No. 00-00619

THE LAW OFFICES OF                                     )(                         IN THE DISTRICT COURT
G. DAVID WESTFALL, P.C.                              )(                        OF VAN ZANDT COUNTY

Vs.                                                                                                   294TH DISTRICT COURT

UDO BIRNBAUM

Vs.

G. DAVID WESTFALL
CHRISTINA WESTFALL
STEFANI PODVIN 

This pleading amends "Udo Birnbaum's Third Party Plaintiff Civil RICO Claim against G. David Westfall, Christina Westfall, and Stefani Podvin"(filed April 30, 2001) and declares as null "Defendant Udo Birnbaum's First Amended Counterclaim, Cross-Complaint, and Amended Civil RICO Claim".

"Defendant's Answer, Counterclaim, and Cross-Complaint" (filed October 3, 2000) stands as amended by "Defendant's Amended Answer, Counterclaim, and Cross-Complaint" (filed July 6, 2001).

"Defendant's Amended Answer, Counterclaim, and Cross-Complaint" holds G. DAVID WESTFALL, CHRISTINA WESTFALL, and STEFANI PODVIN liable to UDO BIRNBAUM for such amounts as they, by reason of their RICO violation, may be liable to UDO BIRNBAUM for their having made UDO BIRNBAUM liable to their agent enterprise, THE LAW OFFICES OF G. DAVID WESTFALL, P.C. (i.e. the $18,121.10 "Plaintiff" is seeking by this suit)

This document, "Udo Birnbaum's Amended Third Party Plaintiff Civil RICO Claim against G. David Westfall, Christina Westfall, and Stefani Podvin" holds G. DAVID WESTFALL, CHRISTINA WESTFALL, and STEFANI PODVIN liable to UDO BIRNBAUM for such amounts as they, by reason of their RICO violation, damaged UDO BIRNBAUM through their agent enterprise, THE LAW OFFICES OF G. DAVID WESTFALL, P.C. (i.e. the $20,000 retainer fee paid, other costs, and loss of earnings)

Same RICO "enterprise", same "pattern of racketeering activity", different liability.

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:

COMES NOW, UDO BIRNBAUM ("Defendant", "Birnbaum"), complaining of G. DAVID WESTFALL ("David Westfall", "Westfall"), CHRISTINA WESTFALL, and STEFANI PODVIN, and would show the Court the following:

G. DAVID WESTFALL is an individual whose residence is in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas and may be served with process at 6623 Norway Road, Dallas, Texas 75230. (Ph. 361-2124)

CHRISTINA WESTFALL is an individual whose residence is in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas and may be served with process at 6623 Norway Road, Dallas, Texas 75230. (Ph.361-2124)

STEFANI PODVIN is an individual whose residence is in Dallas, Dallas County, Texas and may be served with process at 5935 Royal Crest Drive, Dallas, Texas 75230. (Ph. 987-4740)

1. UDO BIRNBAUM complains of damage by reason of violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. ("RICO"), and brings third party plaintiff claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) ("Civil RICO") against G. DAVID WESTFALL, CHRISTINA WESTFALL, and STEFANI PODVIN, individually and jointly.

2. This suit (No. 00-619) brought against Birnbaum in the name of Plaintiff "Law Office" never was an honest "collection" suit, but execution upon a scheme to defraud and extort. The evidence shows that the very filing of this suit by G. David Westfall was just another act of "racketeering activity" in a "pattern of racketeering activity", as those terms are defined in RICO.

3. Individual documents coming out of, or associated with the Law Office, if looked at in isolation, may indeed appear quite ordinary. But if looked at as a total, and in light of the surrounding circumstances, they show a "scheme to defraud" and a "pattern of racketeering activity".

4. The "pattern of racketeering activity", and the "conducting of the enterprise" is clearly visible in the testimony of G. David Westfall and his accountant Richard Alderson, as shown in the transcript of the September 20, 2000 bankruptcy proceedings against G. David Westfall (No 300-34287-HCA-7, already supplied as Exhibit 8). Further evidence is to be found in the deposition testimony of G. David Westfall on July 3, 2001.

5. Having diligently investigated both the facts and the law, Birnbaum has found that the various matters he is complaining of are not isolated garden variety wrongs, but that the evidence shows he is the victim of conduct proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq ("RICO").

6. Birnbaum has also found, and comes to show, that he is not the only victim of the "pattern of racketeering activity", i.e. that the scheme was and is ongoing upon others, and constitutes a menace projecting into the indefinite future.

7. Birnbaum, in asserting his Civil RICO claim, is in conformance with the Congressional intent of Civil RICO as established by the Supreme Court of the United States in Rotella v. Wood et al. (2000), i.e. a "congressional objective [in enacting Civil RICO] of encouraging civil litigation not merely to compensate victims but also to turn them into private attorneys general, supplementing Government efforts by undertaking litigation in the public good".

8. State courts have concurrent jurisdiction to consider civil claims arising under RICO. Tafflin v. Levitt, 493 U.S. 455 (1990). And, to the extent that Congress intended RICO to serve broad remedial purposes, concurrent jurisdiction will advance rather than jeopardize federal policies underlying the statute. Id.

9. Birnbaum was solicited by G. David Westfall upon the matter of the beheaded calves described in the Affidavit of Udo Birnbaum dated August 16, 2000, already previously supplied as Exhibit 1. Birnbaum was at that time a victim of the filing of a fraudulent suit in the Texas 294^th District Court in Canton, Texas which had become the feature article in a newsletter about corrupt lawyers a certain Michael Collins had mailed to 15,000 residents in Van Zandt County. (Exhibit 5). Shortly thereafter three beheaded calves appeared upon Birnbaum and Collins as reported by several newspapers. (Exhibit 6, 7).

10. The previous scheme upon Birnbaum in the Texas 294^th District Court is fully shown in the complaint of extortion which G. David Westfall himself as Birnbaum's lawyer filed in the Federal Court in Dallas, Texas, including 104 attached exhibits, and by reference made a part of this Claim.

11. Birnbaum paid G. David Westfall $20,000 up front. Evidence that G. David Westfall had darker reasons than the $20,000, i.e. active obstruction of Birnbaum's (3:99cv0696) and Michael Collins' (3:99cv0641) civil RICO cause in the Dallas Court for the purpose of ingratiating himself with certain Texas district judges is contained in another Affidavit of Udo Birnbaum, dated September 15, 2000, already previously supplied as Exhibit 2. Schemes such as this for the purpose of defrauding of the honest services of public officials have been held to violate RICO. United States v. Brumley, 116 F.3d 728 (5^th Cir. 1997) en banc.

12. The "pattern of racketeering activity" is evident from the transcript of the September 20, 2000 bankruptcy proceedings against G. David Westfall on September 20, 2000 (Exhibit 8):

• Mr. Alderson, the accountant for everybody, including "The Law Office", "Westfall Farms", Mr. Westfall, Mrs. Westfall for ten (10) years claiming not to "know" if Mr. Westfall is a shareholder of "The Law Office of G. Westfall, P.C." page 33 line 9.
• Mr. Alderson's testimony that funds are co-mingled across the board. page 40 starting line 12 and going on for pages.
• The Court reprimanding Mr. Alderson: "I don't understand how you can put your name on a tax return if you haven't looked to at least spot check checks." And "Aren't you sticking your neck out when you put your name on a return like that?" page 52 starting line 15.
• David Westfall funding the whole bunch out of a single account. Starting page 64.
• Neither David Westfall nor Christina Westfall have personal checking accounts. Everything comes out of a "Law Office" slush fund account. Starting at page 77
• David Westfall hiding that his daughter Stefani Podvin is the real owner of "The Law Offices of G. David Westfall". page 87 line 16.
• When Westfall shuffled assets and the old Westfall Farms became a "dormant corporation".
• David Westfall trying to make himself bullet proof from a pending $500,000 King Ranch judgment.

13. The "pattern of racketeering activity" is also evident from the following acts of "racketeering activity":

• The documents filed by or in behalf of David Westfall in his recent bankruptcy proceeding in which he claimed he had more than twelve (12) creditors against him
• The series of documents between David Westfall and his daughter Stefani Podvin designating him as director of the Law Office each year
• The retainer agreement between David Westfall and Udo Birnbaum
• The retainer agreement between David Westfall and Jerry Michael Collins
• The document in this cause which David Westfall calls his "bill"
• The fraudulent pleading David Westfall used to bring this suit.

14. Further evidence is to be found in all the exhibits previously provided in this cause, the persons named, their affidavits, together with whatever they may have.

15. The purpose of the scheme is to illicitly enrich the named third party defendants at the expense of victims such as Birnbaum. As used in this claim, the term "enrich" includes maintaining or securing employment, status, influence, personal power, and/or assurances of each other's present and future support. A further purpose of the scheme is to ingratiate certain of the defendants with public servants by creating what could be termed "YOM" ("you owe me") chips, constituting future enrichment.

16. A further purpose of the scheme is to make G. David Westfall "bullet-proof", as he has used that term, by shuffling proceeds of the pattern of racketeering activity into "G. David Westfall Familily Limited Partnership", allowing him to continue the ongoing pattern of racketeering.

17. Although the exact details of the alleged extortion scheme and the scheme to defraud of honest service are not known and await further discovery, the scheme evinced from the "pattern of racketeering activity" is as follows:

18. G. David selects a victim based not only on the financial assets as he has come to know such person has, but also on the future "usefulness" of such person such as "free" labor he can extract in behalf of "The Farm", their future "usefulness" as solicitor for "The Law Office", or as a bargaining chip, or as a source of privileged information.

19. G. David Westfall, as a public citizen, and in the glow of the law license entrusted him by the Texas State Bar, slowly and carefully "buddies" up to the victim and obtains their complete trust. He may or may not have them sign a retainer agreement, but downplays the legal implications of such document in the name of "The Law Offices of G. David Westfall, P.C." by not providing timely account statements and telling them not to worry about the bill. Although he promises to provide monthly statements, he has no intent of providing such, for they would reveal his scheme.

20. G. David Westfall at the same time schemes as how to get the most out of the situation, going even so far as conspiring to get his victim "client" to drop defendants to ingratiate himself with those same defendants (Birnbaum and Collins case).

21. G. David Westfall begins to create an alternate version of the facts, i.e. planting untruths, that somebody is "mean" (Collins), or "has not told the truth" (Collins), or is "weird" (Birnbaum), or that he "cannot get a hold of them" (Birnbaum), all the time still working on building the trust of his victims, and of course not telling them that he is spreading lies.

22. When such victim has discovered G. David Westfall's scheme, i.e. how much Westfall is benefitting, and how little service he (Westfall) has provided, and all the lies he has told both to them and about them, or at such time as G. David Westfall believes they have discovered such, he strikes, and as a public citizen, and under power of his law license proceeds to take under force or perceived force that which he wants.

23. Westfall solicited Udo Birnbaum to obstruct his civil RICO cause 3:99cv0696 in the Dallas Federal Court for the purpose of ingratiating himself with certain rogue judges. Westfall gets paid $20,000 up front. Evidence is in the documents Westfall thereto created and the total court file hereby made a part of this claim by reference. Evidence is also in the previously provided exhibits.(Exhibits 1-4)

24. Westfall obstructed in the administration of justice in the Dallas Federal Court in cause 3:99cv0696. Evidence is in the documents Westfall thereto created and in the total court file hereby made a part of this claim by reference.

25. Westfall pushes Udo Birnbaum to drop certain judge defendants from his suit, but does not succeed.

26. As a public citizen Westfall defrauded Udo Birnbaum of the "intangible right of honest service".

27. Westfall begins to discredit Udo Birnbaum's by telling others that Udo Birnbaum is "weird". Westfall never sends accounting statements.

28. Westfall suddenly created fraudulent accounts at "The Law Offices of G. Westfall P.C.", i.e. "the bill".

29. Westfall, in bringing this very suit, is trying to pull a "sneeky Pete" attempting to extort not only an additional $18,121.10 in "legal fees", but to defraud Birnbaum of his right to be heard upon the fraud in the entire "bill" and the entire scheme.

30. Solicited Michael Collins to obstruct his civil RICO cause 3:99cv0641 in the Dallas Federal Court for the purpose of ingratiating himself with certain rogue judges. Evidence is in the previously provided exhibits. Gets paid only $3000. Never sends Collins any bill or accounting statement.

31. Pushes Collins into working out of Westfall's "Law Office" and even live there a week.

32. Pushes Collins into dropping such certain judge defendants from Collins' suit, stating that Collins would have a "better case" that way. Westfall succeeds.

33. Never pays Collins for feed and veterinary supplies obtained from the feed store Collins was operating in Eustace, Texas. Westfall claims it was a trade for legal fees.

34. Pushes Collins into working at "Westfall Farms" and tries to get him to move out there. Westfall provides Collins with a list of tasks to be performed. Collins sees through the scheme.

35. Pushes Collins to obtain rights to "My Playhouse", a cardboard construction project Collins was marketing. Collins sees through the scheme.

36. Pushes to obtain rights to a book Collins was writing. Collins sees through the scheme.

37. Behind Michael Collins' back tells others Michael Collins is "mean" and a "liar".

38. Obstructed in the administration of justice in the Dallas Federal Court in cause 3:99cv0641. Evidence is to be found in the circumstances ultimately leading federal Judge Solis to sanction him $2,500 for naming Tyler District Judge Louis B. Gohmert as one of the defendants

39. As a public citizen defrauded Michael Collins of the "intangible right of honest service".

40. Created fraudulent "bill" at "The Law Offices" in Collins' Wal-Mart suit. Never previously sent accounting statement. Refused to return Collins' Wal-Mart file. Never provided a "bill" in Collins' federal Civil RICO suit.

41. "Saves" Kathy Young from trumped up criminal charges in the Texas 294^th District Court. Ultimately also becomes her lawyer in her divorce matter in 1998.

42. Pushes Young to work at "Westfall Farms" and ultimately live there. Young feeds and waters the animals, moves hay, and looks after the calves and the place in general.

43. Pushes Young to solicit Michael Collins and Udo Birnbaum.

44. Becomes Young's mothers' lawyer telling Young that her mother has a "good case". Never provides accounting statement. Does not provide "honest service". Finally tells Young her mother never had a "good case." Refuses to return file.

45. When Young comes to realize how she got duped by Westfall, Westfall turns on her, and tries to have her arrested in another matter he "did not clean up".

46. Labor was extorted under threat of "legal fees" for the benefit of "Westfall Farms".

47. Westfall gets Kathy Young to bring Cockerham to Westfall. Cockerham, former Sheriff of Van Zandt County, had been run through the mill in Van Zandt County. Westfall had it right, when he stated to Birnbaum and Collins that "It[Van Zandt County] is truly a RICO enterprise."

48. When Cockerham told Westfall he could not afford him, Westfall kept telling him "not to worry" about the bill, all the time discrediting Cockerham before others by claiming Cockerham was avoiding him and not paying his bill.

49. Westfall finally sent Cockerham a bill totaling $13,861.90 for work supposedly done between July and December of 1998, even though there exists no retainer agreement. Cockerham paid a total of $4,500. Westfall pushed Cockerham to work at "Westfall farms".

50. The first charge on Cockerham's "bill", is a charge for a teleconference between Kathy Young, Westfall's solicitor,and G. David Westfall. This fits the pattern of Birnbaum's "bill", which likewise has a charge for a teleconference with Kathy Young, his solicitor, as the first entry.

51. Labor was extorted under threat of "legal fees" for the benefit of "Westfall Farms".

52. Mathew Chitty was charged with a criminal charge in the Texas 294^th District Court. G. David Westfall became Chitty's lawyer and told Chitty that he had taken care of the matter, but he had not.

53. G. David Westfall ran up a bill of about $9,000 and Mathew Chitty likewise wound up on "Westfall Farms", where he lived in the barn.

54. Mathew Chitty fed and watered the animals, moved hay, worked on the road, and was to be paid $150 per week and money to be taken off the "bill".

55. Mathew Chitty ultimately fired G. David Westfall for lying to him and moved. G. David Westfall thereupon tried to have him arrested upon the criminal matter he had left "unfinished".

56. Labor and liberty was extorted under threat of "legal fees" for the benefit of "Westfall Farms".

The pattern upon Glen Cox:

57. Glen Cox was charged with a criminal matter and David Westfall became his lawyer.

59. G. David Westfall did not do as good a job of handling Cox's legal matters as he could have and enabled him to maintain a substantial leverage position over him. Glen Cox wound up working on "Westfall Farms", but Westfall did not pay him as agreed and Cox fired Westfall and left.

59. Westfall tried to have Cox arrested for stealing a trailer which he (Westfall) had in fact loaned to him. When that failed, he called Glen's bondsman to tell him that Glen no longer had a lawyer, and "needed to be picked up."

60. Tried to get Kathy Young to make a fraudulent affidavit that Westfall had not loaned the trailer to Cox.

61. Labor and liberty was extorted under threat of "legal fees" for the benefit of "Westfall Farms".

62. G. David Westfall became her lawyer and got her to turn her file and research over to him. Westfall intentionally ran her past the statute of limitations and then would not return her file.

63. Phelps worked for Westfall without pay and Westfall tried to get her to solicit for him.

64. A Horror story of a pattern of defrauding of honest service and obstruction in the administration of justice.

65. Allegations conforming to the elements contained in U.S. Fifth Circuit Civil RICO pattern jury instructions for 18 U.S.C. §1962(c):

• The Law Office is the alleged "enterprise". It is run by the above.
• The enterprise engaged in, or had some effect upon, interstate or foreign commerce.
• The defendant was employed by or associated with the enterprise.
• The defendant knowingly and willfully conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the enterprise.
• The defendant did so knowingly and willfully through a pattern of racketeering activity.

To prove a sufficient connection between the "enterprise", the defendant, and the "alleged pattern of racketeering activity":

• The defendant participated in the operation or management of the enterprise itself in such a way, directly or indirectly, as to have played some part in directing the affairs of the enterprise.
• The defendant in fact engaged in the pattern of racketeering activity as the plaintiff claims
• The defendant's association with or employment by the enterprise facilitated his commission of the racketeering acts
• The commission of these predicate acts had some direct or indirect effect on the alleged enterprise.

66. At all relevant times, Birnbaum was a "person" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c).

67. At all relevant times, the above-named were "persons" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1962(c).

68. At all relevant times, the "enterprise" was engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce, within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

69. At all relevant times the above-named associated with this enterprise conducted or participated, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the enterprise’s affairs through a "pattern of racketeering activity" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5), in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

70. Specifically, at all relevant times, the above-named engaged in "racketeering activity" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1) by engaging in the acts set forth above. The acts set forth above constitute a violation of one or more of the following statutes: 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (obstruction of justice). Each of the above-named committed and/or aided and abetted the commission of two or more of these acts of racketeering activity.

71. The acts of racketeering activity referred to in the previous paragraph constituted a "pattern of racketeering activity" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). The acts alleged were related to each other by virtue of common participants, a common method of commission, and the common purpose and common result of defrauding while enriching the above and concealing their fraudulent activities. The fraudulent scheme threatens to continue into the indefinite future.

72. As a result of the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), Birnbaum was injured by the $20,000 retainer fee paid, other direct costs, and loss of earnings.

73. As a result of their misconduct, the above-named are liable to Birnbaum for his injury in an amount to be determined at trial.

74. Pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), Birnbaum is entitled to recover threefold his damages plus costs and attorney’s fees.

75. Allegations conforming to U.S. Fifth Circuit Civil RICO pattern jury instructions for 18 U.S.C. §1962(a) (emphasis added, Notes added):

• Westfall Farms is the alleged "enterprise". The above have an ownership share.
• The enterprise engaged in, or had some effect "on interstate commerce".
• The defendant derived income, directly or indirectly or indirectly, from a "pattern of racketeering activity". (NOTE: "a pattern", not "her pattern", i.e. David Westfall's and/or Stefani Podvin's pattern)
• Some part of that income was used in acquiring an interest in or operating the enterprise (NOTE: interest in Westfall Farms)

The required participation as a principal requires:

• The defendant knowingly and willfully committed, or knowingly and willfully aided and abetted in the commission of two or more alleged predicate offenses that constitute the alleged pattern of racketeering activity. (NOTE: i.e. aided and abetted David Westfall and/or Stefani Podvin)
• The defendant knowingly and willfully received income derived directly or indirectly, from that alleged pattern of racketeering activity.

76. At all relevant times, Birnbaum was a "person" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1964(c).

77. At all relevant times, the above-named were "persons" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961(3) and 1962(c).

78. The above-named operated an "enterprise" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).

79. At all relevant times, this "enterprise" was engaged in, and its activities affected, interstate and foreign commerce, within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

80. At all relevant times, the above-named derived income derived from a "pattern of racketeering activity" within the meaning of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5).

81. At all relevant times the above-named used part of that income in acquiring an interest in or operating the "enterprise".

82. As a result of the violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), Birnbaum was injured by the $20,000 retainer fee paid, other direct costs, and loss of earnings.

83. As a result of their misconduct, the above-named are liable to Birnbaum for his injury in an amount to be determined at trial.

84. Pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c), Birnbaum is entitled to recover threefold his damages plus costs and attorney’s fees.

85. The above-named made misrepresentations of material facts and failed to inform Birnbaum of material facts.

86. The above-named knew or should have known of the falsity of their representations to Birnbaum or of the incompleteness of their statements to Birnbaum at the time that they were made.

87 The misrepresentations, omissions, and concealment of material facts were made intentionally or recklessly for the purpose of inducing Birnbaum to submit to their scheme, and were made with reckless and utter disregard as to their truthfulness or completeness.

88. Birnbaum reasonably and justifiably relied to his detriment on the truthfulness of the misrepresentations and on the completeness of disclosures of material facts. But for the misrepresentations, omissions, and concealment of material facts, Birnbaum would not have paid the $20,000 retainer fee and incurred other direct costs.

89. As a direct and proximate result of the intentional misrepresentations, omissions, and concealment of material facts, Birnbaum has been damaged by the $20,000 retainer fee, other direct costs, and loss of earnings.

90. The conduct was knowing, intentional, with malice, demonstrated a complete lack of care, and was in conscious disregard for the rights of Birnbaum. Birnbaum is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages.

91. This never was an honest "collection" suit by G. David Westfall in behalf of a "The Law Offices of G. David Westfall, P.C., but execution by acts of "racketeering activity" in furtherance of a full-blown racketeering scheme, with G. David Westfall, Christina Westfall, and Stefani Podvin, as principals, using a "The Law Offices of G. David Westfall, P.C." as their agent.

92. G. David Westfall, fronting through "The Law Offices of G. David Westfall, P.C.", and in concert with others, is trying to create privilege for his wife Christina Westfall and daughter Stefani Podving by reason of their being agents for the "Law Office", when in fact the "Law Office" is the agent, and CHRISTINA WESTFALL and STEFANI PODVIN, just like G. DAVID WESTFALL, are in fact the principals.

93. "Defendant's Amended Answer, Counterclaim, and Cross-Complaint" holds G. DAVID WESTFALL, CHRISTINA WESTFALL, and STEFANI PODVIN, as cross-defendants, liable to UDO BIRNBAUM for such amounts as they, by reason of their RICO violation, are liable to UDO BIRNBAUM for their having made UDO BIRNBAUM liable to their agent enterprise, THE LAW OFFICES OF G. DAVID WESTFALL, P.C. (i.e. the $18,121.10 "Plaintiff" is seeking by this suit)

94. This pleading, "Udo Birnbaum's Amended Third Party Plaintiff Civil RICO Claim against G. David Westfall, Christina Westfall, and Stefani Podvin" holds G. DAVID WESTFALL, CHRISTINA WESTFALL, and STEFANI PODVIN, as third party defendants, liable to UDO BIRNBAUM for such amounts as they, by reason of their RICO violation, damaged UDO BIRNBAUM through their agent enterprise, THE LAW OFFICES OF G. DAVID WESTFALL, P.C. (i.e. the $20,000 retainer fee paid, other costs, and loss of earnings)

95. Same RICO "enterprise", same "pattern of racketeering activity", different liability.

Wherefore, Udo Birnbaum respectfully requests that judgment be entered against parties G. DAVID WESTFALL, CHRISTINA WESTFALL, and STEFANI PODVIN.

Their conduct was knowing, intentional, with malice, demonstrated a complete lack of care, and was in conscious disregard for the rights of Defendant. Defendant is therefore entitled to an award of punitive damages. Defendant seeks judgment against each of them jointly and severally:

(a) In an amount not less than $100,000

(b) For the costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees, if any

(c) Pre-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law

(d) Post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law

(e) Punitive damages in an amount as the jury may award at its discretion

This is to certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been served via CMRR on this the _____ day of July, 2001 upon G. David Westfall, 5646 Milton, Suite 520, Dallas, Texas 75206 and Frank C. Fleming, Law Office of Frank C. Fleming, 6611 Hillcrest, Suite 305, Dallas, Texas 75205-1301.