ECF 29 RICO - Amended Purpose Point Counterclaim

Case 1:22-cv-00314-JMB-RSK ECF No. 29, PageID.
639 Filed 03/30/23 Page 1 of 21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
____________________________________________________________
LUIS GOMEZ-ECHEVERRIA, ET AL., Case No. 22-CV-314

Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants, Hon. Jane M. Beckering
v.
PURPOSE POINT HARVESTING LLC,

ET AL.,
Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs.
Migrant Legal Aid Avanti Law Group, PLLC

Teresa Hendricks (P46500) Robert Anthony Alvarez (P66954)
Benjamin O’Hearn (P79252) Attorney for Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs
Molly Spaak (84730) 600 28th St. SW
Attorneys for Plaintiffs/Counter-Defendants Wyoming, MI 49509
1140 Fuller Ave., Ne 616-257-6807
Grand Rapids MI 49503
616-454-5055
DEFENDANTS’ VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

AGAINST PLAINTIFFS WITH JURY DEMAND
NOW COME the Counter-Plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys the Avanti Law Group,
PLLC, and in their Verified1 First Amended Counterclaim state as follows:
1. This is a civil action brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (hereinafter “RICO”), 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq., on behalf of Counter-Plaintiffs.
Counter-Plaintiffs complain that the Counter-Defendants participated in a criminal
enterprise engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, including Mail Fraud, Wire
Fraud, Racketeering and a conspiracy to engage in racketeering activity involving
numerous RICO predicate acts all in an effort to defraud the federal government to obtain
legal status in the United States and extort money from the Counter-Plaintiffs.
Counter-Defendants engaged in actions that have included assaulting, harassing,
intimidating and threatening Counter-Plaintiffs, their family and former employees.
Counter-Plaintiffs also bring claims for Breach of Contract, Common Law Fraudulent
Misrepresentation, Silent Fraud, Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Civil
Conspiracy.
1
Exhibit 1.
Case 1:22-cv-00314-JMB-RSK ECF No. 29, PageID.640 Filed 03/30/23 Page 2 of 21
2. Counter-Plaintiffs complain that the Counter-Defendants participated in, engaged in, and
continue to engage in, a pattern of fraud and malicious or intentionally bad acts in which
they conspire(d) in an effort to defraud the United States government and essentially
extort money from the Counter-Plaintiffs in an effort to accomplish their goal of legally
remaining in the United States under a U or T visa and supplant Counter-Plaintiffs as
labor contractors in West Michigan. Counter-Plaintiffs seek a declaration that their rights
have been violated and that they were harmed by those acts as well as that they be
awarded damages for Counter-Defendants’ unlawful conduct.
JURISDICTION
3. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Counter-Plaintiffs’ federal claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and §1332 (Diversity Jurisdiction) as well as being
compulsory counterclaims in the underlying action.
4. This Court also has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 over
Counter-Plaintiffs’ state law claims that may not be covered by diversity jurisdiction as
they are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form
part of the same case or controversy.
VENUE
5. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b) as a substantial part of the events giving
rise to this action occurred within this district and the Defendants/Counter-Plaintiffs
reside within this district.
PARTIES
6. Counter-Plaintiff Emilto Moreno Gomez (hereinafter referred to as “Emilto”) is an
individual residing in Oceana County.
7. Counter-Plaintiff Purpose Point Harvesting, LLC (hereinafter referred to as “Purpose
Point”) is a Michigan Limited Liability Company who has a principal place of business in
the city of Hart, Oceana County.
8. Counter-Plaintiff Lucille Jean Moreno (hereinafter referred to as “Lucille”) is an
individual residing in Oceana County.
9. Counter-Defendant Luis Gomez-Echeverria (hereinafter referred to as “Luis”) is a citizen
of Guatemala.
10. Counter-Defendant Hervil Gomez-Echeverria (hereinafter referred to as “Hervil”) is a
citizen of Guatemala.
11. Luis and Hervil are first cousins of Emilto.
12. Luis and Hervil are brothers.
WORK CONTRACT & VIOLATIONS

13. Purpose Point arranged for Luis and Hervil to obtain guest worker visas under the H-2A
program between 2017 and 2019.
14. Counter-Defendants incorporate by reference paragraphs 21 through 23 of ECF 13
PageID 318-319 - Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint.
15. Luis and Hervil were employed by Defendant Purpose Point under the H-2A program.
16. They both agreed to comply with all the terms and conditions of the work contracts in
each of the years in which they worked for Purpose Point. See ECF 13-6 PageID
364-458.
17. By accepting employment with Purpose Point in each of those years, Luis and Hervil
represented that they understood and were ready, willing and able to comply with the
terms and conditions of the work contracts.
18. In fact, Luis and Hervil were interviewed by an agent of Purpose Point prior to their
being hired for the positions each year they applied to work for Purpose Point during
which the terms and conditions of work contracts (as referenced in ECF 13 PageID 319
paragraph 23) were reviewed with them and to which they each agreed verbally and in
writing.
19. Additionally, the work contract specifies that “All terms and conditions included in the
job order will apply equally to all workers, both U.S. workers and H-2A workers,
employed in the occupation described in this clearance order.” ECF 13-6 PageId 375,
407, 439.
20. Among those terms and conditions to which Luis and Hervil agreed to were the
following:
a. Their availability during the anticipated period of employment;
b. Their readiness, willingness and ability to perform the work during the anticipated
hours of work per week;
c. Their availability and willingness to work the entire season - specifically, the
work contract specifies that “Persons seeking employment in this position must be
available for the entire period requested by the Employer.” ECF 13-6 PageID 374,
407, 438;
d. That payment of recruitment fees by workers was strictly prohibited and that if a
worker was asked to pay such a fee or had actually paid such a fee, he or she
agreed to inform Purpose Point immediately so that appropriate action could be
taken;
e. That they were able, willing and qualified to do the work and be available at the
time and place needed to perform the work;
f. They agreed that they could be terminated for:

i. Abandonment of employment;
ii. Committing serious acts of misconduct or serious or repeated violations of
the employer work rules;
iii. Other lawful job related reasons for termination of employment.
g. To follow the work rules as indicated in the work contract and that any violation
of lawful job related employer requirements, including the work rules, would be
considered grounds for immediate termination;
h. To not use or possess beer, liquor, or illegal drugs during work time or during any
workday before work is completed for the day - and that they would not report to
work under the influence of beer, liquor or illegal drugs;
i. That they would not leave the field or other assigned work areas without
permission of the employer or person in charge;
j. To not deliberately restrict production;
k. To not physically threaten another worker, the employer or any supervisor - doing
so would result in immediate termination;
l. To not fight on the employer’s premises, including housing premises, at any time -
doing so would result in immediate termination;
m. To not steal from fellow workers or the employer - doing so would result in
immediate termination;
n. To be present, able and willing to perform work every scheduled workday at the
scheduled time unless excused by the employer;
o. To not harass others not engage in abusive behavior of any kind;
p. To not reveal confidential or proprietary business information to any third party.
21. Despite agreeing to these terms and conditions, Luis and Hervil violated each of the
terms and conditions of employment listed in paragraph 19.
22. For example, they each abandoned the work prior to the end of the employment period to
which they agreed to be available, leaving Purpose Point without the benefit of their
availability for work and depriving labor to its clients.
Hervil
23. Counter-Plaintiffs have discovered that Hervil had no intention of fulfilling the terms of
the work contract and had pre-planned his abandonment of employment prior to the end
of the period of employment for which he was hired.
24. When Hervil applied to and accepted employment with Purpose Point, he had the
intention of pursuing all means necessary to:
a. Obtain legal entry into the United States;
b. Obtain legal status in the United States, even if as a victim of a crime or victim of
trafficking.
25. The reason for this goal was simple; Hervil impregnated a young woman in Guatemala
and refused to acknowledge his paternity of the child.
26. In order to avoid the financial and other obligations that would come from this
pregnancy, Hervil planned on utilizing the work opportunity provided by Purpose Point
solely in order to enter the United States legally.
27. The young woman and her family had been and continue to be threatened by Hervil
and/or his father, Luis Gomez-Castro - who had been employed as a law enforcement
officer in Guatemala.
28. Hervil traveled to Michigan under the visa provided to him by Purpose Point and worked
for only a few months in order to save up money for his planned abandonment of work.
29. Hervil had no intention of abiding by or complying with the terms and conditions of
employment to which he agreed prior to being hired, which is why he left only five
months after having arrived in Michigan.
30. Purpose Point relied on his agreement to comply with all the terms and conditions of
employment and Hervil knew or should have known that Purpose Point would rely on
his agreement in order to hire him and bring him as a laborer under the H-2A program.
31. Hervil’s work performance was subpar and he was antagonistic with the other workers,
aside from his brother Luis.
32. In fact, Hervil called Emilto a few days prior to his abandonment of work and stated that
he wanted his paycheck early for that week.
33. However, Hervil left before he was able to cash the check and Emilto received a call
from the local Mexican store indicating that Luis had cashed the checks belonging to
Hervil, passing himself off as Hervil.
34. The store owner, upon discovering that Luis was not the person to whom the checks were
made out, called Emilto to have him tell Luis to return to the store immediately with the
money or she would have to report the incident to the local police.
35. Hervil abandoned the employment at Purpose Point the weekend of the 28th of
September in 2018.
36. Nearly ten months later in 2019, Hervil, through his brother Luis, was provided with
and/or offered the means of obtaining legal status in the United States - namely by
claiming to be the victim of a crime and/or trafficking.
37. In fact, Hervil attempted to obtain support for his allegations of victimhood by passing
along the seemingly enticing offer of legal status to other workers if they would only
corroborate his false allegations against Purpose Point, Emilto and Lucille.
LUIS
38. Luis was a team leader of a crew of seven workers in 2018 and 2019.
39. As team leader Luis was responsible for tracking and recording the work the crew
performed on a daily basis whether it by hour worked or piece/production rate.
40. Beginning on or about July 2019, Emilto noticed that the crew in which Luis was
working began acting strange and out of character.
41. Luis began asking for additional blank timekeeping reports, which was out of the
ordinary. A former Purpose Point worker has confirmed that he witnessed Luis
completing extra timesheets with the understanding that they were being completed to
support his false allegations of shorting hours.
42. Luis’ crew was not working as productively as they had before and had become distant
and withdrawn from the other workers.
43. In fact, Luis’ crew often declined to take on additional work where normally it is
common practice for the workers to want to make more money if the opportunity arose.
44. Emilto eventually went to speak to the workers directly, in early September 2019, to
inquire about their change in behavior as they had, until then, had a very friendly and
family oriented atmosphere.
45. The workers were quiet, withdrawn, obviously uncomfortable and appeared to be afraid
of something. They would often look at Luis when a question was asked and then would
look away quickly and to the floor but refused to answer any questions or make any
comments.
46. Luis, however, did speak up and made several angry and aggressive comments including
that he would leave Purpose Point with blood on his hands and his papers in his hand.
47. His statement about leaving Purpose Point with papers in his hands was a reference to his
goal was to remain legally in the United States by any means necessary including either
as a victim of a crime or the victim of trafficking so that he could apply for a U or T visa.
48. He also stated that but for the fact that there was blood in common between him and
Emilto, he would have already beaten him up.
49. Emilto then confronted Luis as to a time keeping report that he had submitted for the
crew which seemed to indicate that they had all worked only three hours in one day for
picking zucchini.
50. This was unusual and stood out because it was less than half of the typical amount of
time expected for the amount of work that needed to be done on that day.
51. Luis responded to Emilto by stating that he had only included the three hours “to try to
help you out.”
52. Luis confirmed that he and the other workers had in fact worked approximately six hours
that day. Luis having not included all the hours worked would have meant that the crew
would not receive their full pay for that day’s work.
53. Emilto told Luis that this was unacceptable and that it needed to be corrected
immediately.
54. Luis asked to keep the report overnight and said that he would fix it and turn it in the
following day.
55. Emilto refused to leave the report with him overnight and instead, met him the following
morning and had Luis correct the report in front of the crew and initial the correction.
56. Luis abandoned employment at Purpose Point on November 3, 2019.
57. Luis informed, planned, coordinated and/or received assistance from unknown third
parties in abandoning his employment with Purpose Point.
58. Luis also planned, coordinated and/or received assistance from Rubicelia Berumen (fka
Salgado), an Agricultural Employment Services Supervisor of the Michigan Department
of Labor and Economic Opportunity - Workforce Development (MDOLEO-WD), in
abandoning his employment with Purpose Point.
59. Mrs. Berumen was working out of the Shelby offices of Michigan Works! - West
Central.
60. Luis also planned, coordinated and/or received assistance from representatives of
Migrant Legal Aid (MLA) in abandoning his employment.
61. After he abandoned the employment, the members of his crew were visibly happy to
have him gone and indicated this to Emilto and the other workers.
62. It was not until after the filing of the underlying lawsuit by Luis, which was filed 880
days after he abandoned his employment with Purpose Point, and having spoken to the
workers about the pending lawsuit, that the members of his crew told Emilto and the
other workers at Purpose Point that Luis had planned on abandoning the employment,
and had been working with some organization(s) that had promised to get him money
and his legal status before he left in 2019.
63. In fact, they stated that Luis had attempted to convince them to join him in abandoning
their employment and support his claims against Purpose Point, Emilto and Lucille.
64. Additionally, Emilto learned that prior to his abandoning his employment, Luis had
engaged in a campaign to attempt to recruit then current and former workers to support
his claims, despite their falsity, with promises of money and, more importantly, legal
status.
65. Luis told several workers during the 2019 employment season that he was working with
some people who were going to help him get money and “his papers” and that they
would be coming to talk to the rest of the workers to offer them the same thing.
66. Furthermore, Emilto has since learned that Luis and Hervil had sought the aid of a
former Purpose Point worker named Darwin Fuentes during that 2019 season to attempt
to recruit additional individuals who would be willing to lie in an effort to support Luis’
and Hervil’s claims against Purpose Point, Emilto and Lucille.
67. Darwin resides in Guatemala. On December 26, 2020, a former worker who had been
approached by Darwin in his campaign to recruit support for Luis’ plan and who refused
to participate in their scheme because he knew the allegations to be false, was compelled
to file a police complaint against Darwin for the threats that followed his refusal.
68. On or about March 7, 2021, Darwin similarly approached another former worker in
Guatemala about joining Luis’ campaign against Counter-Plaintiffs with promises of
money and legal status in the United States if he would support Luis’ false allegations.
69. Luis and Hervil’s father, Emilto’s uncle, has also been engaged in a campaign in
Guatemala to attempt to coerce current and former Purpose Point workers to support
their scheme with similar promises of money and legal status.
70. In 2020 and 2021, their father directly threatened several of the workers’ family
members for refusing to support the claims, and more recently engaged in witness
intimidation in an effort to silence the workers and/or their families from speaking out
against Luis.
71. Several complaints have been filed against Luis’ and Hervil’s father in Guatemala since
2020 for his threats and aggressive actions against former and current workers and their
families.
72. It has also come to light that Luis himself was engaging in the very actions he was
accusing the Counter-Plaintiffs of having committed by requiring members of his work
crew to pay him $500 each for what he referred to as the privilege of continuing and/or
returning to work for Purpose Point. This was not known or approved by
Counter-Plaintiffs.
73. These monies were collected here in the United States in cash.
74. It was also reported to Emilto that Luis often times engaged in drinking alcoholic
beverages during work hours and would at times threaten members of his crew to not
report his drinking lest they not return to work the following year.
75. One worker recently also reported that Luis physically assaulted him while they were at
the residence after refusing to support Luis’ claims against Emilto, Lucille and Purpose
Point at the end of July or beginning of August 2019.
76. Another worker reported that Luis forced/coerced/threatened him in order to have him
run over a phone Luis had stolen from another worker with a fork lift.
77. Luis used his familial status with Emilto as a sword against the members of his crew and
possibly other workers, unbeknownst to Emilto or Lucille.
78. Luis also attempted to convince workers to support his claims by stating that he would
soon be opening up his own business providing labor once Purpose Point was put out of
business because of the lawsuit.
Campaign Against Counter-Plaintiffs
79. Beginning in the summer of 2019, Luis began making a concerted effort to obtain
support for his false claims and to manufacture evidence.
80. Luis began meeting and speaking with third parties to coordinate, plan and take actions
geared towards convincing other workers to support his false claims against
Counter-Plaintiffs.
81. In fact, staff of Migrant Legal Aid made many visits to the workers during the 2019
season with the stated intent of securing additional support for Luis’ claims, but were
seemingly unable to find any such support among the nearly seventy (70) workers that
were part of the 2019 crew.
82. It appears that MLA went so far as to have provided Luis and another worker with a GPS
tracking device for some unknown reason or purpose that would have provided them
with detailed information regarding the dates, times, locations and routes taken for at
least Luis’ work crew.
83. Darwin Fuentes himself gave access to a former Purpose Point worker to his cellular
phone and that former worker observed that there were messages sent/received by
Rubicela Buremen, agents of the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) and staff of
Migrant Legal Aid.
84. Those text messages, most from the months of August through November 2019, appear
to confirm that Luis and/or Darwin were provided with a GPS tracking device by
Migrant Legal Aid.
85. In those text messages, Migrant Legal aid goes so far as to confirm that they could tell
from the GPS tracking device that Luis and/or Darwin were close to a residential
dwelling.
86. Counter-Plaintiffs have determined that on several occasions, the GPS tracker was used
to coordinate and plan meetings with Luis, Darwin and Migrant Legal Aid at or near the
fields in which the crews were to be working during the day.
87. This is corroborated by the text messages where in response to the messages detailed in
paragraph 84, Darwin confirms that they were working in a squash field.
88. Texts also reveal that Rubicela Buremen, and very likely her supervisors, were aware of
the GPS trafficking device. In a text conversation between Darwin and Rubicela in which
they were discussing the USDOL’s involvement, Rubicela instructs Darwin not to tell
anyone about the GPS device.
89. Former workers have confirmed that Luis would disappear in the middle of the work day
for about an hour after being picked up by a dark colored vehicle.
90. Luis began planning and coordinating his abandonment of employment with those third
parties who were aware of his contractual obligations to Counter-Plaintiff Purpose Point.
91. Prior to the filing of the underlying lawsuit by Luis and Hervil, Counter-Plaintiffs
learned of others that were involved in the campaign against them and in support of Luis
and Hervil.
92. Several former workers have reported receiving phone calls from Luis specifically
asking them to support his allegations against Counter-Plaintiffs despite his
acknowledgement that they are false.
93. Luis’ stated purpose on those calls was to attempt to convince them that it is in their
interest to support him in his false claims because they would get money from the
lawsuit and legal status in the United States for them and their families.
94. Several current and former workers have corroborated having received a call from Luis
and/or being approached by Darwin Fuentes in Guatemala asking them to join him in
this litigation with enticements of money and legal status for them and their families in
2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022.
95. These same former workers have stated that Luis would at times be accompanied in
those calls by an individual who was introduced by Luis as "Tia Teresa”.
96. These workers have indicated that they rejected the allegations made by Luis on those
calls as false and made it clear to "Tia Teresa" that they were not interested in joining
Luis in his case because the claims were not true.
97. It was also clear that Mrs. Buremen, agents of the USDOL2 and staff of Migrant Legal
Aid were guiding and directing the actions of Luis and/or Darwin against
Counter-Plaintiffs to an extent in order to perhaps unwittingly manufacture evidence to
support Luis’ false claims through the use of GPS tracking and audio recording devices.
98. It was also discovered in these text messages that Luis and/or Darwin were provided
with a listening/recording device by the USDOL that was to be used during their work
day and in interactions with Emilto and Lucille.
99. To Luis, the purpose of the eavesdropping device was to attempt to fabricate evidence to
be used in support of his goal of remaining legally in the United States under a U or T
visa as well as his false claims against Purpose Point, Emilto and Lucille.
100. Those text messages further confirmed that Luis and Darwin were acting in concert with
others to build and participate in a campaign to bring false claims against
Counter-Plaintiffs in order to obtain a monetary windfall but more importantly, obtain
legal status in the United States.
2
Specifically, a Special Agent with the USDOL was in communication with Luis and Darwin during the
2019 season prior to Luis’ abandonment of employment.
101. The phone contained recorded conversations between the workers and Emilto with the
seemingly insidious purpose of attempting to make it appear as if the workers were
somehow being mistreated.
102. In fact, in one recorded conversation, Darwin was speaking to Emilto and mentioned that
he would be unable to pay him this year because he had some outstanding expenses in
Guatemala.
103. That conversation, and hence the money Darwin was referring to, was related to money
that Emilto loaned to Darwin to pay for his wedding and not related in any way to any
alleged recruitment fees.
104. However, the fact that this conversation was recorded and the way in which Darwin
approached Emilto about the money makes it clear that he was attempting to produce
support for the alleged recruitment fees.
105. Luis, Darwin and Hervil all knew that their allegations of mistreatment and alleged
charging of recruitment fees, retention of passports, wage theft and threats were false and
not based in fact.
106. Luis and Hervil, with help from their father and Darwin among others, continued their
campaign of building and/or manufacturing support for their false claims from June 2019
through 2022 in person, via text and/or WhatsApp as well as via telephone calls.
107. Their campaign included:
a. Making false statements about the terms and conditions of their employment;
b. Falsifying time sheets and other records;
c. Engaging in work slow downs;
d. Forcing/Coercing other workers to engage in work slow downs;
e. Threatening workers during the workday;
f. Physically assaulting workers during the workday;
g. Forcing other workers to destroy personal belongings of others;
h. Stealing property from the Counter-Plaintiffs (including but not limited to a cell
phone);
i. Coercing workers into breaking work rules;
j. Coordinating and planning with others to manufacture evidence to support their
claims;
k. Possessing and utilizing a gps tracking device during the workday;
l. Possessing and utilizing a recording device to attempt to manufacture evidence;
m. Coordinating and cooperating with state and federal agents under false pretenses;
n. Conspiring with individuals in Guatemala to threaten former employees and their
families;
o. Threatening Emilto with physical harm;
p. Having their father threaten workers and their families in Guatemala including
almost running one over with his car (a report was filed);
q. Having their father threaten Emilto’s and Lucille’s nephew with a gun and
actually shooting at their neice’s home in Guatemala;
r. Leaving in the middle of the workday without permission to conspire with others
to further their campaign against Counter-Plaintiffs;
s. Having visitors at the residence past 10:30pm - visitors that were engaged in
furthering the campaign;
108. Finally, the campaign against Counter-Plaintiffs did not end with Luis, Hervil, their
father or Darwin as others were also involved in a smear campaign against the
Counter-Plaintiffs.
109. On or about April 30, 2022, a press release regarding the underlying litigation titled
“Michigan’s Labor Trafficking Problem” was sent out to Purpose Point clients with an
apparent intent of furthering the Counter-Defendants’ campaign of lies and to
embarrass/humiliate Counter-Plaintiffs.
110. This message includes the unnecessary highlighting of Emilto’s criminal conviction,
which is irrelevant, immaterial and wholly unrelated to the underlying claims.
111. It also specifically included a link to a list of Purpose Point clients for no other reason
than to attempt to shame those clients for their connection or working relationship with
Purpose Point.
112. In fact, it was a client of Purpose Point that brought this press release to Emilto’s
attention after having received it in either text or email.
113. More recently, former and potential Purpose Point workers have been receiving phone
calls from a phone number based in Guatemala from an individual named Guadalupe
Sepulveda claiming to be from the U.S. Embassy.
114. Mr. Sepulveda, who to the best of Counter-Plaintiffs’ knowledge does not work for the
U.S. Embassy, called these former and potential workers directly on their cell phones and
addressed by name.
115. Mr. Sepulveda made inquiries of the workers that made them fearful and apprehensive
about their employment with Purpose Point.
116. Luis’ father also recently accused another former worker in Guatemala of being a traitor
for not supporting Luis’ and Hervil’s claims against Counter-Plaintiffs.
117. The original complainant filed in this matter made a point to highlight the allegations
brought under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). ECF 1
118. Counter-Defendants accused Counter-Plaintiffs of having committed fraud in foreign

labor contracting by “charging workers for the opportunity to work.” ECF 1 PageID 10.
119. Those allegations were voluntarily dismissed after the Counter-Plaintiffs’ filing of a
Motion to Dismiss. ECF 8.
Eliminating The Competition
120. Counter-Plaintiffs recently discovered, via information provided directly by former
workers, that Luis’ ultimate goal (aside from obtaining legal status and money from this
campaign) was to put Purpose Point out of business and establish his own labor
contracting business with his brother, father and others.
121. The purpose of Luis’ over-three-year campaign against the Counter-Plaintiffs, as outlined
above, was to sabotage Purpose Point’s business to shut them down and then step in to
fill that void himself with his friends and family.
122. Interestingly enough, Mrs. Berumen and her husband Ramon - a self described former
farm labor contractor - were apparently involved in assisting Luis with his campaign.
123. They are believed to have had an interest in putting Purpose Point out of business so that
they could step in with Luis and his family and establish their own labor contracting
business to fill the void.
124. In fact, Mr. Buremen was seen with Luis at least once at the residences on 120th in
September 2019.
125. According to at least one former worker, Luis told him that his goal was to get his
residency so he could open his own labor contracting business and take over Purpose
Point’s contracts once he was able to have them shut down.
126. Part of the plan included filing similar claims/complaints with the USDOL and then
trying to obtain and/or manufacture evidence to support those claims via an audio
recording device as described above.
127. The USDOL, however, could not substantiate Luis’ claims and the investigation was
concluded in December of 2019.
128. Despite this, Luis and those described above continued their campaign against the
Counter-Plaintiffs culminating in the filing of the instant matter 1,281 days after Hervil
abandoned his employment with Purpose Point and 880 days after Luis followed suit.
129. Luis and Hervil continued this campaign despite knowing that their allegations were
false, that the USDOL had not substantiated their claims at the conclusion of their
investigation into Purpose Point in 2019 and, more importantly, despite not having been
able to obtain the support of any other workers to join them in this matter3 as of the filing
of this pleading.
130. Because of their campaign to destroy Purpose Point’s business, Purpose Point has
suffered damages in excess of $350,000.
131. Luis and/or Hervil have begun the process of applying for T and/or U visas.
132. They have utilized the false allegations raised in this matter as the basis for beginning
that process of applying for T and/or U visas.
133. The process of applying for those special visas necessarily requires the use of the postal
service and/or the use of private or commercial interstate carriers.
134. Luis and Hervil have traveled throughout the United States since 2018 including North
Carolina and Georgia from where they have conducted their unlawful activities to further
their criminal scheme.
RICO ENTERPRISES
135. Counter-Defendants Luis and Hervil together with Darwin Fuentes, Luis Gomez-Castro,
Rubicela Buremen, Ramon Burimen, the MDOLEO-WD, the USDOL and it's agents,
U.S. Embassy in Guatemala, the U.S. Citizenship & Immigrations Services, along with
Migrant Legal Aid and its staff, form an association in fact “enterprise” as defined in
RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1961(a)(4).
136. The common purpose of the enterprise was and continues to be to defraud the United
States Government and extort money from the Counter-Plaintiffs in order to facilitate
their plan to to supplant Purpose Point as a labor contractor provider in West Michigan
which would directly benefit the Counter-Defendants and their families.
137. The enterprise(s) was engaged in, or their activities affected, interstate and foreign
commerce. Among other things, the enterprise(s) affected Purpose Point’s labor
contracting business beginning in 2019 when the campaign outlined above took root, and
continues to affect Purpose Point’s business today.
138. Through the criminal fraud and extortion scheme described above, Luis and Hervil
knowingly, and with specific intent to profit, operated and managed the enterprise
through a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) &
(d).
3
While one former worker, Julio Cesar Gomez Moreno, seemingly signed a consent to sue form for
Migrant Legal Aid and was included in the amended complaint filed on June 14, 2022 (ECF 13-5), he was
summarily dismissed after no defense was presented to Counter-Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF 15)
him for having virtually no allegations regarding his claims. Counter-Plaintiffs very recently learned that
Julio may not have been aware nor agreed to have been included in the Amended Complaint filed by Luis
and Hervil.
Predicate Racketeering Acts

139. In order to perpetrate their criminal fraud and extortion scheme, Luis and Hervil
knowingly and willfully committed predicate racketeering offenses under RICO
§1961(a)(B) including:
a. Mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341;
b. Wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343;
c. Racketeering in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1952;
140. As part of its criminal fraud and extortion scheme, Luis and Hervil knowingly and
wilfully devised a scheme to defraud the United States government to:
a. Obtain legal entry into the United States via the H-2AA visa process;
b. Obtain long term legal status including work permits and ultimately legal
permanent residency in the United States.
141. Additionally, Luis and Hervil devised a scheme with the dual purpose of 1) depriving
Counter-Plaintiffs of their money and business contracts/clients and 2) furthering their
fraud against the US government.
142. As described above, Luis and Hervil knowingly used the mail, telephone, common
interstate carriers, and social media such as Facebook and WhatsApp to communicate
with the specific intent of executing and furthering their fraudulent schemes, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §1341 and §1343.
143. Luis and Hervil knowingly used telephone and common interstate carriers to
communicate with Counter-Plaintiffs, their families, then current and former workers as
well as communicating with members of the enterprise with the specific intent of
executing and furthering their fraudulent schemes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1343.
144. It was reasonably foreseeable to Luis and Hervil that their use of the mails, telephone,
interstate common carrier, and social media to communicate would further their scheme
to defraud and extort the Counter-Plaintiffs.
145. Counter-Plaintiffs justifiably relied on Luis' and Hervil’s assertions of experience,
willingness and ability to comply with all the terms of their employment under the H-2A
program.
146. Luis and Hervil knowingly, wilfully and maliciously engaged in behavior with the intent
of defrauding the U.S. government in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1951 & §1952.
to extort the Counter-Plaintiffs in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1951 & §1952.
to intimidate, harass and extort Counter-Plaintiffs in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1951 &
§1952.
149. As a direct and proximate cause of Luis’ and Hervil’s criminal scheme,
Counter-Plaintiffs have losses in excess $350,000 since 2019.
Pattern of Racketeering Activity
150. The predicate acts of criminal racketeering activity described above constitute a “pattern
of racketeering activity” as defined by RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(5). As described above,
Luis and Hervil repeatedly committed the predicate acts over a period of several years
across several states. In addition, they repeatedly engaged in unlawful acts as described
above to further their criminal scheme.
151. The predicate acts of criminal racketeering activity described above were related in at
least the following ways: They had common participants. They each had the same
victims, namely the Counter-Plaintiffs and the U.S. government. They each had the same
purposes of defrauding the U.S. government to obtain legal status, and eliminating
Counter-Plaintiffs’ business so they could form their own labor contracting business
using the Counter-Plaintiffs’ clients, contacts and source of workers. They were
interrelated in that without the acts of mail fraud, wire fraud, extortion, and racketeering
Luis and Hervil would not have been able to further their scheme.
152. Such acts of racketeering activity have been part of Luis’ and Hervil’s regular way of
doing business through the enterprise(s) described above since at least 2019, implying a
threat of continued criminal activity.
153. Throughout the relevant time period, Luis and Hervil were a “person(s)” as defined by
RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3).
COUNT I - VIOLATION OF THE RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND
CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (18 USC § 1961 et seq.)
154. Counter-Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs as if
fully set forth herein.
155. Luis and Hervil associated with an enterprise(s) engaged in, or whose the activities of
which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate in the conduct of
the enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity, including repeated acts
of mail fraud, wire fraud, in violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
156. As a direct, intended and foreseeable result of Luis’ and Hervil’s violations of RICO,
through the criminal scheme described above, Counter-Plaintiffs have suffered injury to
their property, including the loss of money, profit, and business reputation.
157. The criminal acts of mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, document fraud, extortion and
racketeering committed by Luis and Hervil were directly related to and were substantial
factors in causing, and continuing to cause, injury to Counter-Plaintiffs.
158. Luis and Hervil conspired by entering into an agreement to commit one or more of the
predicate acts outlined above in furtherance of their criminal scheme to defraud and
extort Counter-Plaintiffs.
159. Counter-Plaintiffs are entitled to relief, including treble damages and attorneys fees
pursuant to RICO, 18 U.S.C. §1964(c) and(d).
COUNT II - BREACH OF CONTRACT
160. Counter-Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs as if fully
set forth herein.
161. The Parties entered into a mutually beneficial agreement in which Counter-Plaintiffs
would petition for Counter-Defendants to travel to the United States under a guest worker
visa that allowed them to work legally in the United States and which generously
provided many guarantees.
162. The terms and conditions of the agreement were clear, unambiguous and in a language all
parties could understand.
163. The Counter-Plaintiffs fulfilled their obligations under the agreement each year.
164. Both Counter-Defendants both failed to comply with their obligations under the
agreement including but not limited to those listed in paragraph 19 above.
165. Additionally, Counter-Defendants violated many of the stated work rules and conditions
of employment during their employment including deliberately restricting production or
engaging in a work stoppage or slow down.
166. As a direct and proximate result of Counter-Defendants breach of the agreements,
Counter-Plaintiffs have suffered damages in excess of $75,000.
COUNT III: FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION
168. Counter-Defendants made several representations to Counter-Plaintiffs based on their
acceptance of employment and their agreement to comply with the terms, conditions and
work rules of the employment offered.
169. Among those representations were that they would comply with the terms of the guest
worker visa and return to Guatemala at the end of the employment period.
170. Counter-Defendants knew that they had no intention of returning to Guatemala at the end
of the employment periods in 2018 and 2019.
171. Their true intention was to remain in the United States by any means necessary, including
making false allegations of labor and trafficking violations so that they could apply for a
U visa or T visa which would permit them to remain in the United States without the
need for the guest worker visa.
172. Additionally, they intended on engaging in a campaign to eliminate Purpose Point’s

business so that they could form their labor contracting company and take over Purpose
Point’s contracts.
173. Plaintiffs rightfully relied on the representations of Counter-Defendants and would have
acted differently had it not been for those misrepresentations and/or omissions.
174. Those representations were material and caused the Counter-Plaintiffs to incur
considerable liabilities including the loss of the labor to be provided by
Counter-Defendants in reliance of those representations.
175. Those representations were false and the Counter-Defendants knew of their falsity at the
time they accepted the employment offered.
176. Counter-Plaintiffs did not know and could not have known of the falsity of the
representations.
177. Counter-Plaintiffs suffered damages in excess of $75,000 from those false
representations.
COUNT IV - SILENT FRAUD
set forth herein.
179. Given the complicated, lengthy, exclusive and expensive nature of applying for
permission to bring in foreign guest workers into the United States, Counter-Defendants
owed Counter-Plaintiffs a duty of candor during the application and interview process
prior to being hired.
180. Counter-Defendants had an obligation to disclose facts that were material to their
qualifications, ability, and willingness to fully perform their obligations under the
agreement.
181. They also failed to disclose that they were seeking to remain in the United States by any
means necessary, including making false allegations of labor and trafficking violations so
that they could apply for a U and/or T visa as well as their seeking to supplant Purpose
Point in farm labor contracting by destroying their business.
182. Their failure to disclose and their silence in acceptance without condition of the terms of
the employment agreement was done with the intent to induce Counter-Plaintiffs to act in
a manner which was beneficial to Counter-Defendants.
183. Their failure to disclose and their silence was done with the intention to mislead the
Counter-Plaintiffs into relying on their silence.
184. Counter-Defendants knew that their silence would induce the Counter-Plaintiffs into
fulfilling their end of the agreement.
185. Counter-Plaintiffs relied on and acted on their omissions.
186. As a result, Counter-Plaintiffs suffered damages in excess of $75,000.

COUNT V: INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

188. Counter-Defendants’ conduct was intentional.
189. Counter-Defendants’ conduct in all actions taken to pursue their goal of remaining in the
United States by any means necessary including making false statements to current and
former workers, government agencies and their representatives, and in pursuing litigation
that they know is baseless, frivolous and otherwise without merit, was and is extreme,
outrageous and of such a character as not to be tolerated by a civilized society.
190. Their campaign to destroy Purpose Point’s business and by any and all means necessary
as described in the above allegations was and is extreme, outrageous and of such a
character as not to be tolerated in a civilized society.
191. Counter-Defendants’ conduct resulted in severe and serious emotional distress to
Counter-Plaintiffs Emilto and Lucille.
192. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff has suffered injuries
and damages, past, present and future, in excess of $75,000 which include but are not
limited to:1) Emotional distress; 2) Humiliation, mortification and embarrassment; 3)
Sleeplessness and anxiety; and 4) Other injuries and damages and consequences that are
found and/or develop or manifest themselves during the course of discovery and trial.
COUNT VI - CIVIL CONSPIRACY
set forth herein.
194. Counter-Defendants acted in concert with each other and with third parties as described
above.
195. Counter-Defendants acted in concert with third parties as described above and in ways
yet to be discovered.
196. They acted to defraud Counter-Plaintiffs and deprive them of their entitlement to income,
rights to their property, interference with their business and to cause them intentional
harm all in an effort to pursue their goal of remaining legally in the United States by any
means necessary.
197. These conspiratorial acts led to Counter-Plaintiffs suffering substantial losses as well as
incurring substantial liabilities.
198. These acts were intentional, knowing, with malice and depravity of mind and without the
consent or knowledge of the Counter-Plaintiffs.
199. As a direct and proximate cause of Counter-Defendants’ conspiratorial acts,

Counter-Plaintiffs have suffered substantial loss in excess of $75,000 as well as
Counter-Plaintiffs incurring substantial liabilities.
Prayer for Relief
Wherefore, Counter-Plaintiffs hereby request that this honorable Court grant them the
following relief:
A. Declaration that the Counter-Defendants harmed Counter-Plaintiffs through violation of
the Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act and award Counter-Plaintiffs
treble damages and attorney fees and costs as permitted by law;
B. Declaration that Counter-Defendants breached the employment agreement and award
Counter-Plaintiffs damages as permitted by law;
C. Declaration that Counter-Defendants committed fraud as outlined in Counts III and IV
above and award Counter-Plaintiffs damages as permitted by law;
D. Declaration that Counter-Defendants intentionally inflicted emotional distress on Emilto
and Lucille as outlined in Count V and award them damages as permitted by law;
E. Declaration that Counter-Defendants conspired between themselves and others in such a
a way as to cause harm to Counter-Plaintiffs and award them damages as permitted by
law.
F. Awarding any other relief that is just and proper under the law and that the Court deems
necessary and appropriate.
JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Counter-Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all claims.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Robert Anthony Alvarez

Avanti Law Group, PLLC
Robert Anthony Alvarez (P66954)
Attorney for Counter-Plaintiffs

ECF 29 RICO - Amended Purpose Point Counterclaim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ECF 29 RICO - Amended Purpose Point Counterclaim

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

ECF 29 RICO - Amended Purpose Point Counterclaim

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:22-cv-00314-JMB-RSK ECF No. 29, PageID.

639 Filed 03/30/23 Page 1 of 21

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

LUIS GOMEZ-ECHEVERRIA, ET AL., Case No. 22-CV-314

PURPOSE POINT HARVESTING LLC,

Migrant Legal Aid Avanti Law Group, PLLC

DEFENDANTS’ VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COUNTERCLAIMS

WORK CONTRACT & VIOLATIONS

f. They agreed that they could be terminated for:

118. Counter-Defendants accused Counter-Plaintiffs of having committed fraud in foreign

Predicate Racketeering Acts

172. Additionally, they intended on engaging in a campaign to eliminate Purpose Point’s

186. As a result, Counter-Plaintiffs suffered damages in excess of $75,000.

187. Counter-Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all previous paragraphs as if

199. As a direct and proximate cause of Counter-Defendants’ conspiratorial acts,

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

/s/ Robert Anthony Alvarez

You might also like