UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOUTHERN DIVISION
In re SANCTUARY BELIZE LITIGATION

No: ____________1

(proposed)
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
Plaintiff,

[UNDER SEAL]
DO NOT DOCKET/
MOTION TO DELAY ECF PENDING

v.
AMERIDEBT, INC. et al.

No: 03-cv-3317-PJM

Defendants.

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
TO HOLD ANDRIS PUKKE, PETER BAKER, AND JOHN USHER IN CONTEMPT
FOR FAILING TO TURN THE SANCTUARY PARCEL OVER TO THE RECEIVER

1

Currently pending before the Court is a motion to consolidate this matter with the related
FTC v. Ecological Fox LLC (“Ecological Fox”) matter, pursuant to Rule 42, under the joint case
name In re Sanctuary Belize Litigation.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 
I.

Background.............................................................................................................................. 2
A. Pukke Stipulated to the Final Order, Creating A Receivership Over His Assets. ............... 2
B. Pukke Acquired the Sanctuary Parcel in 2003 and Then Hid it From the Receiver. ........... 3
1. Pukke, With Baker as His Partner, Acquired the Sanctuary Parcel in 2003. ................... 3
2. Pukke Hid And Otherwise Prevented The Receiver From Taking Control Of The
Sanctuary Parcel...................................................................................................................... 5
C. As a Result of Pukke and Baker’s Conduct, This Court Held Them in Contempt and
Explicitly Ordered Them to Turn Over Pukke’s Rights to the Sanctuary Parcel. ...................... 8
D. Nonetheless, Pukke and Baker Defied the Court’s Turnover Order, Resulting in Their
Incarceration. .............................................................................................................................. 9
E. Even Upon Release From Incarceration, Pukke and Baker Conspired To Maintain Pukke’s
Control Over the Sanctuary Parcel. ............................................................................................ 9
F. Pukke and Baker Controlled SRWR at the Time of the Settlement, and Control it to This
Day............................................................................................................................................ 10

II.

Argument .............................................................................................................................. 14
A. Pukke, Baker, and Usher Defied this Court’s Turnover Order, Harming Consumers....... 16
B. Usher is Bound by the Turnover Order.............................................................................. 17
C. Pukke, Baker, and Usher Should Be Ordered to Finally Turnover the Sanctuary Parcel or
Face Coercive Incarceration ..................................................................................................... 17

III. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................ 20

i

 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases 
Ashraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288 (4th Cir. 2000) ................................................................. 15
Colonial Williamsburg Found. v. Kittinger Co., 38 F. 3d 133 (4th Cir. 1994) ............................ 17
Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Premex, Inc., 655 F.2d 779 (7th Cir.1981) .................. 19
Enovative Techs., LLC v. Leor, 110 F. Supp. 3d 633 (D. Md. 2015) ........................................... 18
FTC v. Ameridebt, Inc., 373 F. Supp. 2d 558 (D. Md. 2005) ......................................................... 2
FTC v. Gill, 183 F. Supp. 2d 1171 (C.D. Cal. 2001) .............................................................. 17, 18
FTC v. Leshin, 618 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2010)............................................................................ 17
FTC v. Neiswonger, 494 F. Supp. 2d 1067 (D. Mo. 2007), aff’d, 500 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2009) . 17
Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U.S. 418 (1911) ....................................................... 18
Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624 (1988) ........................................................................................... 18
In re Gen. Motors Corp., 61 F.3d 256 (4th Cir. 1995) ................................................................. 18
Int'l Union, United Mine Workers of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821 (1994) ................................ 18
K.C. ex rel. Africa H. v. Shipman, 716 F.3d 107 (4th Cir. 2013) ................................................. 17
McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187 (1949) ........................................................... 18
Redner’s Markets, Inc. v. Joppatown G.P. Ltd. P’ship, 608 Fed. Appx. 130 (4th Cir. 2015)...... 15
Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9 (1945) ..................................................................... 17
Schwartz v. Rent-A-Wreck of America, 261 F. Supp. 3d 607 (D. Md. 2017) ......................... 15, 16
Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364 (1966)........................................................................... 18
Spallone v. U.S., 493 U.S. 265 (1990) .......................................................................................... 19
Thomas, Head & Greisen Employees Trust v. Buster, 95 F.3d 1449 (9th Cir. 1996) .................. 19
United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258 (1947) ........................................... 18

ii

 United v. Ali, 874 F.3d 825 (4th Cir. 2017) .................................................................................. 15
Statutes 
15 U.S.C. § 45 ................................................................................................................................. 2
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 .................................................................................................................... 16, 17

iii

 Andris Pukke, Peter Baker, and John Usher defied this Court’s repeated orders to turn
over a parcel of land in Belize (the “Sanctuary Parcel”) to the Receiver in this matter, resulting in
significant financial harm to the FTC v. AmeriDebt victims.2 During its investigation into their
current real estate scheme, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) learned of Pukke, Baker, and
Usher’s contumacious, continuing control of the Sanctuary Parcel. The FTC now moves to have
the Sanctuary Parcel finally turned over to the Receiver on pain of coercive incarceration.3
The Sanctuary Parcel has been the subject of significant litigation in this case, including
previous contempt motions and coercive incarceration. That Pukke, Baker, and Usher
nonetheless continued to flout this Court’s authority is astounding. In 2005, the Court appointed
a Receiver to marshal Pukke’s assets. The Receiver determined that Pukke’s assets included
significant ownership of, and development rights in, the Sanctuary Parcel, a massive parcel of
land in remote, southern Belize—more than 12,000 acres (nearly the size of Manhattan). Pukke,
with his long-time associate, Baker, thwarted the Receiver’s efforts to take control over Pukke’s
rights to the Sanctuary Parcel in 2005 and 2006. As a result, the Court found both in contempt
and then incarcerated them to coerce their cooperation in 2007. Upon release, both claimed to no
longer have any rights in or control over the Sanctuary Parcel. The Receiver then dealt with
John Usher, who asserted competing rights over the Sanctuary Parcel. The Receiver settled with

2

They have harmed thousands of additional consumers through their continued control.
As more fully detailed in the temporary restraining order filing in Ecological Fox and the
deceptive telemarketing contempt motion in this action, their deceptive telemarketing of lots
within the Sanctuary Parcel has resulted in over $140 million in harm.
3
In this motion the FTC cites to the evidence attached to its temporary restraining order
filing in the Ecological Fox matter. The citations follow the same format, referencing the exhibit
as plaintiff’s exhibit [letter], followed by paragraph [number] and attachment [number]. For
example: PX[X] ¶ [X]:[X].
1

 John Usher for a discounted payment to avoid having to litigate his right to the property in
Belizean courts.
Unbeknownst to the Receiver, and the FTC, John Usher was in fact acting at Pukke and
Baker’s behest. Indeed, Pukke and Baker distributed documents showing they considered the
“settlement” to be a payment orchestrated by Baker to buy-out Pukke’s shares, rather than
turning over those shares and rights to the Receiver, as they were ordered to do. In effect, the
three secretly cheated AmeriDebt consumers out of significant assets that could have been used
to provide redress. Because Pukke, Baker, and Usher all acted in contempt of this Court’s
orders, they should be forced to finally comply with the Court’s orders and, for the first time,
turn over the Sanctuary Parcel to the Receiver or face coercive incarceration. This will allow the
Receiver to finally recoup the full value of the Sanctuary Parcel for the benefit of consumers.
I.

BACKGROUND
A.

Pukke Stipulated to the Final Order, Creating A Receivership over His
Assets.

In 2003, the FTC sued Pukke, AmeriDebt Inc. (“AmeriDebt”) and a related company
Pukke controlled, DebtWorks Inc. (“DebtWorks”), under Section 5 of the FTC Act. DE1. The
FTC alleged that the defendants promoted AmeriDebt as a “non-profit credit counseling
organization dedicated to assisting consumers having difficulties with their personal finances.”
DE1 ¶ 10. The FTC alleged that the defendants stated they did not charge fees for their services,
DE1 ¶ 15, but nonetheless took unauthorized “contributions” from consumers. DE1 ¶¶ 17-19.
The Court imposed a preliminary injunction on Pukke, freezing his assets, based on a finding
that the FTC was likely to prevail. FTC v. Ameridebt, Inc., 373 F. Supp. 2d 558, 567 (D. Md.
2005).

2

 Then, one day before trial, Pukke accepted a Stipulated Final Judgment and Permanent
Injunction (the “Final Order”). DE473. There, the Court entered a $172 million judgment
against Pukke. DE473 at Section III.A. The Court had already appointed a Receiver under the
preliminary injunction to marshal Pukke’s assets, DE122 at Section VI., and continued this
Receivership in the Final Order, DE473 at Sections III.D. and IX. The Court also ordered Pukke
to “cooperate fully with the Receiver,” including its asset recovery efforts, DE473 at Section XI.,
and to cooperate with the FTC to “carry out the purposes of this order,” DE473 at Section
III.B.3.
But, Pukke did not cooperate, resulting in multiple contempt findings for both him and
his friend and cohort, Baker.
B.

Pukke Acquired the Sanctuary Parcel in 2003 and Then Hid It from the
Receiver.
1. Pukke, With Baker as His Partner, Acquired the Sanctuary Parcel in
2003.

Pukke formed two entities in 2003, with Baker’s and Baker’s family’s involvement:
Dolphin Development LLC (“Dolphin”) and Sittee River Wildlife Reserve (“SRWR”). PXQQ ¶
67:71 (Dolphin articles of incorporation, identifying the owners, including Pukke, Baker, and
Baker’s stepparents); PXQQ ¶ 68:72 (SRWR articles of incorporation); PXQQ ¶ 70:74 at 95:5-6
(showing that the others associated with the companies include the Medhursts, Baker’s mother
and stepfather); PXQQ ¶ 93:98 at 16-17. Pukke owned Dolphin through a wholly-controlled
LLC with an official 60% interest in Dolphin (Baker and his stepparents held the remaining
40%). PXQQ ¶ 67:71 (Puck Key Investment L-8, LLC (“Puck Key 8”) owns 60% interest in
Dolphin); PXQQ ¶ 312:336 (Pukke’s 2005 bankruptcy schedule asserting Puck Key 8 100%
owned by P & P II Family Trusts); PXQQ ¶ 93:98 at 16:10-11 (The Court on 3/14/07: “There’s

3

 no question that Andris Pukke was the 60% owner of Dolphin Development.”). Pukke also
served as Dolphin’s Chairman. PXQQ ¶ 78:83 (9/21/03 Dolphin board minutes listing Pukke as
“Chairman”). Pukke controlled SRWR as its “Chairman.” Id. (6/21/03 SRWR board minutes
listing Pukke as “Director” and noting his election as “chairman”).
In 2003, Pukke loaned Dolphin and SRWR at least $3 million to purchase the “All
Pines,” “Plenty,” and “Regalia” properties comprising the Sanctuary Parcel. PXQQ ¶ 78:83 at
21 (lands purchased with loans from Pukke and Dolphin); id. at 25 (10/7/05 SRWR minutes:
lands were purchased with “unsecured loans made by Mr. Andris Pukke”); PXQQ ¶ 68:72 at 9
(Pukke testifying that he lent a total of “three point something million dollars that they were to
pay me back as they sold the piece of that land”); PXQQ ¶ 78:83 at 4 (Dolphin board minutes
noting that Pukke had loaned Dolphin $3M); PXO ¶ 4:24 (SRWR history, stating that Pukke and
Baker purchased Sanctuary Belize in 2002); PXQQ ¶ 65:69, attachment ¶ 11 (Deputy Receiver
Brick Kane explaining the deeds of purchase); PXQQ ¶ 93:98 at 17:2-11 (the Court describing
how Pukke acquired the land).
Although Usher was not originally associated with either Dolphin or SRWR, his role
evolved until he became a manager and Director in 2005. As of approximately 2003, Usher was
the manager of Triton Mariculture Ltd. (“Triton”), a shrimp farming company that Pukke owned
through Dolphin. PXQQ ¶ 312:336 at 6; PXQQ ¶ 78:83 at 3 (9/21/03 Dolphin board minutes
discussing purchase of Triton); PXQQ ¶ 70:74 at 10 (2005 Pukke Deposition identifying Triton,
stating he owned Triton and that “Johnnie” Usher was its manager). Over time, Usher served as
a manager of sorts for the Sanctuary Parcel as well, becoming “General Manager” of Dolphin by
May 13, 2005, and “Director” of SRWR by October 7, 2005. PXQQ ¶ 78:83 at 8 (5/13/05
Dolphin board minutes); id. at 24 (10/7/05 SRWR board minutes); PXO ¶ 4:24 at 11.

4

 2. Pukke Hid And Otherwise Prevented the Receiver from Taking
Control of the Sanctuary Parcel.
The Court entered a Preliminary Injunction on April 20, 2005, transferring all of Pukke’s
assets to the Receiver. Pukke, with Baker’s help, nevertheless continued his direction of Dolphin
and SRWR. Shortly after the Preliminary Injunction, Pukke and Baker were telemarketing lots
in a planned development called “Sanctuary Bay” on the Sanctuary Parcel. PXQQ ¶ 71:75 (2005
email attaching Sanctuary Bay telemarketing script); PXQQ ¶ 302:325 (September 2005 emails
by and among Pukke, Baker, and Baker’s stepfather regarding Sanctuary Bay marketing); PXQQ
¶ 313:337 (August 2005 Sanctuary Bay website listing Dolphin as the developer).4 Pukke
directed the Sanctuary Bay marketing and development, with Baker’s support. For example:
Pukke helped develop the “Sanctuary Bay Estates” website, provided specific language to be
used on the website, transferred an additional $100,000 from a Latvian account to fund the
development, helped develop the project’s logo, coordinated lead generation, and directed land
development, usually copying Baker on all related correspondence.5 Furthermore, Pukke and
Baker continued to participate in Dolphin and SRWR board meetings. PXQQ ¶ 78:83 at 8 (May
2005 Dolphin meeting minutes showing Pukke as Chairman, Baker as Director); id. at 13 (July

4

Even at this early stage, they promised that Sanctuary Bay would have a hotel, marina,
health spa, equestrian center, and investment return rates of around 500%. PXQQ ¶ 71:75
(telemarketing script). Dolphin had started selling lots by the summer of 2005. PXQQ ¶ 72:76
(August 2005 lot sale designating the “vendor” as “Dolphin Development Co., Ltd.; dba
Sanctuary Bay”); PXQQ ¶ 325:348 (July 2005 Baker email attaching list of lots indicating many
had already been sold).
5
See PXQQ ¶ 74:79 (April 2005 email correspondence in which Pukke, writing from both
his email address and Baker’s email address, describes creation of Sanctuary Bay website,
marketing, including lead generation, and the transfer of $100,000 from a Latvian bank account);
PXQQ ¶ 75:80 (May 2005 email seeking Pukke’s comments on lot development); PXQQ ¶
77:82 (July 2005 emails among Pukke and Baker with Pukke approving and directing payments
for development).
5

 2005 Dolphin meeting minutes showing Pukke and Baker as Directors); id. at 24 (October 2005
SRWR board minutes showing Pukke attending the board meeting and Baker a Director).
While doing so, Pukke hid his activities. Initially, he simply lied, submitting a financial
statement to the Receiver failing to identify any interest in Dolphin or the Sanctuary Parcel.
PXQQ ¶ 79:84. In July 2005, he admitted an ownership interest, but minimized the interest as a
passive, minority, 30% interest rather than the actual, majority, 60% stake. PXQQ ¶ 70:74 at
108:15-25 (Pukke testifying that he had a 30% interest in Dolphin’s profits); id. at 114:16-20
(Pukke testifying he was a 30% owner and “limited partner” in Dolphin); PXQQ ¶ 312:336 at 6
(Pukke’s bankruptcy Schedules claiming only a 30% interest). His lies included a July 2005
motion to dissolve the receivership where he stated that Dolphin had “no assets” and “has never
done business,” while he was actively operating Dolphin and selling lots. PXQQ ¶ 80:85
(DE221, Addendum A at 4).6
While lying to the Receiver and the Court, Pukke and Baker engaged in a sham
transaction to further insulate the Sanctuary Parcel from the receivership. The transaction
attempted to divest Dolphin of its valuable and undisclosed assets by transferring Dolphin’s
rights and assets to two new entities: Starfish Development Ltd. (“Starfish”) and Sanctuary Bay
Ltd. The divestment unfolded as follows: In September 2005, Pukke, Baker, and Colin
Medhurst (Baker’s stepfather), began privately discussing the structure of a possible “NewCo”
taking over for Dolphin. PXQQ ¶ 302:325.7 Then, during the October 2005 board meetings for
Dolphin and SRWR, they explained that the elimination and replacement of Dolphin was

6

PXQQ ¶ 312:336 at 6 (Pukke’s bankruptcy schedules listing Dolphin’s assets as worth
“$0.00” and stating that Dolphin “has not done business”).
7
Interestingly, Baker’s stepfather, Colin Medhurst, was initially upset by the whole plan,
and then was further upset when Pukke and Baker accused of him of trying to “steal” Pukke’s
money by not having Dolphin’s rights assigned to a new company. Id. at 7-9.
6

 necessary because of Pukke’s inability to continue to fund Dolphin and SRWR. PXQQ ¶ 78:83
at 18 (10/6/05 Dolphin board minutes, with Baker as Chairman: “Mr. Pukke’s financial position
was detrimental to his efforts to attract new investors to the project. [Baker] was therefore
recommending that [SRWR] be approached and asked to cancel their arrangements with
[Dolphin] and to enter into a contract for the development, funding and marketing of project with
a new company to be formed.”); id. at 25 (10/7/05 SRWR board minutes with Baker
recommending that Dolphin be replaced “with a new developer acceptable to Mr. Baker”
because “Mr. Pukke was unable to advance further funds and to facilitate new investors”). They
originally attempted to divest Dolphin without paying for the land at all, suggesting that Dolphin
merely “donate” the land and “lease” its equipment to the new companies, before their Belizean
counsel told them that, even in Belize, such a transaction would be a sham. PXQQ ¶ 315:339
(Baker email discussing plan); PXQQ ¶ 82:87 (email reflecting attorney advice). Nonetheless, to
paper the transaction they decided to “sell” the land titled in Dolphin’s name for $65,320, even
though Dolphin had paid $1.5 million for the same land just two years prior. PXQQ ¶ 82:87.
Following the October 2005 board meetings, Baker instructed Belizean law firm Barrow
& Williams (“B&W”) to form Starfish to take over for Dolphin as the development and sales
arm for the Sanctuary Bay development and to create Sanctuary Bay Ltd. to take over Dolphin’s
real estate holdings. PXQQ ¶ 81:86 (October 2005 email instructing B&W to create entities);8
PXQQ ¶ 316:340 (Starfish formed in October 2005);9 PXQQ ¶ 317:341 (October 2005 emails
regarding creation of Sanctuary Bank Ltd.); PXQQ ¶ 318:342 (Sanctuary Bay Ltd. taking

8

Belizean attorney Rodwell Williams apparently performed the work. His partner at
Barrow & Williams, Dean Barrow, became Prime Minister of Belize in 2008, and remains Prime
Minister. DE681 at 4 fn.1.
9
Peter Baker registered “Starfish Development Limited” as an Orange County, California
Fictitious Business Name (“FBN”). PXQQ ¶ 89:94.
7

 Dolphin’s real estate). On paper, Baker owned controlling interests in both. PXQQ ¶ 319:343
(Baker is 99% holder of Sanctuary Bay Ltd.); PXQQ ¶ 81:86 (Baker instructing B&W to create
both companies with Baker as the 99% shareholder and his uncle, Max Jobson, as a nominal 1%
shareholder). In short, to help keep the Sanctuary Parcel from the FTC and the Receiver, Pukke
transferred his interests to Baker, who attempted to insulate the dubious transactions through
newly formed shell companies.
C.

As a Result of Pukke and Baker’s Conduct, This Court Held Them in
Contempt and Explicitly Ordered Them to Turn Over Pukke’s Rights to the
Sanctuary Parcel.

On October 23, 2006, the Receiver moved to hold both Pukke and Baker in contempt for
hiding certain assets, including the Sanctuary Parcel. DE525. The FTC joined the motion,
noting that Pukke “lied repeatedly to the Receiver, the FTC, and this Court.” DE321 at 3. The
Court agreed, referring to the attempt to divest Dolphin as a “sham,” and ruling that “the
transaction is null and void.” PXQQ ¶ 93:98 at 20:11-24. The Court, therefore, held that the
Receiver retained rights to the Sanctuary Parcel as the 60% owner of Dolphin, id. at 21:3-11, and
ordered Pukke and Baker to turn over those rights to the Receiver. DE571 (Mar. 30, 2007)
(“Turnover Order”).10 Doing so, the Court emphasized Pukke’s “flat out false” statements,
PXQQ ¶ 93:98 at 23:7-15, as well as Baker’s complicity in these lies, stating: “They were lies
that were made not once, but multiple times by Mr. Baker under oath, under penalties of perjury
when he signed these statements. There’s a casualness about Mr. Baker’s statements and,
indeed, about Mr. Pukke’s as if the truth doesn’t really matter.” Id. at 25:20-24 (emphasis
added).

10

To facilitate the Receiver’s ability to control the Sanctuary Parcel, the Court issued a
second order (the “Revesting Order”), see DE572 (Mar. 30, 2007), unwinding the sham
transaction and ordering Pukke’s interests re-vested in Dolphin. See id.
8

 D.

Nonetheless, Pukke and Baker Defied the Court’s Turnover Order, Resulting
in Their Incarceration.

Neither Pukke nor Baker turned over the Sanctuary Parcel. Therefore, the FTC and
Receiver moved the Court to incarcerate Pukke and Baker to coerce their compliance. See
DE596; DE597. Baker’s noncompliance included refusing to direct various third parties,
including Usher, to effectuate the transfer. DE596 at 3-4; PXQQ ¶ 320:344, attachment ¶¶ 3-4
(initial cooperation); id. ¶ 7 (subsequent noncooperation). Shortly after Baker stopped
cooperating, Usher sent letters to the Receiver stating that the SRWR board had met and
terminated all rights held by Pukke and Baker in the Sanctuary Parcel in the “past and future.”
See DE596 (Apr. 30, 2007) at 4; PXQQ ¶ 88:93, attachment ¶ 5 and Exhibits 3 & 4 (Exhibit 4
specifies that SRWR is terminating all “past and future” involvement with Dolphin, Starfish, and
Peter Baker) (emphasis added). Baker refused to take any steps to countermand Usher’s letters
or undo the apparent act by SRWR. PXQQ ¶ 321:345, attachment ¶ 7. As a result, the Court
held Pukke and Baker in contempt and ordered them incarcerated, DE604, noting that the pair
had lied “dozens” of times, PXQQ ¶ 94:99 at 101:16-20, and commenting: “The mendacity of
these two men throughout the history of this receivership is something to behold.” PXQQ ¶
95:100 at 27:7-8.
E.

Even Upon Release From Incarceration, Pukke and Baker Conspired To
Maintain Pukke’s Control Over the Sanctuary Parcel.

Pukke and Baker were released, with Pukke making a significant payment to the Receiver
and both pledging to take steps to comply with this Court’s orders, including the turnover of the
Sanctuary Parcel. DE614 (Baker release); DE622 (Pukke release). Although neither took any
further steps to transfer the Sanctuary Parcel, the Receiver believed he had separated them from
the Sanctuary Parcel. But the Receiver faced a new problem: SRWR claimed the development

9

 for itself, DE682 at 3-4,11 and the Receiver could not easily enforce its rights in Belize. DE682
(Mar. 27, 2008) at 4 (“[I]t became clear to the Receiver that the Receiver would face significant
resistance to the Receiver controlling the Sanctuary Bay Estates project from SRWR even after
Baker’s involvement in the project ceased.”) (emphasis added). At this point Usher was
SRWR’s Chairman, and SRWR had engaged B&W to contest the Receiver’s claims, shortly
after Dean Barrow (the “B” in B&W) had been elected prime minister of Belize. Id. at 4 n.1.
The Receiver thus calculated that, even without Baker (or Pukke), the Receiver faced a costly
and challenging battle in Belize to control the Sanctuary Parcel. Consequently, the Receiver
agreed to abandon its rights to the Sanctuary Parcel in exchange for a $2 million payment from
SRWR. DE682. The settlement agreement references the Turnover Order. DE682-4 at 2.
Because Usher signed the settlement agreement, see id. at 9, he knew about the Turnover Order,
and was thus bound by it under FRCP 65(d). No party objected to the proposed sale, and the
Court approved it without comment. DE686.
F.

Pukke and Baker Controlled SRWR at the Time of the Settlement, and
Control it to This Day.

Unbeknownst to the Receiver, the FTC, and the Court, Baker and Pukke had in fact
maintained control, using Usher as their front man. In 2016, for the first time, they began to lift
the veil of fraud and disclose their active role in the settlement. During the November 2016
SRWR board meeting where Baker was once again SRWR’s Chairman,12 SRWR distributed a

11

Usher made a related claim during his testimony at the 2007 contempt hearing,
contending that Dolphin (and, thus, Pukke) had no rights to most of the Sanctuary Parcel. See
PXQQ ¶ 322:346 at 73:4-15 (describing SRWR as “owned by no one in particular” and in charge
of approximately 12,000 acres), and 80:7-13 (SRWR was distinct from Dolphin).
12
This, despite the letter to the Receiver in 2007 in which SRWR claims it was terminating
any future relationship with Baker. Also, a “Mark Romeo” was a Director in 2016. As this
Court may recall, Pukke has at times used the name Mark (or Marc) Romeo, and testified to this
Court in 2015 as part of his supervised release hearing that the real Romeo ceased all
connections with the Sanctuary Parcel and its various related corporate entities in 2011. PXQQ ¶
10

 document describing SRWR’s history, including insider details on the settlement with the
Receiver, disclosing that the settlement was actually the result of Baker finding “another
investor” to buy Pukke’s “shares,” which were then transferred to Baker. In their own words:
The development limped along while Rodwell (Williams of Barrow & Williams)
tried to negotiate a settlement with the Receivers [sic]; however, he was unable to
do so. Luckily, Peter Baker surfaced another investor who agreed to invest $2
million into the project. With those funds, Rodwell was able to successfully
negotiate a settlement with the Receivers [sic] on April 23, 2008. With the
settlement payment made, Andris’ [Pukke’s] equity shares were conveyed to
Peter Baker and the original core development investors13 (this should be noted
to show he [Pukke] has no involvement)[.]14
PXO ¶ 3:24 at 12 (emphasis added). This insider transfer was corroborated during the FTC’s
undercover investigation, with Frank Costanzo, an officer of the current developer of the
Sanctuary Parcel, telling an FTC employee that Baker bought the Sanctuary Parcel. Specifically:
At some point obviously, Mr. Pukke got into problems I think with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, et cetera, on other issues and the receiver seized this
property.
So Mr. Baker then, seeing that, you know, his family’s dream [of the
development] is about to collapse, went out, found some other real estate
investors that raised the capital . . . and made the deal with the receiver to
basically buy the—buy the development out of receivership. So at that point then
it was Peter Baker was the executive and there were, I think, a handful of original
investors that really were like—loaned the money to Peter.
PXQQ ¶ 48:41 at 15:23-16:10 (emphasis added). Baker, of course, had been ordered to turn over
any rights he held in Pukke’s share of the Sanctuary Parcel. Instead, he converted Pukke’s
shares for himself with Usher serving as a straw man, thus defrauding the Court and the
Receiver.

148:141 at 285:5-14.
13

The document does not identify “the original core development investors,” but they are
Baker, and Baker’s stepfather and mother, Colin and Joan Medhurst, as discussed earlier.
14

Notably, Pukke was still involved. Usher, the SRWR Chairman at the time of the
settlement, has even assisted Pukke in using false names to hide his continued involvement. See
PXQQ ¶ 148:141 at 278:7-279:1.
11

 SRWR further explains that following the fraudulent settlement, they created Eco Futures
Belize Ltd. (“Eco Futures (BZ”) to take on Dolphin’s previous role: “[T]o accommodate the
new investors/shareholders, Eco-Futures was formed and contracted with SRWR to become the
new development company with the same terms that were in the previous [Dolphin and
Sanctuary Bay] development agreements.” PXO ¶ 3:24 at 12 (emphasis added). SRWR then
explains that Baker created Global Property Alliance Inc. (“GPA”) to serve as the Unites Statesbased marketing arm for the development. PXO ¶ 2:23 at 8 and ¶ 3:24 at 13; see also PXQQ ¶
148:141 at 197:6-12 (testimony from GPA employee that GPA “is doing business as Eco
Futures”); id. at 202:10-22 (further testimony that other marketing entities, such as “Buy Belize”
operate from GPA’s offices at GPA’s direction). They continued sales as before. Within months
of the settlement, they had resumed selling lots and giving tours based on the same
misrepresentations Pukke and Baker were making in 2005. PXQ ¶¶ 2-6; PXR ¶¶ 2-5. They
subsequently changed the name of the development from Sanctuary Bay to Sanctuary Belize, and
then to The Reserve (hereafter “Sanctuary Belize” for ease of reference). As in the other
motions pending before this Court, the FTC refers to this scheme and its participants as the
Sanctuary Belize Enterprise (“SBE”).
Substantial evidence confirms that Pukke controls the entire SBE, with Baker and Usher
as front men. Although Pukke has avoided being a “paper owner,” multiple former SBE
employees confirm that Pukke is and has been the ultimate control person for the entire
enterprise. PXEE ¶ 5 (former “Director of Finance/Accounting” stating “Pukke was the person
who ran everything”); PXZ ¶¶ 3 & 6 (former sales representative stating “Pukke ran everything,”
including “Buy Belize, Eco Futures, and Global Property Alliance”); PXBB ¶ 3 (former sales
representative stating: “While I was working there, I saw no distinction between Sanctuary

12

 Belize, Buy Belize, Global Property Alliance, Sittee River Wildlife Reserve and Eco Futures
Development. Everyone who worked for those entities took orders from and reported to
Pukke.”). Third-party business partners also identify Pukke as the ultimate control person.
PXFF ¶¶ 8-9 (real estate developer met with Pukke, stating: “Pukke characterized himself as the
‘CEO’ and ‘owner’ of Sanctuary Belize. Pukke made a point to emphasize that he not only
owned the marketing operation, but that he raised the money to purchase Sanctuary Belize. . . .
Pukke was clear that he was the owner of the property.”); PXGG ¶¶ 31-33 (business executive of
international marina management company stating that it was apparent Pukke was a control
person and that Pukke confided in him that he in fact had an equity interest in Sanctuary Belize).
Internal SBE Documents corroborate this testimony. For instance, Pukke has authority over
communications with lot owners about corporate structure,15 legal affairs,16 lot ownership
structure,17 refunds to consumers,18 dissolution of SBE-related entities,19 payments for
equipment shipped to Belize,20 reviewing lot sale contracts,21 authorizing commissions for
telemarketers,22 and dealing with consumers who want to sell their lots.23 Tellingly, Pukke ran

15

PXQQ ¶ 150:142 (employees relying on Pukke’s advice in communications to
consumers).
16
Pukke directed Greenfield to wire $20,000 to Belizean attorney Fred Lumor. PXQQ ¶
151:143.
17
While incarcerated, Pukke directed employees to research “fractional ownership,” which
would, in theory, enable more than one party to own a lot. PXQQ ¶ 152:145.
18
Pukke directed Greenfield to send a $10,000 check to a dissatisfied lot owner, R.P.
Taylor. PXQQ ¶ 153:147.
19
In a 2014 email, it is explained that “in discussion with Andi [Pukke] and Luke
[Chadwick], it was determined that the SBHOA [Sanctuary Belize HOA] would be terminated.”
PXQQ ¶ 154:149.
20
In an email regarding payment for a shipment to Belize, an SBE subordinate wrote that
they would “look into” the issue and “I think Andi was suppose[d] to . . . wire to them” payment.
PXQQ ¶ 155.
21
Regarding a lot sale contract, Greenfield told a subordinate to “get a copy for Andi
[Pukke] to review.” PXQQ ¶ 156:155.
22
PXQQ ¶ 157:156 (email train in which Pukke is decision maker on commissions,
including challenging an employee’s claim to an unusual commission structure).
23
Pukke directed a subordinate “to verbally follow up with all emails or requests” about
13

 the SBE during his stint in prison for obstruction of justice in this case. See PXQQ ¶ 152 (an
email showing Pukke’s continued control during his period of incarceration); PXQQ ¶ 105:115
(SBE paying for Pukke’s Wall Street Journal subscription while he was incarcerated); PXQQ
¶197:207 (SBE employees arranging for email correspondence with Pukke while he was
incarcerated).
Baker on the other hand, continues to serve as Pukke’s front man. As shown above,
Baker was an SRWR founder and was the SRWR Chairman as of 2016. Additionally, Baker is
the purported owner or officer of several SBE members. PXQQ ¶¶ 187, 217, 219, 231, 233, 236;
PXO ¶ 3:24 at 13 (GPA). He even had access to SBE bank accounts, using them for personal
purchases. PXQQ ¶ 303. Also, as discussed above, another SBE member told the FTC in an
undercover call that Baker “owns [the] development.”
Similarly, Usher is still present, serving key roles for members of the SBE. Usher is a
director of the Sanctuary Belize Property Owner’s Association (“SBPOA”), PXQQ ¶ 201: 213.
He is a bank signatory on Eco Futures (BZ)’s U.S. bank account. PXQQ ¶ 204. Furthermore,
numerous marketing communications directed to U.S. residents identify Usher as the
“chairman,” “owner,” or “principal” of the development. PXQQ ¶ 205.
II.

ARGUMENT
The FTC has established each of the elements of contempt by clear and convincing

evidence: “(1) The existence of a valid decree of which the alleged contemnor had actual or
constructive knowledge; (2) that the decree was in the movant’s ‘favor’; (3) that the alleged
contemnor by its conduct violated the terms of the decree, and had knowledge (at least
constructive knowledge) of such violations; and (4) that the movant suffered harm as a result.”

owners who want to sell, including requests sent to apparent SBE executives. PXQQ ¶ 158:159.
14

 Schwartz v. Rent-A-Wreck of America, 261 F. Supp. 3d 607, 612 (D. Md. 2017) (J. Messitte)
(citing Ashraft v. Conoco, Inc., 218 F.3d 288, 301 (4th Cir. 2000)); United v. Ali, 874 F.3d 825,
831 (4th Cir. 2017). Although the FTC must prove “knowledge,” “[w]illfulness is not an
element of civil contempt.” Schwartz, 261 F. Supp. 3d at 612-13 (quoting Redner’s Markets,
Inc. v. Joppatown G.P. Ltd. P’ship, 608 Fed. Appx. 130, 131 (4th Cir. 2015)).
All four elements are easily satisfied. Elements 1, 2, and 4 can be dealt with summarily.
Pukke, Baker, and Usher had knowledge of this Court’s Turnover Order. Pukke and Baker have
knowledge because they have been incarcerated for violating it once already. Usher signed
documents submitted to this Court recounting his knowledge of the Turnover Order. The
Turnover Order was in the FTC’s favor because the turnover and liquidation of Pukke’s assets,
including the Sanctuary Parcel, was to benefit the FTC and consumers, who in turn were harmed
by Pukke, Baker, and Usher’s contumacious activity in secretly refusing to give up the Sanctuary
Parcel. The FTC in fact gave redress to consumers in this matter. Therefore, reducing the value
of the Sanctuary Parcel directly reduced the redress payments the FTC made to Pukke’s
victims—thus multiplying Pukke’s fraud on American consumers.
Regarding element 3, as described below, Pukke, Baker, and Usher’s conduct in hiding
the Sanctuary Parcel from the Receiver and then taking steps to thwart the Receiver’s control
violate the Court’s Turnover Order. Additionally, even as a nonparty, Usher is subject to the
Turnover Order under Rule 65(d).24 As a result, each should be ordered to finally turn over the
Sanctuary Parcel or face incarceration until they comply.

24

For purposes of the Turnover Order, Baker is a party. He is explicitly subject to the order
and has already litigated its applicability before this Court. Even if he were not explicitly a party
to the Turnover Order, Baker would be bound by the Turnover Order for the same reasons as
Usher.
15

 A.

Pukke, Baker, and Usher Defied this Court’s Turnover Order, Harming
Consumers.

The Court required Pukke and Baker to turn over all of Dolphin’s rights to the Receiver.
DE571 at 5-6. Upon Pukke’s and Baker’s release from prison, the FTC and Receiver believed
Pukke and Baker no longer had authority to transfer any of the relevant assets, and so were left to
deal with Usher in Belize, who claimed all of the Dolphin rights as his in his capacity as SRWR
chairman. Without a U.S. defendant subject to the Court’s coercive sanctions, the Receiver
recognized the reality of enforcing his rights before the Belizean court and, therefore, struck the
only, albeit poor, deal he could.
However, as disclosed in the 2016 SRWR board minutes, Pukke and Baker’s lack of
involvement was a sham. In fact, Baker, and by extension Pukke, were still in charge. Usher
was just the front man with Baker orchestrating the settlement through which rather than turn
over the land he convinced the Receiver to accept only a fraction of the Sanctuary Parcel’s value.
That Pukke and Baker were in fact directing SRWR’s behavior is further strengthened by them
continuing to run the Sanctuary Belize scheme to this day. Given each had knowledge of the
Turnover Order, they meet the “knowledge” requirement, particularly when their acts cannot be
interpreted in any way other than to subvert this Court’s explicit Turnover Order. See Schwartz,
261 F. Supp. 3d at 614 (violations with “actual or constructive” knowledge of the terms of the
order sufficient); Colonial Williamsburg Found. v. Kittinger Co., 38 F. 3d 133, 136-37 (4th Cir.
1994) (one with knowledge of an order cannot defeat contempt by stating they did not know the
terms of the order or otherwise take steps to confirm they are acting in compliance with the
order). This is especially so because SRWR claimed, in a letter Usher provided to the Receiver,
that Pukke and baker would not have any “future” rights in the Sanctuary Parcel.

16

 B.

Usher is Bound by the Turnover Order.

Rule 65(d) specifies that all individuals with notice of the order “in active concert or
participation” with a party or a party’s agent are bound by the relevant injunction. Otherwise
parties could “nullify a decree by carrying out prohibited acts through aiders and abettors.”
Regal Knitwear Co. v. N.L.R.B., 324 U.S. 9, 14 (1945); K.C. ex rel. Africa H. v. Shipman, 716
F.3d 107, 115 (4th Cir. 2013) (same). Therefore, those in privity with or acting at the parties’
behest are subject to the Court’s jurisdiction and contempt remedies. Indeed, the FTC is
frequently required to pursue nonparties who take steps to violate court orders entered in the
Commission’s favor. See, e.g., FTC v. Leshin, 618 F.3d 1221, 1236 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding
nonparty businesses controlled by a party in contempt); FTC v. Neiswonger, 494 F. Supp. 2d
1067, 1078-79 (D. Mo. 2007), aff’d, 500 F.3d 769 (8th Cir. 2009) (nonparty business partner
with knowledge of the order subject to contempt sanctions); FTC v. Gill, 183 F. Supp. 2d 1171,
1184 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (holding nonparty nonprofit in contempt). By facilitating Baker and
Pukke’s continued efforts to prevent the transfer to the Receiver and retain rights for themselves,
Usher was “in active concert or participation” with Baker and Pukke, and is thus bound by the
Turnover Order.
C.

Pukke, Baker, and Usher Should Be Ordered to Finally Turnover the
Sanctuary Parcel or Face Coercive Incarceration

Because of their contumacious conduct, this Court has broad authority to ensure the FTC
and consumers are fully compensated. The only way to ensure this compensation is for the
Receiver to control the Sanctuary Parcel so that he can manage or sell it for the benefit of
consumers.25 The Court has broad authority to compensate the FTC’s and consumers’ losses.

25

Although the Receiver has been discharged in this action, this Court can re-empower the
Receiver. FTC v. Gill, 183 F. Supp. 2d 1171, 1186 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (appointing receiver as part
17

 United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947); In re Gen. Motors
Corp., 61 F.3d 256, 259 (4th Cir. 1995) (citing McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S.
187, 193-94 (1949)). The FTC is entitled to “full remedial relief.” McComb, 336 U.S. at 193
(1949). Furthermore, this Court is empowered to coerce a contemnor’s compliance, including
through turnover orders and coercive incarceration. See, e.g., Int'l Union, United Mine Workers
of Am. v. Bagwell, 512 U.S. 821, 828 (1994) (“The paradigmatic coercive, civil contempt
sanction, as set forth in Gompers, involves confining a contemnor indefinitely until he complies
with an affirmative command such as an order ‘to pay alimony, or to surrender property ordered
to be turned over to a receiver, or to make a conveyance.’”) (quoting Gompers v. Bucks Stove &
Range Co., 221 U.S. 418, 442 (1911)); Shillitani v. United States, 384 U.S. 364, 370–71 (1966)
(“The conditional nature of the imprisonment—based entirely upon the contemnor’s continued
defiance—justifies holding civil contempt proceedings absent the safeguards of indictment and
jury. . . .”); Hicks v. Feiock, 485 U.S. 624, 632-35 (1988) (civil contempt remedies include
conditional incarceration whereby contemnor can avoid incarceration with prompt compliance);
Enovative Techs., LLC v. Leor, 110 F. Supp. 3d 633, 637 (D. Md. 2015) (“Incarceration, like
other contempt sanctions, is proper upon a finding of civil contempt as long as the purpose is to
coerce compliance with a court's order, rather than to punish for the contemnor’s failure to
comply.”).26 Indeed, this Court has already taken both steps, in this case, against two of these
three contemnors. Including coercive incarceration in the turnover order is necessary because of

of civil contempt sanctions). Additionally, the FTC is seeking a receivership in Ecological Fox
and has recommended the Court appoint the same receiver it previously appointed in this matter.
26
Unlike in a criminal case, civil contempt requires only notice and an opportunity to be
heard. Like with summary judgment, the Court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing if
the defendant does not meaningfully challenge the facts. Thomas, Head & Greisen Employees
Trust v. Buster, 95 F.3d 1449, 1458-59 (9th Cir. 1996); Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v.
Premex, Inc., 655 F.2d 779, 782 n. 2 (7th Cir.1981).
18

 the contemnors’ history of defiance. Contempt remedies are required to be the “least possible
power to the end proposed,” Spallone v. U.S., 493 U.S. 265, 276 (1990), and Pukke, Baker, and
Usher have shown that absent coercive incarceration, they will not comply with a court order.27
The FTC should not be forced to come before this Court again on a motion to have them held in
contempt if they, as is very likely, ignore a bare turnover order. Instead, their incarceration
should be triggered by a filing, under oath, from the FTC or the Receiver informing the Court of
their failure to turn over the land.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/

27

Other coercive sanctions, such as a fine, will be meaningless. The FTC is already
seeking to have their assets frozen in Ecological Fox. As a result, a fine is unlikely to be
coercive or enforceable.
19

 III.

CONCLUSION
As a result of Pukke, Baker, and Usher' s contumacious conduct, they should be given ten

(10) days to fully transfer the Sanctuary Parcel to the Receiver and, if they fail , be incarcerated
until they comply. Additionally, each should be incarcerated immediately if they take any steps
to prevent the transfer to the Receiver to prevent further such acts, and then they should remain
incarcerated until the Sanctuary Parcel is fully transferred to the Receiver.
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: October 31 , 2018
JONATHAN COHEN, D. Md. Bar No. 16776
jcohen2@ftc.gov
BENJAMIN J. THEISMAN , pro hac vice
btheisman@ftc.gov
AMANDA B. KOSTNER, pro hac vice
akostner@ftc.gov
KHOURYANNA DIPRIMA, pro hac vice
kdiprima@ftc.gov
600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, CC 9528
Washington, DC 20580
Phone: (202) 326-2551 (Cohen), -2223 (Theisman),
-2880 (Kostner), -2029 (DiPrima)
Facsimile: (202) 326-3197
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

20