If they continue to “Plead the Fith Amendment” then they are guilty of an Aggravated Conspiracy to Commit Abuse and Exploitation of the clients who entrusted them with their lives sa- cred works and the legacies that have been passed down through the genera- tions within this LDS Faith where “Fam- ilies are Forever” and this undeniable evidence is found on page one of the complaint and literally leaves the De- fendants “Speechless” due to the obvi- ous “Checkmate” they are in just by the was the “pieces” lie on the the front page.

Despite their ruthless attempts to have the name of Max D Eliason (“ME”) re- moved from the complaint; the youngest son is a legal agent with a Durable Power of Attorney and has the right to be “ME” and pursue the crimi- nals since he has been illegally locked up under a fraudulent “KMC House Ar- rest” which is paramount to snuffing out the victims voice so as to never al- low Max D Eliason to speak for himself in the court of law.

Anyone with the understanding of Fiduciary Duty and Estate Planning Law would cringe to see that Max D Eliason is a Plaintiff that they do not represent and that he is still alive and the lawful Trustee and Settlor of the Max and Joyce Eliason Trusts dated Oc- tober 28th, 2015.

Even worse is the expected reaction of the Defendants when they realize that Kirton McConkie is openly representing Lisa Stephens as the “Sole Trustee” of the same Max and Joyce Eliason Trusts dated October 28th, 2015 in addition to representing two of the three benefi- ciaries and their spouses but not “ME” nor his youngest son who is now forced into being his own attorney for reasons to be discussed herein.

THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION THAT CAN LEGALLY JUSTIFY THE FACT THAT KIRTON MCCONKIE REPRESENTS TWO OF THE THREE SIBLINGS AND THEIR SPOUSES IF THEY EVER HAD A CLIENT/ATTORNEY FIDUCIARY DUTY TO MAX AND JOYCE ELIASON.

THE VICTIMS HAVE DEMANDED THAT DALLIN OAKS AND KIRTON MCCONKIE EXPLAIN BY WHAT LEGAL JUSTIFICATION THEY CAN OFFER THAT PERMITS THEM TO HAVE EMPOWERED LISA STEPHENS TO SETTLE BOTH ESTATES WHILE THEIR REAL CLIENT AND SETTLOR IS STILL LIVING AND THEY HAVE NO RESPONSE TO OFFER SINCE THEY KNOW THERE IS NO WAY TO ERASE THE EVIDENCE.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a United States federal law that provides for ex- tended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organiza- tion.

The RICO Act focuses specifically on racketeering and allows the leaders of a syndicate to be tried for the crimes they ordered others to do or assisted them in doing, closing a perceived loophole that allowed a person who in- structed someone else to, for example, murder, to be exempt from the trial be- cause they did not actually commit the crime personally.

Under RICO, a person who has commit- ted “at least two acts of racketeering activity” drawn from a list of 35 crimes-27 federal crimes and 8 state crimes-within a 10-year period can be charged with racketeering if such acts are related in one of four specified ways to an “enterprise”. Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addi- tion, the racketeer must forfeit all ill- gotten gains and interest in any busi- ness gained through a pattern of “rack- eteering activity.”

Both the criminal and civil compo- nents allow the recovery of treble damages (damages in triple the amount of actual/compensatory damages).

Although its primary intent was to deal with organized crime, Blakey said that Congress never intended it to merely apply to the Mob. He once told Time

“We don’t want one set of rules for people whose collars are blue or whose names end in vowels, and an- other set for those whose collars are white and have Ivy League diplomas.”

“Pattern of racketeering activity” re- quires at least two acts of racketeering activity committed within ten years of each other. 18 U.S.C.A. § 1961(5) (West 1984). Congress intended a fairly flexi- ble concept of a pattern in mind. H.J., Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229, 239, 109 S. Ct. 2893, 2900, 106 L. Ed. 2d 195 (1989). The government must show that the racketeering predi- cates are related, and that they amount to or pose a threat of contin- ued criminal activity.

The RICO statute expressly states that it is unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the subsec- tions of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1962. The gov- ernment need not prove that the de- fendant agreed with every other con- spirator, knew all of the other con- spirators, or had full knowledge of all the details of the conspiracy. DE- lano, 825 F. Supp. at 542. All that must be shown is that the defendant agreed to commit the substantive racketeering offense and had knowingly participated therein.