Dear Mayors,
For years, I have sought an independent examination of serious financial
irregularities involving RStor Inc. and related entities. These concerns
arose through my involvement with RStor and were independently raised by
its CFO, Jonathan Dooley.
Our initial efforts were directed toward corporate officers, directors,
attorneys, and others with fiduciary responsibilities. An internal
investigation was initiated but, to my knowledge, never completed.
Complicating matters, some of the individuals responsible for oversight may
themselves have benefited from the transactions in question.
When these efforts failed, we turned to federal law enforcement, local
police departments, and ultimately the government officials responsible for
overseeing those departments.
*What I find particularly troubling is that the explanations for declining
involvement have been inconsistent—not only between agencies, but within
the local police departments themselves.*
*COMPARISON OF LAW ENFORCEMENT RESPONSES*
*DOJ / FBI:* Based on our discussions, federal authorities recognized that
certain individual transactions raised potentially criminal concerns but
indicated that a comprehensive forensic reconstruction of the broader
activities would be necessary to justify federal investigative involvement.
*Menlo Park Police Department:* Initially referred the matter to the
District Attorney. Subsequent explanations emphasized limited investigative
resources and the availability of agencies better equipped to investigate
financial crimes. The departments responses did not establish that the
underlying financial evidence had been substantively examined.
*San Rafael Police Department:* Various explanations characterized the
allegations as civil, speculative, potentially federal, outside the
departments investigative capabilities, or lacking an identifiable victim
because I had not personally suffered a monetary loss.
*THE RESULTING ENFORCEMENT GAP*
The suspected misconduct involves interconnected individuals, entities, and
transactions spanning several years. Understanding its full scope would
undoubtedly require substantial forensic work.
However, the discrete transactions presented to law enforcement should be
considerably easier to investigate.
I have attached two compilations of contemporaneous documentary evidence
illustrating this distinction:
*1. The $750,000 Founder Payment*
RStor transferred $750,000 to its CEO, purportedly in repayment of a
founder loan that the companys CFO expressly questioned.
The attached records include the promissory note, correspondence concerning
disclosure of the alleged loan, payment instructions, and the companys
financial statement reflecting the transfer.
The central question is straightforward: *What evidence establishes that
RStor actually owed its CEO $750,000?*
*2. The $9.75 Million Exponential Transaction*
The attached documents include the investment transaction schedule,
executed purchase documentation, escrow release instructions, subsequent
payment directions, and correspondence tracing the proceeds.
These records raise specific questions concerning changes in payment
instructions, the routing of funds through different corporate entities,
and the ultimate disposition of the proceeds.
Neither matter requires a comprehensive reconstruction of every transaction
involving RStor before basic investigative steps can be undertaken.
*The result is a troubling circularity: federal authorities reportedly
considered individual transactions insufficient to justify a broader
investigation, while local departments characterized the broader
circumstances as too complex, civil, outside their jurisdiction, or
insufficiently substantiated to investigate the individual transactions.*
I recognize that investigative discretion, jurisdictional limitations, and
resource constraints are legitimate considerations. What I cannot reconcile
is how specific, documented financial discrepancies can repeatedly be
dismissed or referred elsewhere without a clear determination of whether
the underlying transactions were legitimate.
*INTENDED OUTREACH TO FOUNDATIONS*
I had hoped to avoid imposing an additional burden on charitable
foundations and institutional investors whose funds may have been affected
by these activities.
However, after years of unsuccessful efforts through corporate governance,
law enforcement, and government oversight, I see little practical
alternative.
I have used AI to organize and analyze the extensive documentary record,
including my communications with your respective police departments and
municipal officials. I intend to provide these analyses and the underlying
evidence to potentially affected foundations and their fiduciaries,
demonstrating both the seriousness of the unresolved questions and the
extraordinary efforts undertaken to obtain independent review before
approaching them.
*FINAL REQUEST*
Before proceeding, I am asking each of you to provide a substantive written
response addressing three questions:
1.
What documentary evidence was examined before your department declined
further investigation?
2.
What specific factual, legal, jurisdictional, or resource-based
considerations supported that decision?
3.
Will you request an independent supervisory review of the departments
handling of these allegations, or identify an appropriate authority willing
to examine the discrete transactions?
I am not asking you to direct a prosecution, prejudge anyones conduct, or
accept my conclusions. I am asking whether the documentary evidence was
meaningfully evaluated before decisions were made to decline involvement.
After years of correspondence, referrals, and unanswered questions, I
believe this is a reasonable expectation of institutions entrusted with
protecting the public.
I would appreciate a substantive written response within *15 business days*.
Sincerely,
Nikolai Gallo
*ATTACHMENTS*
1.
RStor Inc. — Background Narrative and History of Efforts to Obtain
Independent Review
2.
MPPD Analysis of Response
3.
SRPD Analysis of Response
4.
$750,000 Founder Payment — Supporting Documents
5.
Exponential $9.75 Million Transaction — Supporting Documents
