Christine Ely (not admitted in EDNY; admitted in NY (Bar No. 4737466) and SDNY)

RICHARD R. BEST
REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Sanjay Wadhwa
Alexander M. Vasilescu
Sheldon L. Pollock
John O. Enright
David H. Tutor
Christine Ely (not admitted in EDNY; admitted in NY (Bar No. 4737466) and SDNY)
Attorneys for Plaintiff
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
New York Regional Office
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, New York 10281-1022
(212) 336-0024 (Tutor)
Email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------------------------------------------------ x
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,         :
        :
     Plaintiff,                     : COMPLAINT
:
                                                            -            against            -                                    :            1:21-cv-2008
        :
        : ECF CASE
RICHARD DALE STERRITT, JR.                            :
(a/k/a RICHARD RICHMAN),   : JURY TRIAL
MICHAEL            G.            GREER,                                                            :            DEMANDED
DEANNA            L.            LOONEY,                                                            :
ROBERT            W.            MAGNESS,            JR.,                                                :
KATIE            MATHEWS,                                                            :
JAMES CHRISTOPHER PITTMAN, and  :
MARK            ROSS,                                                                        :
        :
     Defendants,  :
 -and-       :
        :
NAOMI            ROSS,                                                                                    :
ROBYN            L.            STRAZA,                                                                        :
ANGELIKI (a/k/a ANGIE) TOUHOULIOTIS, and  :
RAINMAKER            ADVISORS,            LLC,                                                :
        :
                                                            Relief            Defendants.            :
-----------------------------------------------------------------------  x

2 
 
Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), for its complaint
against Defendants Richard Dale Sterritt, Jr. (a/k/a Richard Richman) (“Sterritt”), Michael G.
Greer (“Greer”), Deanna L. Looney (“Looney”), Robert W. Magness, Jr. (“Magness”), Katie
Mathews (“Mathews”), James Christopher (a/k/a Chris) Pittman (“Pittman”), Mark Ross
(“Ross,” and, collectively, “Defendants”), and Relief Defendants Naomi Ross (“Naomi”), Robyn
L. Straza (“Straza”), Angeliki (a/k/a Angie) Touhouliotis (“Touhouliotis”), and Rainmaker
Advisors, LLC (“Rainmaker,” and, collectively, “Relief Defendants”) alleges as follows:
SUMMARY

1. This case concerns an offering fraud in the securities of Zona Energy, Inc.
(“Zona”) and the public issuer that later acquired Zona, ERF Wireless, Inc. (“ERFB”), as well as
a related market manipulation scheme in another publicly traded company, OrgHarvest, Inc.
(“ORGH”).  The mastermind and orchestrator of the schemes was Sterritt, a criminal securities
fraud recidivist who used the alias “Richard Richman” to hide his criminal history from investors
and carry out the fraud.
2. From March 2018 through at least November 2020, Sterritt and his co-defendants
raised more than $16 million from more than 300 investors through a purported private
placement of Zona (and later, ERFB) common stock in nationwide offerings, making various
material false statements and omitting to disclose material facts to investors.
3. Instead of using the offering proceeds for the corporate purposes disclosed to
investors, Sterritt and certain of the other Defendants, including Greer and Looney,
misappropriated most of these proceeds through a number of Sterritt-controlled companies.
Defendants then used the misappropriated funds for personal expenses, including to purchase a
Bentley, to pay for travel, and to pay for purchases at restaurants, retailers, and gas stations.

3 
 
4. In addition to the Zona/ERFB offering fraud, Defendants also manipulated the
market for the common stock of ORGH, a purported cannabis production company that Sterritt
controlled.
5. In February 2020, Sterritt and Magness arranged for the deposit of 5,250,000
shares of ORGH’s common stock at a U.S. brokerage firm (the “Brokerage Firm”).  Sterritt,
Magness, Ross, and another individual planned to conduct a series of matched trades in ORGH’s
common stock in advance of an intended pump and dump of the stock.
1

6. Unbeknownst to them, however, Sterritt, Magness, and Ross were discussing the
planned matched trading scheme on recorded phone calls and in preserved email and text
message communications.
7. Sterritt, Magness, and Ross were introduced to an individual claiming to be the
leader of a network of corrupt stockbrokers who would buy for their customers’ accounts—and
without the knowledge of those customers—stock that Magness and Ross sold in the open
market, in exchange for an agreed upon 35% kickback.  Unbeknownst to Sterritt, Magness, and
Ross, the purported leader of the corrupt broker network was an undercover agent (the “UC”) for
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).
8. On every trading day between May 19 and May 29, 2020, Sterritt, Magness,
and/or Ross agreed in advance with the UC on the number of ORGH shares to trade and the price
at which to trade them.  They then coordinated and carried out the matched trading over recorded
                                                            
1
  In a “pump and dump” scheme, a group of individuals who control the “free trading”
shares of an issuer with a thinly-traded stock, also referred to as the issuer’s “float,”
inflate the issuer’s share price and trading volume through, among other things, engaging
in wash and matched trading, issuing false or misleading press releases, and paying for
stock promotions.  When the issuer’s share price reaches a desirable level or target price,
the individuals “dump” their shares into the buying volume generated during the “pump”
phase for substantial financial gain.

4 
 
conference calls and in preserved text messages, selling, in total, 20,400 shares of ORGH.  Their
pump-and-dump plan was stymied, however, when the Commission suspended trading in
ORGH’s securities on June 1, 2020, for a period of ten business days.
9. Undeterred, Sterritt almost immediately began planning a similar market
manipulation scheme in the common stock of ERFB, another microcap issuer he controlled.
Sterritt induced investors to purchase Zona stock based, in part, on the promise of a share
exchange between Zona and ERFB.  After the exchange occurred on June 29, 2020, Sterritt and
other Defendants continued to sell preferred ERFB stock from Sterritt-controlled entities.
10. Sterritt planned to again conduct matched trading with the UC, now in ERFB, to
attempt to pump and dump ERFB stock, but his plans were thwarted when the Commission
suspended trading in ERFB’s securities on February 4, 2020, for a period of ten business days.
11. As a result of their offering fraud and related market manipulation schemes,
Defendants obtained more than $16 million in total illicit proceeds.  At least $2.8 million of these
ill-gotten gains were transferred to the Relief Defendants.
VIOLATIONS
12. Based on the conduct alleged in this Complaint:
(a) Sterritt violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933
(“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)], and Sections 9(a), 10(b), and 15(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78i(a), 78j(b), and
78o(a)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5];
(b) Greer violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act
[15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)], and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the

5 
 
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78o(a)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R.
§§ 240.10b-5(a) and (c)];
(c) Looney violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities
Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)], and Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a) and
(c)];
(d) Magness violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities
Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)], and Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78i(a) and 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R.
§§ 240.10b-5(a) and (c)];
(e) Mathews violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities
Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)], and Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a) and
(c)];
(f) Pittman violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities
Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)], and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78(o)(a)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17
C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a) and (c)]; and
(g) Ross violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act
[15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)], and Sections 9(a), 10(b), and 15(a) of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78i(a), 78j(b), and 78o(a)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder
[17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a) and (c)].

6 
 
(h) Relief Defendants Naomi, Straza, Touhouliotis, and Rainmaker received funds
from Defendants for which they gave no consideration and to which they have no right or
legitimate claim.
NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AND RELIEF SOUGHT
13. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by
Section 20(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b)] and Section 21(d)(1) of the Exchange
Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1)], seeking to permanently enjoin the Defendants from engaging in the
acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business alleged herein.  The Commission also seeks
a final judgment: (a) ordering the Defendants to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, on a joint and
several basis, together with prejudgment interest thereon, and to pay civil money penalties
pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; (b) imposing a penny stock bar order against each of the
Defendants pursuant to Section 20(g) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(g)] and Section
21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6)]; (c) entering an officer-and-director bar
against Sterritt, Looney, Magness, Mathews, and Pittman, pursuant to Section 20(e) of the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §
78u(d)(2)]; (d) ordering Relief Defendants jointly and severally with Defendants to disgorge or
return their ill-gotten gains and to pay prejudgment interest thereon; and (e) ordering any other
and further relief the Court may deem just and appropriate.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
14. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Sections
20(b), 20(d), and 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v(a)], and
Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa].

7 
 
Defendants, directly or indirectly, have made use of the means or instruments of transportation or
communication in, and the means or instrumentalities of, interstate commerce, or of the mails, in
connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged herein.
15. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to Section 27 of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa].  Among other things, certain of the Defendants solicited
investors residing in the District using false and misleading offering materials, and investors
residing in the District purchased shares of Zona common stock in the Defendants’ unregistered
fraudulent offering.
DEFENDANTS
16. Sterritt (a/k/a Richman), age 64, resides in Garland, Texas.  He is not registered
with the Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities licenses.  In April 2003,
Sterritt pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to an indictment
charging him with conspiracy to commit securities fraud, money laundering, and filing false
income tax returns.  He was sentenced to five years imprisonment.  Sterritt is the undisclosed
control person of multiple public issuers, including, but not limited to, ERFB and ORGH, and
private companies, including, but not limited to, Zona, Accordant Services, Inc. (“Accordant”),
Legal Metrics, Inc. (“Legal Metrics”), Richman Energy Inc. (“Richman Energy”), and Richman
Organization, Inc. (“Richman Organization”).
17. Greer, age 45, resides in Dallas, Texas and is a friend of Sterritt.  He is not
registered with the Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities licenses.  He
has been an officer of Accordant and Richman Organization.  In 1995, he was convicted of
burglary in Texas.

8 
 
18. Looney, age 53, resides in Fort Worth, Texas and is an employee of Sterritt and
of other entities Sterritt controls, including Accordant.  At times, she has described herself as a
“Paralegal to Richard Richman.”  She is also an officer of ERFB and a Director of Legal
Metrics, both entities Sterritt controls.  She is not registered with the Commission in any capacity
and does not hold any securities licenses.
19. Magness, age 51, resides in New York, New York and is a friend of Sterritt.  He
owns a clothing store in Manhattan.  He is a Director of Legal Metrics and formerly was the sole
Director of Zona Resources, Inc., both entities Sterritt controls.  He is not registered with the
Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities licenses.
20. Mathews, age 57, resides in Garland, TX and is an employee of Sterritt and other
entities Sterritt controls.  Mathews is also a Director of Zona and its Corporate Secretary.  She is
not registered with the Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities licenses.
21. Pittman, age 49, resides in Dallas, Texas and is a friend of Sterritt.  He is a
lawyer licensed to practice in Texas, and a managing member and co-founder of a law firm
specializing in real estate and business transactions.  Pittman is also a Director of Zona.  He is
not registered with the Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities licenses.
22. Ross, age 53, resides in Miami, Florida and is a friend of Sterritt.  While Ross is
not currently registered with the Commission, he was a registered representative associated with
various registered broker-dealers between approximately October 1985 and November 2007.
During that time, he held Series 4, 7, 24, 55, and 63 licenses.  In 2007, the Financial Industry
Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) suspended and fined Ross for certain anti-money laundering
violations.  In 2008, FINRA expelled Ross from the securities industry for his failure to pay the
fines imposed on him in connection with the 2007 disciplinary action.

9 
 
RELIEF DEFENDANTS
23. Naomi, age 25, is a resident of Los Angeles, California and is Ross’s daughter
and a girlfriend of Sterritt.  She is not registered with the Commission in any capacity and does
not hold any securities licenses.  At Sterritt’s direction, Naomi received approximately $160,855
in investor proceeds.
24. Straza, age 58, is a resident of Dallas, Texas and is Sterritt’s ex-wife.  She is not
registered with the Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities licenses.  She is
a licensed cosmetic esthetician and owns a skincare spa.  She is also an officer of entities Sterritt
controls.  She received approximately $2,102,741 in investor proceeds.  In 2000, a jury in a
private civil action found that Straza engaged in a conspiracy to commit securities fraud with
Sterritt in connection with a prior similar scheme.  See Stewart Rahr v. R. Dale Sterritt et al., No.
3:99-V-0628-G (N.D. Tex. June 26, 2000).
25. Touhouliotis, age 39, is a resident of Austin, Texas and is a girlfriend of Sterritt.
She is not registered with the Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities
licenses.  She received approximately $140,485 in investor proceeds.
26. Rainmaker is a limited liability corporation incorporated in Texas with its
principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.  Rainmaker is not registered with the Commission
and is not a Commission reporting company.  Rainmaker is beneficially owned by a former
consultant to Richman Energy.  Ultimately, approximately $448,000 in investor proceeds were
paid to Rainmaker.
RELEVANT ISSUER
27. Zona was a privately held Texas corporation with its principal place of business
in Dallas, Texas.  Zona described itself in marketing materials as a “portfolio company of a

10 
 
family office focused on a generational opportunity in the independent oil and natural gas
industry focused on the acquisition, development, exploration and exploitation of
unconventional, onshore oil and natural gas reserves in the Permian Basin in West Texas.”  On
June 29, 2020, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ERFB, Zona Resources, Inc. (“Zona Resources”),
announced that it had completed a share exchange with Zona, whereby Zona shareholders
received shares of ERFB.  Following the share exchange, Zona ceased to exist as a separate
corporation.
OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES
28. ORGH was originally incorporated in Delaware on September 2, 1997 as an
auto-towing business under a different name.  In May 2018, after multiple business and name
changes, the company adopted the name “OrgHarvest, Inc.” and announced plans to produce
cannabis.  ORGH currently has its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.  ORGH’s
common stock was formerly quoted on OTC Link (formerly “Pink Sheets”), operated by OTC
Markets Group, Inc., under the symbol ORGH; it is currently listed on OTC Markets’ Expert
Market with a “Caveat Emptor” designation.  On June 1, 2020, the Commission suspended
trading in the securities of ORGH for ten business days.  ORGH is not currently reporting to the
Commission.
29. ERFB was originally incorporated in Texas in 1999 as FleetClean Systems, Inc.
In 2004, the company changed its name to ERF Wireless, Inc. and moved its state of
incorporation to Nevada.  ERFB currently has its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.
ERFB’s common stock was formerly quoted on OTC Link under the symbol ERFB; it is
currently listed on OTC Markets’ Grey Market with a “Caveat Emptor” designation.  ERFB
allegedly “provides wireless communications products and services,” and describes itself as

11 
 
having “long been associated with the energy sector by and through its provision of wireless
internet and other services in the exploration, drilling, and production phases of oil and gas.”  On
November 5, 2014, the Commission issued a settled order instituting cease-and-desist
proceedings against ERFB pursuant to Section 21C of the Exchange Act for the company’s
failure to disclose the issuance of unregistered shares and the existence of a related financing
agreement in violation of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-
11 thereunder.  ERFB was ordered to cease-and-desist from committing violations and to pay a
$50,000 civil penalty.  ERFB was registered with the Commission under Section 12(g) of the
Exchange Act from September 27, 1999 to December 29, 2016, when it filed a Form 15 to
suspend its registration obligation.  On February 4, 2021, the Commission suspended trading in
the securities of ERFB for ten business days.
FACTS
I. The Zona Offering Fraud
a. Zona Acquires Leasehold Interests on the La Escalera Ranch and Becomes
Subject to $20 Million of Demand Notes

30. The La Escalera Ranch (the “Ranch”) is a 220,000-acre working cattle ranch in
the oil-and-natural-gas-rich Permian Basin region of West Texas.  Over time, the owners of the
Ranch have leased mineral rights to various third-party sub-lessors.
31. On April 14, 2018, Le Cle Minerals, Inc. (“Le Cle”), a company Sterritt
controlled through an associate he had installed as its CEO, agreed to purchase certain leasehold
mineral rights on the Ranch from one of these third-party sub-lessors.  Relief Defendant Straza is
the current Director of Le Cle.

12 
 
32. On April 15, 2018, Le Cle assigned the leasehold mineral rights it had just
acquired to Richman Energy, another company Sterritt controlled through a friend he had
installed as its CEO.
33. On May 30, 2018, Richman Energy, in turn, assigned the same leasehold interest
to Zona.  In connection with this sublease, Zona also signed demand notes indebting Zona to
Richman Energy for at least $20 million.
34. The terms of the Ranch’s lease assignment obligated Zona to drill an initial well
by August 31, 2018 or, in the alternative, to extend the lease agreement or pay liquidated
damages.  The lessee also was required to maintain a continuous drilling program of at least two
wells a year starting in 2019, and to abide by a contract that called for annual acquisition
payments totaling over $12 million by 2022.  If Zona failed to meet the terms of this contract, the
lease was subject to immediate termination.
b. The Zona Offering Fraud
35. Beginning as early as April 2018, Sterritt and other Defendants began selling
Zona shares, using the leasehold mineral interests on the Ranch as a way to attract investors.
36. Zona did not register the offering of its common stock with the Commission and
no exemption from the registration requirements applied.
37. Typically, a prospective investor was first provided with an offering summary
(the “Zona Summary”) describing the initial sale of three million shares of Zona stock at $1.00
per share, purportedly offered in reliance upon the exemption from registration found in Rule
506(b) of Regulation D under the Securities Act.  According to the Zona Summary, the offering
proceeds were to be used for “leasehold acquisitions and for other general business purposes.”

13 
 
38. Sterritt instructed fundraisers to first send the Zona Summary to a prospective
investor, and then, after an investor expressed interest, to send a separate promotional slide deck
(the “Zona Presentation” and, together with the Zona Summary, the “Zona Offering Materials”).
The Zona Summary also incorporated by reference the Zona Presentation, stating, “For a detailed
summary of the initial acquisition of 6,500 acres, and the twelve planned wells, as well as a more
detailed summary of the entire La Escalera ranch play, please see the attached power point [sic]
presentation.”
39. The Zona Summary contained false and misleading statements, including, among
other things, (1) that certain individuals served as Zona’s “management,” even though Sterritt
controlled the company and neither his role, nor his prior criminal history, was disclosed; (2) that
a respected geologist and energy consultant who had been retained by the original lessor, was a
member of Zona’s “management,” when he was not; (3) that the drilling project would “provide
immediate cash flows”; and (4) that there was “little risk in making a commercially viable well.”
40. The Zona Presentation falsely claimed the company’s “Debt” was “$0.00M,” and
that it had “no debt,” and a “corporate policy of no debt” when in fact Zona had taken on at least
$20 million in debt when it issued demand notes in connection with its acquisition of the
leasehold interest from Richman Energy on May 30, 2018.  The Zona Presentation failed to
disclose the significant debt Zona had assumed in the form of demand notes issued to Richman
Energy.
41. The Zona Presentation likewise misleadingly described several people as
members of Zona’s management and “Advisory Team,” including the respected geologist, even
though Sterritt, a securities fraud felon, actually controlled the company.

14 
 
42. The Zona Presentation also failed to note the minimum drilling requirements
necessary to maintain the leasehold interests, and the substantial projected annual acquisition
payments.
43. While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted
statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Sterritt, Greer, Magness, Pittman, and Ross each used
the false and misleading Zona Offering Materials to solicit investors.
44. While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted
statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Magness recruited a consultant for his luxury men’s
clothing store to solicit investors and, using the Zona Offering Materials, sold Zona shares to his
former fashion industry colleagues.
45. While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted
statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Greer emailed the Zona Offering Materials to several
prospective investors, at least one of whom bought Zona shares.
46. While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted
statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Pittman emailed the Zona Offering Materials to sell
shares to executives at a family-owned investment services firm to which he provided legal
services on an ongoing basis.
47. While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted
statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Ross sent the Zona Offering Materials to multiple
investors and focused his selling efforts on elderly investors, including soliciting a disabled
woman in her 90s and convincing her to host a country club luncheon in Palm Beach, Florida, at
which Sterritt gave a presentation on Zona to other retirees.

15 
 
48. While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted
statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Sterritt used the Zona Offering Materials to target
investors through a network of individuals who stood to personally benefit from his scheme,
repeatedly offering insiders, friends, and acquaintances the opportunity to buy Zona shares at a
discount in exchange for recruiting their own friends, family, co-workers, and clients to invest.
49. For example, Sterritt and Pittman became acquainted with three dually-registered
investment adviser individuals/registered representatives at a dually-registered investment
adviser/broker-dealer firm, and, in exchange for their commitment to raise at least $3 million,
allowed the representatives to buy Zona shares for as little as $0.04/share, compared with the
$1.00/share or $2.50/share price typically offered to other investors.
50. For his investor solicitation efforts, Ross received from entities Sterritt controlled
purported “consulting” fees, which were undisclosed to investors.
51. Once a prospective investor expressed interest in purchasing Zona shares, the
investor typically was instructed to contact Mathews, a Zona employee, to finalize the
investment.
52. The Zona Presentation described Mathews as Zona’s “Director, Corporate
Secretary, & Investor Relations,” and, when corresponding with investors, Mathews used an
“@zonaenergy.com” email address with a signature describing her as the company’s corporate
secretary.
53. At Sterritt’s direction, and while knowingly or recklessly disregarding the
material false and omitted statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Mathews arranged for
investors to purchase Zona shares not only directly from the company, but also directly from a
number of other Sterritt-controlled entities, including Accordant, Richman Energy, and Richman

16 
 
Organization.  While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted
statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Mathews also facilitated the sale of Zona shares to
investors that Greer personally held.
54. After investors contacted Mathews, she provided each investor with a securities
purchase agreement for Zona shares and wiring instructions specifying one of several bank
accounts—often in the name of one of the other Sterritt-controlled entities, such as Richman
Energy, Richman Organization, or Accordant—to which each investor should wire his or her
funds.
55. Mathews knew or recklessly disregarded that Sterritt controlled the entities to
which investors wired funds, and further knew that much of the funds transferred among these
entities were never wired to Zona and were never used for Zona’s corporate purposes.
56. Although Sterritt had no formal role with Zona, Mathews acted at his direction,
tracking the funds raised from the sale of Zona shares in extensive investor tracking spreadsheets
that Sterritt “reviewed and approved.”
57. Looney sometimes played Mathews’s role, giving investors directions about how
to complete their share purchases and providing them with wiring instructions.
58. Looney knew or recklessly disregarded that Sterritt controlled the entities to
which investors wired funds, and further knew that much of the funds transferred among these
entities were never wired to Zona and were never used for Zona’s corporate purposes.
59. Looney usually signed investors’ securities purchase agreements as an officer and
on behalf of the entity under Sterritt’s control that was selling the shares.
60. When Greer sold to investors Zona shares that he personally held, he personally
signed the securities purchase agreements.

17 
 
61. Regardless of whether an investor purchased Zona shares from the company,
another Sterritt-controlled entity, or Greer, it was Looney or Mathews who communicated with
Zona’s transfer agent to complete the transfer of shares to the investor.
62. In total, from March 2018 through November 2020, Defendants raised more than
$16 million from at least 300 investors located throughout the United States in the unregistered
offering of Zona/ERFB shares:
a. Richman Energy received over $10 million;
b. Richman Organization received over $2.5 million;
c. Accordant received over $1.8 million;
d. Greer received over $850,000; and
e. Zona received over $800,000.
c. The Misappropriation of Zona Investor Funds
63. Through the Zona Offering Materials and their oral representations, Defendants
falsely represented to Zona investors that investor funds would be used to support Zona’s
operations, namely, to develop the mineral rights on the Ranch.
64. The Zona Summary, for instance, stated that offering proceeds would be used for
“leasehold acquisitions and for other general business purposes,” and “to fund legal and
administrative expenses for th[e] offering.”
65. But instead of using the funds raised in the Zona offering to develop a drilling
program on the Ranch, Sterritt stole most of the funds.
66. Investor money raised from Zona share sales was regularly transferred among
bank accounts for entities Sterritt controlled, including Richman Energy, Richman Organization,
and Accordant, as well accounts Greer controlled.

18 
 
67. On November 22, 2019, a then-Richman Energy employee complained in an
email to Sterritt, Mathews, Pittman, Looney, and other senior Zona employees that “over 90% of
the time” these intercompany transfers of investor funds appeared to have “no notes or
documentation,” that “no apparent business purpose existed as a rationale for such transfers,”
and that “[n]o true cash management protocols nor internal controls . . . [were] in place at most if
not all the Richman related companies.”
68. The employee opined that “most outside accounting firms would [not] even touch
any of the books of the Richman related companies,” and the situation was “[s]o bad it looks
intentional and nefarious.”
69. Sterritt terminated this employee less than a month later.
70. Sterritt used investor funds from the bank accounts he controlled and those in
Greer’s name to pay his own personal expenses, to purchase numerous luxury goods, to give
cash to family, friends, and girlfriends (including Relief Defendants Naomi, Straza, and
Touhouliotis), and to fund other unrelated businesses in which he had an interest.
71. For example, in January 2019, two Sterritt-controlled bank accounts with close to
zero balances received deposits for the purchase of Zona shares from 39 investors, totaling over
$1.5 million.  Sterritt immediately misappropriated a majority of those funds, including by
transferring $636,000 to Relief Defendant Straza, $60,000 to Greer, $30,000 to Relief Defendant
Rainmaker, and over $25,000 to Relief Defendant Touhouliotis and her family.
72. Sterritt also used more than $50,000 of these investor proceeds to purchase a
Bentley (which Looney registered in Greer’s name), and spent thousands of dollars on purchases
at restaurants, gas stations, and retailers.

19 
 
73. In March 2020, Sterritt asked an individual who had previously invested in Zona
to contribute funds to ORGH, a cannabis company of which Sterritt was trying to gain control.
The investor declined to invest in ORGH but said that he would invest more in Zona, promptly
sending funds to a Sterritt-controlled bank account for that purpose.  The very next day, the
investor’s funds were wired to ORGH.
74. Zona investor money was also used to fund Ponzi-like payments to dissatisfied
earlier investors.
75. For example, in January 2020, a former Richman Energy employee exposed
Sterritt’s true identity when he emailed a number of investors and attached a photocopy of
Sterritt’s driver’s license with his real name.  At least one investor confronted Sterritt and
demanded the return of his $30,000 contribution.  Although Zona had produced no revenue from
drilling, in March 2020 Sterritt used new investor funds to return the dissatisfied investor’s
$30,000 as well as $900 in interest.
76. Like Sterritt, Greer misappropriated money from the sale of Zona shares, using
these funds for Sterritt’s unrelated businesses, to wire cash to Relief Defendant Naomi and a
family member of Relief Defendant Touhouliotis, to withdraw cash for himself, and to make
numerous restaurant and retail purchases.
77. Looney, too, misappropriated funds.  For example, Looney was a signatory to a
bank account for Accordant, and caused Accordant to transfer millions of dollars to Sterritt’s
other businesses and to his personal associates, including hundreds of thousands of dollars to
both Greer and Relief Defendant Straza.  Additionally, at least $29,000 of investor funds were
used to pay for Looney’s luxury Dallas apartment.

20 
 
II. The ORGH Manipulation
78. Sterritt intended to use Zona to enable him to gain control of a public issuer and
then pump and dump the stock of the targeted issuer.
79. In January 2020, in furtherance of this scheme, Sterritt gained control of ORGH
when several entities and trusts set up in the names of his family members and close friends
tendered Zona shares to the previous controlling shareholders of ORGH in exchange for ORGH
shares.
80. Mathews then created a spreadsheet for Sterritt that detailed the number of ORGH
shares owned by each of the various entities and trusts under Sterritt’s control and showed that,
together, they comprised a controlling interest in ORGH.
81. Legal Metrics, of which Magness and Looney are Directors, was one of the
entities that exchanged Zona shares for ORGH shares.
82. In February 2020, at Sterritt’s direction, Magness opened an account at the
Brokerage Firm in the name of Legal Metrics and deposited 5,250,000 ORGH shares there.
83. Later, in May 2020, Magness obtained trading authority for Ross on the Legal
Metrics account at the Brokerage Firm.
84. Sterritt, Magness, and Ross planned to use the Legal Metrics account at the
Brokerage Firm to pump and dump ORGH stock using matched trading.
85. After Sterritt was introduced to the UC, Sterritt reassured the UC that he would
control the sale of ORGH stock by Legal Metrics, stating that he had a “hundred percent control”
over the shares deposited at the Brokerage Firm.
86. Sterritt engaged in the matched trading scheme to liquidate the ORGH shares he
controlled and create the misleading appearance of active trading in ORGH, telling the UC that

21 
 
he ultimately wanted to sell 40 to 50 million ORGH shares he controlled at a target price of $2
per share.
87. Magness hoped that Sterritt would compensate him for his role in the matched
trading scheme, stating on a recorded call, “the more that comes in, the more chance I have of
getting a little.”
88. From May 19 to May 29, 2020, Sterritt and Magness unknowingly matched trades
with the UC on every trading day, typically coordinating the trades through three-way
conference calls and/or preserved text messages.
89. For example, on May 19, 2020, Sterritt, Magness, and the UC agreed ahead of
time, on a recorded conference call, on the number of ORGH shares to trade and the price at
which to trade them, with Sterritt stating, “A thousand at 99.”
90. Then, keeping the conference line with Sterritt and the UC open, Magness called
a registered representative at the Brokerage Firm on a separate phone line to place the order at
the pre-arranged price, just below the best offer, stating, “[s]o we’re going to – the – I’m going to
do a – let’s do a thousand at .99.”
91. As soon as the registered representative posted the offer, the UC placed a buy
order, purchasing the shares offered by Legal Metrics and completing the matched trade.
92. In addition to conference calls, Sterritt arranged matched trades with the UC over
preserved text messages.  For example, on May 20, 2020, Sterritt exchanged the following text
messages with UC while facilitating the matched trading:
Time Stamp
UTC Sender Message Notes
5/20/20 16:58 RS to UC  What time we going today

22 
 
5/20/20 17:11 UC to RS Does around 2 pm NY time work?
5/20/20 17:14 RS to UC  Yes
5/20/20 17:17 UC to RS
Good. I'll call you around that time.
Then Rob can get [the Brokerage Firm
registered representative] on speaker
and offer 1,300 shares. Talk soon.
5/20/20 17:17 RS to UC  K
5/20/20 17:53 UC to RS What price will you be offering it at?
5/20/20 17:54 RS to UC  .98
5/20/20 17:54 RS to UC  You want me the put it in now?
5/20/20 17:54 RS to UC  $0.98
5/20/20 17:56 UC to RS
Wait for me to call you before putting it
in. I will plan to bid .98 after we chat.
5/20/20 18:06     UC calls RS
5/20/20 18:13 UC to RS Filled
5/20/20 18:14 RS to UC  We got it
5/20/20 18:14 RS to UC  Confirmed
5/20/20 18:14 RS to UC  [Thumbs Up Emoji]
5/20/20 18:15 UC to RS
[Thumbs Up Emoji] Have a great night.
Chat tomorrow.

93. On May 26, 2020, Sterritt sent a first wire payment to the UC from a bank
account in the name of Greer to compensate the UC and his brokers for, as Sterritt believed,
engaging the matched trading scheme.
94. On May 29, 2020, Ross and the UC agreed on a pre-arranged number of shares to
trade that day at a pre-arranged price, with Ross stating to the UC, “[s]o I told [the registered

23 
 
representative at the Brokerage Firm] before at 165.  I just got to tell him to put it in.”  When the
UC responded, “I’ll bid for it at a buck 65 and we’ll take you guys out,” Ross replied, “Terrific.”
95. Later the same day, on May 29, 2020, Legal Metrics sold 3,061 shares of ORGH
in the open market to the UC at a price of $1.65/share.
96. In total, over the eight trading days during the period May 19 to May 29, 2020,
Sterritt, Magness, and Ross executed matched trades with the UC for thousands of shares at
prices increasing from $0.99 per share to $1.72 per share.
97. Sterritt, Magness, and Ross’s plan to increase the price of ORGH and eventually
liquidate their shares was thwarted when, on June 1, 2020, the Commission suspended trading in
ORGH’s securities for a period of ten business days.
98. Sterritt, Magness, and Ross each knew that their conduct was illegal.
99. For example, Sterritt intended to disguise kickback payments to the UC as
marketing fees.  He also planned to explain away communications with the UC about pricing for
the matched trades as, instead, related to a fictitious business to sell face masks during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
100. Sterritt also suggested using Bitcoin to make payments to the UC because it
would “be the safest way” to conceal the payments.
101. After the trading suspension, Magness flew to Dallas, TX and met with Sterritt on
June 7, 2020, to discuss how to cover their tracks.  During that meeting, which was recorded,
Magness stated, “the only way this could ever come back to us” was if the UC identified
Magness as the sender of text messages coordinating the matched trading.
102. Ross, for his part, arranged for pre-paid mobile phones to be sent for him, Sterritt,
and the UC, so that (he believed) their phone calls could not be recorded.

24 
 
III. The ERFB Share Exchange and Planned ERFB Manipulation
103. After the Commission suspended trading in ORGH, Sterritt attempted to conduct
the same manipulative trading scheme in ERFB, another microcap issuer he controls, through
shares held by friends, family, and trusts and entities set up in their names.
104. Sterritt’s control of ERFB is not disclosed in any of ERFB’s public filings.
105. Rather, Sterritt’s employees and friends, including Looney, are listed as the
company’s officers and directors, masking Sterritt’s involvement while allowing him to control
the company’s corporate actions.
106. On or around June 29, 2020, Zona and ERFB conducted a share exchange,
whereby Zona investors received Series C Preferred shares of ERFB when ERFB’s wholly-
owned subsidiary, Zona Resources (formed in the first quarter of 2020, initially with Magness as
its President), acquired Zona as a wholly-owned subsidiary.
107. Both before and after the share exchange occurred, Sterritt used it as a way to
advance his offering fraud scheme and mislead investors.
108. For example, the Zona Presentation included as a “Path to Development” a goal to
“[a]ccomplish share exchange of Zona shareholders by publicly traded company.”
109. Following the share exchange, an email purportedly authored by Sterritt’s
installed CEO of Zona to existing Zona investors titled “Message from the CEO” stated:
The investment by ERF wireless [sic] in Zona provides the mechanism to
maximize shareholder value by providing our shareholders with a path to
the public market for valuation and liquidity.  ERF plans to add additional
assets to the portfolio in coming periods and those assets are expected to
provide additional value to our current Zona shareholders.  We believe
that the potential for growth under the ERF umbrella, combined with the
Zona assets, will accelerate future returns to our shareholder base.

25 
 
110. This statement was false and misleading:  ERFB had no concrete plans to add
assets to its portfolio and Zona was by then at risk of having its La Escalera Ranch leases
terminated based on Zona’s failure to satisfy the lease terms.  Rather, Sterritt used statements
like this one to induce existing Zona investors to purchase additional ERFB Preferred C shares.
111. On November 19, 2020, ERFB applied with FINRA for (1) a 10,000-to-1 reverse
split of the company’s outstanding stock, and (2) a corporate name change to “Zona.”
112. On January 28, 2021, FINRA issued a deficiency letter to ERFB declining to
process the company’s application, citing FINRA Rule 6490 (Processing of Company-Related
Actions), the Company’s failure to be current in its former reporting requirements, and the
November 2014 cease-and-desist order.  Nonetheless, on the very same day, ERFB issued a
press release (the “January 28 Release”) announcing that “the Effective Date of [ERFB’s]
reverse split of common stock in a ratio of 10,000 to 1 will be 5:00 p.m. EST on January 28,
2021.”
113. This inaccurate information had an immediate effect on the market for ERFB
shares—in the minutes following this press release, well over a million ERFB shares were sold.
114. On February 4, 2021, the Commission suspended trading in ERFB’s securities for
a period of ten business days.
115. On February 5, 2021, ERFB issued a new press release (the “February 5
Release”) that purported to correct the January 28 Release.
116. The February 5 Release stated that the reverse split did not occur “due to
inaccurate advice from an outside technical advisor,” and that “[t]his error has also caused a ten-
day trading halt as directed by the SEC.”  This statement was false—the reverse split did not
occur because of “inaccurate advance from an outside technical advisor,” but for the reasons

26 
 
FINRA explained in its deficiency letter.  Moreover, that “error” did not cause the SEC’s trading
halt; rather, as the Commission stated in its release, it suspended trading “because of questions
regarding the accuracy and adequacy of information in the marketplace, including, but not
limited to, information in a January 28, 2021 press release issued by ERFB concerning certain
corporate actions by ERFB.”
117. Before the Commission suspended trading in ERFB, Sterritt had discussed with
the UC plans to begin matched trading in ERFB following the purported processing of the
reverse split, as well as plans to dump his shares on unsuspecting investors as the price of ERFB
stock rose.
IV. The Relief Defendants Received Ill-Gotten Gains
a. Straza
118. From April 30, 2018 through November 23, 2020, Straza received a total of
$2,102,741 in investor proceeds from the Zona offering.  Straza did not have a legitimate claim
to these funds.
119. The $2,102,741 received by Straza from the proceeds of the Zona offering
constitutes ill-gotten gains derived from Defendants’ violations alleged in this Complaint.
b. Naomi
120. From May 9, 2019 through September 1, 2020, Naomi received a total of
$160,855 in investor proceeds from the Zona offering.  Naomi did not have a legitimate claim to
these funds.
121. The $160,855 received by Naomi from the proceeds of the Zona offering
constitutes ill-gotten gains derived from Defendants’ violations alleged in this Complaint.

27 
 
c. Touhouliotis
122. From December 14, 2018 through November 23, 2020, Touhouliotis received a
total of $161,485 in investor proceeds from the Zona offering.  Touhouliotis did not have a
legitimate claim to these funds.
123. The $161,485 received by Touhouliotis from the proceeds of the Zona offering
constitutes ill-gotten gains derived from Defendants’ violations alleged in this Complaint.
d. Rainmaker
124. From September 25, 2018 through December 17, 2019, Rainmaker received a
total of $448,456.92 in investor proceeds from the Zona offering.  Rainmaker did not have a
legitimate claim to these funds.
125. The $448,456.92 received by Rainmaker from the proceeds of the Zona offering
constitutes ill-gotten gains derived from Defendants’ violations alleged in this Complaint.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c)
(All Defendants)

126. The Commission repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1
through 125, as though fully set forth herein.
127. The shares of Zona stock that the Defendants sold constitute “securities” within
the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(1)] and Section 3(a)(10)
of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(10)].
128. At all relevant times, the shares of Zona stock that the Defendants sold were not
registered in accordance with the provisions of the Securities Act and no exemption from
registration was applicable.

28 
 
129. The Defendants therefore, singly or in concert, directly or indirectly, made use of
the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the
mails to offer and to sell securities when no registration statement had been filed or was in effect
as to such offers and sales of such securities and no exemption from registration was available.
130. By reason of the activities described herein, the Defendants, singly or in concert,
directly or indirectly, violated, and, unless enjoined and restrained, will continue to violate,
Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and e(c)].
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b)
(Sterritt)

131. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 125, as if fully set forth herein.
132. Defendant Sterritt, directly or indirectly, with scienter, in connection with the
purchase or sale of securities, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce,
the mails, or any facility of a national securities exchange, made untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of
the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b).
133. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Sterritt, directly or indirectly, has violated,
and, unless enjoined and restrained, will again violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15
U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b)].

29 
 
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)(2)
(Sterritt)

134. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 125, as if fully set forth herein.
135. Defendant Sterritt, directly or indirectly, in the offer and sale of securities, by the
use of the means and instruments of transportation and communication in interstate commerce
and of the mails, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, obtained money or property
by means of any untrue statement of material fact or any omission to state a material fact
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they
were made, not misleading.
136. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Sterritt, directly or indirectly, violated,
and, unless enjoined and restrained, will continue to violate, Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities
Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2)].
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Sections Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c)
Thereunder
(All Defendants)
137. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 125, as if fully set forth herein.
138. The Defendants, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, directly or
indirectly, singly or in concert, by the use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate
commerce, or of the mails, or of the facilities of a national securities exchange, with scienter,
have employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud, and have engaged in transactions, acts,
practices, and courses of business which operated as a fraud or deceit.

30 
 
139. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants directly or indirectly, have violated,
and, unless enjoined and restrained, will again violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15
U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a) and (c)].
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act
(All Defendants)

140. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 125, as if fully set forth herein.
141. The Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in the offer and sale of
securities, by the use of the means and instruments of transportation and communication in
interstate commerce and of the mails, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth:  (a)
employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; and (b) engaged in transactions, practices or
courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of
securities.
142. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants, singly or in concert, directly or
indirectly, have violated, and, unless enjoined and restrained, will again violate, Sections
17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(1) and 77q(a)(3)].
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Section 9(a) of the Exchange Act
(Sterritt, Magness, Ross)
 
143. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
125, as though fully set forth herein.
144. Defendants Sterritt, Magness, and Ross, directly or indirectly, by use of the mails
or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, for the purpose of creating a false or
misleading appearance of active trading in any security other than a government security, or a

31 
 
false or misleading appearance with respect to the market for any such security (A) effected
transactions in a security which involved no change in the beneficial ownership thereof; (B)
entered an order or orders for the purchase of the security with the knowledge that an order or
orders of substantially the same size, at substantially the same price, for the sale of the security
had been or would be entered by or for the same or different parties; or (C) entered any order or
orders for the sale of the security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the
same size, at substantially the same price, for the purchase of the security had been or would be
entered by or for the same or different parties.
145. Defendants Sterritt, Magness, and Ross, directly or indirectly, by use of the mails
or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, together and with other persons, effected
a series of transactions in a security not registered on a national securities exchange, creating
actual or apparent active trading in such security and raising the price of such security for the
purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security by others.
146. As described herein, Defendants Sterritt, Magness, and Ross knowingly or
recklessly engaged in unlawful matched trades to create a false appearance of trading activity
and to artificially increase the trading price of ORGH securities.
147. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants Sterritt, Magness, and
Ross, directly or indirectly, have violated, and, unless enjoined and restrained, will again violate,
Section 9(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78i(a)].

32 
 
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act
(Sterritt, Greer, Pittman, Ross)

148. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every
allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 125, as if fully set forth herein.
149. Defendants Sterritt, Greer, Pittman, and Ross, while engaged in the business of
effecting transactions in securities for the account of others made use of the mails or the means
or instrumentalities of interstate commerce to effect transactions in, or to induce or attempt to
induce the purchase or sale of, a security without being registered in accordance with Section
15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)].
150. Defendants Sterritt, Greer, Pittman, and Ross have violated, and, unless enjoined
and restrained, will again violate, Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)].
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
Unjust Enrichment
(All Relief Defendants)
151. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through
125, as though fully set forth herein.
152. By virtue of the foregoing, in the manner described above, Relief Defendants
received investor funds and/or ill-gotten gains for which they gave no bona fide consideration
and to which they have no legitimate claim.
153. As described herein, the funds acquired by Relief Defendants are traceable to
Defendants’ wrongful acts and were acquired under circumstances in which it is not just,
equitable or conscionable for Relief Defendants to retain the funds.
154.  By reason of the conduct described above, Relief Defendants have been unjustly
enriched and should be required to return their ill-gotten gains.

33 
 
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court grant the following
relief:
I.
A final judgment permanently enjoining:
(a) All Defendants and each of their respective agents, servants, employees, attorneys
and other persons in active concert or participation with each of them who receive
actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, from any future
direct or indirect participation in any offering of unregistered securities in
violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77e(a),
77e(c)], pursuant to Section 20(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b)];
(b) All Defendants and each of their respective agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with each of them,
who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, and
each of them, from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §
78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], pursuant to Section
21(d)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1)];
(c) All Defendants and each of their respective agents, servants, employees, and
attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with each of them,
who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, and
each of them, from any future direct or indirect participation in any offering of
unregistered securities in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15

34 
 
U.S.C. § 77q(a)], pursuant to Section 20(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §
77t(b)]; 
(d) Defendants Sterritt, Magness, and Ross from violating Section 9(a) of the
Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78i(a)], pursuant to Section 21(d)(1) of the Exchange
Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1)]; and
(e) Defendants Sterritt, Greer, Pittman, and Ross, and their agents, servants,
employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with
them who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise,
from violating Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)], pursuant
to Section 21(d)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1)].
II.
 Ordering all Defendants, and all Relief Defendants, to disgorge the ill-gotten gains they
received with prejudgment interest thereon pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5) and Sections
6501(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Pub. L.
No. 116-283, to be codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3) and 78u(d)(7);
III.
 Ordering all Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the
Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C.
§ 78u(d)(3)];
IV.
Ordering a penny-stock bar against all Defendants under Section 20(g) of the Securities
Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(g)] and Section 21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6)];

35 
 
V.
Ordering Defendants Sterritt, Looney, Magness, Mathews, and Pittman to be barred from
serving as an officer or director of an issuer pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act [15
U.S.C. § 78t(e)] and Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C.§ 78u(d)(2)] as a result of
the violations alleged in this Complaint; and
VI.
Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and necessary for
the benefit of investors.

Dated: New York, New York
 April 14, 2021

     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

                                                            By:            s/            Richard            R.            Best
                                                            Richard            R.            Best
Sanjay Wadhwa
Alexander M. Vasilescu
Sheldon L. Pollock
John O. Enright
David H. Tutor
Christine D. Ely (not admitted in EDNY; admitted
in NY (Bar No. 4737466) and SDNY
      Attorneys for Plaintiff
United States Securities and Exchange Commission
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400
New York, New York 10281-1022
                                                            (212)            336-0024            (Tutor)
                                                            Email:            [email protected]

JS 44   (Rev. 10/20)
CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court.  This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.    (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I.
(a)   PLAINTIFFSDEFENDANTS
(b)
County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE:IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
(c)
Attorneys
(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Attorneys
(If Known)
II.  BASIS OF JURISDICTION
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES
(Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff
and One Box for Defendant)
(For Diversity Cases Only)
1U.S. Government3Federal Question
PTFDEFPTFDEF
Plaintiff
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
Citizen of This State1
1Incorporated or Principal Place44
of Business In This State
2U.S. Government4DiversityCitizen of Another State22Incorporated
and
Principal Place55
Defendant
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)
of Business In Another State
Citizen or Subject of a33Foreign Nation66
Foreign Country
IV.  NATURE OF SUIT
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACTTORTSFORFEITURE/PENALTYBANKRUPTCYOTHER STATUTES
110 Insurance
PERSONAL INJURYPERSONAL INJURY
625 Drug Related Seizure422 Appeal 28 USC 158375 False Claims Act
120 Marine310 Airplane365 Personal Injury  -of Property 21 USC 881423 Withdrawal376 Qui Tam (31 USC
130 Miller Act315 Airplane ProductProduct Liability690 Other28 USC 1573729(a))
140 Negotiable InstrumentLiability367 Health Care/400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment320 Assault, Libel &Pharmaceutical
PROPERTY RIGHTS
410 Antitrust
& Enforcement of JudgmentSlanderPersonal Injury820 Copyrights430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act330 Federal Employers’Product Liability830 Patent450 Commerce
152 Recovery of DefaultedLiability368 Asbestos Personal835 Patent - Abbreviated460 Deportation
Student Loans340 MarineInjury ProductNew Drug Application470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans)345 Marine ProductLiability
840 Trademark
Corrupt Organizations
153 Recovery of OverpaymentLiability
PERSONAL PROPERTYLABOR
880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits350 Motor Vehicle370 Other Fraud710 Fair Labor StandardsAct of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)
160 Stockholders’ Suits355 Motor Vehicle371 Truth in LendingAct485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other ContractProduct Liability380 Other Personal720 Labor/Management
SOCIAL SECURITY
Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability360 Other PersonalProperty DamageRelations861 HIA (1395ff)490 Cable/Sat TV
196 FranchiseInjury385 Property Damage740 Railway Labor Act862 Black Lung (923)850 Securities/Commodities/
362 Personal Injury -
Product Liability751 Family and Medical863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g))Exchange
Medical MalpracticeLeave Act
864 SSID Title XVI890 Other Statutory Actions
REAL PROPERTYCIVIL RIGHTSPRISONER PETITIONS
790 Other Labor Litigation
865 RSI (405(g))891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation440 Other Civil Rights
Habeas Corpus:
791 Employee Retirement893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure441 Voting463 Alien DetaineeIncome Security Act
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment442 Employment510 Motions to Vacate870 Taxes (U.S. PlaintiffAct
240 Torts to Land443 Housing/Sentenceor Defendant)896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product LiabilityAccommodations530 General871 IRS—Third Party899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property445 Amer. w/Disabilities -535 Death Penalty
IMMIGRATION
Act/Review or Appeal of
Employment
Other:
462 Naturalization Application
Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities -540 Mandamus & Other465 Other Immigration950 Constitutionality of
Other550 Civil RightsActionsState Statutes
448 Education555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V.  ORIGIN
(Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1   Original
Proceeding
2   Removed from
State Court
3Remanded from
Appellate Court
4  Reinstated or
Reopened
5  Transferred from
Another District
(specify)
6   Multidistrict
Litigation -
Transfer
8  Multidistrict
Litigation -
Direct File
VI.  CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
Brief description of cause:
VII.  REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:
CHECK IF THIS IS A
CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
DEMAND $
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND:
YesNo
VIII.  RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY
(See instructions):
JUDGEDOCKET NUMBER
DATESIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT #AMOUNTAPPLYING IFPJUDGEMAG. JUDGE
26 USC 7609
Dallas, TX
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Richard R. Best et al., 200 Vesey St., Ste. 400, New
York
, NY 10281-1022
Richard Dale Sterritt, Jr., Michael G. Greer, Deanna L.
Looney  Katie Mathews  Robert W  Magness  Jr   James
See Attached
✖
✖
15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), 77t(g), 78u(d)(1), 78u(d)(2), 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(6)
Unregistered and fraudulent securities offering
N/A
✖
✖
April 14, 2021
s/ Richard R. Best

CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATION ELIGIBILITY
Local Arbitration Rule 83.provides that with certain exceptions, actions seeking money damages only in an amount not in excess of $150,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, are eligible for compulsory arbitration. The amount of damages is presumed to be below the threshold amountunless a
certification to the contrary is filed.
&DVHLV(OLJLEOHIRU$UELWUDWLRQ
I, __________________________________________, counsel for____________________________, do hereby certify that the above captioned civil action is ineligible for
compulsory arbitration for the following reason(s):
monetary damages sought are in excess of $150,000, exclusive of interest and costs,
the complaint seeks injunctive relief,
the matter is otherwise ineligible for the following reason
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1
Identify any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more or its stocks:
RELATED CASE STATEMENT (Section VIII on the Front of this Form)
Please list all cases that are arguably related pursuant to Division of Business Rule 50.3.1 in Section VIII on the front of this form. Rule 50.3.1 (a) provides that “A civil case is “related”
to another civil case for purposes of this guideline when, because of the similarity of facts and legal issues or because the cases arise from the same transactions or events, a
substantial saving of judicial resources is likely to result from assigning both cases to the same judge and magistrate judge.” Rule 50.3.1 (b) provides that “ A civil case shall not be
deemed “related” to another civil case merely because the civil case: (A) involves identical legal issues, or (B) involves the same parties.” Rule 50.3.1 (c) further provides that
“Presumptively, and subject to the power of a judge to determine otherwise pursuant to paragraph (d), civil cases shall not be deemed to be “related” unless both cases are still
pending before the court.”
NY-E DIVISION OF BUSINESS RULE 50.1(d)(2)
1.) Is the civil action being filed in the Eastern District removed from a New York State Court located in Nassau or Suffolk
County?                          Yes                                       No
2.) If you answered “no” above:
a) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in Nassau or Suffolk
County?YesNo
b) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in the Eastern
District?YesNo
c)If this is a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act case, specify the County in which the offending communication was
received:______________________________.
If your answer to question 2 (b) is “No,” does the defendant (or a majority of the defendants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or
Suffolk County, or, in an interpleader action, does the claimant (or a majority of the claimants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or
Suffolk County?___________________________________
(Note: A corporation shall be considered a resident of the County in which it has the most significant contacts).
BAR ADMISSION
I am currently admitted in the Eastern District of New York and currently a member in good standing of the bar of this court.
Yes     No
Are you currently the subject of any disciplinary action (s) in this or any other state or federal court?
Yes     (If yes, please explainNo
I certify the accuracy of all information provided above.
Signature: ____________________________________________________
:FT


















/P
/DVW0RGLILHG
Richard R. BestSecurities and Exchange Commission
✔
✔
N/A
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
s/ Richard R. Best

RICHARD R. BEST 
REGIONAL DIRECTOR 
Sanjay Wadhwa 
Alexander M. Vasilescu 
Sheldon L. Pollock 
John O. Enright 
David H. Tutor 
Christine Ely (not admitted in EDNY; admitted in NY (Bar No. 4737466) and SDNY) 
Attorneys for Plaintiff 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
New York Regional Office 
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400 
New York, New York 10281-1022 
(212) 336-0024 (Tutor)  
Email: [email protected] 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK 
------------------------------------------------------------------------ x 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,         : 
        : 
     Plaintiff,                     : COMPLAINT 

:        
     - against -   : 1:21-cv-2008 
        : 
        : ECF CASE 
RICHARD DALE STERRITT, JR.                            : 
(a/k/a RICHARD RICHMAN),   : JURY TRIAL  
MICHAEL G. GREER,     : DEMANDED 
DEANNA L. LOONEY,     : 
ROBERT W. MAGNESS, JR.,    : 
KATIE MATHEWS,     : 
JAMES CHRISTOPHER PITTMAN, and  : 
MARK ROSS,      : 
        : 
     Defendants,  : 
 -and-       : 
        : 
NAOMI ROSS,       : 
ROBYN L. STRAZA,      : 
ANGELIKI (a/k/a ANGIE) TOUHOULIOTIS, and  : 
RAINMAKER ADVISORS, LLC,    : 
        : 
     Relief Defendants. : 
----------------------------------------------------------------------- x 
 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 1 of 35 PageID #: 1



2 
 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), for its complaint 

against Defendants Richard Dale Sterritt, Jr. (a/k/a Richard Richman) (“Sterritt”), Michael G. 

Greer (“Greer”), Deanna L. Looney (“Looney”), Robert W. Magness, Jr. (“Magness”), Katie 

Mathews (“Mathews”), James Christopher (a/k/a Chris) Pittman (“Pittman”), Mark Ross 

(“Ross,” and, collectively, “Defendants”), and Relief Defendants Naomi Ross (“Naomi”), Robyn 

L. Straza (“Straza”), Angeliki (a/k/a Angie) Touhouliotis (“Touhouliotis”), and Rainmaker 

Advisors, LLC (“Rainmaker,” and, collectively, “Relief Defendants”) alleges as follows:  

SUMMARY 
 

1. This case concerns an offering fraud in the securities of Zona Energy, Inc. 

(“Zona”) and the public issuer that later acquired Zona, ERF Wireless, Inc. (“ERFB”), as well as 

a related market manipulation scheme in another publicly traded company, OrgHarvest, Inc. 

(“ORGH”).  The mastermind and orchestrator of the schemes was Sterritt, a criminal securities 

fraud recidivist who used the alias “Richard Richman” to hide his criminal history from investors 

and carry out the fraud.   

2. From March 2018 through at least November 2020, Sterritt and his co-defendants 

raised more than $16 million from more than 300 investors through a purported private 

placement of Zona (and later, ERFB) common stock in nationwide offerings, making various 

material false statements and omitting to disclose material facts to investors.    

3. Instead of using the offering proceeds for the corporate purposes disclosed to 

investors, Sterritt and certain of the other Defendants, including Greer and Looney, 

misappropriated most of these proceeds through a number of Sterritt-controlled companies.  

Defendants then used the misappropriated funds for personal expenses, including to purchase a 

Bentley, to pay for travel, and to pay for purchases at restaurants, retailers, and gas stations. 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 2 of 35 PageID #: 2



3 
 

4. In addition to the Zona/ERFB offering fraud, Defendants also manipulated the 

market for the common stock of ORGH, a purported cannabis production company that Sterritt 

controlled. 

5. In February 2020, Sterritt and Magness arranged for the deposit of 5,250,000 

shares of ORGH’s common stock at a U.S. brokerage firm (the “Brokerage Firm”).  Sterritt, 

Magness, Ross, and another individual planned to conduct a series of matched trades in ORGH’s 

common stock in advance of an intended pump and dump of the stock.1    

6. Unbeknownst to them, however, Sterritt, Magness, and Ross were discussing the 

planned matched trading scheme on recorded phone calls and in preserved email and text 

message communications.   

7. Sterritt, Magness, and Ross were introduced to an individual claiming to be the 

leader of a network of corrupt stockbrokers who would buy for their customers’ accounts—and 

without the knowledge of those customers—stock that Magness and Ross sold in the open 

market, in exchange for an agreed upon 35% kickback.  Unbeknownst to Sterritt, Magness, and 

Ross, the purported leader of the corrupt broker network was an undercover agent (the “UC”) for 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”).   

8. On every trading day between May 19 and May 29, 2020, Sterritt, Magness, 

and/or Ross agreed in advance with the UC on the number of ORGH shares to trade and the price 

at which to trade them.  They then coordinated and carried out the matched trading over recorded 

                                                            

1   In a “pump and dump” scheme, a group of individuals who control the “free trading” 
shares of an issuer with a thinly-traded stock, also referred to as the issuer’s “float,” 
inflate the issuer’s share price and trading volume through, among other things, engaging 
in wash and matched trading, issuing false or misleading press releases, and paying for 
stock promotions.  When the issuer’s share price reaches a desirable level or target price, 
the individuals “dump” their shares into the buying volume generated during the “pump” 
phase for substantial financial gain.   

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 3 of 35 PageID #: 3



4 
 

conference calls and in preserved text messages, selling, in total, 20,400 shares of ORGH.  Their 

pump-and-dump plan was stymied, however, when the Commission suspended trading in 

ORGH’s securities on June 1, 2020, for a period of ten business days.   

9. Undeterred, Sterritt almost immediately began planning a similar market 

manipulation scheme in the common stock of ERFB, another microcap issuer he controlled.  

Sterritt induced investors to purchase Zona stock based, in part, on the promise of a share 

exchange between Zona and ERFB.  After the exchange occurred on June 29, 2020, Sterritt and 

other Defendants continued to sell preferred ERFB stock from Sterritt-controlled entities.    

10. Sterritt planned to again conduct matched trading with the UC, now in ERFB, to 

attempt to pump and dump ERFB stock, but his plans were thwarted when the Commission 

suspended trading in ERFB’s securities on February 4, 2020, for a period of ten business days. 

11. As a result of their offering fraud and related market manipulation schemes, 

Defendants obtained more than $16 million in total illicit proceeds.  At least $2.8 million of these 

ill-gotten gains were transferred to the Relief Defendants. 

VIOLATIONS 

12. Based on the conduct alleged in this Complaint: 

(a) Sterritt violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 

(“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)], and Sections 9(a), 10(b), and 15(a) 

of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78i(a), 78j(b), and 

78o(a)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]; 

(b) Greer violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act 

[15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)], and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 4 of 35 PageID #: 4



5 
 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78o(a)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. 

§§ 240.10b-5(a) and (c)]; 

(c) Looney violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities 

Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)], and Section 10(b) of the Exchange 

Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a) and 

(c)]; 

(d) Magness violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities 

Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)], and Sections 9(a) and 10(b) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78i(a) and 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. 

§§ 240.10b-5(a) and (c)]; 

(e) Mathews violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities 

Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)], and Section 10(b) of the Exchange 

Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a) and 

(c)]; 

(f) Pittman violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities 

Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)], and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78(o)(a)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 

C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a) and (c)]; and 

(g) Ross violated Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1), and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act 

[15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c) and 77q(a)(1) and (a)(3)], and Sections 9(a), 10(b), and 15(a) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78i(a), 78j(b), and 78o(a)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder 

[17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a) and (c)]. 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 5 of 35 PageID #: 5



6 
 

(h) Relief Defendants Naomi, Straza, Touhouliotis, and Rainmaker received funds 

from Defendants for which they gave no consideration and to which they have no right or 

legitimate claim.   

NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING AND RELIEF SOUGHT 

13. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by 

Section 20(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b)] and Section 21(d)(1) of the Exchange 

Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1)], seeking to permanently enjoin the Defendants from engaging in the 

acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business alleged herein.  The Commission also seeks 

a final judgment: (a) ordering the Defendants to disgorge their ill-gotten gains, on a joint and 

several basis, together with prejudgment interest thereon, and to pay civil money penalties 

pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)]; (b) imposing a penny stock bar order against each of the 

Defendants pursuant to Section 20(g) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(g)] and Section 

21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6)]; (c) entering an officer-and-director bar 

against Sterritt, Looney, Magness, Mathews, and Pittman, pursuant to Section 20(e) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(e)] and Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 

78u(d)(2)]; (d) ordering Relief Defendants jointly and severally with Defendants to disgorge or 

return their ill-gotten gains and to pay prejudgment interest thereon; and (e) ordering any other 

and further relief the Court may deem just and appropriate. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

14. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, Sections 

20(b), 20(d), and 22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v(a)], and 

Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e), and 78aa].  

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 6 of 35 PageID #: 6



7 
 

Defendants, directly or indirectly, have made use of the means or instruments of transportation or 

communication in, and the means or instrumentalities of, interstate commerce, or of the mails, in 

connection with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged herein.   

15. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of New York pursuant to Section 27 of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa].  Among other things, certain of the Defendants solicited 

investors residing in the District using false and misleading offering materials, and investors 

residing in the District purchased shares of Zona common stock in the Defendants’ unregistered 

fraudulent offering.   

DEFENDANTS 

16. Sterritt (a/k/a Richman), age 64, resides in Garland, Texas.  He is not registered 

with the Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities licenses.  In April 2003, 

Sterritt pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to an indictment 

charging him with conspiracy to commit securities fraud, money laundering, and filing false 

income tax returns.  He was sentenced to five years imprisonment.  Sterritt is the undisclosed 

control person of multiple public issuers, including, but not limited to, ERFB and ORGH, and 

private companies, including, but not limited to, Zona, Accordant Services, Inc. (“Accordant”), 

Legal Metrics, Inc. (“Legal Metrics”), Richman Energy Inc. (“Richman Energy”), and Richman 

Organization, Inc. (“Richman Organization”).  

17. Greer, age 45, resides in Dallas, Texas and is a friend of Sterritt.  He is not 

registered with the Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities licenses.  He 

has been an officer of Accordant and Richman Organization.  In 1995, he was convicted of 

burglary in Texas.   

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 7 of 35 PageID #: 7



8 
 

18. Looney, age 53, resides in Fort Worth, Texas and is an employee of Sterritt and 

of other entities Sterritt controls, including Accordant.  At times, she has described herself as a 

“Paralegal to Richard Richman.”  She is also an officer of ERFB and a Director of Legal 

Metrics, both entities Sterritt controls.  She is not registered with the Commission in any capacity 

and does not hold any securities licenses.   

19. Magness, age 51, resides in New York, New York and is a friend of Sterritt.  He 

owns a clothing store in Manhattan.  He is a Director of Legal Metrics and formerly was the sole 

Director of Zona Resources, Inc., both entities Sterritt controls.  He is not registered with the 

Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities licenses.   

20. Mathews, age 57, resides in Garland, TX and is an employee of Sterritt and other 

entities Sterritt controls.  Mathews is also a Director of Zona and its Corporate Secretary.  She is 

not registered with the Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities licenses.   

21. Pittman, age 49, resides in Dallas, Texas and is a friend of Sterritt.  He is a 

lawyer licensed to practice in Texas, and a managing member and co-founder of a law firm 

specializing in real estate and business transactions.  Pittman is also a Director of Zona.  He is 

not registered with the Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities licenses.   

22. Ross, age 53, resides in Miami, Florida and is a friend of Sterritt.  While Ross is 

not currently registered with the Commission, he was a registered representative associated with 

various registered broker-dealers between approximately October 1985 and November 2007.  

During that time, he held Series 4, 7, 24, 55, and 63 licenses.  In 2007, the Financial Industry 

Regulatory Authority (“FINRA”) suspended and fined Ross for certain anti-money laundering 

violations.  In 2008, FINRA expelled Ross from the securities industry for his failure to pay the 

fines imposed on him in connection with the 2007 disciplinary action.   

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 8 of 35 PageID #: 8



9 
 

RELIEF DEFENDANTS 

23. Naomi, age 25, is a resident of Los Angeles, California and is Ross’s daughter 

and a girlfriend of Sterritt.  She is not registered with the Commission in any capacity and does 

not hold any securities licenses.  At Sterritt’s direction, Naomi received approximately $160,855 

in investor proceeds.  

24. Straza, age 58, is a resident of Dallas, Texas and is Sterritt’s ex-wife.  She is not 

registered with the Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities licenses.  She is 

a licensed cosmetic esthetician and owns a skincare spa.  She is also an officer of entities Sterritt 

controls.  She received approximately $2,102,741 in investor proceeds.  In 2000, a jury in a 

private civil action found that Straza engaged in a conspiracy to commit securities fraud with 

Sterritt in connection with a prior similar scheme.  See Stewart Rahr v. R. Dale Sterritt et al., No. 

3:99-V-0628-G (N.D. Tex. June 26, 2000).   

25. Touhouliotis, age 39, is a resident of Austin, Texas and is a girlfriend of Sterritt.  

She is not registered with the Commission in any capacity and does not hold any securities 

licenses.  She received approximately $140,485 in investor proceeds. 

26. Rainmaker is a limited liability corporation incorporated in Texas with its 

principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.  Rainmaker is not registered with the Commission 

and is not a Commission reporting company.  Rainmaker is beneficially owned by a former 

consultant to Richman Energy.  Ultimately, approximately $448,000 in investor proceeds were 

paid to Rainmaker. 

RELEVANT ISSUER 

27. Zona was a privately held Texas corporation with its principal place of business 

in Dallas, Texas.  Zona described itself in marketing materials as a “portfolio company of a 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 9 of 35 PageID #: 9



10 
 

family office focused on a generational opportunity in the independent oil and natural gas 

industry focused on the acquisition, development, exploration and exploitation of 

unconventional, onshore oil and natural gas reserves in the Permian Basin in West Texas.”  On 

June 29, 2020, a wholly-owned subsidiary of ERFB, Zona Resources, Inc. (“Zona Resources”), 

announced that it had completed a share exchange with Zona, whereby Zona shareholders 

received shares of ERFB.  Following the share exchange, Zona ceased to exist as a separate 

corporation. 

OTHER RELEVANT ENTITIES 

28. ORGH was originally incorporated in Delaware on September 2, 1997 as an 

auto-towing business under a different name.  In May 2018, after multiple business and name 

changes, the company adopted the name “OrgHarvest, Inc.” and announced plans to produce 

cannabis.  ORGH currently has its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.  ORGH’s 

common stock was formerly quoted on OTC Link (formerly “Pink Sheets”), operated by OTC 

Markets Group, Inc., under the symbol ORGH; it is currently listed on OTC Markets’ Expert 

Market with a “Caveat Emptor” designation.  On June 1, 2020, the Commission suspended 

trading in the securities of ORGH for ten business days.  ORGH is not currently reporting to the 

Commission. 

29. ERFB was originally incorporated in Texas in 1999 as FleetClean Systems, Inc.  

In 2004, the company changed its name to ERF Wireless, Inc. and moved its state of 

incorporation to Nevada.  ERFB currently has its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas.  

ERFB’s common stock was formerly quoted on OTC Link under the symbol ERFB; it is 

currently listed on OTC Markets’ Grey Market with a “Caveat Emptor” designation.  ERFB 

allegedly “provides wireless communications products and services,” and describes itself as 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 10 of 35 PageID #: 10



11 
 

having “long been associated with the energy sector by and through its provision of wireless 

internet and other services in the exploration, drilling, and production phases of oil and gas.”  On 

November 5, 2014, the Commission issued a settled order instituting cease-and-desist 

proceedings against ERFB pursuant to Section 21C of the Exchange Act for the company’s 

failure to disclose the issuance of unregistered shares and the existence of a related financing 

agreement in violation of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-

11 thereunder.  ERFB was ordered to cease-and-desist from committing violations and to pay a 

$50,000 civil penalty.  ERFB was registered with the Commission under Section 12(g) of the 

Exchange Act from September 27, 1999 to December 29, 2016, when it filed a Form 15 to 

suspend its registration obligation.  On February 4, 2021, the Commission suspended trading in 

the securities of ERFB for ten business days. 

FACTS 

I. The Zona Offering Fraud 

a. Zona Acquires Leasehold Interests on the La Escalera Ranch and Becomes 
Subject to $20 Million of Demand Notes 

 
30. The La Escalera Ranch (the “Ranch”) is a 220,000-acre working cattle ranch in 

the oil-and-natural-gas-rich Permian Basin region of West Texas.  Over time, the owners of the 

Ranch have leased mineral rights to various third-party sub-lessors.   

31. On April 14, 2018, Le Cle Minerals, Inc. (“Le Cle”), a company Sterritt 

controlled through an associate he had installed as its CEO, agreed to purchase certain leasehold 

mineral rights on the Ranch from one of these third-party sub-lessors.  Relief Defendant Straza is 

the current Director of Le Cle.  

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 11 of 35 PageID #: 11



12 
 

32. On April 15, 2018, Le Cle assigned the leasehold mineral rights it had just 

acquired to Richman Energy, another company Sterritt controlled through a friend he had 

installed as its CEO.   

33. On May 30, 2018, Richman Energy, in turn, assigned the same leasehold interest 

to Zona.  In connection with this sublease, Zona also signed demand notes indebting Zona to 

Richman Energy for at least $20 million.   

34. The terms of the Ranch’s lease assignment obligated Zona to drill an initial well 

by August 31, 2018 or, in the alternative, to extend the lease agreement or pay liquidated 

damages.  The lessee also was required to maintain a continuous drilling program of at least two 

wells a year starting in 2019, and to abide by a contract that called for annual acquisition 

payments totaling over $12 million by 2022.  If Zona failed to meet the terms of this contract, the 

lease was subject to immediate termination.   

b. The Zona Offering Fraud 

35. Beginning as early as April 2018, Sterritt and other Defendants began selling 

Zona shares, using the leasehold mineral interests on the Ranch as a way to attract investors.   

36. Zona did not register the offering of its common stock with the Commission and 

no exemption from the registration requirements applied. 

37. Typically, a prospective investor was first provided with an offering summary 

(the “Zona Summary”) describing the initial sale of three million shares of Zona stock at $1.00 

per share, purportedly offered in reliance upon the exemption from registration found in Rule 

506(b) of Regulation D under the Securities Act.  According to the Zona Summary, the offering 

proceeds were to be used for “leasehold acquisitions and for other general business purposes.”   

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 12 of 35 PageID #: 12



13 
 

38. Sterritt instructed fundraisers to first send the Zona Summary to a prospective 

investor, and then, after an investor expressed interest, to send a separate promotional slide deck 

(the “Zona Presentation” and, together with the Zona Summary, the “Zona Offering Materials”).  

The Zona Summary also incorporated by reference the Zona Presentation, stating, “For a detailed 

summary of the initial acquisition of 6,500 acres, and the twelve planned wells, as well as a more 

detailed summary of the entire La Escalera ranch play, please see the attached power point [sic] 

presentation.” 

39. The Zona Summary contained false and misleading statements, including, among 

other things, (1) that certain individuals served as Zona’s “management,” even though Sterritt 

controlled the company and neither his role, nor his prior criminal history, was disclosed; (2) that 

a respected geologist and energy consultant who had been retained by the original lessor, was a 

member of Zona’s “management,” when he was not; (3) that the drilling project would “provide 

immediate cash flows”; and (4) that there was “little risk in making a commercially viable well.”  

40. The Zona Presentation falsely claimed the company’s “Debt” was “$0.00M,” and 

that it had “no debt,” and a “corporate policy of no debt” when in fact Zona had taken on at least 

$20 million in debt when it issued demand notes in connection with its acquisition of the 

leasehold interest from Richman Energy on May 30, 2018.  The Zona Presentation failed to 

disclose the significant debt Zona had assumed in the form of demand notes issued to Richman 

Energy. 

41. The Zona Presentation likewise misleadingly described several people as 

members of Zona’s management and “Advisory Team,” including the respected geologist, even 

though Sterritt, a securities fraud felon, actually controlled the company.   

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 13 of 35 PageID #: 13



14 
 

42. The Zona Presentation also failed to note the minimum drilling requirements 

necessary to maintain the leasehold interests, and the substantial projected annual acquisition 

payments.   

43. While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted 

statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Sterritt, Greer, Magness, Pittman, and Ross each used 

the false and misleading Zona Offering Materials to solicit investors.   

44. While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted 

statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Magness recruited a consultant for his luxury men’s 

clothing store to solicit investors and, using the Zona Offering Materials, sold Zona shares to his 

former fashion industry colleagues.   

45. While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted 

statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Greer emailed the Zona Offering Materials to several 

prospective investors, at least one of whom bought Zona shares.   

46. While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted 

statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Pittman emailed the Zona Offering Materials to sell 

shares to executives at a family-owned investment services firm to which he provided legal 

services on an ongoing basis.   

47. While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted 

statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Ross sent the Zona Offering Materials to multiple 

investors and focused his selling efforts on elderly investors, including soliciting a disabled 

woman in her 90s and convincing her to host a country club luncheon in Palm Beach, Florida, at 

which Sterritt gave a presentation on Zona to other retirees.   

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 14 of 35 PageID #: 14



15 
 

48. While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted 

statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Sterritt used the Zona Offering Materials to target 

investors through a network of individuals who stood to personally benefit from his scheme, 

repeatedly offering insiders, friends, and acquaintances the opportunity to buy Zona shares at a 

discount in exchange for recruiting their own friends, family, co-workers, and clients to invest.   

49. For example, Sterritt and Pittman became acquainted with three dually-registered 

investment adviser individuals/registered representatives at a dually-registered investment 

adviser/broker-dealer firm, and, in exchange for their commitment to raise at least $3 million, 

allowed the representatives to buy Zona shares for as little as $0.04/share, compared with the 

$1.00/share or $2.50/share price typically offered to other investors.   

50. For his investor solicitation efforts, Ross received from entities Sterritt controlled 

purported “consulting” fees, which were undisclosed to investors. 

51. Once a prospective investor expressed interest in purchasing Zona shares, the 

investor typically was instructed to contact Mathews, a Zona employee, to finalize the 

investment.   

52. The Zona Presentation described Mathews as Zona’s “Director, Corporate 

Secretary, & Investor Relations,” and, when corresponding with investors, Mathews used an 

“@zonaenergy.com” email address with a signature describing her as the company’s corporate 

secretary.   

53. At Sterritt’s direction, and while knowingly or recklessly disregarding the 

material false and omitted statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Mathews arranged for 

investors to purchase Zona shares not only directly from the company, but also directly from a 

number of other Sterritt-controlled entities, including Accordant, Richman Energy, and Richman 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 15 of 35 PageID #: 15



16 
 

Organization.  While knowingly or recklessly disregarding the material false and omitted 

statements in the Zona Offering Materials, Mathews also facilitated the sale of Zona shares to 

investors that Greer personally held.   

54. After investors contacted Mathews, she provided each investor with a securities 

purchase agreement for Zona shares and wiring instructions specifying one of several bank 

accounts—often in the name of one of the other Sterritt-controlled entities, such as Richman 

Energy, Richman Organization, or Accordant—to which each investor should wire his or her 

funds.   

55. Mathews knew or recklessly disregarded that Sterritt controlled the entities to 

which investors wired funds, and further knew that much of the funds transferred among these 

entities were never wired to Zona and were never used for Zona’s corporate purposes. 

56. Although Sterritt had no formal role with Zona, Mathews acted at his direction, 

tracking the funds raised from the sale of Zona shares in extensive investor tracking spreadsheets 

that Sterritt “reviewed and approved.”   

57. Looney sometimes played Mathews’s role, giving investors directions about how 

to complete their share purchases and providing them with wiring instructions.   

58. Looney knew or recklessly disregarded that Sterritt controlled the entities to 

which investors wired funds, and further knew that much of the funds transferred among these 

entities were never wired to Zona and were never used for Zona’s corporate purposes. 

59. Looney usually signed investors’ securities purchase agreements as an officer and 

on behalf of the entity under Sterritt’s control that was selling the shares.   

60. When Greer sold to investors Zona shares that he personally held, he personally 

signed the securities purchase agreements.   

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 16 of 35 PageID #: 16



17 
 

61. Regardless of whether an investor purchased Zona shares from the company, 

another Sterritt-controlled entity, or Greer, it was Looney or Mathews who communicated with 

Zona’s transfer agent to complete the transfer of shares to the investor. 

62. In total, from March 2018 through November 2020, Defendants raised more than 

$16 million from at least 300 investors located throughout the United States in the unregistered 

offering of Zona/ERFB shares: 

a. Richman Energy received over $10 million;  

b. Richman Organization received over $2.5 million; 

c. Accordant received over $1.8 million; 

d. Greer received over $850,000; and 

e. Zona received over $800,000. 

c. The Misappropriation of Zona Investor Funds 

63. Through the Zona Offering Materials and their oral representations, Defendants 

falsely represented to Zona investors that investor funds would be used to support Zona’s 

operations, namely, to develop the mineral rights on the Ranch.   

64. The Zona Summary, for instance, stated that offering proceeds would be used for 

“leasehold acquisitions and for other general business purposes,” and “to fund legal and 

administrative expenses for th[e] offering.”   

65. But instead of using the funds raised in the Zona offering to develop a drilling 

program on the Ranch, Sterritt stole most of the funds.  

66. Investor money raised from Zona share sales was regularly transferred among 

bank accounts for entities Sterritt controlled, including Richman Energy, Richman Organization, 

and Accordant, as well accounts Greer controlled. 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 17 of 35 PageID #: 17



18 
 

67. On November 22, 2019, a then-Richman Energy employee complained in an 

email to Sterritt, Mathews, Pittman, Looney, and other senior Zona employees that “over 90% of 

the time” these intercompany transfers of investor funds appeared to have “no notes or 

documentation,” that “no apparent business purpose existed as a rationale for such transfers,” 

and that “[n]o true cash management protocols nor internal controls . . . [were] in place at most if 

not all the Richman related companies.”   

68. The employee opined that “most outside accounting firms would [not] even touch 

any of the books of the Richman related companies,” and the situation was “[s]o bad it looks 

intentional and nefarious.”   

69. Sterritt terminated this employee less than a month later.  

70. Sterritt used investor funds from the bank accounts he controlled and those in 

Greer’s name to pay his own personal expenses, to purchase numerous luxury goods, to give 

cash to family, friends, and girlfriends (including Relief Defendants Naomi, Straza, and 

Touhouliotis), and to fund other unrelated businesses in which he had an interest.   

71. For example, in January 2019, two Sterritt-controlled bank accounts with close to 

zero balances received deposits for the purchase of Zona shares from 39 investors, totaling over 

$1.5 million.  Sterritt immediately misappropriated a majority of those funds, including by 

transferring $636,000 to Relief Defendant Straza, $60,000 to Greer, $30,000 to Relief Defendant 

Rainmaker, and over $25,000 to Relief Defendant Touhouliotis and her family.   

72. Sterritt also used more than $50,000 of these investor proceeds to purchase a 

Bentley (which Looney registered in Greer’s name), and spent thousands of dollars on purchases 

at restaurants, gas stations, and retailers.   

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 18 of 35 PageID #: 18



19 
 

73. In March 2020, Sterritt asked an individual who had previously invested in Zona 

to contribute funds to ORGH, a cannabis company of which Sterritt was trying to gain control.  

The investor declined to invest in ORGH but said that he would invest more in Zona, promptly 

sending funds to a Sterritt-controlled bank account for that purpose.  The very next day, the 

investor’s funds were wired to ORGH.   

74. Zona investor money was also used to fund Ponzi-like payments to dissatisfied 

earlier investors.   

75. For example, in January 2020, a former Richman Energy employee exposed 

Sterritt’s true identity when he emailed a number of investors and attached a photocopy of 

Sterritt’s driver’s license with his real name.  At least one investor confronted Sterritt and 

demanded the return of his $30,000 contribution.  Although Zona had produced no revenue from 

drilling, in March 2020 Sterritt used new investor funds to return the dissatisfied investor’s 

$30,000 as well as $900 in interest.   

76. Like Sterritt, Greer misappropriated money from the sale of Zona shares, using 

these funds for Sterritt’s unrelated businesses, to wire cash to Relief Defendant Naomi and a 

family member of Relief Defendant Touhouliotis, to withdraw cash for himself, and to make 

numerous restaurant and retail purchases.   

77. Looney, too, misappropriated funds.  For example, Looney was a signatory to a 

bank account for Accordant, and caused Accordant to transfer millions of dollars to Sterritt’s 

other businesses and to his personal associates, including hundreds of thousands of dollars to 

both Greer and Relief Defendant Straza.  Additionally, at least $29,000 of investor funds were 

used to pay for Looney’s luxury Dallas apartment.  

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 19 of 35 PageID #: 19



20 
 

II. The ORGH Manipulation 

78. Sterritt intended to use Zona to enable him to gain control of a public issuer and 

then pump and dump the stock of the targeted issuer.   

79. In January 2020, in furtherance of this scheme, Sterritt gained control of ORGH 

when several entities and trusts set up in the names of his family members and close friends 

tendered Zona shares to the previous controlling shareholders of ORGH in exchange for ORGH 

shares.   

80. Mathews then created a spreadsheet for Sterritt that detailed the number of ORGH 

shares owned by each of the various entities and trusts under Sterritt’s control and showed that, 

together, they comprised a controlling interest in ORGH. 

81. Legal Metrics, of which Magness and Looney are Directors, was one of the 

entities that exchanged Zona shares for ORGH shares. 

82. In February 2020, at Sterritt’s direction, Magness opened an account at the 

Brokerage Firm in the name of Legal Metrics and deposited 5,250,000 ORGH shares there.   

83. Later, in May 2020, Magness obtained trading authority for Ross on the Legal 

Metrics account at the Brokerage Firm. 

84. Sterritt, Magness, and Ross planned to use the Legal Metrics account at the 

Brokerage Firm to pump and dump ORGH stock using matched trading.  

85. After Sterritt was introduced to the UC, Sterritt reassured the UC that he would 

control the sale of ORGH stock by Legal Metrics, stating that he had a “hundred percent control” 

over the shares deposited at the Brokerage Firm. 

86. Sterritt engaged in the matched trading scheme to liquidate the ORGH shares he 

controlled and create the misleading appearance of active trading in ORGH, telling the UC that 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 20 of 35 PageID #: 2021 
 

he ultimately wanted to sell 40 to 50 million ORGH shares he controlled at a target price of $2 

per share. 

87. Magness hoped that Sterritt would compensate him for his role in the matched 

trading scheme, stating on a recorded call, “the more that comes in, the more chance I have of 

getting a little.”  

88. From May 19 to May 29, 2020, Sterritt and Magness unknowingly matched trades 

with the UC on every trading day, typically coordinating the trades through three-way 

conference calls and/or preserved text messages.   

89. For example, on May 19, 2020, Sterritt, Magness, and the UC agreed ahead of 

time, on a recorded conference call, on the number of ORGH shares to trade and the price at 

which to trade them, with Sterritt stating, “A thousand at 99.” 

90. Then, keeping the conference line with Sterritt and the UC open, Magness called 

a registered representative at the Brokerage Firm on a separate phone line to place the order at 

the pre-arranged price, just below the best offer, stating, “[s]o we’re going to – the – I’m going to 

do a – let’s do a thousand at .99.” 

91. As soon as the registered representative posted the offer, the UC placed a buy 

order, purchasing the shares offered by Legal Metrics and completing the matched trade.   

92. In addition to conference calls, Sterritt arranged matched trades with the UC over 

preserved text messages.  For example, on May 20, 2020, Sterritt exchanged the following text 

messages with UC while facilitating the matched trading:   

Time Stamp 
UTC Sender Message Notes 

5/20/20 16:58 RS to UC  What time we going today   

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 21 of 35 PageID #: 21



22 
 

5/20/20 17:11 UC to RS Does around 2 pm NY time work?   

5/20/20 17:14 RS to UC  Yes   

5/20/20 17:17 UC to RS 

Good. I'll call you around that time. 
Then Rob can get [the Brokerage Firm 
registered representative] on speaker 
and offer 1,300 shares. Talk soon.   

5/20/20 17:17 RS to UC  K   

5/20/20 17:53 UC to RS What price will you be offering it at?   

5/20/20 17:54 RS to UC  .98   

5/20/20 17:54 RS to UC  You want me the put it in now?   

5/20/20 17:54 RS to UC  $0.98    

5/20/20 17:56 UC to RS 
Wait for me to call you before putting it 
in. I will plan to bid .98 after we chat.   

5/20/20 18:06     UC calls RS 

5/20/20 18:13 UC to RS Filled   

5/20/20 18:14 RS to UC  We got it   

5/20/20 18:14 RS to UC  Confirmed   

5/20/20 18:14 RS to UC  [Thumbs Up Emoji]   

5/20/20 18:15 UC to RS 
[Thumbs Up Emoji] Have a great night. 
Chat tomorrow.   

 
93. On May 26, 2020, Sterritt sent a first wire payment to the UC from a bank 

account in the name of Greer to compensate the UC and his brokers for, as Sterritt believed, 

engaging the matched trading scheme. 

94. On May 29, 2020, Ross and the UC agreed on a pre-arranged number of shares to 

trade that day at a pre-arranged price, with Ross stating to the UC, “[s]o I told [the registered 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 22 of 35 PageID #: 22



23 
 

representative at the Brokerage Firm] before at 165.  I just got to tell him to put it in.”  When the 

UC responded, “I’ll bid for it at a buck 65 and we’ll take you guys out,” Ross replied, “Terrific.” 

95. Later the same day, on May 29, 2020, Legal Metrics sold 3,061 shares of ORGH 

in the open market to the UC at a price of $1.65/share. 

96. In total, over the eight trading days during the period May 19 to May 29, 2020, 

Sterritt, Magness, and Ross executed matched trades with the UC for thousands of shares at 

prices increasing from $0.99 per share to $1.72 per share. 

97. Sterritt, Magness, and Ross’s plan to increase the price of ORGH and eventually 

liquidate their shares was thwarted when, on June 1, 2020, the Commission suspended trading in 

ORGH’s securities for a period of ten business days.   

98. Sterritt, Magness, and Ross each knew that their conduct was illegal.   

99. For example, Sterritt intended to disguise kickback payments to the UC as 

marketing fees.  He also planned to explain away communications with the UC about pricing for 

the matched trades as, instead, related to a fictitious business to sell face masks during the 

COVID-19 pandemic.   

100. Sterritt also suggested using Bitcoin to make payments to the UC because it 

would “be the safest way” to conceal the payments.  

101. After the trading suspension, Magness flew to Dallas, TX and met with Sterritt on 

June 7, 2020, to discuss how to cover their tracks.  During that meeting, which was recorded, 

Magness stated, “the only way this could ever come back to us” was if the UC identified 

Magness as the sender of text messages coordinating the matched trading.   

102. Ross, for his part, arranged for pre-paid mobile phones to be sent for him, Sterritt, 

and the UC, so that (he believed) their phone calls could not be recorded.  

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 23 of 35 PageID #: 23



24 
 

III. The ERFB Share Exchange and Planned ERFB Manipulation 

103. After the Commission suspended trading in ORGH, Sterritt attempted to conduct 

the same manipulative trading scheme in ERFB, another microcap issuer he controls, through 

shares held by friends, family, and trusts and entities set up in their names.   

104. Sterritt’s control of ERFB is not disclosed in any of ERFB’s public filings.   

105. Rather, Sterritt’s employees and friends, including Looney, are listed as the 

company’s officers and directors, masking Sterritt’s involvement while allowing him to control 

the company’s corporate actions.   

106. On or around June 29, 2020, Zona and ERFB conducted a share exchange, 

whereby Zona investors received Series C Preferred shares of ERFB when ERFB’s wholly-

owned subsidiary, Zona Resources (formed in the first quarter of 2020, initially with Magness as 

its President), acquired Zona as a wholly-owned subsidiary.   

107. Both before and after the share exchange occurred, Sterritt used it as a way to 

advance his offering fraud scheme and mislead investors. 

108. For example, the Zona Presentation included as a “Path to Development” a goal to 

“[a]ccomplish share exchange of Zona shareholders by publicly traded company.” 

109. Following the share exchange, an email purportedly authored by Sterritt’s 

installed CEO of Zona to existing Zona investors titled “Message from the CEO” stated: 

The investment by ERF wireless [sic] in Zona provides the mechanism to 
maximize shareholder value by providing our shareholders with a path to 
the public market for valuation and liquidity.  ERF plans to add additional 
assets to the portfolio in coming periods and those assets are expected to 
provide additional value to our current Zona shareholders.  We believe 
that the potential for growth under the ERF umbrella, combined with the 
Zona assets, will accelerate future returns to our shareholder base. 

 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 24 of 35 PageID #: 24



25 
 

110. This statement was false and misleading:  ERFB had no concrete plans to add 

assets to its portfolio and Zona was by then at risk of having its La Escalera Ranch leases 

terminated based on Zona’s failure to satisfy the lease terms.  Rather, Sterritt used statements 

like this one to induce existing Zona investors to purchase additional ERFB Preferred C shares. 

111. On November 19, 2020, ERFB applied with FINRA for (1) a 10,000-to-1 reverse 

split of the company’s outstanding stock, and (2) a corporate name change to “Zona.” 

112. On January 28, 2021, FINRA issued a deficiency letter to ERFB declining to 

process the company’s application, citing FINRA Rule 6490 (Processing of Company-Related 

Actions), the Company’s failure to be current in its former reporting requirements, and the 

November 2014 cease-and-desist order.  Nonetheless, on the very same day, ERFB issued a 

press release (the “January 28 Release”) announcing that “the Effective Date of [ERFB’s] 

reverse split of common stock in a ratio of 10,000 to 1 will be 5:00 p.m. EST on January 28, 

2021.”   

113. This inaccurate information had an immediate effect on the market for ERFB 

shares—in the minutes following this press release, well over a million ERFB shares were sold. 

114. On February 4, 2021, the Commission suspended trading in ERFB’s securities for 

a period of ten business days. 

115. On February 5, 2021, ERFB issued a new press release (the “February 5 

Release”) that purported to correct the January 28 Release.   

116. The February 5 Release stated that the reverse split did not occur “due to 

inaccurate advice from an outside technical advisor,” and that “[t]his error has also caused a ten-

day trading halt as directed by the SEC.”  This statement was false—the reverse split did not 

occur because of “inaccurate advance from an outside technical advisor,” but for the reasons 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 25 of 35 PageID #: 25



26 
 

FINRA explained in its deficiency letter.  Moreover, that “error” did not cause the SEC’s trading 

halt; rather, as the Commission stated in its release, it suspended trading “because of questions 

regarding the accuracy and adequacy of information in the marketplace, including, but not 

limited to, information in a January 28, 2021 press release issued by ERFB concerning certain 

corporate actions by ERFB.”   

117. Before the Commission suspended trading in ERFB, Sterritt had discussed with 

the UC plans to begin matched trading in ERFB following the purported processing of the 

reverse split, as well as plans to dump his shares on unsuspecting investors as the price of ERFB 

stock rose. 

IV. The Relief Defendants Received Ill-Gotten Gains  

a. Straza 

118. From April 30, 2018 through November 23, 2020, Straza received a total of 

$2,102,741 in investor proceeds from the Zona offering.  Straza did not have a legitimate claim 

to these funds.   

119. The $2,102,741 received by Straza from the proceeds of the Zona offering 

constitutes ill-gotten gains derived from Defendants’ violations alleged in this Complaint. 

b. Naomi 

120. From May 9, 2019 through September 1, 2020, Naomi received a total of 

$160,855 in investor proceeds from the Zona offering.  Naomi did not have a legitimate claim to 

these funds.   

121. The $160,855 received by Naomi from the proceeds of the Zona offering 

constitutes ill-gotten gains derived from Defendants’ violations alleged in this Complaint. 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 26 of 35 PageID #: 26



27 
 

c. Touhouliotis 

122. From December 14, 2018 through November 23, 2020, Touhouliotis received a 

total of $161,485 in investor proceeds from the Zona offering.  Touhouliotis did not have a 

legitimate claim to these funds.   

123. The $161,485 received by Touhouliotis from the proceeds of the Zona offering 

constitutes ill-gotten gains derived from Defendants’ violations alleged in this Complaint. 

d. Rainmaker 

124. From September 25, 2018 through December 17, 2019, Rainmaker received a 

total of $448,456.92 in investor proceeds from the Zona offering.  Rainmaker did not have a 

legitimate claim to these funds.   

125. The $448,456.92 received by Rainmaker from the proceeds of the Zona offering 

constitutes ill-gotten gains derived from Defendants’ violations alleged in this Complaint. 

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) 

(All Defendants) 
 

126. The Commission repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 

through 125, as though fully set forth herein. 

127. The shares of Zona stock that the Defendants sold constitute “securities” within 

the meaning of Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77b(a)(1)] and Section 3(a)(10) 

of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78c(a)(10)].   

128. At all relevant times, the shares of Zona stock that the Defendants sold were not 

registered in accordance with the provisions of the Securities Act and no exemption from 

registration was applicable.   

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 27 of 35 PageID #: 27



28 
 

129. The Defendants therefore, singly or in concert, directly or indirectly, made use of 

the means or instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce or of the 

mails to offer and to sell securities when no registration statement had been filed or was in effect 

as to such offers and sales of such securities and no exemption from registration was available. 

130. By reason of the activities described herein, the Defendants, singly or in concert, 

directly or indirectly, violated, and, unless enjoined and restrained, will continue to violate, 

Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and e(c)]. 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b) 

(Sterritt) 
 

131. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 125, as if fully set forth herein.   

132. Defendant Sterritt, directly or indirectly, with scienter, in connection with the 

purchase or sale of securities, by the use of means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, 

the mails, or any facility of a national securities exchange, made untrue statements of material 

fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of 

the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in violation of Section 10(b) of 

the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5(b).   

133. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Sterritt, directly or indirectly, has violated, 

and, unless enjoined and restrained, will again violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 

U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5(b) thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5(b)].  

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 28 of 35 PageID #: 28



29 
 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Securities Act Section 17(a)(2) 

(Sterritt) 
 

134. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 125, as if fully set forth herein. 

135. Defendant Sterritt, directly or indirectly, in the offer and sale of securities, by the 

use of the means and instruments of transportation and communication in interstate commerce 

and of the mails, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth, obtained money or property 

by means of any untrue statement of material fact or any omission to state a material fact 

necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they 

were made, not misleading. 

136. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Sterritt, directly or indirectly, violated, 

and, unless enjoined and restrained, will continue to violate, Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities 

Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)(2)]. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Sections Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) 

Thereunder 
(All Defendants) 

137. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 125, as if fully set forth herein. 

138. The Defendants, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, directly or 

indirectly, singly or in concert, by the use of the means or instrumentalities of interstate 

commerce, or of the mails, or of the facilities of a national securities exchange, with scienter, 

have employed devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud, and have engaged in transactions, acts, 

practices, and courses of business which operated as a fraud or deceit.   

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 29 of 35 PageID #: 29



30 
 

139. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants directly or indirectly, have violated, 

and, unless enjoined and restrained, will again violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 

U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rules 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder [17 C.F.R. §§ 240.10b-5(a) and (c)]. 

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act 

(All Defendants) 
 

140. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 125, as if fully set forth herein. 

141. The Defendants, directly or indirectly, singly or in concert, in the offer and sale of 

securities, by the use of the means and instruments of transportation and communication in 

interstate commerce and of the mails, knowingly or with reckless disregard for the truth:  (a) 

employed devices, schemes or artifices to defraud; and (b) engaged in transactions, practices or 

courses of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon purchasers of 

securities. 

142. By reason of the foregoing, the Defendants, singly or in concert, directly or 

indirectly, have violated, and, unless enjoined and restrained, will again violate, Sections 

17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77q(a)(1) and 77q(a)(3)]. 

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Section 9(a) of the Exchange Act 

(Sterritt, Magness, Ross) 
 

143. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 

125, as though fully set forth herein. 

144. Defendants Sterritt, Magness, and Ross, directly or indirectly, by use of the mails 

or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, for the purpose of creating a false or 

misleading appearance of active trading in any security other than a government security, or a 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 30 of 35 PageID #: 30



31 
 

false or misleading appearance with respect to the market for any such security (A) effected 

transactions in a security which involved no change in the beneficial ownership thereof; (B) 

entered an order or orders for the purchase of the security with the knowledge that an order or 

orders of substantially the same size, at substantially the same price, for the sale of the security 

had been or would be entered by or for the same or different parties; or (C) entered any order or 

orders for the sale of the security with the knowledge that an order or orders of substantially the 

same size, at substantially the same price, for the purchase of the security had been or would be 

entered by or for the same or different parties. 

145. Defendants Sterritt, Magness, and Ross, directly or indirectly, by use of the mails 

or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, together and with other persons, effected 

a series of transactions in a security not registered on a national securities exchange, creating 

actual or apparent active trading in such security and raising the price of such security for the 

purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of such security by others. 

146. As described herein, Defendants Sterritt, Magness, and Ross knowingly or 

recklessly engaged in unlawful matched trades to create a false appearance of trading activity 

and to artificially increase the trading price of ORGH securities. 

147. By reason of the conduct described above, Defendants Sterritt, Magness, and 

Ross, directly or indirectly, have violated, and, unless enjoined and restrained, will again violate, 

Section 9(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78i(a)]. 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 31 of 35 PageID #: 31



32 
 

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act  

(Sterritt, Greer, Pittman, Ross) 
 

148. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference each and every 

allegation contained in paragraphs 1 through 125, as if fully set forth herein.   

149. Defendants Sterritt, Greer, Pittman, and Ross, while engaged in the business of 

effecting transactions in securities for the account of others made use of the mails or the means 

or instrumentalities of interstate commerce to effect transactions in, or to induce or attempt to 

induce the purchase or sale of, a security without being registered in accordance with Section 

15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)].   

150. Defendants Sterritt, Greer, Pittman, and Ross have violated, and, unless enjoined 

and restrained, will again violate, Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)].  

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
Unjust Enrichment 

(All Relief Defendants) 

151. The Commission realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 

125, as though fully set forth herein. 

152. By virtue of the foregoing, in the manner described above, Relief Defendants 

received investor funds and/or ill-gotten gains for which they gave no bona fide consideration 

and to which they have no legitimate claim. 

153. As described herein, the funds acquired by Relief Defendants are traceable to 

Defendants’ wrongful acts and were acquired under circumstances in which it is not just, 

equitable or conscionable for Relief Defendants to retain the funds. 

154.  By reason of the conduct described above, Relief Defendants have been unjustly 

enriched and should be required to return their ill-gotten gains. 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 32 of 35 PageID #: 32



33 
 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court grant the following 

relief:  

I. 

A final judgment permanently enjoining: 

(a) All Defendants and each of their respective agents, servants, employees, attorneys 

and other persons in active concert or participation with each of them who receive 

actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, from any future 

direct or indirect participation in any offering of unregistered securities in 

violation of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77e(a), 

77e(c)], pursuant to Section 20(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(b)]; 

(b) All Defendants and each of their respective agents, servants, employees, and 

attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with each of them, 

who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, and 

each of them, from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 

78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], pursuant to Section 

21(d)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1)];   

(c) All Defendants and each of their respective agents, servants, employees, and 

attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with each of them, 

who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, and 

each of them, from any future direct or indirect participation in any offering of 

unregistered securities in violation of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 33 of 35 PageID #: 33



34 
 

U.S.C. § 77q(a)], pursuant to Section 20(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 

77t(b)]; 

(d) Defendants Sterritt, Magness, and Ross from violating Section 9(a) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78i(a)], pursuant to Section 21(d)(1) of the Exchange 

Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1)]; and  

(e) Defendants Sterritt, Greer, Pittman, and Ross, and their agents, servants, 

employees and attorneys, and all persons in active concert or participation with 

them who receive actual notice of the injunction by personal service or otherwise, 

from violating Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)], pursuant 

to Section 21(d)(1) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(1)].   

II. 

 Ordering all Defendants, and all Relief Defendants, to disgorge the ill-gotten gains they 

received with prejudgment interest thereon pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(5) and Sections 

6501(a)(1) and (a)(3) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Pub. L. 

No. 116-283, to be codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3) and 78u(d)(7); 

III. 

 Ordering all Defendants to pay civil monetary penalties pursuant to Section 20(d) of the 

Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(d)] and Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. 

§ 78u(d)(3)];  

IV. 

Ordering a penny-stock bar against all Defendants under Section 20(g) of the Securities 

Act [15 U.S.C. § 78t(g)] and Section 21(d)(6) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(6)]; 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 34 of 35 PageID #: 34



35 
 

V. 

Ordering Defendants Sterritt, Looney, Magness, Mathews, and Pittman to be barred from 

serving as an officer or director of an issuer pursuant to Section 20(e) of the Securities Act [15 

U.S.C. § 78t(e)] and Section 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C.§ 78u(d)(2)] as a result of 

the violations alleged in this Complaint; and 

VI. 

Granting such other and further relief as this Court deems appropriate and necessary for 

the benefit of investors. 

 
Dated: New York, New York   
 April 14, 2021 
    
     SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION 

 
     By: s/ Richard R. Best   

     Richard R. Best 
Sanjay Wadhwa 
Alexander M. Vasilescu 
Sheldon L. Pollock  
John O. Enright  
David H. Tutor 
Christine D. Ely (not admitted in EDNY; admitted 
in NY (Bar No. 4737466) and SDNY 

      Attorneys for Plaintiff 
United States Securities and Exchange Commission 
200 Vesey Street, Suite 400 
New York, New York 10281-1022 

     (212) 336-0024 (Tutor) 
     Email: [email protected] 

 
 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 35 of 35 PageID #: 35



JS 44   (Rev. 10/20) CIVIL COVER SHEET
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as 
provided by local rules of court.  This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the 
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet.    (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS

(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)

NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF 
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X” in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X” in One Box for Plaintiff 
and One Box for Defendant) (For Diversity Cases Only)

1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4

of Business In This State

2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5
Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6
Foreign Country

IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an “X” in One Box Only) Click here for: Nature of Suit Code Descriptions.
CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES

110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC 158 375 False Claims Act
120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury  - of Property 21 USC 881 423 Withdrawal 376 Qui Tam (31 USC 
130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC 157 3729(a))
140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 400 State Reapportionment
150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 410 Antitrust

& Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 430 Banks and Banking
151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers’ Product Liability 830 Patent 450 Commerce
152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 835 Patent - Abbreviated 460 Deportation

Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product New Drug Application 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations

153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY LABOR 880 Defend Trade Secrets 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran’s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud 710 Fair Labor Standards Act of 2016 (15 USC 1681 or 1692)

160 Stockholders’ Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending Act 485 Telephone Consumer
190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 720 Labor/Management SOCIAL SECURITY Protection Act
195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage Relations 861 HIA (1395ff) 490 Cable/Sat TV
196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 862 Black Lung (923) 850 Securities/Commodities/

362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 751 Family and Medical 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) Exchange
Medical Malpractice Leave Act 864 SSID Title XVI 890 Other Statutory Actions

REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 790 Other Labor Litigation 865 RSI (405(g)) 891 Agricultural Acts
210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 791 Employee Retirement 893 Environmental Matters
220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee Income Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 895 Freedom of Information
230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act
240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence or Defendant) 896 Arbitration
245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 General 871 IRS—Third Party 899 Administrative Procedure
290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities - 535 Death Penalty IMMIGRATION Act/Review or Appeal of

Employment Other: 462 Naturalization Application Agency Decision
446 Amer. w/Disabilities - 540 Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration 950 Constitutionality of

Other 550 Civil Rights Actions State Statutes
448 Education 555 Prison Condition

560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of 
Confinement

V. ORIGIN (Place an “X” in One Box Only)
1 Original

Proceeding 
2 Removed from

State Court
3 Remanded from

Appellate Court 
4 Reinstated or

Reopened
5 Transferred from

Another District
(specify)

6 Multidistrict
Litigation - 
Transfer

8  Multidistrict
Litigation -
Direct File

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):

Brief description of cause:

VII. REQUESTED IN
COMPLAINT:

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. 

DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
JURY DEMAND: Yes No

VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
IF ANY (See instructions):

JUDGE DOCKET NUMBER

DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY

RECEIPT # AMOUNT APPLYING IFP JUDGE MAG. JUDGE

26 USC 7609

Dallas, TX

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Richard R. Best et al., 200 Vesey St., Ste. 400, New
York, NY 10281-1022

Richard Dale Sterritt, Jr., Michael G. Greer, Deanna L. 
Looney Katie Mathews Robert W Magness Jr James

See Attached

✖

✖

15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), 77t(g), 78u(d)(1), 78u(d)(2), 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(6)

Unregistered and fraudulent securities offering

N/A

✖

✖

April 14, 2021 s/ Richard R. Best 

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1-1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 36



CERTIFICATION OF ARBITRATION ELIGIBILITY
Local Arbitration Rule 83. provides that with certain exceptions, actions seeking money damages only in an amount not in excess of $150,000,
exclusive of interest and costs, are eligible for compulsory arbitration. The amount of damages is presumed to be below the threshold amount unless a
certification to the contrary is filed.

I, __________________________________________, counsel for____________________________, do hereby certify that the above captioned civil action is ineligible for
compulsory arbitration for the following reason(s): 

monetary damages sought are in excess of $150,000, exclusive of interest and costs,

the complaint seeks injunctive relief,

the matter is otherwise ineligible for the following reason

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT - FEDERAL RULES CIVIL PROCEDURE 7.1

Identify any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation that owns 10% or more or its stocks:

RELATED CASE STATEMENT (Section VIII on the Front of this Form)

Please list all cases that are arguably related pursuant to Division of Business Rule 50.3.1 in Section VIII on the front of this form. Rule 50.3.1 (a) provides that “A civil case is “related” 
to another civil case for purposes of this guideline when, because of the similarity of facts and legal issues or because the cases arise from the same transactions or events, a 
substantial saving of judicial resources is likely to result from assigning both cases to the same judge and magistrate judge.” Rule 50.3.1 (b) provides that “ A civil case shall not be 
deemed “related” to another civil case merely because the civil case: (A) involves identical legal issues, or (B) involves the same parties.” Rule 50.3.1 (c) further provides that 
“Presumptively, and subject to the power of a judge to determine otherwise pursuant to paragraph (d), civil cases shall not be deemed to be “related” unless both cases are still 
pending before the court.”

NY-E DIVISION OF BUSINESS RULE 50.1(d)(2)

1.) Is the civil action being filed in the Eastern District removed from a New York State Court located in Nassau or Suffolk
County?  Yes   No

2.) If you answered “no” above:
a) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in Nassau or Suffolk
County? Yes No

b) Did the events or omissions giving rise to the claim or claims, or a substantial part thereof, occur in the Eastern
District? Yes No

c) If this is a Fair Debt Collection Practice Act case, specify the County in which the offending communication was
received:______________________________.

If your answer to question 2 (b) is “No,” does the defendant (or a majority of the defendants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or
Suffolk County, or, in an interpleader action, does the claimant (or a majority of the claimants, if there is more than one) reside in Nassau or 
Suffolk County?___________________________________

(Note: A corporation shall be considered a resident of the County in which it has the most significant contacts). 

BAR ADMISSION

I am currently admitted in the Eastern District of New York and currently a member in good standing of the bar of this court.

Yes     No

Are you currently the subject of any disciplinary action (s) in this or any other state or federal court?

Yes     (If yes, please explain No

I certify the accuracy of all information provided above.

Signature: ____________________________________________________

Richard R. Best Securities and Exchange Commission

✔

✔

N/A

✔

✔

✔

✔

✔

s/ Richard R. Best

Case 1:21-cv-02008   Document 1-1   Filed 04/14/21   Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 37