existing investors in
the BLP with false and misleading assurances.
351.
Defendants at all relevant times knew their conduct as alleged was enabling the
Ponzi and embezzling scheme to continue and made it reasonably foreseeable that the Ponzi
and embezzling scheme would continue and attract new investor victims.
352.
Defendants actions aided and abetted Sigillito in causing injury and damages
to Plaintiffs.
353.
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants actions, Plaintiffs have been
damaged in an amount in excess of Four Million Three Hundred Thousand Dollars

($4,300,000).
354.
Defendants conduct was malicious and corrupt, as well as intentional or
reckless, to a degree sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:
(a).
For an award of actual damages against Vogel and Argos, jointly and
severally, in an amount to be proven at trial in excess of $25,000;
(b).
For an award of prejudgment interest at the applicable statutory rate;
(c).
For an award of punitive damages in an amount that equals at least seven times
the amount of actual damages;
82
(d).
For costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys fees; and
(e).
For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.
COUNT II
(NEGLIGENCE)
Plaintiffs Northwest, Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein, Mark Bernstein, and Northwest 1973,
as Count II of their Complaint against Defendants for negligence, allege:
355.

356.
Defendants, as financial advisors to Northwest, Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein, Mark
Bernstein, and Northwest 1973, owed Plaintiffs an obligation to utilize the degree of care,
skill and learning that an ordinarily careful and prudent person in that business would use
under the same or similar circumstances. Instead Defendants were negligent and careless in
the following respects:
(a).
Defendants failed to utilize the degree of care, skill and learning that an
ordinarily careful and prudent person in that business would use under
the same or similar circumstances in recommending to Plaintiffs that
they loan a total of $1,000,000 to Smith and Distinctive Properties as
part of the BLP.
(b).
Defendants failed to perform sufficient due diligence in investigating

the true financial state of Smith and Distinctive Properties prior to
83
recommending that Plaintiffs loan money to Distinctive Properties and

prior to renewing the loans in 2009. Had Defendants investigated Smith
and Distinctive Properties with the proper degree of care and diligence,
it would have revealed the fraudulent nature of the enterprise.
(c).

the background and involvement of Sigillito prior to transferring
$1,000,000 in loan proceeds to him. Had Defendants investigated
Sigillito with the proper degree of care and diligence, it would have
revealed the fraudulent nature of the enterprise.
(d).
Enterprise negligently and carelessly mis-routed Plaintiffs funds to

Sigillito which were intended to be transferred directly to Distinctive
Properties.
357.
Plaintiffs relied upon Defendants representations regarding the details of the
BLP and loan program to Smith and Distinctive.

358.
Plaintiffs had the right to rely upon Defendants representations and advice,
based upon their positions as financial advisors.

359.
Defendants representations were material to the decision to make these loans,
as Plaintiffs would never have entered into the Loan Agreements without Defendants advice
and statements.
84
360.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiffs sustained
damages in the amount of $1,000,000 in unpaid principal and $54,169 in unpaid interest.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Northwest, Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein, Mark Bernstein, and
Northwest 1973, pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:
(a).
For an award against Vogel and Argos, jointly and severally, for actual
damages in favor of Plaintiffs of $1,054,169;
(b).
(c).
(d).
COUNT III
(NEGLIGENCE)
Plaintiffs Northwest, Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein and Mark Bernstein, as Count III of their
Complaint against Defendants for negligence, allege:
361.

362.
Defendants, as financial advisors to Plaintiffs, owed them an obligation to
utilize the degree of care, skill and learning that an ordinarily careful and prudent person in
that business would use under the same or similar circumstances. Instead Defendants were
negligent and careless in the following respects:
(a).
Defendants failed to utilize the degree of care, skill and learning that an
ordinarily careful and prudent person in that business would use under
85
the same or similar circumstances in recommending to Plaintiffs that

they loan a total of $500,000 in Brad-Green.
(b).

the true financial state and nature of Brad-Green prior to
recommending that Plaintiffs invest money in Brad-Green as part of
The Hamptons on the Lake residential condominium project. Had
Defendants investigated Brad-Green and The Hamptons, with the
proper degree of care and diligence, it would have revealed the
intended fraudulent purpose of Brad-Green and funding of The
Hamptons with stolen money diverted from the BLP and loan program
with Smith and Distinctive Properties.
(c).

the background and involvement of Sigillito and connection to the BLP
prior to transferring $500,000 to The Hamptons of which he held an
undisclosed equity interest. Had Defendants investigated Sigillito with
the proper degree of care and diligence, it would have revealed the
fraudulent nature of Brad-Green and its connection to and reliance on
the BLP and fraudulent loan program involving Sigillito, Smith and
Distinctive Properties.
363.
Plaintiffs relied upon Defendants representations regarding the details of
Brad-Green and The Hamptons.
86
364.
Plaintiffs had the right to rely upon Defendants representations and advice,
based upon their positions as financial advisors.

365.
Defendants representations were material to the decision to invest in
Brad-Green and the Hamptons, as Plaintiffs would never have invested in Brad-Green
without Defendants advice and statements.
366.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants negligence, Plaintiffs sustained
damages in the principal amount of $500,000.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Northwest, Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein, and Mark Bernstein
pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:
(a).
damages in favor of Plaintiffs of $500,000;
(b).
(c).
(d).
COUNT IV
(BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY)
as Count IV of their Complaint against Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, allege:
367.
87
368.
As investment advisors to Plaintiffs, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a fiduciary
duty to manage their financial affairs as dictated by Plaintiffs needs and objectives, to
inform them of risks in particular investments, to refrain from self-dealing, to disclose any
self-interest, to stay abreast of market changes, and to maintain and explain strategies for
Plaintiffs.
369.
Defendants negligently and carelessly breached their fiduciary duties to
Plaintiffs in the following ways:

(a).
Defendants failed to adequately investigate the BLP loan scheme before

recommending that Plaintiffs enter into the Loan Agreements.
(b).
Defendants failed to disclose to Plaintiffs their self-interest in receiving a

finders fee.
(c).
Defendants failed to inform Plaintiffs of the risks involved in these loans, and
failed to use sufficient care and diligence in evaluating the BLP and loan
scheme prior to recommending it to Plaintiffs.
(d).
Defendants failed to use sufficient diligence in evaluating Smith and

Distinctive Properties operations during Vogels January 2009 visit to
England, which would have afforded the opportunity to get out before
implementation of the September 2009 Loan Agreement.
88
(e).
Defendant Vogel, in violation of Rule 4-8.4 of the Rules of Professional

Conduct, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and
misrepresentation.
370.
These failures, alone and collectively, constitute a breach of Defendants
fiduciary obligations to Plaintiffs.

371.
As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of their fiduciary duties,
Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount of at least $1,054,169.

372.

Northwest 1973 pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:
(a).
For an award of actual damages against Defendants Vogel and Argos, jointly
and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial in excess of $25,000;
(b).
(c).
(d).
(e).
COUNT V
(BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY)
89
Plaintiffs Northwest, Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein, Mark Bernstein and Northwest, as
Count V of their Complaint against Defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, allege:
373.

374.
As investment advisors to Plaintiffs, Defendants owed Plaintiffs a fiduciary
duty to manage their financial affairs as dictated by Plaintiffs needs and objectives, to
inform them of risks in particular investments, to refrain from self-dealing, to disclose any
self-interest, to stay abreast of market changes, and to maintain and explain strategies for
Plaintiffs.
375.
Defendants negligently and carelessly breached their fiduciary duties to
Plaintiffs in the following ways:

(a).
Defendants failed to adequately investigate Brad-Green and The Hamptons

before recommending that Plaintiffs invest in Brad-Green and The Hamptons.
(b).
Defendants failed to disclose to Plaintiffs the true purpose of Brad-Green and

their intent to use funds diverted from the BLP to fund The Hamptons.
(c).
Defendants failed to inform Plaintiffs of the risks involved in Brad-Green and

The Hamptons, and failed to use sufficient care and diligence in evaluating
Brad-Green and its participation in the loan scheme prior to recommending
it to Plaintiffs.
90
(d).
Defendants failed to use sufficient diligence in evaluating the financial

obligation of the original developers combined with the lack of any sales to
date, which would have afforded the Bernsteins information sufficient to
decide not to invest or transfer $500,000 to Brad-Green.
(e).
Defendant Vogel, in violation of Rule 4-8.4 of the Rules of Professional

Conduct, engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and
misrepresentation.
376.
These failures, alone and collectively, constitute a breach of Defendants
fiduciary obligations to Plaintiffs.

377.
As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of their fiduciary duties,
Plaintiffs were damaged in an amount of at least $500,000.

378.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Northwest, Mr. and Mrs. Bernstein , Mark Bernstein, and
Northwest pray for judgment against Defendants as follows:
(a).
For an award of actual damages against Defendants Vogel and Argos, jointly
and severally, in an amount to be proven at trial in excess of $25,000;
(b).
91
(c).
For an award of punitive damages in an amount equal to at least seven times

(d).
(e).
COUNT VI
(FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT TO CONTRACT)
Plaintiff Phillip Rosemann, as Count VI of his Complaint against Vogel for fraudulent
inducement to contract, alleges:
379.

380.
In 2008, Vogel offered Rosemann an opportunity to invest in The Hamptons.
In exchange for an investment of $500,000 or more in Brad-Green for the purpose of

making an equity infusion in The Hamptons Condominiums, LLC, Rosemann would receive
a six percent (6%) priority return and an equity position in The Hamptons Condominiums
LLC.
381.
Rosemann told Vogel he could not invest any money until Metis repaid its $5
million loan but agreed to provide funds in the future.

382.
On July 1, 2008, Rosemann signed an Irrevocable Commitment to Fund as
Maker to provide The Hamptons Condominiums LLC with an equity infusion of at least Five
Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000).
383.
The Commitment provided that the Maker shall on or before January 31,
2009, cause the sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000) or more in cash to be
92
funded into Brad-Green Development, LLC for the purposes described above, and This
Commitment to Fund shall be Irrevocable but may be funded either by the Maker directly or
through others; provided, however, that the Maker is ultimately responsible for said
commitment to fund[.] (Emphasis added).
384.
Rosemann signed the Commitment in reliance on Vogels representations and
description of Brad-Green, The Hamptons Condominiums LLC, and The Hamptons.

385.
Before Rosemann signed the Commitment, Vogel knew but failed to tell
Rosemann that Brad-Green was a company he established to siphon money from the BLP
to fund The Hamptons with embezzled money, that Vogel had established Cranmer to obtain
a $1 million line of credit to fund The Hamptons, and that Vogel and Sigillito were involved
in a Ponzi and embezzling scheme intended, in part, to fund The Hamptons.
386.
Vogels representations to Rosemann about the opportunity to invest in The
Hamptons were false because Vogel knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose material facts
necessary to make the disclosed information about the opportunity to invest in The Hamptons
not materially false or misleading.
387.
Vogel knew his representations were materially misleading and false and he
intended that Rosemann should act on such false representations.

388.
Rosemann was entitled to rely on Vogels representations and was ignorant of
the falsity and misleading nature of the representations.

389.
The information Vogel failed to disclose was material because Rosemann
would not have signed the Commitment if he had known that information.
93
390.
As a direct and proximate result of Vogels conduct as alleged, Rosemann
suffered injury and pecuniary loss in the amount of $1 million.

391.
Vogels conduct was malicious and corrupt, as well as intentional or reckless,
to a degree sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Rosemann pray for judgment against Defendant Vogel as
follows:
(a).
For an award of actual damages against Vogel in an amount to be proven at

trial in excess of $25,000;
(b).
(c).
(d).
(e).
COUNT VII
(FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION)
Rosemann, as Count VII of his Complaint against Vogel for fraudulent

misrepresentation, states:
392.

393.
Vogel at all times relevant had knowledge and information that:

(a).
Brad-Green was a company Vogel established to siphon money from

the BLP to fund The Hamptons with embezzled money;
94
(b).
Vogel had established Cranmer to obtain a $1 million line of credit to

fund The Hamptons; and
(c).
Vogel and Sigillito were involved in a Ponzi and embezzling scheme

intended, in part, to fund The Hamptons.
394.
Vogels knowledge and information of the foregoing was superior to
Rosemanns knowledge in that such knowledge and information was not reasonably available
to Rosemann.
395.
The description of The Hamptons that Vogel gave Rosemann did not describe
the true state of affairs of The Hamptons and The Hamptons project, as described by Vogel,
was not what it appeared to be.
396.
Vogels superior knowledge and information was not knowledge and
information that Rosemann would have discovered through ordinary diligence, and the truth
about The Hamptons and Vogels involvement in the Ponzi scheme with Sigillito was
difficult, if not impossible, for Rosemann to ascertain.
397.
Vogels superior knowledge and information imposed a duty on Vogel to
speak and to inform Rosemann of the true state of affairs.

398.
Vogels duty to speak converted his silence and nondisclosure of the true state
of affairs concerning The Hamptons into fraudulent misrepresentations.

399.
Vogel had knowledge of the fraudulent misrepresentations created by his
silence and nondisclosure of the true state of affairs concerning the BLP and intended that
Rosemann act on such false representations and agree to invest in The Hamptons.
95
400.
Rosemann, ignorant of such false representations and the true state of affairs
concerning The Hamptons, justifiably relied on Vogels incomplete and inaccurate

description of The Hamptons.
401.
If Rosemann had known about the true state of affairs concerning The
Hamptons and possessed Vogels superior knowledge and information, he would not have
agreed to invest or invested in The Hamptons.
402.
Rosemann was damaged as a direct result of Vogels silence, false
representations, and fraudulent nondisclosures.

403.
Vogels conduct was malicious and corrupt, as well as intentional or reckless,
to a degree sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Rosemann prays for judgment against Defendant Vogel as follows:
(a).
For an award against Vogel for actual damages in an amount to be proven at

trial in excess of $25,000;
(b).
(c).

(d).
(e).
COUNT VIII
(VIOLATION OF MISSOURI MERCHANDISING
PRACTICES ACT, REV. STAT. MO. 407.010)
96
as Count VIII of their Complaint against Defendants for violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, 407.010, et seq., RSMo. (the MMPA), allege:
404.

405.
The MMPA prohibits the act, use or employment by any person of any
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the
concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or
advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce.
406.
Vogel and Argos, acting by and through Vogel, knew that the BLP was a Ponzi
scheme intended to defraud investors.

407.
Defendants as more fully alleged throughout the Complaint engaged in
deceptive and unfair practices in connection with the sale of merchandise in trade or
commerce as those terms are used and defined in the MMPA.
408.
The financial and investment services that Plaintiffs obtained from Defendants
were acquired and purchased for personal purpose and use.

409.
Plaintiffs have suffered an ascertainable loss of money in an amount to be
determined upon trial of this action, which amount exceeds One Million Five Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($1,500,000), as a direct and proximate result of Defendants engagement
in, and use and employment of, unlawful practices in violation of the MMPA.
97
410.
By their conduct, Defendants used and employed unlawful practices in
violation of the MMPA.

411.

Northwest 1973, pray this Court enter judgment against Defendants Vogel and Argos:
(a).
For an award of actual damages against Vogel and Argos, jointly and
severally, in an amount to be proven at trial in excess of $25,000;
(b).
(c).
(d).
(e).
COUNT IX
(CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED
AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d))
Plaintiffs, as Count IX of their Complaint against Defendants for conspiracy to violate

the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d), state as
follows:
412.

CONSPIRACY TO VIOLATE RICO, 18 U.S.C. 1962(d)
98
413.
18 U.S.C. 1962(c) prohibits conducting the affairs of an enterprise through
a pattern of racketeering activity. 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) makes it unlawful to conspire to

violate 18 U.S.C. 1962(c). Hence, 1962(d) makes it unlawful to conspire to conduct the
affairs of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
414.
A conspiracy to violate RICO pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) is established
if the defendant associated with an enterprise which affected interstate commerce and the
defendant objectively manifested an agreement to participate in the affairs of the enterprise.
415.
A conspiracy to violate RICO pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) is established
if: (1) an enterprise existed; (2) the enterprise affected interstate or foreign commerce; (3) the
defendant associated with the enterprise; and (4) the defendant objectively manifested an
agreement to participate in the affairs of the enterprise.
416.
A tacit understanding between the conspirators shown wholly through the
circumstantial evidence of each defendants actions is sufficient. Proof of an express

agreement is not required.
417.
A conspiracy to violate RICO may exist even if a conspirator does not agree
to commit or facilitate each and every part of the substantive offense.

418.
Plaintiffs need not prove that each alleged conspirator agreed that he or she
would be the one to commit the two predicate acts required under that statute.
419.
A conspirator must intend to further an endeavor which, if completed, would
satisfy all of the elements of a substantive criminal offense, but it suffices that he adopt the
goal of furthering or facilitating the criminal endeavor.
99
420.
A violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(d) intentionally omits two elements necessary
to prove a violation of 1962(c): The requirement that the defendant participated, directly
or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise, and the requirement that the
defendant participated in the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity by
committing the two predicate acts required under that statute.
ASSOCIATION-IN-FACT RICO ENTERPRISE
421.
18 U.S.C. 1962(d) makes it unlawful to conspire to conduct the affairs of an
enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. RICO defines enterprise to include

any group of individuals associated in fact. 18 U.S.C. 1961(4). The essence of an
association in fact is that it is not a legitimate business or other entity operating in the
public eye. U.S. v. Lemm, 680 F.2d 1193, 1200 n. 7 (8th Cir. 1982).
422.
The RICO enterprise must exhibit three basic characteristics: (1) a common
or shared purpose; (2) some continuity of structure and personnel; and (3) an ascertainable
structure distinct from that inherent in a pattern of racketeering. Atlas Pile Driving Co. v.
DiCon Fin. Co., 886 F.2d 986, 995 (8th Cir. 1989).
423.
An association in-fact enterprise requires at least three structural features: a
purpose, relationships among those associated with the enterprise, and longevity sufficient
to permit these associates to pursue the enterprises purpose. Boyle v. United States, 556
U.S. 938, 946 (2009).
424.
The RICO enterprise consists of the association-in-fact of Martin Sigillito and
his company, Martin T. Sigillito & Associates Ltd., a Missouri corporation; Scott Brown and
his companies, J. Scott Brown Associates and British American Group, Inc., Kansas
100
corporations; Paul Vogel and his companies, Argos Partners, LLC, Brad-Green Development
LLC and Cranmer Associates LLC, all Missouri limited liability companies; Hal Milsap and
his company Retirement Benefit Solutions, an Arkansas fictitious business name; Bob Mack
and his company, M&M Financial Investors, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; and
David Fazio, and his company Fountain Capital Management LLC, an Arizona limited
liability company (the RICO Enterprise).
425.
The RICO Enterprise had as its common purpose the operation and
management of the BLP, and the RICO Enterprise was a group of persons associated together
for the common purpose of engaging in solicitation of investors for the BLP and theft of
investor funds in a pattern of racketeering acts.
426.
The RICO Enterprise may also be inferred here from the facts alleged herein
that persons associated with the enterprise, including Defendants, engaged in a pattern of
racketeering activity.
427.
Sigillito did business in connection with the BLP as an attorney and maintained
attorney trust accounts that he used to divert fiduciary funds to Sigillito, Brown and the thirdparty brokers who recruited the victims. Sigillito also did business in connection with the
BLP as Martin T. Sigillito and Associates, Ltd., a Missouri corporation, with Sigillito as the
president and sole shareholder. Sigillito maintained corporate bank accounts at the above
banks in the name of Martin T. Sigillito and Associates and used his corporate bank account
to divert fiduciary funds.
428.
Scott Brown did business in connection with the BLP as an individual, also an
attorney, and as a Kansas company, J. Scott Brown and Associates, and also did business as
101
British American Group, Inc., a Kansas corporation, with Brown as the sole shareholder and
president. Brown maintained bank accounts used to divert fiduciary funds in the name of J.
Scott Brown Associates and British American Group.
429.
Third-party brokers who recruited the victims include Paul Vogel who did
business in connection with the BLP as, and siphoned money from the BLP through, BradGreen Development LLC, Cranmer Associates LLC, and Argos, all Missouri limited liability
companies. Third-party broker Hal Milsap did business in connection with the BLP as
Retirement Benefit Solutions, an Arkansas fictitious business name. Third-party broker
Robert Mack did business in connection with the BLP as M&M Financial Investors, LLC,
an Ohio limited liability company, in which he was the managing member. Third-party
broker David Fazio did business in connection with the BLP as Fountain Capital
Management LLC, an Arizona limited liability company, in which he was the managing
member.
RICO ENTERPRISE HAD THE OPERATION OF THE BLP AS ITS COMMON PURPOSE
430.
The RICO Enterprise had as its common purpose the operation of the BLP as
a Ponzi scheme and fee-and-money-generating machine for Sigillito, Brown and the thirdparty brokers who recruited the victims. The RICO Enterprise also had a secondary purpose
to conceal the diversion of loan funds from the lenders (victims), law enforcement and
regulatory agencies.
431.
The RICO Enterprise marketed the BLP to lenders based upon a number of
fraudulent material representations, leaving the victims with the belief that their loan funds
were being used by an English borrower for real estate investment in England. However, loan
102
funds pooled in Sigillitos attorney trust account were rarely sent to England for use in real
estate projects as promised. Instead, loan funds were diverted to pay fees and divert money
to Sigillito, Brown and third-party brokers who recruited the victims. When lenders requested
interest payments on their loans, fiduciary funds from Sigillitos attorney trust account were
diverted to Scott Browns bank account in a classic Ponzi scheme where IOLTA payments
to existing investors were being paid by IOLTA deposits from new investors.
RICO ENTERPRISE HAD WELL-DEFINED STRUCTURE
432.
The RICO Enterprise operated with an intricate and well-defined structure for
decision-making. Sigillito had the most significant degree of control over the affairs of the
RICO Enterprise. Sigillito selected the IRA custodian and IOLTA deposit bank. Sigillito, as
the primary beneficiary of fees from the BLP, controlled the flow of the funds, including the
misappropriation of fees to himself and others. Paul Vogel had direct contact with Sigillito,
made in-person loan presentations at the direction and interest rate set by Sigillito.
433.
Scott Brown executed Sigillitos directives regarding fees and presided over
the inner circle of third-party brokers (Paul Vogel, Hal Milsap, David Fazio, and Bob Mack).
These brokers had direct contact with the lenders, made in-person loan presentations at the
direction of Brown and at the interest rate set by Sigillito.
434.
Vogel and Argos were part of the RICO Enterprises well-defined structure for
decision-making. Vogel and Sigillito were in regular contact to coordinate the solicitation
103
and direct the transfer of funds to the BLP and to coordinate and direct the subsequent
siphoning of investor funds for the personal use and benefit of Vogel and Sigillito.
435.
Vogel, Argos, and Sigillito also coordinated efforts to lull investors in the BLP
from acting on suspicions and concerns about their investments, all as part of a well-defined
structure for decision making within the RICO Enterprise.
RICO ENTERPRISE HAD CONTINUITY OF PERSONNEL
436.
The RICO Enterprise operated with continuity-of-personnel. Sigillito and
Brown, as the managers and operators of the BLP, remained constant throughout the
endeavor, from inception until the BLP was shut down in May 2010.
437.
The inner circle of Paul Vogel, Hal Milsap, David Fazio and Bob Mack
secured loan approvals from the victims to invest in the BLP.

438.
The brokers underwent some alteration without loss of the enterprise's identity
as an enterprise. When Bob Mack died in 2007, his loans were transferred to Hal Milsap who
took over the roll-over of those loans without alteration to the BLP.
439.
Vogel and Argos had on-going ties with the RICO Enterprise. The relationships
between Sigillito, Brown, Vogel, Hal Milsap, David Fazio, Bob Mack, and their companies
demonstrate a sophisticated organizational pattern.
RICO ENTERPRISE HAS ASCERTAINABLE STRUCTURE
WHICH FUNCTIONED SEPARATE AND APART FROM THE
PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY RELATED TO THE BLP
104
440.
The RICO Enterprise had an ascertainable structure which functioned separate
and apart from the pattern of racketeering activity related to the BLP. Putting aside the
predicate acts of mail fraud and money laundering, the RICO enterprise had an on-going
structure and its members were not engaged in sporadic criminal activity.
441.
Putting aside the predicate acts of mail fraud and money laundering, Sigillito,
Brown and their companies had an ongoing structure that engaged in legitimate international
business consulting independent of any predicate acts of racketeering.
442.
Sigillito and Brown, through their corporations worked as international
business consultants who associated for legitimate loans outside of the loans for the BLP.
Sigillito and his company, secured the lender Phil Rosemann, while Brown and his company
secured the borrower, Metis, a Turkish corporation, for a $5 million loan. The Metis loan
stated on the loan documents that Martin T. Sigillito and Associates, arranged the loan.
Multiple memos and emails confirmed that Brown arranged the loan with Metis.
443.
Putting aside the predicate acts of mail fraud and money laundering, Vogel had
an ongoing structure as an attorney, financial advisor, certified public accountant, and real
estate developer, and his companies had an ongoing structure in wealth management, tax
advice, and real estate investments.
444.
Putting aside the predicate acts of mail fraud and money laundering, Vogel and
Sigillito had an ongoing association as business partners in The Hamptons and as members
of the Racquet Club board, independent of any predicate acts of racketeering.
105
445.
Putting aside the predicate acts of mail fraud and money laundering, Milsap,
Fazio and Mack and their companies had an ongoing structure as insurance agents and as
investments brokers, independent of any predicate acts of racketeering.
446.
Sigillito, Brown, Vogel, Milsap, Fazio, Mack and their companies leased office
space, purchased office equipment, maintained business bank accounts, and operated in their
respective businesses (international business consulting, real estate development, insurance
and investment brokerage) distinct from the commission of any predicate acts regarding the
BLP.
447.
If the predicate acts ceased, Sigillito, Brown, Vogel, Milsap, Fazio, Mack and
their companies remained intact. Martin T. Sigillito and Associates remained a viable entity
after the BLP ended until it was administratively dissolved on August 29, 2012. British
American Group remained a viable entity until its forfeiture on July 15, 2011. Brad-Green
Development LLC and Cranmer Associates LLC remain legal entities in good standing as
of the date of the filing this Complaint. Retirement Benefit Solutions, Fountain Capital
Management LLC and M&M Financial Investors, LLC, remained legal entities in good
standing as of the date of the filing this Complaint.
NEXUS BETWEEN RICO ENTERPRISE AND INTERSTATE COMMERCE
448.
18 U.S.C. 1962(c) requires that a RICO enterprise activities affect, interstate
or foreign commerce.
449.
The BLP loans to out-of-state lenders affected interstate commerce. The BLP
loans to lenders in England affected foreign commerce and impacted the flow of electronic
106
wire transfers to and from England and the United States. The loans also impacted the FDIC
insurance as the banks receive insurance from the FDIC for the losses.
RICO CONSPIRACY
450.
Sigillito, Brown, Vogel, and Argos communicated with, requested information
from, and acted on instructions from each other and played some role in the conception,
creation, or execution of the scheme.
451.
Sigillito, Brown, Vogel and Argos agreed to conduct or participate in the
affairs of the RICO Enterprise and agreed to commit acts of mail fraud and money
laundering, as their regular way of conducting the affairs of the RICO Enterprise.
452.
Sigillito, Brown, Vogel and Argos objectively manifested an agreement to
commit substantive RICO violations and to commit two or more predicate acts of mail fraud
and money laundering through their participation in the conduct of the affairs of the RICO
Enterprise.
453.
Sigillito, Brown, Vogel and Argos knew that the predicate acts were part of a
pattern of racketeering activity and agreed to the commission of those acts to further the
schemes described above. Their conduct constitutes a conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C.
1962(d).
454.
Sigillito, Brown, Vogel and Argos agreed and combined with Sigillito, and
with persons known and unknown, to do a criminal or unlawful act, or a lawful act by
criminal or unlawful means.
107
455.
Sigillito, Brown, Vogel and Argos objectively manifested agreement to the
commission of the substantive RICO violations and to the commission of two or more
predicate acts through participation in the conduct of the affairs of the RICO Enterprise.
456.
Sigillito, Brown, Vogel and Argos engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity
that can be reasonably inferred from their close professional relationship; their use of bank
accounts and property; and the dependency of the fraudulent acts of each on the fraudulent
acts of the others.
457.
At least one overt and wrongful act was done by one or more of the
conspirators to achieve the purpose of the conspiracy. Those acts were done pursuant to the
common schemes and in furtherance of the objects of the conspiracy and in concert.
VOGEL AND ARGOS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RICO ENTERPRISE
AND AGREED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE AFFAIRS OF THE ENTERPRISE
458.
Sigillito, Brown, Vogel, and Argos objectively manifested an agreement to
participate and associate with the RICO Enterprise in a conspiracy of silence by agreeing to
keep Sigillitos misappropriation of client fiduciary funds hidden from law enforcement,
regulatory agencies, successor custodians, or the victims of Sigillitos fraud.
459.
Sigillito, Brown, Vogel, and Argos objectively manifested an agreement to
participate and associated with the RICO Enterprise in a conspiracy of silence by agreeing
to keep Sigillitos misappropriation of fiduciary funds hidden from law enforcement,
regulatory agencies, successor custodians, or the victims of Sigillitos fraud.
108
460.
Sigillito, Brown, Vogel, and Argos played an essential role in the Ponzi and
embezzlement scheme and facilitated its continued existence.

461.
Vogel served for a period as a broker and solicited lenders to make loans for
the benefit of the Ponzi scheme. In order to secure lenders, Vogel assured lenders that the
BLP loans regularly paid extremely high returns. Vogel also directed the drafting of loan
agreements and correspondence designed to perpetuate the Ponzi scheme and consented to
having his name and his wifes name appear on the loan agreements as counsel for the lender.
462.
In an effort to lull existing lenders and persuade new lenders to invest in the
BLP, Vogel drafted a due diligence report which was provided to several of the Plaintiffs and
other victims. In the due diligence report, Vogel stated that he traveled to England to meet
with Smith and inspected three of Smiths properties listed on Smiths Asset & Liabilities
Statement provided with the loan agreements. Vogel assured lenders that the three properties
he inspected were worth the same as, or considerably more than, the value listed on Smiths
Asset & Liabilities Statement. However, the actual value of the properties was significantly
less than that stated on the Asset & Liability Statement. Vogels due diligence report
convinced lenders to renew their loans, which allowed the Ponzi scheme to continue for
several additional months.
463.
Defendants associated with the RICO Enterprise and agreed to participate in
the affairs of the RICO Enterprise.
109
464.
Defendants also participated in the operation and management of the RICO
Enterprise.
PLAINTIFFS RICO INJURY
465.
As a result of one or more acts predicate to the conspiracy, and the conduct and
participation of Sigillito, Brown, Vogel, and Argos in the conduct of the RICO Enterprises
affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, Plaintiffs have sustained direct and
substantial injury, including loss of their investment funds.
466.
The acts or omissions detailed above were the direct, natural, and proximate
cause of Plaintiffs damages in an amount to be determined upon trial of this action, which
amount exceeds $4 million.
467.
RICO permits plaintiffs in a civil action to recover treble damages for any
person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962. 18

U.S.C. 1964(c). Plaintiffs seek that any damages are duly trebled in accordance with
1964(c).
468.
Defendants conduct was malicious and corrupt, as well as either intentional
or reckless, sufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants Vogel and Argos as
follows:
110
(a).
For damages against Vogel and Argos, jointly and severally, in an amount to
be determined upon trial of this action, which amount exceeds $4 million, and
the sum duly trebled in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1964(c);
(b).
For an award of punitive damages against Defendants Vogel and Argos in a

amount that equals up to six times the amount of actual damages;
(c).
For costs of this suit, including reasonable attorneys fees in accordance with
18 U.S.C. 1964(c); and
(d).
COUNT X
(CONSPIRACY)
Plaintiffs, as Count X of their Complaint against Defendants for conspiracy, state:

469.

470.
Defendants had the unlawful objective of soliciting investors in the BLP for
the purpose of misappropriating investment funds and perpetuating the Ponzi scheme.
471.
Defendants conduct and acts alleged herein were intentional and knowingly
committed.
472.
Defendants conspired to pursue their unlawful objective, and after a meeting
of the minds, knowingly committed multiple acts and knowingly took action as alleged
herein in furtherance of the conspiracy and to carry out the unlawful purposes of the
conspiracy.
111
473.
Vogel, through The Hamptons Condominiums, LLC, had an independent
personal stake in achieving the object of the conspiracy separate from his employment with,
and membership in, Argos.
474.
Plaintiffs were damaged as a direct result of Defendants conduct.
475.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants Vogel and Argos as
follows:
(a).
damages in an amount to be proven at trial in excess of $25,000;
(b).
(c).

(d).
(e).
COUNT XI
(FRAUD)
Werner, as Count XI of his Complaint against Defendants his claim for Fraud, states:
476.

477.
Vogel and Argos falsely represented to Werner in August 2009 that Smith and
Distinctive had never defaulted on any loan obtained through the BLP. When he made that
112
representation, Vogel knew that Smith and Distinctive had defaulted on the loan to
Northwest 1973 a few months earlier and that Vogel was in the midst of a plan with Sigillito
to lull the Bernsteins concerns over that default.
478.
Vogel and Argos intended Werner to act on his false representation and invest
in the BLP based, in part, on the assurance that Smith and Distinctive had never defaulted.
479.
Werner was unaware of Smith and Distinctives default and justifiably relied
on the truth of Vogel and Argos representation.

480.
If Werner had known the truth about Smith and Distinctives default, he would
not have invested in the BLP.

481.
Werner was damaged as a direct result of Vogel and Argos false
representation.
482.

WHEREFORE, Werner prays for judgment against Defendants Vogel and Argos as
follows:
(a).
(b).
(c).

(d).

113
(e).
COUNT XII
(FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION)
Werner, as Count XII of his Complaint against Defendants for fraudulent

misrepresentation, states:
483.

484.
Defendants at all times relevant had knowledge and information that:

(a).
Vogel and Argos in August 2009 were part of a scheme with Sigillito
to string along and deceive the Bernsteins about Smith and
Distinctives default;
(b).
Vogel in the spring of 2009 had stolen Middletons money and his
dads money intended for investment in the BLP and diverted it for use
in The Hamptons;
(c).
Defendants, by August 2009, had engaged in acts of racketeering as

alleged herein to improperly divert funds intended for the BLP to The
Hamptons;
(d).
Vogel had invested family money in the BLP as part of an exit strategy
designed to make Vogel look like a victim of the BLP in case the Ponzi
scheme collapsed; and
(e).
Vogel, by August 2009, had received more than $700,000 from his
participation in the BLP.
114
485.
Defendants knowledge and information of the foregoing was superior to
Werners knowledge in that such knowledge and information was not reasonably available
to Werner.
486.
The description of the BLP that Defendants gave Werner did not describe the
true state of affairs of the BLP and the BLP, as described by Defendants, was not what it
appeared to be.
487.
Defendants superior knowledge and information was not knowledge and
information that Werner would have discovered through ordinary diligence, and the truth
about the BLP and Defendants involvement was difficult, if not impossible, for Werner to
ascertain.
488.
Defendants superior knowledge and information imposed a duty on Vogel and
Argos to speak and to inform Werner of the true state of affairs.

489.
Defendants duty to speak converted their silence and nondisclosure of the true
state of affairs concerning the BLP into fraudulent misrepresentations.

490.
Defendants had knowledge of the fraudulent misrepresentations created by
their silence and nondisclosure of the true state of affairs concerning the BLP and intended
that Werner to act on such false representations and invest in the BLP.
491.
Werner, ignorant of such false representations and the true state of affairs
concerning the BLP, justifiably relied on Defendants incomplete and inaccurate description
of the BLP.
115
492.
If Werner had known about the true state of affairs concerning the BLP and
possessed Defendants superior knowledge and information, he would not have invested in
the BLP.
493.
Werner was damaged as a direct result of Defendants silence, false
representations, and fraudulent nondisclosures.

494.

WHEREFORE, Werner prays for judgment against Defendants Vogel and Argos as
follows:
(a).
(b).
(c).

(d).
(e).
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.
/s/ Jonathan F. Andres

Jonathan F. Andres (Mo. Bar 39531)
Green Jacobson, P.C.
/s/ Sebastian Rucci

Sebastian Rucci (E.D. Mo. 178114CA)
Law Offices of Sebastian Rucci
116
7733 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 700

St. Louis, MO 63105
Tel: (314) 862-6800
Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiffs
401 E. Ocean Blvd., Suite 1040

Long Beach, CA 90802
Tel: (330) 720-0398
Email: [email protected]
Attorney for Plaintiffs
117
!"#$$###%&'()#*+,*+-
Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1-1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 1 of 1 PageID #: 130
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"#$#%!"&$'(!)*''+
./'#!"#$$#01(12#03('4#5/''6#789#6/'#18:34;76138#0386718'9#/'4'18#8'16/'4#4'<270'#834#5=<<2';'86#6/'#:1218>#789#5'4(10'#3:#<2'7918>5#34#36/'4#<7<'45#75#4'?=14'9#@A#27BC##'D0'<6#75
<43(19'9#@A#23072#4=2'5#3:#03=46)##./15#:34;C#7<<43('9#@A#6/'#!=910172#E38:'4'80'#3:#6/'#F816'9#"676'5#18#"'<6';@'4#*GH$C#15#4'?=14'9#:34#6/'#=5'#3:#6/'#E2'4I#3:#E3=46#:34#6/'
<=4<35'#3:#181617618>#6/'#01(12#930I'6#5/''6)###(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
#, -./ 0%1#2+#33)
4'3'2412+)
!"#$%%& '()**+%, -&.)* /+((0$1, 2343, 5+167.&*6 8%9&*60&%6*, 8%:3,

2$1; <&1%*6&)%, -&.)* <&1%*6&)%, 2$1=+1)& <&1%*6&)%, 5+167.&*6
>1+?&16)&* @ABCDE -643, <1$4 F&1%&1, $%4 >7)(()? G+*&0$%%,
-5/###E3=86A#3:#&'519'80'#3:#J1456#K156'9#L271861::
H(+1)4$
>$"( /+P&( $%4 L1P+* >$16%&1* --K,

E3=86A#3:#&'519'80'#3:#J1456#K156'9#M':'89786
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)
-6/###S66348'A5#(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
'1&&% I$:+J*+%, >3K3

L66%M I+%$67$% L%41&*
CCDD H+1*N67 <+"(&9$14, !")6& COO
##,!!71)#)!&3!89(#)4#"+#&2#(Place an X in One Box Only)

! * ##F)")#W3('48;'86
L271861::
! X #J'9'472#Y='56138
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
! + ##F)")#W3('48;'86
M':'89786
! $ #M1('4516A
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
###,!!"#+#:'2)*#0!&3!0(#2"#01%!01(+#') (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff
#$,!!21+9('!&3!)9#+#(Place an X in One Box Only)

"&2+(1"+
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!('1%!0(&0'(+<
+*_#K789#E389';876138
++_#J34'0235=4'
+X_#&'86#K'75'#c#P]'06;'86
+$_#.3465#63#K789
+$\#.346#L439=06#K17@1216A
+G_#S22#O6/'4#&'72#L43<'46A
!
!
####!0'()&21%!#289(<
! X*_#S14<278'
! X*\#S14<278'#L439=06
##K17@1216A
! X+_#S557=26C#K1@'2#c
##"2789'4
! XX_#J'9'472#P;<23A'45d
##K17@1216A
! X$_#T7418'
! X$\#T7418'#L439=06
##K17@1216A
! X\_#T3634#V'/102'
! X\\#T3634#V'/102'
#L439=06#K17@1216A
! X^_#O6/'4#L'453872
#R8]=4A
! X^+#L'453872#R8]=4A#a
#T'91072#T72<470610'
!!!"#$#%!(#>*+)
! $$_#O6/'4#E1(12#&1>/65
! $$*#V3618>
! $$+#P;<23A;'86
! $$X#U3=518>,
#S003;;39761385
! $$\#S;'4)#B,M157@12161'5#a
#P;<23A;'86
! $$^#S;'4)#B,M157@12161'5#a
#O6/'4
! $$`#P9=076138
$,!!&(#>#2#(Place an X in One Box Only)

! * O41>1872
L430''918>
! + &';3('9#:43;
"676'#E3=46
$#,!!"19)'!&3!1"+#&2
and One Box for Defendant)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!0+3
!!!4'3
R8034<3476'9#or#L41801<72#L270'
! $
! $
####3:#[=518'55#R8#./15#"676'
E161Z'8#3:#S836/'4#"676'
! +
! #+
R8034<3476'9#and#L41801<72#L270'
3:#[=518'55#R8#S836/'4#"676'
! \
! \
E161Z'8#34#"=@]'06#3:#7
####J34'1>8#E3=864A
! X
! #X
J34'1>8#N76138
! ^
! ^
! #X
3&(3'#+9(';0'21%+<
######0'()&21%!#289(<
! X^\#L'453872#R8]=4A##a
##L439=06#K17@1216A
! X^H#U'726/#E74',
#L/74;70'=61072
#L'453872#R8]=4A
#L439=06#K17@1216A
! X^`#S5@'5635#L'453872
##R8]=4A#L439=06
##K17@1216A
#!0'()&21%!0(&0'(+<
! XH_#O6/'4#J47=9
! XH*#.4=6/#18#K'8918>
! X`_#O6/'4#L'453872
#L43<'46A#M7;7>'
! X`\#L43<'46A#M7;7>'
#L439=06#K17@1216A
!!0(#)&2'(!0'+#+#&2)
*[email protected]!"BCDEAF
! $^X#S21'8#M'6718''
! \*_#T361385#63#V7076'
#"'86'80'
! \X_#W'8'472
! \X\#M'76/#L'8726A
&HI@CF
! \$_#T7897;=5#c#O6/'4
! \\_#E1(12#&1>/65
! \\\#L41538#E38916138
! \^_#E1(12#M'6718''#a
#E389161385#3:#
#E38:18';'86
&';789'9#:43;
S<<'2276'#E3=46
! ^+\#M4=>#&'276'9#"'1Z=4'
##3:#L43<'46A#+*#F"E#``*
! ^G_#O6/'4
712=(90+"<
! $++#S<<'72#+`#F"E#*\`
! $+X#b16/947B72
##+`#F"E#*\H
0(&0'(+<!(#>*+)
! `+_#E3<A41>/65
! `X_#L76'86
! `$_#.479';74I
!
!
!
!
!
!
%17&(
H*_#J714#K7@34#"67897495
##S06
H+_#K7@34,T787>';'86
##&'2761385
H$_#&712B7A#K7@34#S06
H\*#J7;12A#789#T'91072
##K'7('#S06
HG_#O6/'4#K7@34#K161>76138
HG*#P;<23A''#&'614';'86
#R803;'#"'0=416A#S06
!
!
!
!
!
)&"#1%!)'"9(#+<
`^*#URS#%*XG\::`^+#[270I#K=8>#%G+X`^X#MRbE,MRbb#%$_\%>-`^$#""RM#.162'#eVR
`^\#&"R#%$_\%>--
3'4'(1%!+1?!)9#+)
! `H_#.7D'5#%F)")#L271861::
##34#M':'89786! `H*#R&"f./149#L746A
##+^#F"E#H^_G
&+*'(!)+1+9+')
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
XH\#J725'#E271;5#S06
$__#"676'#&'7<<346138;'86
$*_#S86164=56
$X_#[78I5#789#[78I18>
$\_#E3;;'40'
$^_#M'<34676138
$H_#&70I'6''4#R8:2='80'9#789
#E344=<6#O4>781Z761385
$`_#E385=;'4#E4'916
$G_#E7@2',"76#.V
`\_#"'0=4161'5,E3;;39161'5,
##PD0/78>'
`G_#O6/'4#"676=634A#S061385
`G*#S>410=26=472#S065
`GX#P8(1438;'8672#T766'45
`G\#J4''93;#3:#R8:34;76138
##S06
`G^#S4@16476138
`GG#S9;181564761('#L430'9=4'
#S06,&'(1'B#34#S<<'72#3:#
#S>'80A#M'015138
G\_#E385616=61387216A#3:
#"676'#"676=6'5
#GG#>(1+#&2
! $^+#N76=4721Z76138#S<<21076138
! $^\#O6/'4#R;;1>476138
#######S061385
! $ &'185676'9#34
&'3<'8'9
! #\ .4785:'44'9#:43;
S836/'4#M1564106
(specify)
! #^ T=26191564106
K161>76138
E16'#6/'#F)")#E1(12#"676=6'#=89'4#B/10/#A3=#74'#:1218>#(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)Q

#AQ R3!3K3 S ABTU@:E, VQ R3!3K3 S ADDA, $%4 VQ R3!3K3 S ADDV
[41':#9'5041<6138#3:#07=5'Q
L66+1%&N $**)*6&4 )% >+%#) *:7&0&W $%4 &%P$P&4 )% 0+%&N ($"%4&1)%P $%4 9)+($6&4 :)9)( G8KX
! EUPEg#RJ#.UR"#R"#S#"%1))!1"+#&2
$##,!!('J9')+'4!#2
FNMP&#&FKP#+XC#J)&)E()L)
!!!!!!!!!"&G0%1#2+F
$###,!!('%1+'4!"1)'-)/
(See instructions):
!!!!!!!!!!#3!12<
!FMWP
MS.P
4'G124!K
EUPEg#hP"#382A#1:#9';789'9#18#03;<27186Q
! h'5
! N3
89(<!4'G124F
U,DOO,OOO3OO
MOEgP.#NFT[P&
"RWNS.F&P#OJ#S..O&NPh#OJ#&PEO&M
Y*Y I+%$67$% L%41&* $%4 Y*Y !&J$*6)$% G"::)
OQYVZYVOAU
3&(!&33#"'!9)'!&2%<
&PEPRL.#i
(For Diversity Cases Only)

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!0+3 !!!4'3
E161Z'8#3:#./15#"676'
! *
! #*
+&(+)
**_#R85=4780'
*+_#T7418'
*X_#T122'4#S06
*$_#N'>3617@2'#R8564=;'86
*\_#&'03('4A#3:#O('4<7A;'86
#c#P8:340';'86#3:#!=9>;'86
*\*#T'91074'#S06
*\+#&'03('4A#3:#M':7=26'9
#"6=9'86#K3785
#%PD02=9'5#V'6'4785*\X#&'03('4A#3:#O('4<7A;'86
#3:#V'6'478d5#['8':165
*^_#"630I/329'45d#"=165
*G_#O6/'4#E3864706
*G\#E3864706#L439=06#K17@1216A
*G^#J4780/15'
!
!
!
!
!
!63 -+")*, 2)**+"1)
(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NO.PQ RN#KSNM#EONMPTNS.RON#ES"P"C#F"P#.UP#KOES.RON#OJ#
.UP#.&SE.#OJ#KSNM#RNVOKVPM)
###############
#S66348'A5#(If Known)
STOFN.
SLLKhRNW#RJL
!FMWP
TSW)#!FMWP

!"#$%&'($)$%('&#($*#+$'+,!*$
%)($%*"'&#($*#+$',-'.#((,!*#
Suzanne Glisson et.

al. '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
1234564770
89
Paul Vogel and Argos

Partners LLC
'''''''
&;7;5=3560
+3:;'"<9 14-cv-1472
!"#$#%&'()#'#%$()!"*
+,#-()!"*(*.-+(/0(1!*2'0+03(&%3(40"#)#03(/5(+,0()#'#%$(2&"+5
6,0%(#%#+#&+#%$(&(%06(1&-07
$>#('().%'+)!(%0',*')'(!?($)"$#)@@A'%B!#C)@%"$'+,.1@)#"$0'D)(
1*%C#,!(@A'-#@%&'#"'$>#('+,!*$')('+)(%'"!.?%*''''''''
)"&')((#E"%&'$,'$>%'>,",*)?@%'F!&E%
$>#('+)!(%'#('*%@)$%&0'?!$'#('",$'(!?($)"$#)@@A'%B!#C)@%"$'$,')"A'
4:10-cv-1165
1*%C#,!(@A'-#@%&'+,.1@)#"$9''$>%'*%@)$%&'+)(%'"!.?%*'#('''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''')"&'
Linda R.
$>)$'+)(%'D)(')((#E"%&'$,'$>%'>,",*)?@%'''''''''''''''
Reade
9''$>#('+)(%'.)A0'
$>%*%-,*%0'?%',1%"%&')(')"',*#E#")@'1*,+%%&#"E9
"%#$>%*'$>#('().%'+)!(%0'",*')'(!?($)"$#)@@A'%B!#C)@%"$
+,.1@)#"$0'>)('?%%"'1*%C#,!(@A'-#@%&'#"'$>#('+,!*$0')"&'$>%*%-,*%
.)A'?%',1%"%&')(')"',*#E#")@'1*,+%%&#"E9
+89(:;<9=>?@;9<(ABB?=C>(D8AD(D89(?;BE=CAD?E;(F=EG?<9<(AHEG9(?>(D=:9(A;<(IE==9ID7
&36;G 08/25/2014
/S/ Jonathan Andres

(4H536IJ;'<7'-4245H'13J6K

!"#$$%#&'()*#+,-%./##0122345#64#7#86)69#!:;634
<=>?@A 0?!?@0 A>0?'>8? 8"<'?

B3C#;D(
@75;(C4 A65;C6:; 3B W65531C6

EEEEEEEEEE#A65;C6:;#3B#EEEEEEEEEE#
!"#$%%& '()**+%, -&.)* /+((0$1, 2343, 5+167.&*6
8%9&*60&%6*, 8%:3, 2$1; <&1%*6&)%, &63 $(3
Plaintiff
)*
B$"( /+C&( $%D E1C+* B$16%&1* --F,
Defendant
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
86)69#!:;634#=3* =>?:9?=>@A
!"##$%!&'%&(&)'*'+&(),'$%
?3F (Defendants name and address) EG'H! BEGI5JG! --F
@@KK L+1*M67, !")6& =K@N
F($M6+%, 2H OK=PN
!#97G516;#D75#H((4#B69(I#7J7645;#K31*
L6;D64#,+#I7K5#7B;(C#5(C)6:(#3B#;D65#5122345#34#K31#&43;#:314;64J#;D(#I7K#K31#C(:(6)(I#6;/#M#3C#N%#I7K5#6B#K31
7C(#;D(#<46;(I#0;7;(5#3C#7#<46;(I#0;7;(5#7J(4:KO#3C#74#3BB6:(C#3C#(2P93K((#3B#;D(#<46;(I#0;7;(5#I(5:C6H(I#64#Q(I*#'*#86)*
R*#+,#&7/&,/#3C#&S/#M#K31#215;#5(C)(#34#;D(#P9764;6BB#74#745G(C#;3#;D(#7;;7:D(I#:32P9764;#3C#7#23;634#14I(C#'19(#+,#3B
;D(#Q(I(C79#'19(5#3B#86)69#RC3:(I1C(*##?D(#745G(C#3C#23;634#215;#H(#5(C)(I#34#;D(#P9764;6BB#3C#P9764;6BBT5#7;;3C4(KO
GD35(#472(#74I#7IIC(55#7C(F '1&&% Q$:+R*+%, B3F3
E66%S Q+%$67$% E%D1&*
@@KK L+1*M67 <+"(&9$1D, !")6& @PP
!63 -+")*, 2H OK=PN
>B#K31#B769#;3#C(5P34IO#U1IJ2(4;#HK#I(B719;#G699#H(#(4;(C(I#7J7645;#K31#B3C#;D(#C(96(B#I(274I(I#64#;D(#:32P9764;*#
V31#7953#215;#B69(#K31C#745G(C#3C#23;634#G6;D#;D(#:31C;*
CLERK OF COURT
A7;(F
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

!"#$$%#&'()*#+,-%./##0122345#64#7#86)69#!:;634#&R7J(#,/
86)69#!:;634#=3* =>?:9?=>@A
-.$$/&$/&!0.*')0
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
?D65#5122345#B3C#(name of individual and title, if any)
G75#C(:(6)(I#HK#2(#34 (date)
! >#P(C534799K#5(C)(I#;D(#5122345#34#;D(#64I6)6I179#7; (place)
34 (date)
X#3C
! >#9(B;#;D(#5122345#7;#;D(#64I6)6I179T5#C(56I(4:(#3C#15179#P97:(#3B#7H3I(#G6;D#(name)
O#7#P(C534#3B#516;7H9(#7J(#74I#I65:C(;634#GD3#C(56I(5#;D(C(O
34 (date)
O#74I#2769(I#7#:3PK#;3#;D(#64I6)6I179T5#975;#Y43G4#7IIC(55X#3C
O#GD3#65
! >#5(C)(I#;D(#5122345#34#(name of individual)
#I(56J47;(I#HK#97G#;3#7::(P;#5(C)6:(#3B#PC3:(55#34#H(D79B#3B#(name of organization)
34 (date)
X#3C
! >#C(;1C4(I#;D(#5122345#14(Z(:1;(I#H(:715(
X#3C
! ";D(C (specify):
*
WK#B((5#7C(#[
B3C#;C7)(9#74I#[
B3C#5(C)6:(5O#B3C#7#;3;79#3B#[
>#I(:97C(#14I(C#P(479;K#3B#P(CU1CK#;D7;#;D65#64B3C27;634#65#;C1(*
A7;(F
Servers signature
Printed name and title
Servers address
!II6;63479#64B3C27;634#C(J7CI64J#7;;(2P;(I#5(C)6:(O#(;:F
P3PP

!"#$$%#&'()*#+,-%./##0122345#64#7#86)69#!:;634
<=>?@A 0?!?@0 A>0?'>8? 8"<'?

B3C#;D(
@75;(C4 A65;C6:; 3B W65531C6

EEEEEEEEEE#A65;C6:;#3B#EEEEEEEEEE#
!"#$%%& '()**+%, -&.)* /+((0$1, 2343, 5+167.&*6
8%9&*60&%6*, 8%:3, 2$1; <&1%*6&)%, &63 $(3
Plaintiff
)*
B$"( /+C&( $%D E1C+* B$16%&1* --F,
Defendant
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
86)69#!:;634#=3* =>?:9?=>@A
!"##$%!&'%&(&)'*'+&(),'$%
?3F (Defendants name and address) BEG- /H'I-
@@JJ K+1*L67, !")6& =J@M

F($L6+%, 2H NJ=OM
!#97G516;#D75#H((4#B69(I#7J7645;#K31*
L6;D64#,+#I7K5#7B;(C#5(C)6:(#3B#;D65#5122345#34#K31#&43;#:314;64J#;D(#I7K#K31#C(:(6)(I#6;/#M#3C#N%#I7K5#6B#K31
7C(#;D(#<46;(I#0;7;(5#3C#7#<46;(I#0;7;(5#7J(4:KO#3C#74#3BB6:(C#3C#(2P93K((#3B#;D(#<46;(I#0;7;(5#I(5:C6H(I#64#Q(I*#'*#86)*
R*#+,#&7/&,/#3C#&S/#M#K31#215;#5(C)(#34#;D(#P9764;6BB#74#745G(C#;3#;D(#7;;7:D(I#:32P9764;#3C#7#23;634#14I(C#'19(#+,#3B
;D(#Q(I(C79#'19(5#3B#86)69#RC3:(I1C(*##?D(#745G(C#3C#23;634#215;#H(#5(C)(I#34#;D(#P9764;6BB#3C#P9764;6BBT5#7;;3C4(KO
GD35(#472(#74I#7IIC(55#7C(F '1&&% P$:+Q*+%, B3F3
E66%R P+%$67$% E%D1&*
@@JJ K+1*L67 <+"(&9$1D, !")6& @OO
!63 -+")*, 2H NJ=OM
>B#K31#B769#;3#C(5P34IO#U1IJ2(4;#HK#I(B719;#G699#H(#(4;(C(I#7J7645;#K31#B3C#;D(#C(96(B#I(274I(I#64#;D(#:32P9764;*#
V31#7953#215;#B69(#K31C#745G(C#3C#23;634#G6;D#;D(#:31C;*
CLERK OF COURT
A7;(F
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

!"#$$%#&'()*#+,-%./##0122345#64#7#86)69#!:;634#&R7J(#,/
86)69#!:;634#=3* =>?:9?=>@A
-.$$/&$/&!0.*')0
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
?D65#5122345#B3C#(name of individual and title, if any)
G75#C(:(6)(I#HK#2(#34 (date)
! >#P(C534799K#5(C)(I#;D(#5122345#34#;D(#64I6)6I179#7; (place)
34 (date)
X#3C
! >#9(B;#;D(#5122345#7;#;D(#64I6)6I179T5#C(56I(4:(#3C#15179#P97:(#3B#7H3I(#G6;D#(name)
O#7#P(C534#3B#516;7H9(#7J(#74I#I65:C(;634#GD3#C(56I(5#;D(C(O
34 (date)
O#74I#2769(I#7#:3PK#;3#;D(#64I6)6I179T5#975;#Y43G4#7IIC(55X#3C
O#GD3#65
! >#5(C)(I#;D(#5122345#34#(name of individual)
#I(56J47;(I#HK#97G#;3#7::(P;#5(C)6:(#3B#PC3:(55#34#H(D79B#3B#(name of organization)
34 (date)
X#3C
! >#C(;1C4(I#;D(#5122345#14(Z(:1;(I#H(:715(
X#3C
! ";D(C (specify):
*
WK#B((5#7C(#[
B3C#;C7)(9#74I#[
B3C#5(C)6:(5O#B3C#7#;3;79#3B#[
>#I(:97C(#14I(C#P(479;K#3B#P(CU1CK#;D7;#;D65#64B3C27;634#65#;C1(*
A7;(F
Servers signature
Printed name and title
Servers address
!II6;63479#64B3C27;634#C(J7CI64J#7;;(2P;(I#5(C)6:(O#(;:F
O3OO

Lawsuit Against Paul Vogel, Argos Partners

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lawsuit Against Paul Vogel, Argos Partners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc.

#: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 1 of 121 PageID #: 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case No. 4:14-cv-01472

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 2 of 121 PageID #: 2

VOGEL FORMS TWO COMPANIES

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 3 of 121 PageID #: 3

VOGEL ENGAGES IN RACKETEERING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 4 of 121 PageID #: 4

VOGEL AND ARGOS ASSOCIATED WITH THE RICO ENTERPRISE

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 5 of 121 PageID #: 5

willing participant in the fraud and thoroughly complicit.

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 6 of 121 PageID #: 6

perpetuate the fraud.

Plaintiffs Northwest Investments, Inc., Lewis Bernstein, Marjorie Bernstein,

Vogel acknowledged receiving approximately $150,000 in finders fees for

referring investors to the BLP.

Plaintiffs Northwest Investment, Inc., Mark Bernstein, Lewis Bernstein,

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 7 of 121 PageID #: 7

Plaintiff Phillip Rosemann brings a claim against Vogel for misconduct in

$4,812,039 as a result of Defendants misconduct. By this action, Plaintiffs seek recovery of

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 8 of 121 PageID #: 8

making various misrepresentations to some of the Plaintiffs. He represented that Plaintiffs

This Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

Plaintiff Suzanne Glisson (Glisson) is an individual residing in the State of

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 9 of 121 PageID #: 9

Plaintiff Lewis Vollmar, M.D. (Dr. Vollmar), is an individual residing in the

Northwest is a Missouri corporation in good standing, with its principal place

Plaintiff Mark Bernstein is an individual residing in the State of Missouri. He

is also a Director of Plaintiff Northwest Investments, Inc. (Northwest).

Plaintiff Lewis Bernstein (Mr. Bernstein) is an individual residing in the

State of Missouri. He is also President of Northwest 1973.

Plaintiff Marjorie Bernstein (Mrs. Bernstein) is an individual residing in the

State of Missouri. She is also Secretary of Northwest 1973.

Northwest 1973 is a Canadian corporation in good standing, with its principal

Plaintiff Brad Werner (Werner) is an individual residing in the State of

Missouri and trustee of the J.H. Werner Revocable Trust.

Plaintiff Phillip Rosemann (Rosemann) is an individual residing in the State

Vogel is an individual residing in St. Louis County at 25 Deerfield Road in

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 10 of 121 PageID #: 10

Argos is a Missouri limited liability company in good standing, with its

Instead of sending Plaintiffs funds intended for investment in the BLP in

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 11 of 121 PageID #: 11

Sigillitos Ponzi and embezzlement scheme required access to the banking

At Sigillitos month-long trial, thirty-eight witnesses testified and over 1,000

Vogel earned a Bachelors degree in Accounting, as well as a Masters degree

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 12 of 121 PageID #: 12

Vogel is chairman and CEO of Argos, a private multi-family office created to

VOGEL, ARGOS, AND ENTERPRISE FINANCIAL ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 13 of 121 PageID #: 13

Financial Services Corporation (Enterprise Financial) entered into a consulting agreement.

and did not go directly to Vogel personally.

The consulting agreement provides in Paragraph 1.2 as follows:

The consulting agreement in Exhibit A provides as follows:

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 14 of 121 PageID #: 14

Vogel signed the consulting agreement individually and on behalf of Argos.

Vogel, as their investment advisor, either recommended an investment in the

Case: 4:14-cv-01472-LRR Doc. #: 1 Filed: 08/25/14 Page: 15 of 121 PageID #: 15

Northwest 1973. Northwest is a wholly owned subsidiary of Northwest 1973.

Northwest signed an Investment Advisory Agreement (the Northwest IAA)

with Enterprise in 2002.