telexfree-logoTwo 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.

faith-sloan-top-promoter-telexfree-ponzi-schemeSloan (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.


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.