I.
RICO CLAIM FRAMEWORK
ASSERTED CLAIM THEORY
Two Sisters Dairy LLC operated the dairy business. It milked the herd on its premises, initially received the milk proceeds under the court-approved lease, paid cattle, feed, and labor expenses, maintained business credit, and participated in the land transactions through which the Heifer Ranch was assembled.
Anastasia Anne Thiele has held 100% of the membership interests in Two Sisters Dairy LLC since January 1, 2012, and has held its governing authority as sole manager since 2013.
The separately titled real property was confirmed as Anastasia Anne Thiele’s separate property through summary judgment and the exhibits incorporated into the divorce decree.
FINANCIAL-INSTITUTION AND ENTERPRISE STRUCTURE
Held the senior collateral position on Anastasia Anne Thiele’s real property for more than a decade and later financed Martins-affiliated entities connected to the acquisition.
BANK OF THE WEST | BMO BANK, N.A.Encumbered Anastasia Anne Thiele’s separately titled real property and the business property of Two Sisters Dairy LLC as collateral for the operator’s obligations. BMO Bank, N.A. succeeded Bank of the West on February 1, 2023.
The asserted association-in-fact operated through:
- AgTexas Farm Credit Services;
- Bank of the West and BMO Bank, N.A.;
- the dairy operator;
- the internal controller;
- the intermediary landholder;
- the pre-financed Martins-affiliated transferee;
- and the participating accounting, title, closing, and legal channels.
The participants allegedly performed complementary functions affecting:
- control of company information and books;
- operating revenue, credit, and working capital;
- real-property and business collateral;
- possession and purchase rights;
- land, herd, equipment, and operating assets;
- sale, closing, and exchange proceeds;
- contractual and governance authority;
- tax attributes and liabilities;
- acquisition financing;
- and refinancing of the transferred position.
ASSERTED CONDUCT UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 1962
- § 1962(a) — RECEIPT, USE OR INVESTMENT OF RACKETEERING INCOME
- § 1962(b) — ACQUISITION OR MAINTENANCE OF INTEREST OR CONTROL OF THE OPERATING DAIRY ENTERPRISE
- § 1962(c) — CONDUCT OF THE ASSOCIATION-IN-FACT ENTERPRISE’S AFFAIRS
- § 1962(d) — AGREEMENT TO FACILITATE THE RICO OBJECTIVE
Each path is developed in full in the Asserted § 1962 Claim Paths below.
ASSERTED CONDUCT AND RESULT
The asserted course of conduct includes:
- obtaining control over Two Sisters Dairy LLC’s information, operating revenue, credit, collateral, assets, proceeds, and tax position;
- increasing and enforcing the documented operating-line balance of $6,146,401.90;
- imposing forbearance conditions, additional fees, collateral expansion, and compelled debt reduction;
- transferring possession and purchase rights to Martins-affiliated entities before the final sale;
- disposing of business and property assets through closings reporting $0.00 cash to the identified seller;
- routing sale, exchange, and creditor-pool proceeds away from the recorded owner;
- financing the Martins-affiliated acquisition; and
- refinancing the acquired position after the transfers were completed.
INJURY AND DIRECT CAUSAL CHAIN
The unpaid Two Sisters Dairy LLC lease consideration included a documented $20,000 monthly retention designated to keep the mortgage on the dairy premises current.
The removal of that operating consideration begins the asserted causal sequence:
UNPAID OPERATING CONSIDERATION
→ LOSS OF WORKING CAPITAL
→ COVENANT BREACH
→ FORBEARANCE AND ADDITIONAL FEES
→ EXPANSION AND ENFORCEMENT OF COLLATERAL
→ $6,146,401.90 DEFAULT BALANCE
→ COMPELLED ASSET DISPOSITION
→ TRANSFER OF POSSESSION, PROPERTY, AND BUSINESS ASSETS
→ ROUTING OF SALE AND EXCHANGE PROCEEDS
→ MARTINS-AFFILIATED ACQUISITION FINANCING
→ REFINANCING OF THE ACQUIRED POSITION
The asserted injuries include:
- loss of operating consideration and working capital;
- increased and enforced indebtedness;
- loss of company and personal property;
- herd and equipment disposition;
- loss and routing of sale proceeds;
- loss of exchange and reinvestment value;
- impairment of credit, equity, and enterprise value;
- tax assessment and misattribution;
- federal lien and levy;
- passport certification;
- and continuing retention of seized capital.
The asserted injury continued through transaction-related tax allocation, federal assessment, lien, levy and retention of approximately $293,805.14, passport certification, and continuing impairment of cash, property, credit, investment capacity, and business recovery. See Section VIII, IRS & Institutional Enforcement.
CIVIL RECOVERY SOUGHT
Recovery is sought as provided by 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c): threefold the damages sustained, the costs of suit, and reasonable attorney’s fees.
CORE FACTS
SOLE MEMBER
SOLE MANAGER
BANK OF THE WEST/BMO SUCCESSION
DOCUMENTED OPERATING-LINE BALANCE
REPORTED CASH TO IDENTIFIED SELLER
MONTHLY LEASE RETENTION
QUANTIFIED COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
THREEFOLD DAMAGES
ASSERTED § 1962 CLAIM PATHS
Each statutory path identifies the defined enterprise, the persons and conduct attributed to that path, the resulting claimant-specific injury, and the exact record location supporting the showing.
A person received income derived from the asserted pattern, directly or indirectly used or invested that income or its proceeds in an enterprise, and caused injury through the later use or investment.
The injury does not rest solely on the conduct through which the income was obtained.
The traced streams include:
- diverted dairy revenue;
- unpaid operating consideration;
- herd-sale proceeds;
- land-sale proceeds;
- closing distributions;
- qualified-intermediary and § 1031 exchange proceeds;
- and proceeds subsequently applied through acquisition or refinancing transactions.
Receipt is assigned person by person. Each stream identifies:
SOURCE
→ RECIPIENT OR CONTROLLING PERSON
→ ACCOUNT OR TRANSACTION
→ MOVEMENT
→ LATER USE OR INVESTMENT
→ BENEFITED PERSON OR ENTITY
The later uses include:
- operating the dairy through operator-controlled accounts;
- capitalizing the operator’s doing-business-as accounts;
- retiring the secured operating line;
- reducing indebtedness secured by claimant-owned property and business assets;
- financing the Martins-affiliated acquisition;
- and refinancing the acquired position.
On February 23, 2023:
- $2,436,233.94 derived from Anastasia Anne Thiele’s land;
- and $3,710,169.69 derived from the herd
were applied to reduce the secured operating line to $0.00.
Anastasia Anne Thiele’s land supplied 39.64% of the combined payoff.
The asserted investment injury arises from using the claimants’ own property and business proceeds to reduce indebtedness on the assets and operating position subsequently transferred and refinanced, thereby increasing the resulting losses of property, proceeds, equity, credit, exchange value, and reinvestment capacity.
Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co. v. Dresser Industries, 972 F.2d 580, 584 (5th Cir. 1992)
Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 205 (5th Cir. 1995)
St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 441 (5th Cir. 2000)
The § 1962(b) enterprise is the operating dairy business through which the herd, premises, accounts, revenue, credit, contracts, collateral, labor, equipment, and land operations functioned as a continuing commercial enterprise.
It is distinct from the pleaded association-in-fact through which the control was obtained and maintained.
The asserted mechanisms include:
- exclusion from company information and books;
- control of dairy accounts and revenue;
- assertion of a written two-of-three governance rule over the single-member company;
- expansion and enforcement of real-property and business collateral;
- control of drafting, consent, and approval channels;
- lender-controlled transaction dates and conditions;
- transfer of possession and purchase rights before the final sale;
- intermediary landholding;
- acquisition financing;
- and refinancing of the acquired operating position.
The claimants’ accounts, revenue, collateral, land, property, and proceeds are the interests affected by the control. They are not substitutes for the defined § 1962(b) enterprise.
APRIL 11, 2022 — Written exclusion from company books and information.
APRIL–AUGUST 2022 — Operating-line increase from $4,474,897.21 to $6,146,401.90 during the information-control period.
OCTOBER 2022 — $100,000 forbearance fee and $2,500,000 compelled paydown.
APRIL 7, 2023 — Martins-affiliated possession became effective before the completed sale.
JULY 26, 2024 — Transfer, closing allocations, and proceeds routing.
NOVEMBER 26, 2025–MAY 5, 2026 — Refinancing, releases, and maintenance of the acquired position.
The asserted § 1962(b) injury arises from the control position itself, including:
- the $1,671,504.69 operating-line increase during the books lockout;
- continued debt, liens, and personal liability while possession and purchase rights moved to the transferee;
- the $100,000 forbearance fee;
- the $2,500,000 compelled paydown;
- routing of rent, feed, sale, closing, and exchange proceeds;
- loss of governance and transaction control;
- and $0.00 cash reported to the identified seller at the closings.
SECTION VI | CONTROL MECHANISMS M-01–M-11
SECTION VII | DATED CONTROL AND TRANSFER EVENTS
SECTION IX | COLLATERAL, POSSESSION, ACQUISITION AND REFINANCING
Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 205 (5th Cir. 1995)
Section 1962(c) is applied person by person.
Each alleged RICO person must be distinct from the pleaded association-in-fact enterprise and must have participated, directly or indirectly, in operating or managing its affairs through the asserted pattern.
The record attributes identified enterprise functions to particular persons, including:
- issuing the two-of-three governance directive;
- ordering and implementing the company-books lockout;
- controlling accounts and revenue;
- setting transaction calendars and conditions;
- directing collateral and forbearance decisions;
- commissioning and transmitting the appraisal;
- authorizing the buyer-specific transaction;
- granting possession and purchase rights;
- preparing and administering the closing distributions;
- routing sale and exchange proceeds;
- financing the acquisition;
- releasing prior liens;
- and refinancing the acquired position.
No § 1962(c) person is included solely because that person:
- supplied professional services;
- processed a document;
- recorded an instrument;
- held collateral;
- received a transfer;
- or knew of the larger transaction sequence.
Each asserted § 1962(c) claim connects:
RICO PERSON
→ ENTERPRISE DECISION OR DIRECTION
→ CHARGED PREDICATE EVENT
→ COMMUNICATION OR INSTRUMENT
→ CLAIMANT-OWNED PROPERTY INTEREST
→ IMMEDIATE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCE
→ QUANTIFIED INJURY
The theory does not rely on institutional presence, association, or service alone.
SECTION V | PERSONS, ROLES AND ENTERPRISE FUNCTIONS
SECTION VI | PERSON-SPECIFIC OPERATION-OR-MANAGEMENT RECORD
Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 179, 183–85 (1993)
The asserted § 1962(d) agreement requires:
- agreement by two or more persons to commit a substantive RICO offense; and
- knowledge of and agreement to the overall objective of that offense.
A conspirator need not personally commit every predicate act or independently satisfy the § 1962(c) operation-or-management standard.
The actor-specific agreement record includes:
- the written two-of-three governance directive;
- “the plan you and Isaac came up with” communication;
- “the deal we are working on” communication;
- same-day instruction, compliance, and acknowledgment concerning the books lockout;
- lender-set transaction deadlines;
- common dealings over the same collateral pool;
- the Consent to Easement request and denial;
- Bank of the West’s subsequent recording;
- buyer-specific possession and purchase arrangements;
- coordinated closing and disbursement instruments;
- acquisition financing;
- same-period lien releases;
- and the 2025–2026 refinancing and institutional handoff.
The 2019 consent is not described as executed. The record states that AgTexas denied the request, the instrument was not issued or executed, and the copies contain blank signature and notary blocks.
The request, denial, subsequent recording, and later collateral dealings remain part of the member-to-member transaction and agreement record.
For each identified conspirator, the record states:
WHAT THE PERSON KNEW
→ WHICH OBJECTIVE THE PERSON AGREED TO FACILITATE
→ WHAT FUNCTION THE PERSON PERFORMED
→ WHICH COMMUNICATION, INSTRUMENT OR TRANSACTION SHOWS IT
→ WHICH SUBSTANTIVE § 1962 PATH THE AGREEMENT ADVANCED
Civil recovery is tied to injury caused by conduct independently wrongful under RICO and undertaken in furtherance of the asserted agreement.
Each § 1962(d) injury therefore connects to:
- the corresponding § 1962(a), (b), or (c) violation;
- the actor-specific agreement evidence;
- the independently wrongful act;
- the affected claimant-owned business or property interest;
- the immediate economic consequence;
- and the quantified injury.
SECTION V | ACTOR-SPECIFIC AGREEMENT RECORD
SECTION IV | PREDICATE ACTS FURTHERING THE AGREEMENT
SECTION VII | COMMUNICATION, APPROVAL, TRANSFER AND REFINANCING SEQUENCE
Salinas v. United States, 522 U.S. 52, 63–66 (1997)
United States v. Rosenthal, 805 F.3d 523, 530–32 (5th Cir. 2015)
Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494, 505–07 (2000)
CORE RICO ELEMENT INDEX
| ELEMENT | CASE-SPECIFIC SHOWING | DIRECT PROOF LOCATION |
|---|---|---|
| RICO PERSON & DISTINCTNESS | Each alleged RICO person is identified by name and separately evaluated under § 1962(a), (b), (c), and/or (d). Two Sisters Dairy LLC and Anastasia Anne Thiele are the injured business and property holders and are not the pleaded association-in-fact enterprise. | SECTION V |
| ASSOCIATION-IN-FACT ENTERPRISE | The alleged participants performed complementary financial, collateral, governance, accounting, title, closing, possession, acquisition-financing, and refinancing functions directed toward control and transfer of the operating dairy business and its economic value. | SECTION II |
| § 1962(a) USE OR INVESTMENT | Identified dairy revenue, property proceeds, herd proceeds, closing distributions, and exchange proceeds were allegedly received and later applied to the operating line, operator-controlled accounts, acquisition financing, and refinancing. Receipt, later use, benefited party, and investment injury are assigned person by person. | SECTION IX |
| § 1962(b) ACQUISITION OR MAINTENANCE OF CONTROL | The alleged control mechanisms include the company-books lockout, governance directive, account and revenue control, collateral expansion, lender-controlled transaction conditions, pre-sale possession, acquisition financing, and refinancing of the acquired operating position. | SECTION VI |
| § 1962(c) CONDUCT OF ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS | Each alleged § 1962(c) person is connected to an identified enterprise decision, instruction, authorization, direction, or management function. Professional service, document processing, collateral ownership, fund receipt, or knowledge alone is not used to establish operation or management. | SECTION VI |
| § 1962(d) AGREEMENT | Each alleged conspirator is connected to the objective allegedly understood, the function performed, the communication or instrument showing agreement, and the substantive § 1962 violation facilitated. | SECTION V |
| PATTERN OF RACKETEERING ACTIVITY | The pattern theory is based only on charged predicate acts satisfying relatedness and closed-ended continuity. Nonpredicate financing, releases, collection instruments, and refinancing may provide context but are not counted as racketeering acts without act-specific predicate proof. | SECTION IV |
| RACKETEERING ACTIVITY & PARTICULARITY | Each charged act identifies the person, predicate statute, communication or instrument, representation or omission, date, medium, recipient or target, property object, execution role, and resulting transaction. | SECTION IV |
| INTERSTATE COMMERCE | The enterprise activities used identified interstate banking, electronic-transfer, carrier, auction, lending, escrow, and commercial channels documented on the governing instruments. | SECTION II |
| BUSINESS OR PROPERTY INJURY | Each economic injury is allocated to Two Sisters Dairy LLC or Anastasia Anne Thiele according to ownership of the affected property interest and is supported by a transaction, instrument, calculation, or valuation record. | SECTION VIII |
| PROXIMATE CAUSATION | Each recovery class connects the asserted RICO violation to the named actor, immediate act, instrument, claimant-owned interest, direct economic consequence, amount, and source record. Chronology supplies context but does not replace the injury-specific causal chain. | SECTION VIII |
| ACCRUAL & TIMELINESS | Each injury carries its own occurrence and discovery dates. The earliest adopted injury date is October 20, 2022, producing an October 20, 2026 four-year deadline; later injuries are separately dated and analyzed. | SECTION III |
CONTROLLING FIFTH CIRCUIT FRAMEWORK
| DOCTRINE | CONTROLLING AUTHORITIES |
|---|---|
| PERSON–ENTERPRISE DISTINCTNESS | St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 445–47 (5th Cir. 2000) |
| ASSOCIATION-IN-FACT STRUCTURE | Boyle v. United States, 556 U.S. 938, 944–48 (2009) Zastrow v. Houston Auto Imports Greenway Ltd., 789 F.3d 553, 565–66 (5th Cir. 2015) |
| USE OR INVESTMENT INJURY | Parker & Parsley Petroleum Co. v. Dresser Industries, 972 F.2d 580, 584 (5th Cir. 1992) Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 205 (5th Cir. 1995) St. Paul Mercury Insurance Co. v. Williamson, 224 F.3d 425, 441 (5th Cir. 2000) |
| ACQUISITION OR CONTROL INJURY | Crowe v. Henry, 43 F.3d 198, 205 (5th Cir. 1995) |
| OPERATION OR MANAGEMENT | Reves v. Ernst & Young, 507 U.S. 170, 179, 183–85 (1993) Zastrow v. Houston Auto Imports Greenway Ltd., 789 F.3d 553, 565–66 (5th Cir. 2015) |
| RELATEDNESS AND CONTINUITY | H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239–43 (1989) D&T Partners, L.L.C. v. Baymark Partners Management, L.L.C., 98 F.4th 198, 205–12 (5th Cir. 2024) |
| DIRECT PROXIMATE CAUSATION | Holmes v. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 503 U.S. 258, 268–74 (1992) Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639, 648–50, 657–58 (2008) Molina-Aranda v. Black Magic Enterprises, LLC, 983 F.3d 779, 784–86 (5th Cir. 2020) |
| ACCRUAL AND SEPARATE INJURY | Rotella v. Wood, 528 U.S. 549, 553–57 (2000) Love v. National Medical Enterprises, 230 F.3d 765, 773–75 (5th Cir. 2000) |
CLAIMANT-SPECIFIC INJURY & DIRECT CAUSATION
The injury record separates the two claimants according to ownership of the affected business or property interest.
| CLAIMANT | AFFECTED BUSINESS OR PROPERTY | DIRECT CONDUCT | IMMEDIATE ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCE | RECORD PATH |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TWO SISTERS DAIRY LLC | Operating revenue; working capital; company books and accounts; herd; equipment; company-owned property; contract rights; credit; collateral; sale proceeds; tax attributes; exchange value; and enterprise value. | Diversion of operating consideration and dairy revenue; exclusion from company information; increase and enforcement of the operating debt; disposition of herd, equipment, and company property; routing of closing proceeds, the qualified-intermediary transfer, and the unsecured-creditor pool. | Loss of working capital, revenue, assets, proceeds, credit capacity, equity, reinvestment capacity, and operating-business value. | VI | VII | VIII | IX |
| ANASTASIA ANNE THIELE | Separately titled real property; personal sale proceeds; governance and contract rights; exchange rights; homestead title; tax position; cash; credit; and investment capital. | Use of separately titled land and its proceeds in the secured-debt payoff; continued personal debt, liens, and liability during the transferee’s acquisition; allocation of personal property and proceeds; tax assessment, lien, levy, passport certification, and retention of seized capital. | Loss of property value and proceeds; continued personal liability; loss of exchange and replacement-property value; tax injury; impairment of credit and investment capital; and seizure and retention of cash. | III | VII | VIII | IX |
Each recovery class follows the same claimant-specific structure:
ASSERTED § 1962 VIOLATION
→ IDENTIFIED ACTOR AND ACT
→ COMMUNICATION, INSTRUMENT, TRANSFER, OR CONTROL EVENT
→ CLAIMANT-OWNED BUSINESS OR PROPERTY INTEREST
→ IMMEDIATE ECONOMIC LOSS
→ QUANTIFIED AMOUNT
→ SUPPORTING SOURCE RECORD
The chronology supplies the dates and transaction sequence. The injury record separately identifies the claimant, affected property interest, immediate causal act, resulting loss, amount, and supporting instrument.
The direct-causation record includes:
- the April 11, 2022 company-books lockout;
- the increase of the operating-line balance from $4,474,897.21 to $6,146,401.90;
- the forbearance fee and compelled debt paydown;
- the use of land and herd proceeds to retire the secured operating line;
- possession and purchase rights transferred before the final sale;
- the February 22, 2023 and July 26, 2024 closings reporting $0.00 cash to the identified seller;
- routing of sale, exchange, and creditor-pool proceeds;
- financing of the Martins-affiliated acquisition;
- and refinancing of the acquired position.
On February 23, 2023, $2,436,233.94 derived from Anastasia Anne Thiele’s land supplied 39.64% of the combined land-and-herd payoff applied to the operating line. The remaining $3,710,169.69 came from the herd proceeds. The application of those funds reduced the secured operating line to $0.00 immediately before the property and operating position moved through the documented transfer structure.
First-party reliance is not an element of the asserted mail- and wire-fraud RICO claims.
The causation showing instead identifies:
- who acted;
- what communication, omission, instruction, instrument, or transfer was used;
- when and through which channel the act occurred;
- which claimant-owned interest was affected;
- how the act produced the immediate loss;
- and the amount traceable to that loss.
The asserted injury is not based on derivative ownership loss or generalized harm to another person. Each recovery class is assigned to the claimant that held the affected business or property interest.
| CORE AUTHORITY | HOLDING AS APPLIED |
|---|---|
| Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co., 553 U.S. 639, 648–58 (2008) | FIRST-PARTY RELIANCE IS NOT REQUIRED; THE INJURY MUST BE DIRECTLY CAUSED BY THE ASSERTED FRAUD SCHEME. |
| Allstate Insurance Co. v. Plambeck, 802 F.3d 665, 675–77 (5th Cir. 2015) | THE DIRECT TARGET OF THE ENTERPRISE’S COLLECTION STRUCTURE SATISFIED PROXIMATE CAUSATION; SETTLEMENT PAYMENTS DID NOT BREAK THE CAUSAL CHAIN. |
| Allstate Indemnity Co. v. Bhagat, No. 25-20020 (5th Cir. Jan. 14, 2026) | MAIL-FRAUD RICO DOES NOT REQUIRE FIRST-PARTY RELIANCE; THE COMPLAINT MUST PLEAD BUT-FOR CAUSATION, A DIRECT PROXIMATE RELATIONSHIP, CONCRETE DAMAGES, AND THE WHO, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, AND HOW OF THE FRAUD. |
| Molina-Aranda v. Black Magic Enterprises, LLC, 983 F.3d 779, 784–86 (5th Cir. 2020) | THE ASSERTED RICO VIOLATION MUST LEAD DIRECTLY TO THE BUSINESS-OR-PROPERTY INJURY; A DIFFERENT IMMEDIATE CAUSE WILL NOT SUPPORT RICO RECOVERY. |
INTERSTATE-COMMERCE CONNECTION
The record identifies:
- a three-state proceeds assignment connecting a Texas dairy operation, an Alabama counterparty address, and a California bank lockbox;
- Fedwire and electronic transfers from Texas to out-of-state recipients;
- overnight delivery and interstate carrier records;
- a California auctioneer’s contract governing the herd disposition;
- out-of-state lending, banking, escrow, and financing participants;
- federally regulated financial institutions;
- the Bank of the West and BMO interstate banking channels;
- the AgTexas Farm Credit financing structure;
- and a written supply agreement with Borden Dairy Company, identified in the instrument as a Delaware company.
The asserted interstate-commerce nexus rests on the identified financial transactions, electronic transfers, interstate communications, carriers, institutional channels, and out-of-state counterparties documented on the faces of the governing instruments.