CONCLUSION Defendants’ Motion should be denied because the only new evidence provided to the Court are declarations alleging threats of litigation. Moreover, the Motion should be Denied because Tison and 18 U.S.C. § 1514 are completely inapposite to the facts of this case. Finally, Defendants have not demonstrated that they can meet the four prong test for a temporary injunction.

Though Racketeering is a federal crime, and Plainitffs have asserted 34 indictable federal offenses in the VERIFIED COMPLAINT, I cannot agree that this is yet a "criminal case" in the ordinary understanding of that term. APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE TRO 13CV1944 -15 Case 3:13-cv-01944-CAB-JLB Document 4 Filed 08/26/13 Page 15 of 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Benefits and Burdens Weigh In Favor of a TRO The burdens of the granting a HARASSMENT TRO under 18 U.S.C. § 1514 on all parties are insignificant as Defendants have no legitimate interest to further HARRASSMENT AND ABUSE and obstruction of the DUE COURSE OF JUSTICE. The requested TRO requires that Defendants abandon extra-judicial HARASSMENT AND ABUSE and proceed according to law in this courthouse, which is the exclusive venue with jurisdiction for all claims.

g. Health care fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1346 and 1347. Case 2:16-cv-02728-GJP Document 111-1 Filed 11/01/16 Page 2 of 9 3 h. Civil action to restrain harassment of a victim or witness, 18 U.S.C. § 1514. i. Conspiracy to defraud the Government with respect to claims, 18 U.S.C. § 286.

(Dkt No. 22, p. 22). “To make this showing, the plaintiff must have a ‘subjective Case 3:15-cv-02287-BAS-NLS Document 35-1 Filed 10/31/16 Page 15 of 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -9 SMRH:479738478.2 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS ERHART'S AMENDED COMPLAINT belief’ that the challenged conduct violates a relevant law listed in 18 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(1), and this belief must be ‘objectively reasonable.’” (Dkt No. 22, p. 19 (quoting Sylvester, 2011 WL 2165854, at *12).)

However, SOX only applies to complaints regarding certain enumerated federal crimes/securities fraud: “section 1341, 1343, 1344, or 1348, any rule or regulation of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or any provision of Federal law relating to fraud against shareholders.” 18 U.S.C. § 1514(A)(a)(1). A person’s subjective belief that a federal crime/securities fraud has occurred is not enough -- that belief must be objectively reasonable.

(Docket Entry No. 41-4 at 246). 7 In his deposition, Plaintiff testified he felt that he was terminated for reasons unrelated to the Plaintiff or the Clunan investigation, namely, that his termination was a result of Tony Case 3:10-cv-00578 Document 95 Filed 09/16/11 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 903 9 ANALYSIS Plaintiff has filed this action for violations of Section 806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act of 2002, Title VII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. § 1514) (“SOX”)8, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367 for violations of the Tennessee Public Protection Act (“TPPA”), T.C.A. § 50-1-304, and Tennessee common law, for wrongful termination in violation of Tennessee public policy. Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages; reinstatement, if feasible and appropriate; front pay; injunctive relief; reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and other relief.

denied, 519 U.S. 808, 117 S. Ct. 50, 136 L. Ed. 2d 14 (1996) ..............................................................................6 Weisman v. LeLandais, 532 F.2d 308 (2d Cir. 1976) ........................................................................6 Case 1:09-cv-02858-SHS-RLE Document 13 Filed 07/02/09 Page 4 of 21 P R E L I M I N A R Y S T A T E M E N T Plaintiff, Paul Bienstock (“Bienstock” or “Plaintiff”), by his attorneys Sack & Sack Esqs., hereby respectfully submits this Memorandum of Law in opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Plaintiff submits that the facts alleged in the Complaint are sufficient to state claims under §806 of the Corporate and Criminal Fraud Accountability Act, Title VIII of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. § 1514(a)(1) (“SOX”). As this Court is fully aware, the pleadings of a complaint must be liberally construed as to afford the Plaintiff the greatest benefit of doubt that a claim under SOX has been stated.

Am. Int’l Group, Inc., 460 F.3d 296 (2d Cir. 2006).......................................................................................7, 8, 10 Case 1:07-cv-07916-VM-MHD Document 12 Filed 11/05/2007 Page 4 of 18 iv Portes v. Wyeth Pharms, Inc., 06 Civ. 2689 (WHP), 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60824 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 20, 2007)..............11 Rapture Shipping, Ltd. v. Allround Fuel Trading B.V., 350 F. Supp. 2d 369 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)................................................................................10 Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16\ (1983)..............................................................................................................7 STATUTES 15 U.S.C. §1513(e) (2005)...............................................................................................................7 18 U.S.C. §1513(d) (2005) ..............................................................................................................7 18 U.S.C. §1514 (a)(1)...................................................................................................................11 FEDERAL CONGRESSIONAL REPORT S. Rep. No. 98-467, at 27-28 (1984)................................................................................................8 Case 1:07-cv-07916-VM-MHD Document 12 Filed 11/05/2007 Page 5 of 18 INTRODUCTION Defendants, Accenture Ltd and Accenture LLP (“Defendants”), by and through their attorneys, SEYFARTH SHAW LLP, and pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, submit the following Memorandum of Law in support of their Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. Accenture LLP is a management consulting, technology services and outsourcing company.