The new case revolves around regulatory issues surrounding TelexFree’s VOIP offering in Brazil, and is the culmination of a criminal investigation that began back in 2013.
Warning – Caution regarding GetEasy and iGetMania investment program
Monday, January 26, 2015
Montréal – The Autorité des marchés financiers (“AMF”) is cautioning investors in Québec about an investment program connected to the Portuguese firm GetEasy Limited and the British firm iGetMania Limited. Their investment products are tied in particular to the leasing of global positioning equipment and are promoted via conferences, the web and social media.
Through membership programs, members of GetEasy and iGetMania can subscribe to packages (or “packs”) via the Internet. The investment helps finance the acquisition of global positioning equipment for leasing by the firm. Revenues are shared between investors and the firm, and investors are not required to handle any management matters. In turn, investors are urged to recruit two other members and thereby create two teams. New members are then encouraged to recruit two other members each, and so on. Revenue is distributed based on the activity generated by members of each team by way of bonuses, commissions and a point system. Members are lured by promises of hefty profits.
The AMF wishes to inform investors that GetEasy and iGetMania have not filed a prospectus and are not registered with the AMF in any capacity. Investors should therefore be very cautious with investment offers from these firms since they might incur losses for which remedies are highly restricted or non-existent.
The AMF is closely monitoring this matter and will take any measures deemed necessary in the event of violations under the laws it administers.
Reminder to investors
The AMF also wishes to remind investors of the importance of being cautious before making an investment (document in French only) regardless of where the firms or individuals offering investments are based. Investors should make sure that firms and individuals acting as intermediaries are authorized to do so by consulting the register on the AMF website or calling the AMF Information Centre.
If you believe you have been defrauded through an investment related to GetEasy or iGetMania, we urge you to contact the AMF Information Centre.
The Autorité des marchés financiers (“AMF”) is the regulatory and oversight body for Québec’s financial sector.
– 30 –
Sylvain Théberge: 514-940-2176
Québec City: 418-525-0337
Both PatrickPretty and BehindMLM have articles up on the “Achieve Community” and the beginnings of regulatory investigations in Colorado. As usual, the “opportunity” is circling the wagons and instructing the troops in preparation for the usual spreading of nonsensical BS about how they are innocent, totally legal, and/or misunderstood.
Here are links to the stories:
ProSun: “Ponzi” Jo Frazer, David Frazer and Albert Rosebrock Entered into Settlement with Ohio Department of Commerce
As part of this December 2014 settlement, Nancy Jo Frazer (right), David Frazer and Albert Rosebrock have agreed to pay a total of $ 108,146.61 to the Ohio Attorney General. After releasing some of the frozen assets ($ 6,864.17) they will owe $ 101,282,44 which will be paid at $ 844.02 per month for 120 months (10 years).
That’s $281.34 per month for each of them.
Wow, really?? I can only hope these thieving jerks get a criminal charge in the near future. They knew what they were doing all along, and quoting the Bible does not sanitize a scam.
Profitable Sunrise: “Ponzi” Jo Frazer Gets Permanent Injunction in Ohio; Admits Selling Securities: Must Dissolve Focus Up Minstries
As expected, Kenneth Bell has replied to the recent Motion filed by Todd Disner to set aside the default judgment entered against him, a judgment entered because Disner never bothered to address the lawsuit for a variety of inane reasons. In today’s filing, Mr. Bell had the following to say:
Mr. Disner has failed to meet the threshold showing necessary to succeed on a Rule 60(b) motion, as this Court previously ruled when deciding Mr. Disner’s motion to set aside the entry of default. Furthermore, he has failed to clearly establish any of the grounds necessary to allow the default judgment against him to be vacated. The Receiver does not believe the motion warrants further substantive argument, however, if the Court desires a supplemental analysis or explanation why the motion should be denied, the Receiver respectfully requests the opportunity to supplement this memorandum before the Court renders a decision.
NOW COMES defendant Paul Burks, through counsel, and moves to continue this matter from the January trial term. In support of this motion, the defense shows the Court:
1. Assistant U. S. Attorney Jenny Sugar has been consulted and does not object to this motion.
2. The defense requires additional time to prepare. The government is still in the process of providing discovery to the defense. Discovery is being produced on a rolling basis because of the large amount of information involved , which includes several terabytes of data and millions of pages of documents.
3. A continuance is in the interest of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h) (7) (B) (ii).
WHEREFORE, the defense moves to continue this matter from the January term until a later date.
This the 12th day of January, 2015.
True to form, Todd Disner has filed a Pro Se “Motion to Reopen Judgement in Light of the Courts’ Ruling and Order on His Co-Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss”. Disner issues the following nonsense in the opening paragraph:
On December 9, 2014 the Court issued its decision and order on the co-defendants’ motion to dismiss, establishing the law of the case. In light of the Court’s ruling, the judgment and order of the Court, against the undersigned defendant violates the law of the case as articulated by the Court and must therefore be set aside for the following reasons:
Disner the lists a plethora of further incongruous “reasons”, such as
- If the Zeek Rewards business were found to be or was a legitimate business, the amounts the plaintiff has determined as received by the defendant, as a cash basis taxpayer, would have been treated as follows;
- The defendant would be entitled to business expense tax deductions, but has directed Zeek Rewards to transfer and give away to third parties in order to promote and grow the defendant’s business…
- If the exposure to the trustee (Receiver) does not mirror the exposure to the IRS, the defendant would unjustly enrich the Trustee since the defendant is now exposed to pay back an amount of money that he never had possession and control over…
- The Court’s discussion of “constructive trust” on page 14 of its decision is particularly applicable to the basis upon which the Court is obligated to reopen and set aside the Judgment against the defendant.
- If the Court’s judgment is allowed to stand while depriving the defendant of the knowledge and ability to have an action taken over against those who were given permission and control over a portion of the judgment the defendant did not receive in case, (paraphrased here) both they and the trustee are unjustly enriched. (Bullshit, I say!!)
- The entry of judgment violates both the spirit and the letter of the Court’s decision, (Again with the unjust enrichment)
There are several more idiotic assertions made along these same lines, which you may read on the Files website. If anyone here was unjustly enriched, it was Todd Disner, which is probably why he sat down and made up all of this nonsense.
I seriously doubt the Court will set aside the judgment based on these ludicrous assertions.
Below are a few paragraphs from this ORDER, it was merely a matter of time until it was denied, as it was specious from its beginning.
Defendants Gilmond, Trudy Gilmond, LLC, and Napier assert counterclaims for breach of contract and setoff; Defendant Miller asserts counterclaims for breach of contract, tortious interference, conversion, and setoff; and Defendants Aaron Andrews, Shara Andrews, Innovation Marketing LLC, Brockett, and Gates assert identical versions of counterclaims for breach of contract, tortious interference, money had and received, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and unfair trade practices. The Receiver has moved to dismiss all counterclaims pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim.
Defendants Aaron Andrews, Shara Andrews, Innovation Marketing, Brockett, and Gates all assert identical counterclaims for tortious interference (with contract). Defendants allege that they each had a contract with NxPay, and that the Receiver somehow “interfered” with that contract by accepting the funds that NXPay turned over to the Receivership pursuant to this Court’s Order. (SEC Action, Doc. No. 146). The Receiver, however, cannot be liable for tortious interference simply by doing his job as Receiver as ordered and authorized by this Court.
Defendants Gilmond, Gilmond LLC, Miller and Napier claim they are entitled to a setoff for (1) amounts they paid to RVG to purchase bids and participate in the Affiliate program; (2) the amount of the costs and expenses they incurred as a Zeek Affiliate; (3) the reasonable value of their time in performing or operating as a Zeek Affiliate; and (4) the amount of taxes they paid on income they received as a Zeek Affiliate.
This claim fails for several reasons. First, the Complaint in this matter is clear that the Receiver is seeking Defendants’ net winnings, which are by definition the amount they received from RVG less the amount they paid in to RVG. The dollar amount provided in the Complaint as to each named Defendant represents that Defendant’s net winnings, and so the Receiver has already set off the amount these Defendants paid in to RVG. There is nothing further to set off in this regard. Second, as to the Defendants’ purported costs and expenses and the reasonable value of their time for performing as a Zeek Affiliate, these requests for payment needed to be filed with the Receiver in the Claims Process, as discussed above. Since they were not, and the Bar Date has passed, these items may not be included in a setoff as a matter of law.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Receiver’s Consolidated Motion to Dismiss Defendants’ Counterclaims. (Doc. No. 59) is hereby GRANTED.