eFiled

7/2/2024 12:50:52 PM
Superior Court
of the District of Columbia

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIVIL ACTION

METROPOLITAN AFRICAN METHODIST

EPISCOPAL CHURCH,

1518 M St.,NW
Washington, D.C. 20005

Plaintiff,

PROUD BOYS INTERNATIONAL, L.L.C.;

c/o Jason L. Van Dyke
108 Durango Dr.
Crossroads, TX 76227
-
and -

c/o Henry "Enrique" Tarrio, Chairman

5730 NW 2nd St.
Miami, FL 33126 Docket No. 2024-CAB-004147
_
and _

COMPLAINT
c/o Serviceof Process
Texas Secretary of State
P.O. Box 12079
Austin, TX 78711-2079
and

JLVD HOLDINGS L.L.C.;

c/o Jason L. Van Dyke
108 Durango Dr.
Crossroads, TX 76227

and

THE VAN DYKE ORGANIZATION;

c/o Jason L. Van Dyke
108 Durango Dr.
Crossroads, TX 76227
and

MAD ASTER LTD CO.

c/o John Pierce

320 Gold Ave, SW; STE. 620 PMB 2010
Albuquerque, NM 87102

-and-
c/o LAW 4 SMALL BUSINESS, P.C.
6801 Jefferson St. NE; STE. 220
Albuquerque, NM 87109
-and-
c/o John Pierce
21550 Oxnard Street 3d Floor, PMB#172
Woodland Hills, California 91367

-and-
c/o Service of Process
New Mexico Secretary of State
New Mexico Capitol Annex North
325 Don Gaspar, Suite 300
Santa Fe, NM 87501
Defendants.

Plaintiff Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal Church (“Plaintiff,”

“Metropolitan AME,” or the “Church”), as a judgment creditor pursuant to D.C. Code

§§ 28-3104–07 and D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 69-I, for its Complaint alleges as follows:

Nature of the Action

1. The Church brings this action to enforce a default judgment in its

favor entered by this Court in the amount of approximately $2.8 million against Proud

Boys International, L.L.C. (“PBI”).

2. PBI is the parent entity of the Proud Boys, a nationwide white

supremacist organization. PBI was formed and managed by Jason Van Dyke through

defendant JLVD Holdings L.L.C. as a Texas limited liability company (as stated in its

2
certificate of formation, drafted by Van Dyke) to “establish, maintain, govern, improve

and promote the welfare of” the Proud Boys. Van Dyke claims to have been the

“General Counsel” of the Proud Boys and was briefly its National Chairman. In 2021,

PBI had an estimated 76 chapters nationwide; in 2022, it is estimated to have had 155

active chapters in the United States. Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, the Chairman of the Proud

Boys beginning in 2018, claimed that in the Fall of 2020 the organization had 22,000

members.

3. The principal asset of PBI was the “Proud Boys” trademark (the

“Proud Boys Trademark”). The Proud Boys Trademark was and continues to be used by

Proud Boys chapters nationwide and tens of thousands of individual Proud Boys. Proud

Boys routinely appear at rallies and other Proud Boy events wearing polo shirts, hoodies,

caps, and other clothing bearing the Proud Boys Trademark, characteristically in the

organization’s “official” black and gold colors. The Proud Boys Trademark was owned

and registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) by PBI’s affiliate

and alter ego, JLVD Holdings LLC (“JLVD Holdings”), and its successor The Van Dyke

Organization LLC (“The Van Dyke Organization”). In December 2018, these PBI alter

egos licensed the Proud Boys Trademark to Tarrio, Van Dyke’s successor as National

Chairman of the Proud Boys. As Van Dyke later emphasized to Tarrio, however, “the

trademark of the group remained my property and subject to my control.” Appended as

Exhibit 1 is Van Dyke’s February 1, 2021 letter to Tarrio purporting to terminate

Tarrio’s license to use the Proud Boys Trademark.

4. On January 4, 2021, the Church commenced an action in this Court

(the “Prior Action”) against PBI and other defendants arising from an attack on the

3
Church by a mob of Proud Boys on December 12, 2020. PBI was served with a

summons and complaint on January 6, 2021 by delivery to Van Dyke.

5. Within days of being served, PBI and its alter egos commenced a

flurry of activity designed, upon information and belief, to conceal and purporting to

dispose of assets in a fraudulent and unlawful effort to prevent the Church from enforcing

an eventual judgment. On February 1, 2021, roughly three weeks after service was

effected, Van Dyke, on behalf of The Van Dyke Organization, purported to withdraw the

license for the Proud Boys Trademark previously granted to Tarrio. Shortly thereafter,

on February 10, 2021, Van Dyke purported to terminate PBI by filing a notice of

termination with the Texas Secretary of State. That same day, PBI’s alter ego The Van

Dyke Organization, through Van Dyke, filed a request with the USPTO to surrender the

registration of the Proud Boys Trademark.

6. Pursuant to United States trademark law, a trademark owner’s

registration of a trademark with the USPTO is not equivalent to common law ownership

of the trademark. Thus, a trademark owner’s surrender of registration with the USPTO

does not entail abandoning ownership of the trademark.

7. A month after Van Dyke asked the USPTO to surrender

registration of the Proud Boys Trademark, and on the same day that the USPTO officially

cancelled the Proud Boys Trademark, Mad Aster Ltd Co. (“Mad Aster”), a newly formed

shell entity affiliated with the Proud Boys, filed an application with the USPTO to

register the Proud Boys Trademark. Mad Aster was represented in its application by

John M. Pierce, an attorney who is closely related to the Proud Boys and who represents

4
at least three Proud Boys members in criminal proceedings arising from the January 6,

2021 attack on the Capitol. Upon information and belief, Pierce controls Mad Aster.

8. Mad Aster’s purported Trademark Application acknowledges that

it is a “related company,” “licensee,” or “predecessor in interest” of the Van Dyke

Organization. It asserts that Mad Aster “is using the [Proud Boys Trademark] . . . in

commerce,” and claims that the mark “was first used by the applicant [i.e., Mad Aster] or

the applicant’s related company or licensee predecessor in interest at least as early as

February 22, 2018,” and that the first use of the Proud Boys Trademark in commerce was

“[a]t least as early as” March 2, 2018. These statements necessarily refer to use of the

Proud Boys Trademark by PBI or its licensees. Mad Aster cannot have used the Proud

Boys Trademark prior to February 19, 2021, because it was only formed on that date.

The USPTO has not granted Mad Aster’s application to register the Proud Boys

Trademark. Mad Aster’s application has been suspended by the USPTO due to a prior

filed unrelated pending application.

9. Mad Aster’s claim of ownership of the Proud Boys Trademark is

void on two alternative grounds. First, although The Van Dyke Organization, PBI’s alter

ego, surrendered registration of the Proud Boys Trademark, it has not abandoned the

Proud Boys Trademark and still remains its common law owner. Indeed, as noted, less

than a month before surrendering the registration of the Proud Boys Trademark, the Van

Dyke Organization purported to cancel the license for the mark previously granted to

Tarrio—a clear exercise of control over the Proud Boys Trademark. Van Dyke

confirmed this fact himself, stating in the letter to Tarrio that “[a]lthough you were

granted full authority and control over all national ‘Proud Boys’ entities (such as limited

5
liability companies) at that time, the trademark of the group remained my property and

subject to my control.”

10. PBI’s surrender of the registration of the Proud Boys Trademark

has seemingly had no effect on the use of the trademark by the Proud Boys. Local Proud

Boys chapters have continued to wear attire depicting the Proud Boys’ image, name, and

likeness, as recently as May 11, 2024. Appended as Exhibit 2 is an article published on

June 3, 2024, which depicts Proud Boys members wearing attire bearing the Proud Boys

Trademark on August 22, 2021, January 8, 2022, and May 11, 2024.

11. Second, in the alternative, and as an independent basis for relief,

the sequence of events described above—the Van Dyke Organization’s surrender of

registration of the Proud Boys Trademark shortly after the commencement of the Prior

Action, followed almost immediately by the newly organized Mad Aster’s effort to

register the same Proud Boys Trademark—reflects a fraudulent transfer of the mark by

The Van Dyke Organization to Mad Aster in an unlawful effort to avoid the Church’s

claims and claims of other creditors.

12. On June 30, 2023, this Court granted judgment in the Prior Action

in favor of Metropolitan AME in the amount of $1,036,626.78 against PBI and the

leaders of the Proud Boys (the “Judgment”). Appended as Exhibits 3 and 4 are,

respectively, the Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order of Judgment of the

Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Civil Division, in Metropolitan African

Methodist Episcopal Church, v. Proud Boys International, LLC, et al., No. 2021-CA-

000004-B (D.C. Sup. Ct. June 30, 2023).

6
 13. The Court’s June 30, 2023 Memorandum Opinion and Order found

that the unlawful conduct of the defendants—including PBI—was “reprehensible to an

extreme degree” and that the defendants’ “hateful, race-based malice at the core of the

unlawful acts the defendants perpetrated against Metropolitan AME on the night of

December 12, 2020” were “loathsome actions, and the racist motivations underlying

them, were egregious in all respects deemed relevant by the law.” See Ex. 3 at 30. The

Court further found that the “defendants’ behavior evinced a total disregard for the well-

being of the church and its congregants and involved repeated actions and multiple

victims” which “resulted from intentional and premeditated malice on the part of the

defendants, who set out on their ‘night march’ with the specific goals of terrorizing Black

churches and the Black community.” Id.

14. By virtue of subsequent orders granting the Church an award of

attorney’s fees and the costs of a motion to compel, the total Judgment is currently

$2,886,396.36, plus post-judgment interest.

15. PBI and the other defendants in the Prior Action have not paid the

Church any of this amount.

16. To the best of Metropolitan AME’s knowledge, PBI has permitted

Proud Boys chapters to continue to make use of the Proud Boys Trademark in their

ongoing marketing, recruitment, and other activities, without paying a cent of royalties to

PBI—royalties that could be used to satisfy the Church’s Judgment.

17. The Church now seeks relief from this Court to enforce the

$2,886,396.36 Judgment in the Church’s favor. Specifically, the Church seeks

declaratory and injunctive relief: (1) declaring that PBI and its alter egos The Van Dyke

7
Organization and/or JLVD Holdings remain the owners of the Proud Boys Trademark;

(2) in the alternative, a judgment pursuant to D.C. Code §§ 28-3104, 28-3105(a), and 28–

3107, avoiding any transfer of the Proud Boys Trademark by PBI, The Van Dyke

Organization, or JLVD Holdings; (3) a judgment pursuant to D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 69-

I(c) imposing a lien on the Proud Boys Trademark in favor of Plaintiff; (4) preliminary

and permanent injunctive relief imposing an attachment on the Proud Boys Trademark

and enjoining Defendants from any sale, transfer, disposition, or license of the Proud

Boys Trademark without the consent of the Church or the approval of the Court, pursuant

to D.C. Code § 28-2107; and (5) damages in an amount to be established at trial.

The Parties

18. Plaintiff Metropolitan AME: Metropolitan AME is a historic

Black church located at 1518 M Street, NW, in the heart of downtown Washington, D.C.

It is affiliated with the African Methodist Episcopal Church, a predominantly African

American Methodist denomination that has the distinction of being the first independent

Protestant denomination founded by Black people. Metropolitan AME is a non-profit

corporation that was founded in 1872 after the merger of two segregated Black

congregations.

19. Metropolitan AME—a “magnificent temple” in the words of Rep.

Robert Smalls, a former slave and Civil War veteran—holds a significant place in Black

history and culture. It was the spiritual home of several notable African American

leaders, including Frederick Douglass. In the early 1900s, the Church served as the

meeting place for the Bethel Literary and Historical Association, an influential literary

society that held discussions on topics such as racism, economic justice, and labor rights,

and helped challenge white supremacy. The Church has also hosted speakers such as Ida

8
B. Wells, Booker T. Washington, and Eleanor Roosevelt, and held the funerals of

Frederick Douglass, Sen. Blanche Bruce, and Rosa Parks. President Barack Obama

attended services there before his second inauguration.

20. Metropolitan AME is designated in the National Register of

Historic Places for its significance as a historic African American church.

21. Defendant Proud Boys International, L.L.C.: PBI was formed

as a Texas Limited Liability Company on November 26, 2018 by its registered agent and

organizer, Jason Van Dyke, to “establish, maintain, govern, improve and promote the

welfare of a fraternal order to be known as the ‘Proud Boys.’” At the time of its

formation, its sole manager was JLVD Holdings LLC. Appended as Exhibit 5 is PBI’s

Certificate of Formation.

22. The Proud Boys are an all-male white supremacist group that

glorifies and engages in violence against people and organizations that show support for

racial and ethnic minorities, women, non-Christians, and immigrants. The organization

has a federated hierarchy consisting of national leadership and regional cells, bylaws, and

hundreds, if not thousands, of members (many dues-paying).

23. Since their founding in 2016, the Proud Boys have repeatedly

encouraged, and engaged in bias-motivated street violence. The Proud Boys have incited

and committed acts of violence against members of the Black and African American

communities, as well as women, Muslims, Jews, immigrants, and other historically

marginalized peoples and organizations that support those populations. The Southern

Poverty Law Center has designated the organization as a hate group, the Anti-Defamation

League describes it as an extremist gang that has engaged in multiple acts of brutal

9
violence and intimidation, and the Canadian government has designated the Proud Boys

as a “terrorist entity.”

24. Jason Van Dyke claims to have joined the Proud Boys in May

2017, and to have become the Proud Boys’ “general counsel” in the aftermath of the

“Unite the Right” rally in August 2017. He briefly served as National Chairman of the

Proud Boys in November 2018, when he was replaced by Henry “Enrique” Tarrio.

25. PBI indirectly retains common law ownership over the Proud Boys

Trademark through its affiliate and alter ego The Van Dyke Organization L.L.C.,

formerly known as JLVD Holdings LLC. All of these entities are and were at all relevant

times controlled by Van Dyke.

26. On February 10, 2021, approximately one month after

Metropolitan AME filed suit against PBI, Van Dyke, through JLVD Holdings, purported

to dissolve PBI. The Certificate of Termination identified JLVD Holdings as the sole

“governing person” of PBI, and was signed by Van Dyke on behalf of “The Van Dyke

Organization LLC (f/k/a JLVD Holdings LLC”). Appended as Exhibit 6 is PBI’s

Certificate of Termination.

27. Defendant JLVD Holdings LLC: JLVD Holdings LLC was a

Texas Limited Liability Corporation formed on February 25, 2013 by its sole governing

person, JLVD Asset Protection Trust. Jason Van Dyke executed the Certificate of

Formation as Trustee of JLVD Asset Protection Trust and was the sole signatory of

JLVD Holdings certificate of incorporation. Appended as Exhibit 7 is JLVD Holdings’

Certificate of Formation.

10
 28. At the time of PBI’s formation on November 26, 2018, JLVD

Holdings was the sole governing person of PBI and Van Dyke was its registered agent.

See Exhibit 5.

29. On March 20, 2019, Van Dyke, as Trustee of the JLVD Asset

Protection Trust, filed a Certificate of Termination with the Texas Secretary of State

purporting to terminate JLVD Holdings. Appended as Exhibit 8 is JLVD Holdings’

Certificate of Termination.

30. Defendant The Van Dyke Organization: The Van Dyke

Organization LLC is a Texas Limited Liability Company formed by its registered agent

and sole managing member, Jason Van Dyke, on October 6, 2020. Appended as Exhibit

9 is the Van Dyke Organization’s Certificate of Formation.

31. The Van Dyke Organization is the successor to JLVD Holdings.

32. Upon information and belief, PBI, Van Dyke, The Van Dyke

Organization, and JLVD Holdings are all alter egos of each other.

33. Defendant Mad Aster Ltd Co.: Mad Aster Ltd Co. is a New

Mexico Limited Liability Company registered with the New Mexico Secretary of State.

Appended as Exhibit 10 is Mad Aster’s Certificate of Organization.

34. Mad Aster was registered on February 19, 2021, nine days after the

purported termination of PBI and its surrender of the registration of the Proud Boys

Trademark. On information and belief, Mad Aster is a Proud Boys related shell entity

created for the sole purpose of protecting the Proud Boys Trademark from an adverse

judgment stemming from the Church’s lawsuit against PBI and potential claims by other

creditors of PBI and the Proud Boys. Mad Aster appears to have no ongoing business

11
activities or online presence. Mad Aster’s Certificate of Organization and Online

Articles of Organization identify “Law 4 Small Business, P.C.” as its organizer and

registered agent and the street address of that entity as Mad Aster’s principal place of

business.

35. Law 4 Small Business, PC (“Law 4 Small Business”) identifies

itself on its website as a law firm that provides “Anonymous LLC” services to a range of

clients, including “people on the far-right and far-left of the political spectrum.”

Appended as Exhibit 11 is Law 4 Small Businesses’ policy on “Automatic Privacy.” Its

web site emphasizes that as a law firm it is “absolutely required to maintain the

confidences of [its] clients,” and that its systems and technologies are “best-of-breed to

minimize the chance of hack attacks and disclosure of confidential client information.”

Id. Its web site defines its “Anonymous LLC platform” as a way to ensure that your

newly formed LLC’s “owners are not publicly identifiable by the state,” and explains that

its services are intended to “avoid[] public disclosure of ownership information (i.e.

members) of the LLC in the state in which the LLC is registered.” Appended as Exhibit

12 is Law 4 Small Business’ platform overview. It further explains that the goal of

making the information about the LLC “more secure from prying eyes” is “accomplished

by the firm [i.e., Law 4 Small Business itself] acting as the organizer and registered agent

for the new LLC in select states, as well as utilizing its status as a law firm to convey

attorney-client privilege and confidentiality.” Id. Due to Law 4 Small Business’s efforts

to shield its clients and their principals from scrutiny, the Church has been unable to date

to identify the principals of Mad Aster or any further information about its activities, if

any.

12
 Jurisdiction

36. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to D.C. Code

§ 11-921.

37. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant PBI pursuant

to D.C. Code §§ 13-422 and 13-423. The actions giving rise to this case took place

within the District of Columbia. Defendant PBI engaged in a conspiracy to attack the

Church, acted in furtherance of the conspiracy within the District of Columbia, and had

substantial contact with the District of Columbia in pursuit of this conspiracy, including

engaging in commerce within the District, renting hotel rooms, and purchasing food and

beverages from District establishments.

38. The D.C. Superior Court already exercised jurisdiction over PBI in

the Prior Action as a result of this conduct. See Metropolitan African Methodist

Episcopal Church, v. Proud Boys International, LLC, et al., No. 2021-CA-000004-B

(D.C. Sup. Ct. June 30, 2023).

39. This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants JLVD

Holdings and The Van Dyke Organization because they are alter egos of PBI.

40. JLVD Holdings and The Van Dyke Organization are alter egos of

PBI because (i) there is a unity of interest and ownership between these entities such that

no separate personalities exist; and (ii) an inequitable result will follow if they are treated

as separate entities.

41. As set forth herein, PBI is still the common law owner of the Proud

Boys Trademark despite its cancellation of the registration of the Proud Boys Trademark.

42. In the alternative, and as an independent basis for relief, the

circumstances show that PBI’s cancellation of the registration of the Proud Boys

13
Trademark coupled with the immediate application by Mad Aster to register the same

trademark constitute a fraudulent conveyance. In that event, Mad Aster is subject to

personal jurisdiction in this Court because it caused tortious injury in the District of

Columbia by accepting a fraudulent transfer to avoid obligations created in this District

owed to a judgment creditor located in the District.

Relevant Facts

The Proud Boys Trademark

43. On August 9, 2017, JLVD Holdings, through Van Dyke, filed an

application to register the Proud Boys Trademark with the USPTO, Serial No. 87561573.

Appended as Exhibit 13 is JLVD Holdings’ application to register the Proud Boys

Trademark with the USPTO. The application states that the Proud Boys Trademark will

be used for “organizing chapters of a fraternity and promoting the interests of the

members thereof.” It further stated that the Proud Boys Trademark “was first used by the

applicant [i.e., JLVD Holdings] or the applicant’s related company or licensee or

predecessor in interest” “at least as early as” July 17, 2016. On May 8, 2018, the USPTO

granted JLVD Holdings’ application, Registration No. 5462744.

44. In December 2018, JLVD Holdings, through Van Dyke, granted a

license to Tarrio, the newly elected national Chairman of the Proud Boys, to utilize the

Proud Boys Trademark, while retaining ownership of the mark.

The December 12, 2020 Attack

45. On December 12, 2020, hundreds of members of the Proud Boys

traveled to Washington D.C. to engage in violence and destruction of property against

supporters of racial justice. Arriving in droves from around the country, they created a

violent riot in Washington, D.C., committed brutal assaults against protestors and

14
passersby, destroyed property, and silenced peaceful speech by tearing down, igniting,

and otherwise destroying signs and banners supporting the Black Lives Matter

movement.

46. Plaintiff Metropolitan AME, like other nearby churches showing

support for the BLM movement, was terrorized through coordinated acts of violence.

Proud Boys members and supporters climbed over a fence surrounding the Church, came

on to the Church’s property, and destroyed a large Black Lives Matter sign the Church

was proudly displaying—attempting to silence the Church’s support for the racial justice

movement with violent acts of trespass, theft, and destruction of property.

The Prior Action

47. On January 4, 2021, the Church brought suit against PBI and

Tarrio in this Court asserting claims arising from the December 12, 2020 attack. The

Church’s complaint alleged that PBI, its leadership, and certain of its members engaged

in racially motivated acts of terror and violence targeting Plaintiff in an effort to

intimidate Plaintiff and its congregants. The Church asserted tort claims and statutory

claims under D.C. Code §§ 22-3211, 22-3212.01, and 22-3704, which permits uncapped

punitive damages. The Church sought compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’

fees, and declaratory relief.

48. The summons and complaint were served on Jason Van Dyke, as

an agent for PBI, on January 6, 2021. A copy of that complaint is attached as Exhibit 14,

and a copy of the amended complaint is attached as Exhibit 15. A copy of the affidavit

of service on Jason Van Dyke is attached as Exhibit 16.

49. Van Dyke, through JLVD Holdings, purported to dissolve PBI on

February 10, 2021. See Exhibit 6. Texas law, however, permits a plaintiff to initiate

15
new claims against dissolved LLCs for up to three years after dissolution of the LLC.

Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code. Ann. § 11.356. In pertinent part, the statute provides that

“notwithstanding the termination of a domestic filing entity of this code . . . the

terminated filing entity continues in existence until the third anniversary of the effective

date of the entity’s termination only for purposes of: (1) prosecuting or defending in the

terminated filing entity’s name an action or proceeding brought by or against the

terminated entity; (2) permitting the survival of an existing claim by or against the

terminated filing entity; (3) holding title to and liquidating property that remained with

the terminated filing entity at the time of termination or property that is collected by the

terminated filing entity after termination; . . . (5) settling affairs not completed before

termination.” Id. § 11.356(a).

50. On January 10, 2022, the Church filed an Amended Complaint in

the Prior Action asserting additional claims and naming other Proud Boys leaders,

members, and supporters as additional defendants.

51. On June 30, 2023, the Court granted the Church’s Motion for

Default Judgment against PBI and the leaders of the Proud Boys and in the amount of

$1,036,626.78, including a punitive damages award of $1,000,000. In granting the

Judgment, the Court found that the “Proud Boys have incited and committed acts of

violence against members of Black and African American communities across the

country,” and have “victimized women, Muslims, Jews, immigrants, and other

historically marginalized people, as well as organizations that support those vulnerable

populations.” Certain defendants in that case who are national leaders of the Proud Boys,

including its national Chairman, have been convicted of seditious conspiracy and

16
multiple other felony offenses arising from their participation in the mob attack on the

U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2020. Appended as Exhibit 3 and 4 are, respectively, the

Memorandum Opinion and Order and Order of Judgment of the Superior Court of the

District of Columbia, Civil Division, in Metropolitan African Methodist Episcopal

Church, v. Proud Boys International, LLC, et al., No. 2021-CA-000004-B (D.C. Sup. Ct.

June 30, 2023).

52. On December 6, 2023, the Court granted the Church an award of

attorney’s fees in the amount of $1,848,769.58, increasing the total Judgment owed to the

Church to $2,885,396.36. Appended as Exhibit 17 is the Order Granting Plaintiff’s

Motion for Attorney’s Fees.

53. On April 9, 2024, the Court granted the Church’s Motion to

Compel Post-Judgment Discovery Responses because the defendants, including PBI,

repeatedly ignored the Church’s attempts to seek post-judgment discovery in aid of

Judgment enforcement. In granting the motion, the Court awarded an additional $1,000

in attorney’s fees, thereby increasing the total Judgment owed by PBI to the Church to

$2,886,396.36. Appended as Exhibit 18 is the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for

Post-Judgment Discovery Responses.

54. In entering judgment against PBI, the Court implicitly recognized

that, as alleged above, Texas law permits a plaintiff to pursue claims against a dissolved

LLC for up to three years after its dissolution. Tex. Bus. Orgs. Code Ann. § 11.356; see

¶ 53, above. The Church expressly cited this statute and explained its application to PBI

in its motion for default judgment. See Exhibit 19, ¶ 3.

17
 55. The Court’s granting of the Church’s Motion to Compel Post-

Judgment Discovery Responses against PBI, despite its purported dissolution on

February 10, 2021, is likewise consistent with Texas law permitting enforcement of a

judgment against a dissolved LLC when the judgment stems from an action filed within

the three-year period after the date of the dissolved LLC’s termination. Tex. Bus. Orgs.

Code. Ann. § 11.356(c). In pertinent part, the statute provides, “[i]f an action on an

existing claim by or against a terminated filing entity has been brought before the

expiration of the three-year period after the date of the entity’s termination and the claim

was not extinguished under Section 11.359, the terminated filing entity continues to

survive for purposes of: (1) the action until all judgments, orders, and decrees have been

fully executed; . . .” Id.

56. To date, neither PBI nor any other defendant has paid any part of

the Judgment.

Defendants’ Surrender of the Proud Boys Trademark to Hinder, Defraud, or Delay

the Church’s Ability to Enforce A Judgment

57. On February 10, 2021, approximately one month after the Church

filed suit against PBI, the Van Dyke Organization LLC, through its counsel and CEO

Jason Van Dyke, purported to terminate PBI by filing a notice of termination with the

Texas Secretary of State.

58. On February 10, 2021, the same day that Van Dyke purported to

dissolve PBI, The Van Dyke Organization submitted a “Surrender of Registration for

Cancellation” to the USPTO “surrender[ing] registration” of the Proud Boys Trademark.

Appended as Exhibit 20 is The Van Dyke Organization’s Surrender of Registration for

Cancellation with the USPTO. The document identified “The Van Dyke Organization

18
L.L.C. f/k/a JLVD Holdings LLC” as the owner of the Proud Boys Trademark and

identified Van Dyke as its attorney and “CEO and General Counsel.”

59. The Van Dyke Organization’s submission to the USPTO falsely

stated that “[t]he use of this trademark by its owner was discontinued on November 28,

2018 and there is no intent to ever resume such use.” In fact, however, only ten days

earlier, Van Dyke, purportedly on behalf of The Van Dyke Organization, sent a letter to

Henry “Enrique” Tarrio, then the national Chairman of the Proud Boys, purporting to

“terminate[], effective immediately, your license to utilize the ‘Proud Boys’ trademark

for any purpose.” The letter stated in relevant part:

On or about December 12, 2018, an agreement was reached in which a

license to utilize the “Proud Boys” trademark was granted to you
following your election to the chairmanship of the Proud Boys fraternity . .
. . Although you were granted full authority and control over all national
“Proud Boys” business entities . . . at that time, the trademark of the group
remained my property and subject to my control.

See Exhibit 1 (emphasis added.)

60. Van Dyke’s letter to Tarrio makes specific reference to the Proud

Boys December 12, 2020, attack on Metropolitan AME or another church. It identified

as a reason for terminating Tarrio’s license the actions of the Proud Boys in “[e]ngaging

in a rally on or around December 8 [sic], 2020 in Washington D.C. which resulted in the

willful and wanton destruction of the private property of a place of worship.” The

December 8 date identified in the letter is plainly an inadvertent error; no reported Proud

Boys rally, much less one involving the “destruction of the private property of a place of

worship,” appears to have occurred in the District on that date.

61. The USPTO issued a notice on March 5, 2021 cancelling the Van

Dyke Organization’s registration of the Proud Boys Trademark. Appended as Exhibit 21

19
is the USPTO’s notice of the cancellation of the registration of the Proud Boys

Trademark.

62. On March 5, 2021, the same day that the USPTO granted Van

Dyke’s application to cancel the Proud Boys Trademark and approximately two weeks

after Mad Aster was formed, Mad Aster, through its counsel John M. Pierce, filed an

application with the USPTO Serial No. 90563469 (the “Mad Aster Trademark

Application”) to register the Proud Boys Trademark. Appended as Exhibit 22 is the Mad

Aster Trademark Application.

63. Mad Aster’s purported application asserts that Mad Aster “is using

the [Proud Boys Trademark] . . . in commerce,” and that it is used for “association

services, namely, organizing chapters of a fraternity [namely, the Proud Boys] and

promoting the interests of the members thereof.” It claims that the trademark “was first

used by the applicant [i.e., Mad Aster] or the applicant’s related company or licensee

predecessor in interest at least as early as” February 22, 2018, and that its first use in

commerce was “[a]t least as early as” March 2, 2018.

64. Mad Aster submitted with it purported application photos of

“specimen(s) showing the mark as used in commerce . . ., consisting of a(n) Proud Boys

fraternity apparel.” The photos appear to show apparel with the Proud Boys name and its

distinctive black and gold logo (a gold cloverleaf surrounding the initials “PB”) and two

Proud Boys pins.

65. Mad Aster’s counsel John M. Pierce is an insider of PBI and the

Proud Boys. Pierce represents at least three members of the Proud Boys in criminal

proceedings related to the storming of the capital on January 6, 2021. As reflected in a

20
submission by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to the U.S. District Court for the

District of Columbia in that case, Pierce “made apparent threats against Department of

Justice personnel handling” those cases. Specifically, John Pierce tweeted “[j]ustice is

coming for EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. OF. YOU. Gestapo psychos,” that he “will make it

[his] mission in life to ensure [the DOJ handlers] live in infamy, forever,” and that he

“will destroy [their] careers any remaining institutional legitimacy [they] may have.” In

one of those tweets, John Pierce also posted a picture of a weapon. Appended as Exhibit

23 is a copy of the DOJ submission, including Pierce’s tweets.

66. On June 2, 2022, the USPTO suspended Mad Aster’s registration

application. Appended as Exhibit 24 is the USPTO’s suspension notice. The USPTO’s

records reflect that the application remains in suspension, and the Proud Boys Trademark

remains unregistered.

67. As reflected in the facts alleged above, including the continued use

by the Proud Boys of the Proud Boys Trademark, notwithstanding the cancellation of the

registration, The Van Dyke Organization continues to hold common law ownership of the

Proud Boys Trademark.

68. In the alternative, these events—the Van Dyke Organization’s

cancellation of the registration of the Proud Boys Trademark; the creation of Mad Aster

little more than a week later; and Mad Aster’s application to register the trademark the

same day that The Van Dyke Organization’s registration was cancelled—reflect a

fraudulent conveyance of the Proud Boys Trademark in an attempt to hinder, defraud, or

delay the Church from enforcing a judgment in its action against PBI and other creditors

of PBI from enforcing their claims.

21
PBI’s Continued Use of the Proud Boys Trademark

69. The Van Dyke Organization’s representation to the USPTO that

“[t]he use of this trademark by its owner was discontinued on November 28, 2018 and

there is no intent to ever resume such use,” see Exhibit 20, was false. Despite The Van

Dyke Organization’s cancellation of the Proud Boys Trademark, The Van Dyke

Organization, and its alter ego PBI, intended to, and continued to use, the Proud Boys

Trademark.

70. As noted, on February 1, 2021, Van Dyke, on behalf of The Van

Dyke Organization, sent a letter to Henry Tarrio, the Proud Boys’ National Chairman,

“notify[ing] [Tarrio] that [his] license to utilize the ‘Proud Boys’ trademark for any

purpose is terminated, effective immediately.” See Exhibit 1. This letter demonstrates

that, approximately nine days before The Van Dyke Organization would attempt to

cancel the Proud Boys Trademark registration, The Van Dyke Organization still intended

to control the use of the Proud Boys Trademark.

71. Any claim by Van Dyke that he is no longer affiliated with the

Proud Boys should not be credited. As the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”)

observed, “Van Dyke . . . has issued contradictory denials of involvement with extremist

groups over a number of years.” Appended as Exhibit 25 is a report published by

SPLC’s Hatewatch, a service that monitors far right extremism. Patrick Riccards, an

expert on violent far-right groups stated, “Van Dyke’s behavior did not comport with that

of individuals who successfully leave far-right movements” but instead comported with

that of an individual still “trust[ed]” by these organizations. Id.

72. Upon information and belief, the Proud Boys Trademark is still

used by Proud Boys chapters throughout the country, including in their chapter names,

22
the use of the Proud Boys Trademark and Proud Boys logos on clothing and other

paraphernalia, see Exhibit 2, and in various internet domain names such as

“ProudBoys.IO.” Appended as Exhibit 26 is an image of ProudBoys.IO taken on April

24, 2024.

73. Mad Aster’s representations to the USPTO further demonstrate

PBI’s continued intent to use the Proud Boys Trademark. In a May 6, 2022 response

filed with the USPTO, see Exhibit 27, Mad Aster states that the Proud Boys Trademark

“was previously filed in August 2017 by Jason Lee Van Dyke, and it was registered on

May 8, 2018; the mark was used by the politically conservative Proud Boys fraternal

organization to promote the overall interests of the fraternity, sell official merchandise,

and to provide potential new members with clarity that they were joining the correct

fraternal organization.” Id. at 8. The response states further that “the Proud Boys

fraternal organization remained active, and its members wished to retain the mark.” Id. at

9. This statement contradicts the claim in Mad Aster’s trademark application that, “[t]o

the best of [Mad Aster’s] knowledge and belief, no other persons, except, if applicable,

concurrent users, have the right to use the mark in commerce” and that “[Mad Aster]

believes that the applicant is the owner of the trademark/service mark sought to be

registered.” See Exhibit 22.

74. Mad Aster’s May 6, 2022 response also appends six exhibits

demonstrating the Proud Boys’ continued use of the Proud Boys Trademark as recently

as April 2022. See Exhibit 27 at 12. As Mad Aster’s response states, the Proud Boys

were “in existence and using the mark long before” March 5, 2021, and after The Van

Dyke Organizations’ “surrender[] [of] the [Proud Boys Trademark] on February 10, 2021

23
. . . the Proud Boys fraternal organization remained active, and its members wished to

retain the mark.” Id. at 9.

75. Under trademark law, the cancellation of a trademark registration

does not entail abandonment of common law trademark rights if the trademark owner still

uses, or intends to use, the trademark.

76. The Proud Boys’ continued use of the Proud Boys Trademark and

repeated representations that it continues to use and intends to use the Proud Boys

Trademark, demonstrate that PBI and/or its alter egos remain the common law owner of

the Proud Boys Trademark.

COUNT I
(Declaratory and Injunctive Relief And Imposition of Lien)
Against All Defendants

77. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each of the

allegations above as if fully set forth herein.

78. Notwithstanding the surrender of the registration of the Proud

Boys Trademark, The Van Dyke Organization and/or its predecessor JLVD Holdings

remain the common law owners of the Proud Boys Trademark.

79. The Van Dyke Organization and JLVD Holdings are alter egos of

PBI.

80. The Church is entitled to a declaration that the Van Dyke

Organization, JLVD Holdings, and/or PBI remain the owners of the Proud Boys

Trademark.

81. The Church is entitled to a lien on the Proud Boys Trademark,

pursuant to D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 69-I.

24
 82. The Church is also entitled to an injunction enjoining any sale,

transfer, or other disposition or license of the Proud Boys Trademark Judgment pursuant

to D.C. § 28–3107 without the consent of the Church or the approval of the Court.

COUNT II
(Actual Fraudulent Transfer in violation of D.C. Code § 21-3104)
Against All Defendants

83. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each of the

allegations above as if fully set forth herein.

84. The Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act has been enacted under

District of Columbia Law as the District of Columbia Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act,

D.C. Code §§ 28-3101-3111 (the “Act”).

85. Under Section § 28-3104 of the Act, a “transfer made, or

obligation incurred, by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor’s claim

arose before or after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor

made the transfer or incurred the obligation . . . [w]ith actual intent to hinder, delay, or

defraud any creditor of the debtor.”

86. At all times since December 12, 2020, the Church has been and

continues to be a creditor of PBI.

87. Trademark law recognizes that trademarks, like any other asset,

may be fraudulently conveyed.

88. PBI, through its alter ego The Van Dyke Organization, transferred

the Proud Boys Trademark to Mad Aster with the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud

PBI’s creditors, including but not limited to the Church, and such transfer was

accordingly fraudulent within the meaning of the Act, § 28-3104(a).

25
 89. Pursuant to Section 28-3104(b) of the Act, in determining “actual

intent” to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, “consideration may be given, among other

factors, to whether: (1) The Transfer or obligation was to an insider; (2) The debtor

retained possession or control of the property transferred after the transfer; (3) The

transfer or obligation was disclosed or concealed; (4) Before the transfer was made or

obligation was incurred, the debtor had been sued or threatened with suit; (5) The transfer

was of substantially all of the debtor’s assets; (6) The debtor absconded; (7) The debtor

removed or concealed assets; (8) The value of the consideration received by the debtor

was reasonably equivalent to the value of the asset transferred or the amount of the

obligation incurred; (9) The debtor was insolvent or became insolvent shortly after the

transfer was made or the obligation was incurred; (10) The transfer occurred shortly

before or shortly after a substantial debt was incurred; and (11) The debtor transferred the

essential assets of the business to a lienor who transferred the assets to an insider of the

debtor.”

90. These factors—called “badges of fraud”—establish an actual intent

to hinder, delay, or defraud PBI’s creditors here.

91. Mad Aster is an insider of PBI in that it is a close affiliate of the

Proud Boys and, as noted, has characterized PBI as a “related company or licensee

predecessor in interest [sic].”

92. The transfer was concealed, in that neither PBI nor Mad Aster

disclosed it in their respective submissions to the USPTO or otherwise.

93. Before the transfer was made, PBI had been sued by the Church in

the Prior Action.

26
 94. The transfer was of substantially all of PBI’s assets. Upon

information and belief, PBI had at the time of the transfer no material assets other than

the Proud Boys Trademark.

95. PBI “absconded” in that it purported to dissolve at or about the

time of the transfer.

96. Upon information and belief, PBI received no consideration for the

transfer of the Proud Boys Trademark.

97. PBI was insolvent immediately after the transfer in that it had no

assets to satisfy the Church’s claims.

98. The transfer of the Proud Boys Trademark occurred shortly after a

substantial debt was incurred, namely, the attack on the Church on December 12, 2020,

which gave rise to the Church’s claims in the Prior Action, as well as involvement by

Proud Boys leaders and members in the attack on Congress on January 6, 2021.

99. The Church has suffered damages as a result of the fraudulent

transfer.

100. Plaintiff is entitled to avoidance of the transfer to the extent

necessary to satisfy Plaintiff’s Judgment pursuant to the Act, § 28-3107(a)(1).

101. Plaintiff is entitled to attachment of the Proud Boys Trademark and

revenues generated from the Proud Boys Trademark to the full extent necessary to satisfy

Plaintiff’s Judgment pursuant to the Act, § 28-3107(a)(2).

102. Plaintiff is entitled to an injunction against disposition by

Defendants of the Proud Boys Trademark and other revenues or assets sufficient to

27
satisfy Plaintiff’s Judgment, as well as any other equitable or injunctive relief that may be

required pursuant to the Act, § 28-3107(a)(3).

103. Plaintiff is entitled to levy execution on the Proud Boys Trademark

pursuant to the Act, § 28-3107(b).

COUNT III
(Constructive Fraudulent Transfer in violation of D.C. Code § 28-3105(a))
Against All Defendants

104. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each of the

allegations above as if fully set forth herein.

105. Pursuant to Section 28-3104 of the Act, a transfer is fraudulent to

any existing or future creditor of the transferor, irrespective of the transferor’s intent, if

the transfer was made “[w]ithout receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for

the transfer,” and the transferor “[w]as engaged or was about to engage in a business or a

transaction for which the remaining assets of the [transferor] were unreasonably small in

relation to the business or transaction” or “[i]ntended to incur, or believed or reasonably

should have believed that the [transferor] would incur, debts beyond the debtor’s ability

to pay as they became due.”

106. Under Section 28-3105(a) of the Act, a “transfer made, or

obligation incurred, by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor whose claim arose before the

transfer was made or the obligation was incurred if the debtor made the transfer or

incurred the obligation without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for

the transfer or obligation and the debtor was insolvent at the time or the debtor became

insolvent as a result of the transfer or obligation.”

28
 107. Plaintiff was a creditor of PBI prior to the transfer of the Proud

Boys Trademark, as both the events underlying the Prior Action and the commencement

of the Prior Action occurred before the transfer.

108. PBI did not receive a reasonably equivalent value—or indeed any

value at all—in exchange for the transfer to Mad Aster.

109. PBI was insolvent at the time because, upon information and

belief, it had no material assets other than the Proud Boys Trademark.

110. PBI and The Van Dyke Organization knew or reasonably should

have believed that PBI was insolvent at the time the transfer was made, or that it would

become insolvent as a result of the transfer.

111. Plaintiff has suffered damages as a result of Defendants’ fraudulent

transfer, specifically, its inability to recover the Judgment.

112. The Church is entitled to judgment (a) avoiding the fraudulent

transfer of the Proud Boys Trademark to Mad Aster pursuant to D.C. § 28-3104 and 28–

3105(a); (b) avoiding the transfer from PBI to Mad Aster to the extent necessary to

satisfy Plaintiff’s Judgment pursuant to the Act, § 28-3107(a)(1); (c) attaching the Proud

Boys Trademark or revenues generated from the Proud Boys Trademark to the extent

necessary to satisfy Plaintiff’s Judgment pursuant to the Act, § 28-3107(a)(2); and

(d) enjoining further disposition by Defendants of the Proud Boys Trademark and other

revenues or assets sufficient to satisfy Plaintiff’s Judgment, as well as any other equitable

or injunctive relief that may be required pursuant to the Act, § 28-3107(a)(3).

113. Plaintiff is entitled to levy execution on the Proud Boys Trademark

pursuant to the Act, § 28-3107(b).

29
 COUNT IV
Conspiracy to Commit Civil Fraud

114. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each of the

allegations above as if fully set forth herein.

115. By their actions, as described above, the Defendants, acting in

concert, conspired to defraud the Plaintiff by attempting to unlawfully conceal the assets

of PBI, and to hinder, delay, and defraud the collection of lawful debt.

116. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the Defendants, acting in concert,

executed certain documents, including application by The Van Dyke Organization to

cancel the registration of the Proud Boys Trademark and the application by Mad Aster to

register the Proud Boys Trademark, which furthered their conspiracy to defraud the

Plaintiff.

117. As a result of this conspiracy to defraud, the Plaintiff suffered

actual damages, including the inability to collect its $2,886,396.36 Judgment, and other

pecuniary losses.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that judgment be entered in

its favor and against Defendants as follows:

a. A declaration that that PBI and its alter egos The Van Dyke

Organization and/or JLVD Holdings remain the owners of the Proud Boys Trademark;

b. In the alternative, a judgment pursuant to D.C. Code §§ 28-3104, 28-

3105(a), and 28–3107, avoiding any transfer of the Proud Boys Trademark by PBI, The

Van Dyke Organization, or JLVD Holdings;

30
 c. A judgment pursuant to D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 69-I(c) imposing a lien

on the Proud Boys Trademark in favor of Plaintiff;

d. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief imposing an attachment

on the Proud Boys Trademark and enjoining Defendants from any sale, transfer,

disposition or license of the Proud Boys Trademark without the consent of the Church or

the approval of the Court, pursuant to DC Code § 28-3107;

e. Damages in an amount to be established at trial; and

f. Such other relief as this Court may consider just.

31
 Dated: July 1, 2024

WASHINGTON LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE

FOR CIVIL RIGHTS & URBAN AFFAIRS PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
By: /s/ Kaitlin Banner
Kaitlin Banner (D.C. Bar No. 1000436) By: /s/ Daniel J. Kramer
Dennis A. Corkery (D.C. Bar No. 1016991) Daniel J. Kramer (pro hac vice application
700 14th Street NW, Suite 400 forthcoming)
Washington, D.C. 20005 Andrew J. Ehrlich (pro hac vice application
Tel: 202-319-1000 forthcoming)
Fax: 202-319-1010 Erin J. Morgan (pro hac vice application
Email: kaitlin_banner@washlaw.org forthcoming)
Dennis_Corkery@washlaw.org Jonathan H. Hurwitz (pro hac vice application
forthcoming)
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Metropolitan African 1285 Avenue of the Americas
Methodist Episcopal Church New York, N.Y. 10019-6064
Tel: 212-373-3000
Fax: 212-757-3990
LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR Email: dkramer@paulweiss.com
CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW aehrlich@paulweiss.com
ejmorgan@paulweiss.com
By: /s/ Edward G. Caspar jhurwitz@paulweiss.com
Edward G. Caspar (D.C. Bar No. 1644168)
Jennifer Nwachukwu (D.C. Bar No. 1644313) By: /s/ Jeannie S. Rhee
David Brody (D.C. Bar No. 1021476) Jeannie S. Rhee (D.C. Bar No. 464127)
1500 K Street NW, Suite 900 2001 K Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20005 Washington, DC 20006-1047
Tel: 202-662-8329 Tel: (202) 223-7300
Fax: 202-783-0857 Fax: (202) 223-7420
Email: ecaspar@lawyerscommittee.org Email: jrhee@paulweiss.com
dbrody@lawyerscommittee.org
jnwachukwu@lawyerscommittee.org Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Metropolitan African
Methodist Episcopal Church
Co-Counsel for Plaintiff Metropolitan African
Methodist Episcopal Church

32