The RICO Enterprise and the Racketeering Actors
Evidence walkthrough. The facsimiles are reading aids. The PDF links open the underlying documents that should control.
Theme 10 · The Bankruptcy Maneuvers

Sworn "managing member" —
and a challenged consent behind the settlement

The complaint challenges the authority used for post-petition TopDevz acts. The bankruptcy docket then records the conversion motion, the written consent, settlement approval, a proposed abandonment at $0, and the later $100,000 sale to Davis and TopDevz. Scroll through the filed sequence.

Scroll ↓
Bottom lineThe disputed manager premise moved from the state-court record into ECF 19 and ECF 124. ECF 159 approved the settlement; ECF 197 listed later assets at $0; ECF 211 offered $80,000; and ECF 288 and 543 document the negotiated $100,000 sale.
1

The control premise: who could act for TopDevz?

Everything in this phase rests on one claim — that Davis could lawfully act as TopDevz's "managing member." That status traces to an arbitration order the complaint challenges as fraudulently obtained.

The disputed foundation
Claimed statusDavis = "managing member"
SourceInterim Order No. 4 (Jan. 6, 2022)
Complaint's positionorder fraudulently obtained
TopDevz in this suitnominal defendant (not Davis-controlled)
See the money-trace walkthrough, Steps 5–7 · Complaint ¶¶115–119, 261
2

April 2024 — sworn declarations that Davis is the managing member

The complaint states that bankruptcy attorney D. Edward Hays filed declarations under penalty of perjury swearing Davis is "the managing member of TopDevz" — the predicate for everything that follows in the bankruptcy.

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, S.D. CALIFORNIA
DECLARATION OF D. EDWARD HAYS · ECF Nos. 19 & 28 · April 8 & 29, 2024
—Filed in support of motions affecting the bankruptcy estate's interest in TopDevz, the declarations represent, under penalty of perjury, that Tyler Davis is "the managing member of TopDevz, LLC."
Pled by the complaint as bankruptcy fraud — 18 U.S.C. §152(2) — because, it states, Davis's "managing member" status was procured by fraud and is not lawful. (Complaint ¶¶81, 391, 394.)
Sworn "managing member"The complaint states this is a knowingly false statement under §152
Hays Declaration (facsimile) · Bankr. ECF 19 & 28 · cf. Complaint ¶¶81, 391, 394
View the filed declaration → Source: Bankr. S.D. Cal. declaration of D. Edward Hays. The complaint ties the falsity to the fraudulently obtained arbitration order.
3

The challenged "Unanimous Written Consent"

The ECF 124 settlement motion attaches a "Unanimous Written Consent of the Members of TopDevz, LLC." The complaint describes that instrument as forged and points to the unresolved 51% ownership claim and Rajaee's missing signature.

UNANIMOUS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE MEMBERS OF TOPDEVZ, LLC
Dated October 14, 2024 · attached to Bankr. ECF 124
—Purports to record the "unanimous" consent of TopDevz's members to the bankruptcy settlement and related actions.
!The complaint states it is forged: a consent cannot be "unanimous" while Rajaee — the disputed 51% member — neither signed nor agreed. It is pled as bankruptcy fraud under 18 U.S.C. §152(4).
"Unanimous" — without Rajaee's signatureComplaint ¶81 characterizes the consent as forged
Complaint cite · Complaint ¶81 (forged "Unanimous Written Consent," Oct. 14, 2024)
Why it mattersA genuine unanimous consent would require the agreement of every member. The complaint's theory is that the document manufactures consent that does not exist — the keystone for approving the settlements.
4

The challenged consent becomes the filed authority basis

This is the connection. On October 23, 2024 the Chapter 7 Trustee filed a settlement motion (ECF 124) that expressly asks the bankruptcy court to approve the "Unanimous Written Consent" — attaching it as Exhibit A to the Davis/TopDevz settlement. The consent is no longer just a document; it is the authority basis the court was asked to bless.

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, S.D. CALIFORNIA · No. 24-00617-CL7
CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE'S MOTION TO APPROVE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS · Doc. 124 · Filed 10/23/24
p.2"The Trustee also seeks approval of the Trustee's consent and the Trustee's execution of the Unanimous Written Consent of the Members of TopDevz, LLC … attached as Exhibit A to the Trustee's Settlement Agreement with Davis and TopDevz."
p.25"… the Arbitrator's ruling determining that Davis owns in excess of 95% of TopDevz and removing Rajaee as the Manager … is subject to the pending appeal. In light of the pending appeal, the Unanimous Written Consent is intended to eliminate any uncertainty regarding Davis' authority to sign…"
Signature block, p.46: "TOPDEVZ, LLC · By: Tyler Davis · Title: Manager." The Trustee asks the court to approve the Consent under 11 U.S.C. §363 (pp. 2, 26, 29).
The motion asks the court to approve the consentThe challenged document becomes the authority basis on the record
Bankr. ECF 124 — Trustee Settlement Motion (facsimile) · filed 10/23/24 · pp. 2, 25, 46
View the filed settlement motion → Source: Bankr. S.D. Cal. No. 24-00617-CL7, Doc. 124 (filed 10/23/24). The "Unanimous Written Consent" is at p.47.
"Unanimous" — signed by two, missing the 51% member The Consent (ECF 124, p.47) states the signatories are "all of the members of TopDevz, LLC." Only two people signed it — the Trustee and Davis. Ashkan Rajaee, the disputed 51% member, did not sign.
What the consent claims
"The undersigned, constituting all of the members of TopDevz, LLC … do hereby consent…"
Who actually signed
Only the Trustee and Tyler Davis. Rajaee — who claims 51% — is absent. The "95% / manager" premise that makes Davis a "member" is, by the motion's own words, on appeal.
What the $100,000 bought — and the objection on the record For a $100,000 payment, the motion dismisses the estate's RICO and related suits against Davis/TopDevz with prejudice (pp. 20, 39–40). The motion itself records that Rajaee was expected to object that any such deal "would violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act" and "would amount to money laundering" (p.27).
5

What the docket itself records: approval, $0, $80,000, then $100,000

The strongest sequence does not depend on a summary. Five filed records show the settlement order and the complete abandonment-to-sale path in the trustee's, buyers', and court's own documents.

The filed post-petition sequence
Dec. 10, 2024 · ECF 159court approves four settlements, including the $100,000 Davis/TopDevz settlement
Feb. 6, 2025 · ECF 197trustee proposes abandonment and lists the property at $0.00
Feb. 20, 2025 · ECF 211Davis and TopDevz jointly oppose abandonment and offer $80,000
Apr. 2, 2025 · ECF 288trustee seeks approval of a negotiated $100,000 sale to Davis and TopDevz
July 30, 2025 · ECF 543court approves the $100,000 sale and recounts the path from abandonment
Bankr. S.D. Cal. No. 24-00617-CL7 · ECF 159, 197, 211, 288, 543
ECF 159Settlement approval order$100,000 Davis/TopDevz settlement ECF 197Proposed abandonmentProperty listed at $0.00 ECF 211Joint opposition$80,000 purchase or settlement offer ECF 288Trustee sale motionNegotiated $100,000 sale ECF 543Sale approval orderCourt recounts and approves the sequence
The testable inferenceThe public filings establish the transaction path. The complaint asks whether the authority premise used earlier in the case lawfully supported the settlement and sale steps that followed. The linked PDFs let the reader test that question without relying on this site's characterization.
6

The documented filings — and the trustee's role

Beyond the claims, the moves above appear on the bankruptcy docket as actual filings. Three are worth pinning, because they show the machinery in the participants' own documents and connect the bankruptcy sequence to documented notice.

U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, S.D. CALIFORNIA · No. 24-00617
MOTION TO APPOINT CHAPTER 11 TRUSTEE OR, ALTERNATIVELY, CONVERT TO CHAPTER 7 · ECF 19 (filed for Davis & TopDevz by D. Edward Hays)
ECF 19The motion that set the conversion in motion — brought by Davis/TopDevz as "Judgment Creditors," resting on the arbitration award and Davis's "managing member" status. The Bankruptcy Court converted the case on this motion.
This is the real filed motion (437 pp.; first pages shown). It is the documented entry point for the post-petition phase.
The conversion motion itselfFiled by Hays for Davis/TopDevz · ECF 19
Bankr. ECF 19 — Hays conversion motion excerpt
View the conversion motion → Source: Bankr. S.D. Cal. No. 24-00617, ECF 19 (excerpt of the 437-page filing).
Who produced the signaturesThe Trustee's own counsel: forwarded "by Ed Hays"
Quoted in the 9th Cir. sanctions motion (Ex. 165) · party-admission of Trustee's counsel
View the sanctions motion → Source: 9th Cir. No. 25-8172 (quotes the Finlayson email, Ex. 165). The quote is reproduced from that filing; pull the underlying email before any use.
U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, S.D. CALIFORNIA · No. 24-00617-CL7
CHAPTER 7 TRUSTEE'S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE CONTEMPT & SANCTIONS AGAINST DEBTOR ASHKAN RAJAEE · Doc 580 · Filed 9/2/25
Doc 580After the settlements and the sale of the estate's appellate rights, the Trustee moved to hold Rajaee in civil contempt for trying to vacate the dismissals and for violating the conversion/settlement/sale orders and the automatic stay.
This motion seeks contempt/sanctions and an order that Rajaee "has no authority" to challenge the dismissals — the Trustee turning the bankruptcy machinery against the debtor who is trying to undo the settlements.
The machinery turned on the debtorContempt motion to stop Rajaee undoing the settlements
Bankr. Doc 580 — Trustee's contempt motion (excerpt) · filed 9/2/25
View the contempt motion → Source: Bankr. S.D. Cal. No. 24-00617-CL7, Doc 580 (excerpt). Seeks an OSC re contempt/sanctions against Rajaee.
The evidence chain These are documented court filings: the conversion motion (ECF 19), settlement motion (ECF 124), settlement order (ECF 159), proposed abandonment (ECF 197), joint $80,000 offer (ECF 211), $100,000 sale motion (ECF 288), sale order (ECF 543), and contempt motion (Doc 580). The Finlayson line about joint drafting and signatures forwarded by Hays is reproduced in the sanctions motion. Together, the records show who filed what, when the authority issue surfaced, and which orders and transactions followed.