Rodrigues & Sloan slapped with preliminary injunction
Thus far defiant in their non-cooperation with authorities over their part in a $1 billion dollar Ponzi scheme, Faith Sloan and Sannderly Rodrigues were rewarded for their efforts with the granting of a preliminary injunction on Wednesday.
Top-promoters of TelexFree and apparent best buds, the “100% TelexFree” scamsters now have 100% of their assets frozen.
By order of the Massachusetts District Court on Wednesday May 7th, Faith Sloan and Sannderly Rodrigues de Vasconcelos have been
- ordered to cease conducting any further fraud involving securities or otherwise
- prohibited destroy evidence that may be used against them
- ordered to deposit with the court any funds received from TelexFree investors that are currently held outside of the US
- prohibited from opening any new bank accounts and accepting any new funds from TelexFree investors
- provide the SEC with details of any funds received by them from TelexFree investors, including how such fund were then spent or transferred on
- provide the SEC with a list of all assets worth at least $500 individually
- provide the SEC with a list of all bank accounts used (under direct or indirect control by Faith and Rodrigues)
Judge Gorton granted the preliminary injunction after ruling that, based on evidence presented in court, it was in the public interest and that the SEC would be able to establish Sloan and Rodrigues have been engaged in securities violations. Additionally reasons cited were that Sloan and Rodrigues “are likely to reoffend” and to try to hide their assets, which could be required to pay off forthcoming civil penalties.
To date neither Sloan or Rodrigues have addressed the TRO put in place against them prior to the granting of the preliminary injunction. My guess is they were hoping the now failed bankruptcy application in Nevada was going to trump regulatory action in Massachusetts.
With that hope dashed, Rodrigues and Sloan now have five days from May the 8th to comply with the preliminary injunction. I’m not sure what exactly happens should they continue to ignore the regulatory action taken against them, but I imagine it’s probably best they don’t find out.
Also granted a preliminary injunction against them were the two money laundering companies Joe Craft set up for TelexFree owners Wanzeler and Merril, Telexelectric LLC and Telex Mobile Holdings, Inc.
A decision regarding a preliminary injunction being granted against the remainding defendants (TelexFree and its management/insiders), is expected to be handed down on or before May 10th. The TRO issued against the parties remains in force until then.
Footnote: My thanks to Don @ ASDUpdates for providing Sloan and Rodrigues’ respective orders.
Update 10th May 2014 – Preliminary injunctions have now been granted against all parties involved. TelexFree, Joseph Craft, Carlos Wanzeler (who is also facing criminal charges and is now a wanted fugitive), James Merrill (also facing criminal charges) and Steve Labriola have all had their assets frozen.
They are subject to the same conditions outlined in the Sloan and Rodrigues preliminary injunctions above.
FINALLY … after all of these years.
This is going to be SWEET.
Watch carefully Ken Russo.
SD
Additionally reasons cited were that Sloan and Rodrigues “are likely to reoffend” …Isn’t that a fact!
It is great to see ponzie scamming low life pimps getting what they deserve. I hope the law throws the book at them. Career criminals like them need to be stopped once and for all.
The SEC loves you even more now Sloan.
Besides all her ponzie earning over the years, my guess is Sloan surely has evaded paying taxes on her ill gotten gains.
Her life has just become public property.
We know the Department of Justice, SEC, the FBI and Homeland Security are involved, all of which are part of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, members of which include:
Department of Justice
U.S. Attorneys’ Offices
Department of the Treasury
Department of Commerce
Department of Labor
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Education
Department of Homeland Security
Securities and Exchange Commission
Commodity Futures Trading Commission
Federal Trade Commission
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Office of Thrift Supervision
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
Small Business Administration
Federal Bureau of Investigation
Social Security Administration
Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
United States Marshals Service
United States Postal Inspection Service
United States Secret Service
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board
National Credit Union Administration
North American Securities Administrators Association
National Association of Attorneys General
National District Attorneys Association
Offices of Inspectors General and related Federal entities, including:
Department of Justice
Department of the Treasury
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Postal Service
General Services Administration
Small Business Administration
National Science Foundation
Federal Housing Finance Agency
Troubled Asset Relief Program
What are the chances, would you think the agencies won’t talk to each other and Sloans’ current and previous activities won’t come under close scrutiny ??
There are about 100 more leaders like Sloan out there that have mad millions and a lot of it was cash deals or bank checks under $9000.00.
Just check out there facebok pages they are all into another scam already and have been doing it for years. Faith Sloan brags about it on all her post on facebook.
Dear mr. Oz,
In this youtube upload, mr. Rodrigues give us all a clue on what would be his bail out strategy in court.
I know you’re found on predicting what – and how – this guys think; here’s a preview (starts at minute 8:00):
“…if [counselor] Gerry Nehra – one of the greatest MLM attorney’s in the industry – shows up in the [telexfree] homepage, the plan is APPROVED….hence, sue HIM….I [sann rodrigues] am as much as victim as anybody else…”
Someone ought to look at the TF MLM tree and see where he is positioned for each country and how he got there.
Knowing that he would violate his previous deal with the SEC, he conveniently set himself up as a promoter, hoping that if the crap hit the fan, he would escape justice by claiming to be just another victim. The fact the he uses the word victim implies wrong-doing on the part of TF.
Problem is, nobody with a brain will buy into his excuses.
In the video, he blames the TF lawyer. He also says that God made the Binary system, i.e., Adam & Eve. He says that the Devil created the pyramid scheme in order to imitate God. Of course, he has no tangible evidence about this nonsense. But he uses it for effect. He is charismatic and a smooth talker.
Is he a flight risk? Is the Pope Catholic? He’s probably under surveillance. He is likely to have recruited scores of undocumented or visa overstayers in Worchester and Boston as his first 6 top promoters, mainly Brazilians and Hispanics. Promoters that are not allowed to work legally in the U.S.A. so TelexFree facilitated a way for them to make an income.
Does the law allow MLM companies to hire illegal aliens in the U.S.? Someone ought to check that. Something U.S. Immigration investigators might also be looking at.
He says he is not a partner in the business and couldn’t tell them how to run it. He sorts of implies that there were management issues where the company was not properly managed for growth. He comes across as believing that he is a victim and that it TF screwed up its procedures.
He complains about the changes in the plan and blames TF for errors in strategy. He says he will legally defend himself..Behind his words, you can tell he is worried and concerned about the future and the ramifications of his involvement with TelexFree.
If convicted, he might eventually face some prison time. But he’s not the only one. Everyone in his first tier teams should be looked at as well. Let’s not forget that he claimed “I didn’t know” last time he had a run-in with the SEC.
It will be interesting to learn what other U.S. authorities uncover about him and his cohorts. Now that his (known) assets and funds are frozen, he won’t know what to do and will probably seek a way to escape. His other option is to work out a deal with the authorities and snitch on everyone else under him in the U.S., Brazil and other countries.
Top TF leaders in Brazil that made millions with the scheme have allegedly bailed out and hope that the authorities don’t reclaim the money they received or charge them with participation in an illegal operation with international links. To name a few: Marcos Franca, Junior Multinível, Pele Reis and others.
Sloan is whooping it up in Peru according to her FB wall
Gerald Nehra has planned to use a similar defense:
“If Sanderley Rodrigues de Vasconcelos shows up in the marketing of a company, then the plan probably have been approved by someone more knowledgeable than me, so I can approve it too”.
Yes, 100% true. All should be called now! At least the Top. I can’t forget the guy that claimed to have a group of 200.000 people under him on Telefree.
Marcus França got away just at beginning of 2014 to make his own Ponzi called PAYMONY, based on Florida, under Andpry,Inc. company name.
Basically he smelled the end of TF and use the millions to set the foundations of a new scheme! So this is a clear example where money from Telexfree scam can be found easily, and at same time stop another Ponzi.
The legal defense “I’m a victim too” CAN clearly be used if the opponent (prosecutor) tries to claim otherwise. But it shouldn’t be used as a primary defense.
Ponzi scheme investors
Both net winners and net losers can be presumed to have had similar motives and intentions when they invested. If net losers are innocent victims, then net winners will be innocent victims too.
Ponzi scheme clawbacks will typically focus on the MONEY rather than on the PERSON, e.g. “tainted money” or “ill-gotten gains”. It’s much easier to prove that the money has been involved in fraudulent activities than to prove that the person has been involved.
Pyramid scheme participants
Pyramid schemes will only be profitable for the individual participant if enough new participants is recruited. Both net winners and net losers can be presumed to have had similar motives and intentions about profit.
“I didn’t recruit anyone, so I’m an innocent victim” isn’t a valid legal argument, and neither is the opposite argument “he recruited 2 people, so he’s clearly guilty”.
“So what?” is a valid legal defense strategy against invalid legal arguments, e.g. “So what? That isn’t illegal in itself, so you can’t use it to prove anything either”.
Joe Craft
Monies in his possession that belonged to some of his clients were excluded from the assets freeze. There’s nothing illegal in itself to use a third party to manage money, e.g. to pay bills, fees or other expenses on their behalf.
Your legal analysis is incorrect.
It is undisputed that its illegal to promote and sell unregistered securities.
Here, for example, the Preliminary Injunction enjoins promoting and selling them.
However, it does not enjoin anyone from buying them.
Thus, the law clearly distinguishes between what is illegal (promoting and selling) and what isn’t….buying.
It follows then that he who sells is guilty of breaking the law but she who buys is not and is therefore innocent.
Except for the fact in most jurisdictions it is illegal to both participate in and / or promote a pyramid scheme.
The situation in the case of promoters who accept compensation for recommending and / or recruiting is made worse, placing them in a different category again.
The fact pyramid / ponzi scheme promoters have up till now not been prosecuted as such should NOT be taken to mean it can or will not happen.
That’s what I pointed out too, so the “except” argument shouldn’t be used.
“I’m a victim too” will ONLY be valid against an opponent who tries to separate between net winners and net losers, or tries to separate between whether or not people have recruited anyone.
I didn’t analyse unregistered securities either? Your argument about incorrectness is irrelevant.
I analysed Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes in general, and the specifific aspects where “I’m a victim too” can be a valid legal defense = when an opponent claims the opposite, using specific arguments.
“CAN be used” has a clear emphasis on “CAN” = it can be used in some circumstances.
I pointed out that clawback actions against net winners in a Ponzi scheme typically will focus on the MONEY rather than the PERSON. It’s much easier to prove that the money have been involved in illegal activities than to prove that the person has been involved.
Many Brasilians avoid banks and store cash in the home or safe deposit boxes.
Doesn’t it flood alot in Acre? What do 70,000 affiliates do when their houses flood?
Selling hairdryers there must be lucrative.
Proposed consent orders have been submitted by the SEC for TelexFree, Steve Labriola and Carlos Wanzeler. These proposed orders are co-signed by attorneys representing the three parties and SEC, and are likely to be what is ordered against them (defacto preliminary injunctions).
The orders themselves are a continuation of the TRO (“all assetts frozen, all TelexFree funds must be placed in control of the court/SEC, no new bank accounts, no new acts of fraud etc. etc.). Wanzeler’s “preserves” his right to plead the 5th at a later date.
I imagine the Judge will sign off on them sometime over the next 24 hrs. The consent orders will effectively put an end to the preliminary injunction civil action currently place, concluding with a mutually agreed upon entering of an injunction (the same outcome if the defendants fought it).
Nothing on Joe Craft or James Merrill yet. Craft’s attorneys have informed the court negotiations have broken down, so he’s likely to fight his injunction until the bitter end. Not sure what’s going on with Merrill (negotiations continuing?).
One more joke TF scammers are posting today, apparently after SEC published that TF related form in their Spanish language website.
LOL… Let’s talk about desperation, right?
In another news, scammers are posting a letter people should print, sign and send to Judge Gorton to show how wonderful TF is. It goes like this:
And it continues with thousands of blah blah blahs…
Then you may as well prove that pencils and paper were involved, or the internet did it. What the people do is the essence of it not that money was involved.
Oh yeah, empty the jails, close all the courtrooms and worship the cult of victimhood. That’ll work great.
It is great to see ponzie scamming low life pimps getting what they deserve. I hope the law throws the book at them. Career criminals like them need to be stopped once and for all.
Telexfree has elevated the words “Ponzie Pyramid Scheme” to heights not before seen. Because of this I think the government agencies are stepping up their game as well.
This time it’s not just owners that will be held legally accountable. The arm of the government is reaching further down in to the muck and plucking out the second layer of pimps.
Telexfree may be the case that ends it for those thinking they can participate in these scams and move on once the water gets to hot.
There are a few other UTube stars out there that if I where them I wouldn’t go shoppin just yet with the ill gotten booty I think I’ve slithered away with. Ms. Kelly Tollar for one. The Wannanobe Mother and son team. (I know that’s not their name but it sounded similar) 🙂
What ever happened to the guy that had the USA site? He disapeared around the first of the year. Smart guy, might have seen the writing on the wall and thinks because he quietly exited out of door number one he’s safe. The SEC said they’ve been watching Telexfree for about a year.
So, even though all the promoters have yanked their “u Tube can be in a Ponzie scheme” video’s… doesn’t mean they aint still in the story.
TelexFree co-owner arrested in Worcester:
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/05/09/telexfree-owner-arrested-worcester/EFuEWcbcvBlvQuCrhtUGdP/story.html
Niiiiiice! So, the doughters will say????
He was stopped on Rt. 9. Perhaps a speeding ticket is all…..lol
Wow that was fast….lol. You go guys!!!!!
Arrests or charges might come in the following order:
1 Top ringleaders once there is enough evidence to convict them.
2. For those that escape justice in the U.S. by fleeing to Brazil, Peru or other countries, co-operation with international authorities to pick up them a fugitives. Where no extradition treaty exists, they can be charged in the country of their citizenship if the scheme was operational there.
3. First tier promoters under San, Sloan, and others in the U.S.
4. Leaders and first-tier promoters under Marcus Franca, Pele Reis, Junior Multinivel and others in Brazil
5. Same for Peru,DR, Spain, Asia, etc. They can run but they won’t be able to hide.
Promoters who simply bought into the program but made less than $10,000-$50,000 will probably not be charged as they were victims, so to speak.
Don’t forget about Lelio Farias, firt-tier/insider/coordenator with Portugal and Portuguese emigrant communities below him, by way if Graça Luísa – Equipa Sorrisos.
He seem to have coordinated some Latin America countries as well (Bolivia, for instance).
Which is exactly why your analysis was nonsense. The SEC and MSD are involved, fraud has occurred, and security laws have been broken. You completely ignore this facit of things.
What’s more you ignore them in favor of some pet theory you have that MLM Pyramid Ponzis are just one big group grope where nobody is breaking the law because everybody is breaking the law and that everybody is breaking the law so nobody is breaking the law which means that everyone is a victim of everybody else and nobody can be held responsible for anything.
If you are correct then we may as well give the keys to the asylum over to the inmates
@hoss…. outrageous spelling. it’s FACET!
Ha. You are right. Nice catch.
natura non facit saltum
@hoss here is what sloan etc did not take into consideration…. quidquid agis prudenter agas et respice finem 🙂
That’s the truth of the matter to be sure.
TelexFree may have been an inside job to restructure it by getting rid of the top money earners (san, wanzeler, merrill & co.).
Carlos Costa: in a video he seens to state that he started TelexFree as well. Yet, no charges against him have been filed by authorities. Interesting.
He stays in Brazil cheerleading for TelexFree. Is it possible that he saw the writing on the wall and decided it was time to get rid of the top people through a re-structuring scheme? Once TelexFree is re-structured or shut down, is it possible that new management will kick in with a new name and a product/service that is finally legal?
This whole thing with Telexfree seems suspicious. He’s still promoting TelexFree here: facebook.com/sitetelexfree
As if nothing serious was going on So, that sort of tells me that he has hopes for the future and is just waiting for the chips to fall where they may until TelexFree is ready for a come back?
Try first to make your OWN comment make some sense?
That would only have been relevant if the initial post (post #13) had been about the same?
You can compare it to reading a post about DOGS, and then posting your own arguments about CATS, e.g. “Your post about DOGS is incorrect, because CATS are quite different from that description”. Arguments like that doesn’t make much sense.
That’s what I tried to tell you in post #17:
I didn’t analyse unregistered securities, I analysed something else. I didn’t analyse SEC or MSD either.
BREAKING NEWS !!!
http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/05/09/telexfree-owner-arrested-worcester/EFuEWcbcvBlvQuCrhtUGdP/story.html
Owners of TelexFree Charged in $1 Billion Pyramid Scheme:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/ma/news/2014/May/MerrillJamesPR.html
What you said in #13 I responded to in #16 which you referred to in #22 which I referenced in #15 which was about the initial post in #12.
So when you mentioned in #19 that you were referencing post # 10 I thought you could only mean post #16. Now that I realize that you really meant #18 I still disagree with everything you said.
Bear with me guys, going through everything now. Will have an article up shortly.
Sannderley claims he is a victim in spite of being one of the largest net winners of the scheme. Next “victims” are Carlos Costa, Wanzeler and James Merrill, I guess.
Since I first heard about Telexfree I wonder what do those people were planing to do to avoid jail in the end. I though they had a flamboyant plan, like changing their faces with plastic surgery and fleeing to Polynesia hidden in a container of a cargo ship, with money tied to their bodies with silver tape.
Instead, they just came up with “I am a victim too…”!
One busted, who is next?
http://i.imgur.com/YcjVJQs.png?1
They all seems to have some experience with recruitment driven schemes, in much smaller scale than TelexFree. “And it worked well then, so why shouldn’t it …”.
It’s difficult to stop a scheme if it has grown beyond a certain size. People would have thrown stones at them if they had made major changes, figuratively speaking. The only option is to continue as long as the scheme is making money, and ignore potential problems in the future.
I’m pretty sure they had plans to make some of the money “disappear”, e.g. into tens of offshore companies. There’s probably hundreds of millions in offshore accounts.
Sann Rodrigues didn’t play that card very well. “I’m a victim too” can only be used against specific arguments.
Really. which specific ones.\??
You will find it in post #13. But please note that people must use their own brains.
The other legal argument there is the “So what?” argument. The same rule can be applied to that argument too = “people must use their own brains”.
Here’s the “So what?” argument used in a comment:
Article updated with news of preliminary injunctions being granted against TelexFree, Labriola, Craft, Merrill and Wanzeler.
All of TelexFree management and the four top promoters have their assets frozen until the case concludes.
Faith Sloan is currently mass-deleting her Facebook timeline history…
Well, someone managed to keep this one up online lol
^^ And Sloan had the balls to ask the SEC agent who called her up “why are you picking on me?”
Here’s to criminal charges coming down the pike.
Complying with the PI I should imagine.
As expected Sann Rodrigues is writing now for sure that he is just a victim. He’s actually stating that EVERY promoter is a victim REGARDLESS of how much they won or lost!
The main problem with your statement/s, M_Norway is that, intentionally or not, you are misleading readers.
Within the United States and most other countries, it is illegal to promote OR participate in a pyramid scheme and, it is also illegal to act as a paid agent / promoter / recruiter / recommender for a fraudulent scheme without taking steps to verify the legality of said scheme.
IOW, take money and it is assumed you “knew, or should have known” whether the scheme was legal as presented.
Again I say, no one should assume that because prosecution hasn’t happened it means it can’t or won’t happen.
IM(very)HO, since the inception of the Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force there has been a fundamental change in the way US authorities approach HYIP ponzi / pyramid cases and, again IM(very)HO, the Sloan / Rodrigues / Crosby / Gagnon(Legisi) / Nancy Jo Frazer and Zeek Receiver actions are only the start of what will become commonplace in the near future.
I don’t know whose brain anyone could use except their own, but thanks for the “tip.”
I promise I will never attempt to read your posts using anyone else’s.
Is that about post #13, or is it in general?
I analysed Sann Rodrigues’ defense strategy “I’m a victim too”. It CAN be used in SOME circumstances, but Sann Rodrigues seems to be a false victim.
The second defense argument I mentioned there was the “So what?” argument.
The third argument I analysed there was Joe Craft’s “those amounts of money belongs to clients, and should be excluded from an assets freeze”. It has already been concluded, the clients’ money has been excluded from assets freeze.
The focus was on whether or not arguments could be valid as defense arguments against specific types of arguments (e.g. in a lawsuit). Ponzi and pyramid schemes were analysed separated from each other because of some differences.
* Sann Rodrigues’ strategy will most likely backfire. He isn’t very believable in his new role as an “innocent victim”.
But Sann Rodriquez is a net winner isn’t he? Here is what you had to say about net winners earlier.
I do not know whose brain you have been using lately but you do realize that you wrote that Net winners (Rodriguez/Sloan) “will be” innocent victims too.
I am sure the SEC will give great consideration to your legal theories. In the meantime…
You have a unique compass. It almost always points to the South.
In his facebook, he’s asking the victims to join him. He created a type of “Telexfree victims association”.
Still playing the victim card.. facebook.com/sann.rodrigues
Here you go again.
Fraud is fraud is fraud.
While “ponzi” and “pyramid” are convenient descriptors when discussing such schemes on internet blogs and forums and in press releases, the crimes, and therefore the charges will involve “fraud” “money laundering” “wire fraud” and “conspiracy” just as they have been in the most recent HYIP fraud cases.
I pointed out that the argument had some limited use, and wasn’t a good choice as a primary defense.
Your quote is from the section about Ponzi schemes, and I simply repeated the logic used for Zeek Rewards clawbacks. It wasn’t more complicated than that.
Here’s that section from the initial post #13:
The legal standards (doctrines) for presumptions will follow the “innocent until proven guilty” logic, e.g. “All things are presumed to be lawfully done, until the contrary is proven”.
I simply identified the normal standard in law.
I’m not the only one here who will separate between pyramid schemes and Ponzi schemes in discussions, or when analysing a program. You believe the more general description “fraud” is more correct to use?
It has nothing to do with what I believe or don’t believe, it has everything to do with what the courts and enforcement agencies not only believe but do.
The just issued complaint against Wenzeler and Merril was for “conspiracy to commit wire fraud”
The charges against Bowdoin included “Wire Fraud, Securities Fraud, Aiding and Abetting, and the Unlawful Sale of Unregistered Securities and conspiracy”
Both Gregory McKnight (owner) and Matthew Gagnon (promoter) of the Legisi fraud were last year sentenced to gaol on wire fraud charges
While the terms “ponzi” and “pyramid” may be useful to differentiate what TYPE of fraud in general discussion, the charges are as listed above.
That’s what I did. I separated between 2 different TYPES of fraud.
Did I understand correctly? All those thousands of telefree “victims”, whether they knew or not ,that they were investing their money in a pyramid, are know co-conspirators in a illegal business?
Are all of Madoff clients now in jail? All the idiots that thought they could make $100.00 a week posting ads,should start looking for criminal lawyers?
Nope, you had an exaggerated version of the reality.
In Ponzi schemes, the net winnings can be subject to disgorgement. In Zeek Rewards, net winners >=$1,000 in the U.S. have received clawback claims.
In pyramid schemes, ALL payouts can be subject to disgorgement. BurnLounge’s defendant DeBoer lost an appeal from the SEC in 2013 where he had got a $750,000 “discount” from the trial court. Defendant Taylor lost an appeal where he claimed to be entitled to a similar discount as DeBoer.
Criminal charges are rather uncommon for other than the organizers and top promoters in both types of schemes. That may change in the TelexFree case, it had multiple “issues” when it was active.
The nature of the scheme seems to meet the criteria for what the US calls civil conspiracy, BUT litigating against every promoter/participant on that basis is completely impractical.
Not only that but its a civil situation, so there is no need for anybody, but the high profile central figures to consider use of a criminal attorney and for now, even that is premature.
yep, I see her About page is changed but she still has her website there, with telexfree crap all over it.
Claw backs are not about presumption of innocence on the part of net winners and losers. As you pointed out its only about recovering money for the estate from whomever received it.
This is not the case with Sann Rodriquez who is NOT being enjoined because he was a net winner (or net loser) BUT because the SEC has identified him as a primary organizer/promoter and peddler of fraudulent securities.
The SEC has shown a “high likelihood of success in proving this to be true. They believe he is an insider not just a net winner.
His “I am a victim too” crap refers to his assertion that he relied on Gerry Nehra’s legal opinions just like everyone else and got burned because of it. This posturing is for public consumption and its not plausible.
Sann was convicted of financial fraud before and is an insider who knew or should have known both the law and the inner workings of the organization before selling the program to the public. Victim My Ass.
She better take it off pretty quick or she will be in contempt of the preliminary injunction that is upon her.
@Hoss
That same injunction prohibits her from destroying evidence too.
Maybe the sporadic deleting is a result of having to check with the SEC that they have full backsups of what she wants to delete, before she can delete it.
(Otherwise I have no idea why she’s selectively removing information seemingly at random)
I don’t think anyone ever will be prosecuted for having deleted Facebook posts or comments, or even the whole account. 🙂
I don’t think you can expect a “contempt of court” or “violated the preliminary injunction” based on that type of Facebook activity.
Well, that shows what you know.
Being held in contempt is hardly what I would call being “prosecuted” as the judge decides on his own order but the PI says she may not conceal or destroy evidence.
It also says she can not continue to promote or sell securities. Wiping off Facebook could be construed as destroying evidence and keeping the material on it could be construed as advertising or continuing to promote securities.
As Oz said….
…..but maybe you know better.
Your interpretation of “evidence” is probably too broad.
Evidence is normally about items like books, records, documents, correspondence, contracts, agreements, tape recordings, computer files etc. = something that can be used as evidence in court.
The difference is in Ponzi scheme you don’t have to actively recruit other people to join and thus if you recruited, you are DEFINITELY a co-conspirator unless you can prove you’re mislead and you stopped immediately when told, then it becomes a trial whether you could have REASONABLY KNOWN it’s a fraud (i.e. did you actively IGNORE evidence of fraud)
In a pyramid scheme, you have to actively recruit to gain extra money. Your compensation is DIRECTLY TIED to how many you recruited. Thus, your culpability is arguably GREATER, since the signs of it being illegal is more numerous, and the “bar” to prove you’re guilty of wire fraud is that much lower.
At least that’s what I understand the difference to be.
TL;DR version: you could be ignorant of the ponzi aspect, but since you *have* to active recruit and repeat the company lies, you are THAT much more guilty.
So today you are going to tell us that emails, chat room postings comments on websites, personal pages promoting and discussing upcoming events, the money that is being made with Telexfree and promotional video are not evidence that can be used in court?
Well Hallefuckingluya thanks for rewriting the rules of evidence. I hope all the attorneys judges, and law schools get your memo.
Evidence is about whatever the judge says its about, including Facebook posts, YouTube videos, Tweets, advertisements and other public utterances.
* See CFTC vs. Ronald W. Smith Jr./Safeguard 3030 Investment Club. (Forex fraud pitch on YouTube ordered preserved.)
* See USA v. McIntosh. (Facebook threat on life of the President of the United States.)
* See USA v. Leaming et al. (“Sovereign citizen” who filed false liens against federal judge and federal prosecutors and U.S. Secret Service agent investigating AdSurfDaily case. Client records seized/preserved/ordered forfeit.)
* See USA v. McCrudden. (Website death threats against SEC, CFTC, NFA and FINRA officials.)
* See Facebook death threats against Acre Public Prosecutor is TelexFree case.
Many, many, many more in civil cases.
PPBlog
Now “that” comment had spirit!!! A bit snarky I might say. : )
lol You go Hoss.
Or maybe she’s setting those posts to “private” and not truly deleting posts.
And Youtube videos can be downloaded by law enforcement officer, saved as evidence, with a simple affidavit on how it was gathered. In fact, many such has ALREADY BEEN presented as evidence in the TelexFree civil case, and they can be also used in the criminal case as proof of wire fraud.
That’s also a possibility.
But then it has to be collected in specific ways, “be preserved”. If they don’t preserve it, it will change and be unusable as evidence.
You can’t preserve Facebook itself, i.e. you can’t expect a Facebook account to remain unchanged for a long time. You can preserve a screenshot of it, a “web-archive”, a printed copy, or similar other methods to preserve it as evidence.
How was it presented in court?
I specified “evidence that can be used in court”. It will need to be preserved as evidence. You can’t expect a Facebook account to preserve itself.
You will never see Facebook itself be used as evidence in court. If you see it, it’s probably a preserved copy of a Facebook page from a specific date, a screenshot or a transcript.
That was exactly what I was looking at.
Videos have most likely been preserved as offline copies, transcripts have been made etc. – to preserve it as evidence that can be used in court. But I only looked at the complaint, not at the evidence itself.
It can’t be preserved and presented as evidence if Sloan has deleted it. That’s the whole point.
Your protestations are silly and pointless distinctions without a difference.
You two are starting to sound like a few middle school girls, its not about you, okay?
You’ve both been severely wrong about several things on occasion. Yes, you can be held in contempt for deleting online information. Yes, I can assure you all of Faith’s greatest hits are preserved and have been since before any of us knew a Judge would order them to be.
And that’s all the need be said. So don’t come back and try one more time to get the last word by explaining how that is what you meant in #13 when you replied to #44 about the post at #31 because he was obviously on drugs in #29 when he commented on your wisdom in #24.
For the love of Bob just let it go!
Amen
If he has knowledge about it, then it would probably be better to ask him for a conclusion? That will prevent a discussion from popping up later.
Take it away Gregg.
Personally, I hope that they throw Wenzeler, Costa, and Merrill in prison, along with Rodrigues and Sloan, and a few other top promoters.
Faith Sloan never met a ponzi/pyramid scheme she didn’t like! At last count, she’d been in like up to 10-20 or so of questionable programs, money games, and/or illegal pyramid schemes in like the past 10 years or so!
Rodrigues has been hit by the SEC before-I can’t imagine neither the SEC nor the judge going lightly on him the second time around.
10-20?
You’ve got to be kidding.
She’s been in hundreds.
All of them are serial scammers.