### Amway: The Untold Story

Touchton Lawsuit

Don and Sue Ellen Touchton v. Amway et al, State Court of Richmond County, State of Georgia, 3/28/96.
Like the Hanrahan lawsuit, this suit alleges that high level Amway distributors are engaging in fraud and racketeering related to their highly profitable motivational "tools" businesses. The Touchton suit goes further in alleging that the Touchton's upline attempted to "squeeze them out" by selling Amway and non-Amway products to their downline, and also disparaging them to their downline and upline...practices described to me by other ex-distributors and discussed by Steven Butterfield in his book Amway: The Cult of Free Enterprise. It also alleges that the "tools" business constitutes an illegal pyramid scheme, something that Rich Devos himself admitted more than ten years ago (see Directly Speaking article).

`IN THE STATE COURT OF RICHMOND COUNTY`

`STATE OF GEORGIA`

`DON TOUCHTON AND )`
`SUE ELLEN TOUCHTON, )`
`)`
`PLAINTIFFS, )`
`) CIVIL ACTION FILE`
`VS. ) NO.: 96-RC5C-264`
`)`
`AMWAY CORPORATION; DEXTER )`
`YAGER, INDIVIDUALLY AND D/B/A )`
`YAGER ENTERPRISES; HAL GOOCH )`
`AND SUSAN GOOCH; AND SAM )`
`FLANERY AND JACALYN FLANERY, )`
`)`
`DEFENDANTS. )`

`COMPLAINT`

`NOW COME PLAINTIFFS, DON AND SUE ELLEN TOUCHTON, and for`
`their complaint against Defendants show as follows:`

`INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT`

`1. Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of the State`
`of Georgia.`

`2. Defendant Amway Corporation ("Amway") is a Michigan`
`corporation, which is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and`
`sale of Amway products, and the promotion of Amway distributorships`
`within the state of Georgia. Amway ' s registered agent for service`
`of process is C. T. Corporation Systems at 12 O1 Peachtree Street`
`N. E., Atlanta, Georgia 30361.`

`3. Defendant Dexter Yager, individually and D/B/A Yager`
`Enterprises ("Yager"), is a distributor of Amway products who is`
`involved in the promotion of Amway distributorships, the`
`distribution of Amway products, the production and distribution of`
`motivational materials for use by Amway distributors, the sale of`
`motivational materials to Amway distributors, and the organization`
`of motivational rallies for attendance by Amway distributors.`
`Yager may be served at 12201 Steel Creek Road, Charlotte,`
`North Carolina 28273.`

`4. Defendants Hal and Susan Gooch (collectively`
`"Gooch") are residents of the state of North Carolina and are`
`distributors of Amway products who are involved in the promotion`
`of Amway distributorships, the distribution of Amway products, the`
`production and distribution of motivational materials for use by`
`Amway distributors, the sale of motivational materials to Amway`
`distributors, and the organization of motivational rallies for`
`attendance by Amway distributors. Gooch may be served at 6 Curtis`
`Court, Thomasville, North Carolina 27360.`

`5. Defendants Sam and Jacalyn Flanery (collectively`
`"Flanery") are residents of the state of North Carolina, and are`
`distributors of Amway products who are involved in the promotion`
`of Amway distributorships, the distribution of Amway products, the`
`distribution of motivational materials for use by Amway`
`distributors, and the organization of motivational rallies for`
`attendance by Amway distributors. Flanery may be served at 400`
`Sugar Loaf Road, Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792.`

`JURISDICTION AND VENUE`

`6. Defendant Amway, a Michigan corporation, is`
`registered and authorized to transact business in Georgia, and`
`transacted business out of which the subject cause of action arose,`
`with Plaintiffs in Richmond County, Georgia. All other Defendants`
`are subject to the jurisdiction of this court under the Georgia`
`Long-Arm Statute, in that they are non-residents of the State of`
`Georgia who have (a) transacted, and continue to transact business,`
`and have engaged in purposeful activity within the State of`
`Georgia, and that the claims of Plaintiffs arise out of said`
`business and activity, (b) committed a tortious act or acts or`
`omissions within Georgia against Plaintiffs, and/or (c) committed`
`a tortious injury or injuries in Georgia against Plaintiffs caused`
`by acts or omissions outside of Georgia, and have regularly done`
`or solicited business in Georgia, engaged in a persistent course`
`of conduct within Georgia and derived substantial revenue from`
`goods used or consumed in Georgia. Furthermore, certain of the`
`actions of all Defendants here complained of were transacted in`
`Richmond County, Georgia, and venue properly lies in this court.`

`FACTUAL STATEMENT`

`7. Amway manufactures a wide variety of consumer`
`household products which it sells nationwide through hundreds of`
`thousands of distributors, many of whom are in Georgia.`

`8. The Amway sales plan is a marketing scheme, whereby`
`any purchase or sale of Amway goods by a distributor financially`
`benefits not only Amway, but also those Amway distributors who`
`qualify and occupy levels in the Amway distributorship network`
`higher than that of the selling distributor. In Amway parlance,`
`those persons who occupy positions below a distributor in his`
`branch of the network are called the distributor's "downline".`
`Those persons who occupy positions above a distributor in his`
`branch of the network are called the distributor's "upline". In`
`order to earn significant profits as an Amway distributor, one must`
`develop a sizeable downline organization by recruiting and`
`sponsoring other distributors into the Amway sales organization.`

`9. Amway sells, distributes, or otherwise supplies for`
`a valuable consideration, goods through independent agents or`
`distributors at different levels, wherein such distributors may`
`recruit other distributors and wherein commissions, cross-`
`commissions, bonuses, refunds, discounts, dividends, or other`
`considerations in the program are or may be paid as a result of the`
`sale of such goods or services or the recruitment, actions, or`
`performances of additional participant distributors.`

`10. Defendant Yager occupies a position at the top of`
`his own vast Amway distributorship network. The Amway`
`distributorship network Defendant Yager runs is comprised of tens`
`of thousands of downline distributors and, upon information and`
`belief, earns millions of dollars annually through his Amway`
`business organizations.`

`11. In September 1986, Plaintiffs became Amway`
`distributors Within the Yager organization, by entering into a`
`distributorship agreement with Amway, whereby they acquired the`
`right to sponsor new Amway distributors, and to sell Amway products`
`primarily to their sponsored distributors.`

`12. Defendants Gooch and Flanery are Amway distributors`
`within the Yager organization upline of the Plaintiffs.`

`13. The success of the individual Defendants herein is`
`integral to the success of Defendant Amway. Amway directly`
`benefits financially from the sponsorship of each Amway distributor`
`within the Yager organization, and from the sale of Amway products`
`to each Amway distributor within the Yager organization.`

`14. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery have created`
`their own businesses that publish and/or distribute motivational`
`materials, such as books and audio-cassette tapes, and that`
`organize and promote motivational rallies for Amway distributors`
`throughout the United States. Through these businesses, Defendants`
`Yager, Gooch, and Flanery sell vast quantities of motivational`
`materials to their respective downline distributors and hold`
`rallies throughout the United States that their downline`
`distributors must pay to attend.`

`15. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery derive a`
`substantial portion of their incomes from the sale of non-Amway`
`motivational materials to persons in their downlines and from the`
`money earned through their motivational rallies.`

`16. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery regularly`
`represented or caused to be represented to Plaintiffs that their`
`success as Amway distributors was contingent upon the purchase of`
`motivational materials published and/or distributed by Defendants`
`Yager, Gooch, and Flanery, and attendance at meetings sponsored by`
`them, and that without such materials and attendance at meetings,`
`Plaintiffs would be unable to build and maintain successful Amway`
`distributorships. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery further`
`represented or caused to be represented to Plaintiffs that they`
`should purchase only those motivational materials produced and/or`
`distributed by Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery.`

`17. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery further`
`represented to Plaintiffs that they should purchase a weekly supply`
`of Defendants' motivational audio tapes through a tape-of-the-week`
`program that Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery described as the`
`"standing order" tape program ("S.O.T."), and, moreover, Defendants`
`represented that such weekly purchases of Defendants' audio tapes`
`were essential to Plaintiffs' success as Amway distributors.`

`18. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery further`
`represented to Plaintiffs that their paid regular attendance at the`
`motivational rallies organized and promoted by Defendants was`
`essential to Plaintiffs' success as Amway distributors.`

`19. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery further`
`represented to plaintiffs that the only way plaintiffs could be`
`successful Amway distributors was to buy motivational and`
`promotional materials prepared by said Defendants, to pay to attend`
`meetings and conferences sponsored by them, and to recruit and`
`sponsor other distributors (and convince them to buy tapes and to`
`pay to attend conferences); and most importantly, to avoid wasting`
`time trying to develop retail sales, which they continually`
`stressed were unimportant.`

`20. Defendants Gooch and Flanery further represented to`
`Plaintiffs that despite anything the Amway organization might say,`
`the Amway rules and regulations were irrelevant and should be`
`disregarded, and that Amway would not dare interfere with the way`
`the Yager organization was run, because Yager could always pull his`
`downline organization out of Amway, which would significantly harm`
`Amway.`

`21. In fact, the motivational materials produced and/or`
`distributed by Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery and the`
`motivational rallies organized and promoted by Defendants Yager,`
`Gooch, and Flanery were unnecessary to the success of Amway`
`distributors, which fact was well known to Defendants Yager, Gooch`
`and Flanery, and Plaintiffs lost money as Amway distributors.`

`22. At all times relevant hereto, Amway was aware that`
`the aforesaid misrepresentations regarding Defendants Yager, Gooch,`
`and Flanery's motivational materials and motivational rallies were`
`being made to Amway distributors, and that in practice, sales of`
`such materials within the Yager organization were consistently`
`being conducted in violation of Amway's rules, including without`
`limitation, Section B, Rule 4. It was in Amway's economic self-`
`interest to permit such misrepresentations and rules violations to`
`continue, and although Amway has been aware of such practices for`
`years, Amway has never terminated the distributorships of`
`Defendants Yager, Gooch, or Flanery, or made any credible effort`
`to halt their practices in violation of Amway's rules.`

`23. In reliance upon the misrepresentations of`
`Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery, Plaintiffs purchased large`
`quantities of Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery's motivational`
`materials and attended Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery's`
`motivational rallies as recently as early 1993.`

`24. In addition to the foregoing, Flanery, with the`
`knowledge of Gooch, and ultimately Yager and Amway, engaged in a.`
`regular practice of interfering with Plaintiffs' downlines, cutting`
`out the Plaintiffs from the distributorship scheme.`

`25. On various occasions, Defendants herein sold or`
`caused the sale of Amway and non-Amway products directly to`
`Plaintiff's downline distributors, thereby interfering with`
`Plaintiffs' distributorship relationships.`

`26. On numerous occasions Defendants Gooch and Flanery`
`disparaged Plaintiffs to Plaintiffs' downline distributors and`
`Plaintiffs' upline, in an effort to interfere with Plaintiffs'`
`downline distributorship relationships, and to isolate Plaintiffs`
`from upline support.`

`COUNT I`

`VIOLATION OF O.C.G.A. §10-1-410, ET SEQ.,`
`RELATING TO MULTIILEVEL DISTRIBUTION COMPANIES`

`27. The allegations contained in paragraphs numbered "1"`
`through "26" are incorporated here in by reference.`

`28. Defendants either constitute, operate, and/or`
`directly or indirectly participate in the operation of a multilevel`
`marketing program, within the meaning of Georgia law.`

`29. Defendants Yager, Flanery and Gooch, with the`
`knowledge of Amway, manage and/or participate in an organization`
`(the Yager organization) wherein, through the persuasive and`
`coercive actions of said individual defendants, the financial gains`
`to the participants are primarily dependent upon the continued,`
`successive recruitment of other participants, and where sales of`
`Amway goods to non-participants are not required as a condition`
`precedent to realization of such financial gains.`

`30. Defendants have failed to comply with the`
`requirements of O.C.G.A. §10-1-413, and have engaged in practices`
`prohibited under O.C.G.A. §§ 10-1-411 and 10-1-414, and`
`accordingly, are guilty of unfair or deceptive acts or practices`
`in the conduct of consumer transactions.`

`31. Plaintiffs have been injured in their persons and`
`property by the acts of Defendants in violation of O.C.G.A. §10-`
`1-410, et seq., and Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their`
`general as well as exemplary damages occasioned by such injuries`
`against all Defendants, jointly and severally.`

`32. Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of three times`
`their actual damages under O.C.G.A. §10-1-399(c), as well as`
`reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation under`
`O.C.G.A. §10-1-399 (d).`

`COUNT II`

`VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA RACKETEER INFLUENCED`
`AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (AGAINST`
`DEFENDANTS YAGER, GOOCH AND FLANERY)`

`33. The allegations contained in paragraphs numbered "l"`
`through "32" are incorporated herein by reference.`

`34. The actions of Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery`
`alleged above, constitute racketeering activity within the meaning`
`of O.C.G.A. §16-14-3, in that they constitute a violation of 18`
`U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1341, wire and mail fraud. Defendants Yager,`
`Gooch and Flanery's participation in the affairs of the enterprise`
`consisted of their guiding, managing, directing or otherwise`
`exercising some control over the affairs of the enterprise.`

`Through acts of mail and wire fraud Defendants Yager, Gooch, and`
`Flanery participated in the affairs of the RICO enterprise which`
`was comprised of a large international corporation (Amway) and its`
`vast network of hundreds of thousands of individual distributors.`
`The cloak of legitimacy provided to Defendants Yager, Gooch, and`
`Flanery by this seemingly legitimate enterprise afforded said`
`Defendants access to and influence over huge numbers of Amway`
`distributors, thus enabling Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery`
`to exercise their scheme to defraud Plaintiffs and others through`
`an illegal pyramid distributor scheme as described at length`
`herein.`

`35. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery's pattern of`
`racketeering activity, which consisted of mail and wire fraud, was`
`perpetrated through direct telephone communications, the Amvox`
`Telephone Voice Mail System, and the mails, pursuant to and for the`
`purpose of executing Defendants' scheme to defraud Plaintiffs and`
`others by communicating false and fraudulent information, including`
`but not limited to:`

`a) statements that fraudulently represented that`
`Plaintiffs' success as Amway distributors was contingent upon`
`purchasing substantial quantities of the motivational materials`
`produced and/or distributed by Defendants Yager, Gooch, and`
`Flanery; and`

`b) statements that fraudulently represented that`
`Plaintiffs' success as Amway distributors was contingent upon`
`attending motivational rallies organized and promoted by Defendants`
`Yager, Gooch, and Flanery.`

`36. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery conspired and`
`endeavored to conduct or participate in, directly or indirectly,`
`the said enterprises through a pattern of racketeering activity,`
`and to acquire money.`

`37. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery conspired and`
`endeavored to acquire or maintain directly or indirectly, an`
`interest in said enterprises and to conduct or participate,`
`directly or indirectly, in said enterprises through a pattern of`
`racketeering activity, in order to acquire money.`

`38. Plaintiffs are persons injured by reason of`
`Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery's violation of O.C.G.A. §15-`
`14-4, and are entitled to three times their actual damages`
`sustained, as well as punitive damages and attorney fees.`

`COUNT III`

`FRAUD`

`39. The allegations contained in paragraphs numbered "1"`
`through "38" are incorporated herein by reference.`

`40. Defendants Yager, Gooch; and Flanery made or caused`
`to be made knowing and fraudulent misrepresentations to Plaintiffs`
`at the time they were recruited and sponsored to become Amway`
`distributors by misrepresenting the nature of the business`
`opportunity as being "the Amway system", when in fact, these`
`Defendants were engaged in a systematic violation of the Amway`
`rules, and were operating an illegal pyramid sales scheme for their`
`own profit through the sales of motivational materials, and conduct`
`of rallies.`

`41. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery made or caused`
`to be made knowing and continuing fraudulent misrepresentations as`
`recently as early 1993 to Plaintiffs that the proper and only way`
`to succeed in the Amway business was to put their full efforts into`
`the sale and distribution of motivational materials produced by`
`said Defendants, and into recruiting and sponsoring additional`
`distributors to whom additional motivational materials would be`
`sold, rather than into developing and expanding retail sales of`
`Amway products.`

`42. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery made or caused`
`to be made knowing and continuing fraudulent misrepresentations as`
`recently as early 1993 to Plaintiffs that their success as Amway`
`distributors was contingent upon the purchase of motivational`
`materials produced and/or distributed by Defendants, and upon`
`Plaintiffs' inducement of their downline to do the same.`

`43. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery made or caused`
`to be made knowing and continuing fraudulent misrepresentations as`
`recently as early 1993 to Plaintiffs that their success as Amway`
`distributors was contingent upon attending their motivational`
`rallies, and upon Plaintiffs' inducement of their downline to do`
`the same.`

`44. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery failed to make`
`to Plaintiffs and others various disclosures required under Georgia`
`law, including without limitation O.C.G.A. §10-1-410, et seq.`

`45. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery made or caused`
`to be made the aforesaid and above-described misrepresentations of`
`material fact and failed to disclose the aforesaid material facts,`
`intending that the Plaintiffs become and continue as Amway`
`distributors, not for the purposes of generating Defendants'`
`profits solely through the "Amway system", but rather for the`
`purpose of generating larger profits for these Defendants from`
`their illegal pyramid selling scheme which was prohibited by the`
`Amway rules.`

`46. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery made or caused`
`to be made the aforesaid misrepresentations of material fact`
`intending that Plaintiffs purchase Defendants Yager, Gooch, and`
`Flanery's motivational materials, and expend money to attend their`
`motivational rallies, and induce their downline to do the same, in`
`the fraudulently induced belief that such expenditures were`
`necessary to Plaintiffs' success as Amway distributors.`

`47. Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery made or caused`
`to be made the aforesaid misrepresentations intending that as soon`
`as profits from motivational materials and rallies were generated`
`through Plaintiffs' efforts, they would have the ability to cut`
`Plaintiffs out so Plaintiffs could not participate in the profits`
`from the sales of such materials, and said Defendants could deal`
`directly with their downline.`

`48. But for the aforesaid fraudulent representations,`
`upon which Plaintiffs justifiably relied to their detriment, and`
`but for the aforesaid omissions of material facts, Plaintiffs would`
`not have entered into or maintained their Amway distributorship.`

`49. But for the aforesaid misrepresentations of material`
`fact, upon which Plaintiffs justifiably relied to their detriment,`
`Plaintiffs would not have purchased substantial quantities of`
`Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery's motivational materials and`
`would not have expended significant amounts of money traveling to`
`and attending Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery's motivational`
`rallies, which motivational materials and rallies were in fact`
`unnecessary and actually detrimental to Plaintiffs' success as`
`Amway distributors.`

`50. Plaintiffs, in justifiable reliance upon Defendants`
`Yager, Gooch, and Flanery's fraudulent misrepresentations, were`
`damaged in an amount in excess of $100,000.00, in that Plaintiffs`
`entered into and continued to operate their unprofitable Amway`
`distributorship, in the process expending significant amounts of`
`money on unwanted and unnecessary motivational materials and`
`rallies. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants Yager,`
`Gooch, and Flanery compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs`
`and attorney fees, and such other relief as this court deems just.`

`51. At the time Plaintiffs were recruited to become`
`Amway distributors, and throughout their time as active`
`distributors, they made their decision to become and continue as`
`distributors based in large part upon their reliance on the`
`representations made and published by Defendant Amway in various`
`introductory and promotional materials, concerning the "Amway`
`System", including the Amway rules and regulations and Amway's`
`alleged commitment to enforcing them, when in fact Amway knew that`
`the Yager organization had been and continued to operate in`
`violation of the rules promulgated by Amway, which Amway chose not`
`to enforce, and that what Plaintiffs were actually investing in was`
`not the "Amway System", but the Yager organization, an improper`
`pyramid scheme.`

`52. Amway knew or should have known that a large portion`
`of the activity taking place within the Yager organization was in`
`contravention of Amway's rules, and was in fact something entirely`
`different from the "plan" it has continued marketing.`

`53. Because of the enormous profits generated for it by`
`the Yager organization, and the fear of the possibility of that`
`organization leaving the Amway system, Amway has deliberately`
`chosen not to enforce its rules against such improper practices,`
`has denied their existence, and continues to publish materials`
`extolling the virtues of the Amway System in order to entice more`
`persons to become distributors.`

`54. Amway's representations contained in its literature`
`prepared for the purpose of enticing persons into becoming Amway`
`distributors and its promotional materials concerning the Amway`
`system and the rules and regulations supporting it fraudulently`
`misrepresent the nature of the actual distribution system in`
`practice.`

`55. Plaintiffs justifiably relied upon Amway's`
`fraudulent misrepresentations in becoming and continuing as Amway`
`distributors, and said misrepresentations were the proximate cause`
`of considerable damage to Plaintiffs.`

`COUNT IV`

`BREACH OF CONTRACT`

`56. The allegations contained in paragraphs numbered "1"`
`through "55" are incorporated herein by reference.`

`57. As more particularly described above, Plaintiffs`
`entered into and continued in the renewal of a distributorship`
`agreement with Defendant Amway based in significant part upon`
`representations made to them concerning the Amway marketing system,`
`including the rules and regulations promulgated by Amway.`

`58. Amway's failure and refusal after notice of numerous`
`violations, to enforce the rules and regulations promulgated by it`
`to govern its marketing system, and purporting to preclude improper`
`actions against Plaintiffs by Plaintiffs' upline distributors,`
`including Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery, which actions were`
`in direct violation of Amway's rules and regulations, constitutes`
`a breach by Amway of its contract with Plaintiffs, as a direct`
`result of which Plaintiffs suffered considerable economic loss, for`
`which Amway should be held liable.`

`COUNT V`

`TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE (AGAINST`
`DEFENDANTS YAGER, GOOCH, AND FLANERY)`

`59. The allegations contained in paragraphs numbered "1"`
`through "58" are incorporated herein by reference.`

`60. In direct contravention of the rules promulgated by`
`Defendant Amway, the enforcement of which Plaintiffs by contract`
`had a vested interest, Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery`
`tortiously interfered with Plaintiffs' contractual relationship`
`with Amway, by selling both Amway and non-Amway products directly`
`and without Plaintiffs' permission, to Plaintiffs' downline`
`distributors. Defendant Flanery, in particular, sold Amway and`
`non-Amway products to Plaintiffs' downline on numerous occasions,`
`even though those downline distributors had access to products`
`directly from Amway. Defendant Flanery also sold motivational`
`materials produced by corporations or organizations controlled or`
`operated by Defendants Yager and Gooch to Plaintiffs' downline.`

`61. In direct contravention of the rules promulgated by`
`Defendant Amway, Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery tortiously`
`interfered with Plaintiffs' contractual relationship with Amway,`
`by contacting Plaintiffs' downline distributors for the purpose of`
`making false and damaging statements to them about Plaintiffs, of`
`instructing them to disregard retail sales (except for personal`
`consumption) and concentrate instead on promotional functions and`
`materials, and recruitment and sponsorship of new distributors.`

`62. Plaintiffs had a legitimate, continuing expectation`
`of business relationships with their downline distributors premised`
`upon the "Amway System". Defendants ~ interference with those`
`relationships has resulted in actual damages suffered by`
`Plaintiffs.`

`63. In committing the acts to which reference is made`
`in this Complaint, Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery have acted`
`willfully, maliciously, wantonly, oppressively, intentionally,`
`knowingly, fraudulently, in bad faith, and with reckless disregard`
`of the consequences, and with such entire want of care as raises`
`the presumption of conscious indifference to the consequences, such`
`as to entitle Plaintiffs to punitive damages under Georgia law,`
`including O.C.G.A. §51-12-5.1, and further such punitive damages`
`are not subject to limitation provided by O.C.G.A. §51-12-5.1(g),`
`because Defendants acted with a specific intent to cause harm to`
`Plaintiffs.`

`64. In acting as alleged in the preceding paragraph,`
`Defendants Yager, Gooch, and Flanery have acted in bad faith, have`
`been stubbornly litigious, and have caused Plaintiffs unnecessary`
`trouble and expense, whereby Plaintiffs are entitled to recover`
`their expenses of litigation, including reasonable attorney fees.`

`PRAYER FOR RELIEF`

`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand trial by jury on evidence may`
`show, treble damages pursuant to Georgia statute as alleged all counts,`
`and judgment for money damages against all defendants jointly and`
`severally, in such amount for actual damages as the above,`
`punitive damages sufficient to deter Defendants from such actions`
`in the future, and reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses of`
`litigation, together with all costs of court and such other and`
`further relief as the court may deem equitable and just.`

`This 28th day of March, 1996.`

`E. L. CLARK SPEESE`
`Georgia State Bar No.: 670720`

`ROBERT C. THRELKELD`
`Georgia State Bar No.: 710760`

`ATTORNIES FOR PLAINTIFFS`
`699 Broad St., #1500`
`Augusta, Georgia 30901-1454`
`(706) 722-7543`

`OF COUNSEL:`

`WARLICK, TRITT & STEBBINS`