SEC slam Sloan’s porky pie “nonsense”
Two days ago Faith Sloan filed a motion with the District Court of Massachusetts, asking the court to grant her until June 29th to file a reply to the SEC’s preliminary injunction against her.
Trouble is that injunction was granted three weeks ago, so asking for an extension to reply to it now seemed rather pointless. Not withstanding Sloan already has until June 18th to reply to it in anycase.
For someone who has systematically been ignoring the SEC’s litigation against her since mid April, is an extra ten days really going to make a lick of difference?
Even the reasons Sloan cited in support of her motion were comically confusing.
Sloan (right) claims that
- she did not have actual notice of the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint until Tuesday, May 27, 2014 and that
- the process-server served Antoinette Sloan (her mother), and that ‘Sloan is 54 years old and does not fit the description of Sloan’s “Mom”‘
Again, coming from a defendant who has gone out of her way to ignore the proceedings against her (she hung up on the SEC when they initially called her back in April), the plea now for a time-extension was a bit rich.
Not surprisingly, the SEC signalled that they too have had enough of Sloan’s time-wasting and were quick to file an objection to Sloan’s motion.
Is Sloan guilty of perjury? The SEC certainly seem to think so…
The SEC’s response to Sloan’s motion starts off with the obvious:
(Sloan) has not offered any reason why she cannot answer the Amended Complaint within the 21-day period prescribed by Rule 12(a) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
And obvious or not, the SEC do have a point. Nowhere in Sloan’s rambling is an actual stated reason as to why she cannot file her reply before June 18th.
Sloan styles her motion as a request for leave to file an answer beyond the date (May 26) specified in the docket entry for the return of service.
There was no need for Sloan to make such a request, because the May 26 date was rendered moot. on May 28 when, as
she acknowledges, her lawyer was served with a copy of the Amended Complaint.In other words, the 21-day clock under Rule 12(a) was restarted on May 28.
Pursuant to Rule 12(a), Sloan’s answer to the Amended Complaint is due on June 18 — 21 days after her lawyer received it.
Nowhere in her motion does Sloan identify a single reason why she will not be able to file an answer by June 18.
The SEC could have left it at that, but
while the misstatements (of Sloan’s) do not actually pertain to the merits of her motion to extend the time to answer the Amended Complaint, the Commission
cannot allow the statements to remain uncorrected.
Get your popcorn ready folks…
Sloan has known about the SEC case since April 17th
Sloan’s “verified” motion contains false statements concerning her knowledge about, and receipt of service of, the original Complaint and the Temporary Restraining Order, Order Freezing Assets, and Order for Other Equitable Relief that Judge Casper entered on April 16.
Under penalties of perjury, Sloan asserts that “she did not have actual notice of the filing of Plaintiff’s Complaint until Tuesday, May 27, 2014.”
Somewhat inconsistently, she also asserts, “The first notice that Sloan received of the proceedings” was a phone call from Commission counsel to her counsel on May 23. Both statements are nonsense.
As Sloan herself acknowledges, Commission attorney Scott Stanley spoke with her on April 17 and told her that she had been sued by the Commission. Sloan does not, however, mention three important facts about her conversation with attorney Stanley.
First, she specifically asked how to get a copy of the Complaint, and Stanley explained how she could find the Complaint on the Commission’s public website.
Second, Stanley asked for an email address and home address so that the Commission could send her the Complaint and the April 16 Order, but she refused, stating, “You just sued me. You must know everything about me so you can figure it out.”
Third, she said “I need to speak to my lawyer” but hung up while Stanley was trying to ask her to have her lawyer call counsel for the Commission.
Sloan is not her mother
I think the idea behind Sloan bringing this up was to attempt to imply that because she wasn’t personally served, that there was some error in the service process.
Here’s what the SEC have to say about that:
Sloan acknowledges that on May 6, a process-server handed the Summons, the Complaint, the April 16 Order, and the Court’s order extending the terms of the April 16 Order to her mother Antoinette at Sloan’s residence in Illinois.
Sloan observes that she “is 54 years old and does not fit the description of Sloan’s `Mom’,” but that remark is irrelevant, because the return of service specifically states that the pleadings were handed to a woman “Over 65 Yrs.” {the oldest age bracket on the form).
It is notable that Sloan does not deny that her mother is named Antoinette, that on May 6 her mother was handed the pleadings identified on the return of service, or that she was residing with her mother at that Illinois address as of May 6.
That Sloan is not her mother is not being contested, so who knows what Sloan was trying to get at there.
Conclusion
The bottom line is simple: Sloan has known about this case since April 17. She was told how to get a copy of the Complaint but refused to provide an address where the Commission could serve her pursuant to Rule 4.
On May 6, she was served with the Summons, the Complaint, and the April 16 Order. Her assertion — made under penalties of perjury — that she did not hear about the case until late May is a flagrant falsehood.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is what happens when you live in a world of Ponzi denial.
While it’s great to see Sloan finally acknowledge the SEC case against her, that the world is now going to stop at her own leisure is doubtful.
Can’t wait to read the crocodile tears reply she files! June 18th… tick-tock Ms. Sloan.
Footnote: Our thanks to Don @ ASDUpdates for providing the SEC’s response to Sloan’s Motion.
Update 5th June 2014 – Sloan’s request for an extension has been “partially granted”, with a response date set for June 25th. Sloan had initially requested an extension until June 29th.
No reason was cited by the Judge for the specific June 25th date.
Faith Sloan once falled in love with a church member but the guy ended marrying her friend.
Since then she try to substitute broken heart with making money and surrounding herself with friends to cope with the emptiness of being alone.
For a while she entertained the idea of becoming a singer but she soon realized she wasn’t fit for it. She try some ballet lessons instead.
Her aunt presented her as a birthday present a book entitled “Think and Grow Rich” and was the very beginning of her transformation to a successful entrepreneur.
A close friend of hers told me that she vow never again be in love or to marry and that is the main reason she don’t try to be elegant or pretty, that is, to keep the hopefuls at distance, kind of self-sabotage.
If that’s the kind of excuse she’s offering for her crimes, she’s doomed. 😉
Is that what people mean when they say things like “too much information” and “more than I ever wanted to know”
This is known as “willful ignorance”. I don’t want to know about it even though I suspect its existence.
The problem is the court has not accepted willful ignorance as an excuse for crimes.
In the mean time there’s new documentation at ASDUpdates:
DOJ files opposition to revocation of Merrill’s detention.
In the middle of that, should be up in an hour or so.
Those ideas didn’t work very well for Napoleon Hill. They first started working when he wrote that book and got OTHERS to fall for the same ideas.
I found a story at the Napoleon Hill Foundation a few years ago, showing that he only got more unstable results when he followed his own ideas. He had a “success failure success failure” pattern most of the time, where each failure brought him back to where he started.
Somehow I think the DoJ might have a handle on what’s going on.
From the “DOJ files opposition to revocation of Merrill’s detention”
And we’re live – https://behindmlm.com/companies/telexfree/sec-telexfree-is-disturbingly-cult-like/
Could we have something positive on this website please, just for once? An MLM program that really works?
Or maybe we should get the SEC to shut down all MLM business based on the fact that their retail products are so damn expensive that only the the affiliates would buy em to stay in the game. And as we know that makes them Pyramid schemes.
I don’t think a real MLM company should have any affiliate AUTOSHIP program.
I positively agree.
I think MLM should be illegal, it has been abusing too many people, for too long, for too much money, wasted time, damaged relationships, bankruptcies, etc.
Single level direct sales are okay, but not MLM. And transparency on the tool profit, to get rid of these scams as well.
I wonder if Faith Sloan went to another lawyer to get a second opinion, to see if she was in legal hot water. If so, she was probably told, “You’re ugly, too.”
I was just about to write something like that a couple of days ago, but I decided to drop it.
We sometimes receive questions like “Which MLM program can you recommend?”, and I can clearly recommend almost everyone of them. They offer exactly what you can expect. 🙂
* If you want “The next big thing on the internet”, you will probably find it here.
* If you want “You don’t need to recruit anyone or sell anything”, you will find that one too.
Faith Sloan was granted extension of time to June 25. It’s described as “partly granted, partly denied” in a new order posted 45 minutes ago.
Katia B. Wanzeler was granted lifted some assets freeze for bank accounts belonging to the 2 Cleaning Service companies, so the companies can be able to operate.
All the other objections were also declared moot (from the other defendants), with everyone given a new June 18th reply date in light of the SEC’s amended complaint.
The courts are normally pretty accommodating with these requests, it prevents later appeals based on lack of due process.
It may be a second lawyer. It may also be a type of “defense strategy” idea, e.g. “don’t look like a hardcore Ponzi pimp”. The bus driving job fits in with that idea.
What people DON’T WANT is to appear like “professional gangsters”. James Merrill’s lawyer made a lot of efforts directed towards making him look like a “typical family man, active in the community, helping elderly people, regularly in church”, etc. 🙂
Faith Sloan has a potential defense component here:
behindmlm.com/companies/telexfree-under-criminal-investigation-in-brazil/#comment-144578
“Defense component” = it may or may not fit in with other components, but it’s impossible to identify how it might fit in now.
Relatively low investment combined with proof of VOIP promotion and sale will indicate SOME focus on selling products rather than selling the opportunity.
If not already done, I suggest you send links of all Faith’s comments on this blog to the Massachusetts authorities.
The courts have shot down in the past, and they just did it again, ala BurnLounge, the idea of SOME focus on selling products rather than selling the opportunity. Faith is toast.
From what I’ve read, Faith is a serial offender. Although she likes to play innocent victim, she knows what she is doing, and has scamming people via MLM down to an art. It goes something like this:
1. Identify an “easy money” MLM opportunity
2. Join said MLM opportunity early on as a high level promoter
3. Use her business skills and networking ability to attract individuals and motivate them to sign up and recruit others with the vision of getting rich
4. Due to her experience, she can spot the red flags early on of an MLM opportunities collapse so she can get her money out.
5. After said MLM opportunity collapses, pretend that she is a victim and she was just playing by the rules and did nothing illegal.
Although, not always successful at this, she chooses her words wisely so as to appear that she is just following what she sees as a legit business opportunity and she is in no way responsible for managements poor decisions that lead to the inevitible collapse of many MLM opportunities.
A smart woman if you ask me, but there is only so many times you can do the same scam routine before the authorities catch up to you and reveal you for the greedy bitch you are.
TelexFree – Stephen Darr of Mesirow Appointed Chapter 11 Trustee in Bankruptcy Cases.
Regardless of her guilt or innocence, she will probably be disgorged as a net winner.
I hope ya’ll got good lawyers after all this bad stuff bout me….booyah
@Faith
I believe the SEC has some of the best in the world, at least when it comes to investigating and prosecuting Ponzi pimps.
Good luck with the “I know nothing defense”. How do you live with yourself?
It’s relatively “balanced”, just like the rest of this website. 🙂
I made a comment about Napoleon Hill, as a reply to Fatherly Dan.
Then I replied to MLMisdead, something about “positive news”.
Then I replied to Tex, about “potential defense strategy”
Then I posted something about “potential defense component”
And then there’s this comment, a reply to you.
Rather neutral IMO, so I can probably ask if you have any factual info / updates about the case itself (the Telexfree case in general, or Katia Wanzeler, Jim Merrill, Joe Craft, etc.)?
Faith,
You’re a scam artist. Come get me. LOL
Faith, I am the “balance,” I’m calling out your scamming behavior. Come get me. LOL
Did your lawyer tell you to come here? I doubt that, VERY much. LOL
Faith hope you have a good lawyer! Must be a good test or wake up call no?
Aaaaaah Ms. Sloan. You are amusing. I bet you even do the “talk to the hand motion” when you say “Booyah”….accompanied by a lil head jive?
You are your own worst enemie.
You publicly put yourself, your life and your business online for all to see and then you have a problem with people from around the world commenting on your ethics and behavior?
Hellooooo can you say “internet”? Really Ms. Sloan I think you may be suffering from “rock star” withdrawal. You willingly gave up or should we say “sold” your privacy a long time ago.
And by the way… Have you never googled yourself? Your name conjures up worse acusations than just that you were a scammer. Those were comments pre Telexfree.
A little advice? You can’t afford the lawyer you have now. If I were you I would be saving all the quarters I find in the sofa cushions and put it towards the battle you have at hand.
What is said here is not defamitory to you, you joined the Ponzie scheme. You even read this blog from the begining of Oz’s journey in writing about Telexfree. You even commented here.
You had access to amazing amounts of information that could have lead you down a different path.
The idea of “I wasn’t served, the papers were given to my mother” thing is a laugh. When I worked in law enforcement, sometimes I would get the task of delivering court papers, and all we had to do was hand them over to a mentally competent adult at the respondent’s address.
If the process server went to Faith’s address and gave the papers to her mother, that would fulfill the requirements for serving her with the complaint and summons. How hard is it for one adult to say to another, “By the way, someone came by with legal papers for you today…?”
Her mother lives in a different state, IIRC.
Her lawyer received some paperwork 3 weeks later. In addition, the complaint was amended around May 25th, setting a new 3 weeks deadline to respond to that (June 18). She was only allowed one week extra (June 25).