RE: Imminent Federal RICO Litigation: Neulevel, Inc.

Dear Mr. Lynn:

I am writing to you as a courtesy to provide you with advance legal notice of the imminent filing of Federal RICO Litigation against Neulevel, Inc. The subject matter of the RICO action arises in part from facts that were the subject of a September 6, 2001, investigative expose about Neulevel, Inc.'s "dirty lottery" by the premier Internet Fraud Reporter with the Microsoft-NBC Network which currently appears at the following link: http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/624000.asp

Aside from the pattern of wire fraud described in the MS-NBC article, Neulevel, Inc., has also failed to refund the $90 that Neulevel, Inc. fraudulently debited from my credit card with regard to an IP Claim for the domain name {biz.biz} despite my numerous requests to Neulevel, Inc.'s outside counsel, Jeffrey Sherwood, that his client, Neulevel Inc., conduct its operations in accordance with the law and the widely-accepted ethical norms of e-commerce business practice by issuing a credit to my credit card in the amount of $90.

No reply to this email notice is necessary; however, if you deem a reply necessary, a reply would be accepted via email or letter sent via the U.S. Postal Service to the following address:

Edward Harvilla, Attorney
Masonic Building
4 South Second Street, Suite 201
Pottsville, PA 17901

Regretfully, due to evidentiary considerations I would not accept any phone calls nor any correspondence pertaining to this matter sent via private couriers such as Federal Express, UPS, etc.

Sincerely yours,

Edward Harvilla, Attorney
Victim, Neulevel, Inc. Fraud
Pennsylvania Attorney I.D. No. 49425

[In principle, multiple offenses of selling illegal lottery tickets would appear to be exactly the sort of predicate offenses that RICO -- the anti-racketeering statute -- was designed to eradicate. And RICO offers treble damages. In practice, however, there are at least two obstacles to this exercise. First, there's an ongoing class action in California, and there's a good chance that since that case was filed first, if the class is certified there a federal court in a later-filed would find an excuse to abstain from hearing a claim based on what appear to be the identical facts, albeit a different statute and thus different offense. Second, judges don't like RICO claims much these days, especially if they decide that the underlying dispute is really commercial rather than true racketeering...-mf]