Matter Et Al. v. Pushtraffic Et Al. Lawsuit Filed October 4, 2010

Case3:10-cv-02924-TEH Document24 Filed10/04/10 Page1 of 84
1 THOMAS EASTON CSB #109218

LAW OFFICE OF THOM AS EASTON
2 967 Sunset Dr
Springfield OR 97477
3 Tel: 541-746-1335
easton3535@gmail.com
4
JONATHAN H. LEVY CSB #158032
5 37 Royale Pointe Dr
Hilton Head SC 29926
6 Tel: 202-318-2406
Fax: 202-318-2406
7 jonlevy@hargray.com
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
8
OF COUNSEL
9 Richard E. Joseph, Esq.
Michigan State Bar No. P39924
10 203 Mason St
Charlevoix, MI 49720
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
13
14 DOUGLAS MATTERN, NO. 10-CV-2924 TEH
RICHARD JOSEPH,
15 SANDRA LITTLE, FIRST AMENDED
CLARENCE FORCIER, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES:
16 K. ANN BRECKENRIDGE,
ARLINE J. OLIPHINT, 1. RICO
17 EWING LEE DALE,
GREG TRAXLER, 2. LANHAM ACT
18 BETTE ANDERSON,
LILLIAN CORNELIUS, 3. FRAUD
19 STEVE FORTOSIS,
LUKE E. YOUREE, 4. FALSE ADVERTISING
20 BEVERLY STEWART,
JAMES K BLANSCETT, 5. UNFAIR COMPETITION
21 LAURI (LAURENCE) WOODS,
ROBIN WINGROVE, 6. ELDER FINANCIAL ABUSE
22 DEBORAH PROFFER,
MARTIN DE COURCEY, 7. NEGLIGENCE
23 DAVID LEMASTERS,
MARC MINTZ, 8. MONEY HAD & RECEIVED
24 ENITA SANDIFER,
LOWELL RADDER, 9. RECISSION
25 HEIDI PLACH,
DESMOND MENZ, 10. CAL. CIV. CODE § 3344
26 BRAMWELL HESTER ,
PAUL MALCOLM DUFFY, 11. CAL. B&P Code § 17529.5
27 MELANIE ROGERS,
MARGARET GRANSHAW, Jury Trial Demanded
28 STELLA TAN,
~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 1 of 84

1 JOSEPH KAYE,
CHRIS YORKE,
2 LES JONES II,
VIRGINIA LAGOS,
3 DEBBIE KNISLEY,
ROB WILLIS,
4 PATRICIA LEDOUX,
MICHAEL SCHAETZEL,
5 JANIS JOHNSON
JOHN UYS,
6 BARBARA POULSON,
MARK MAYOTT,
7 WAYNE & JADE DALY, husband & wife,
FLORENCE MAJANIL,
8 MARYANN BORZILLARY,
DALE MATTHEWS,
9 ESTHER LESPERANCE,
ALLAN & DIANE BREIT, husband & wife,
10 CARLYN PERONA,
TYE NAKAWAGA,
11 KAREN HOUDASHELL,
JOYCE HOKE,
12 and additional presently unnamed but to be
identified individuals,
13
Plaintiffs,
14 v.
15 PUSHTRAFFIC, dba truthdvdseries.com,
recessionproofmillions.com, inc., a corporation,
16
INCFORTUNE, a corporation,
17
DOT INTEL, LLC., a corporation,
18
SUCCESSRATE, INC., a corporation,
19
YOURAFFILIATESUCCESS, a corporation,
20
JUMPLAUNCH, a corporation,
21
FUTURE ENDEAVOR.COM, LLC, a
22 corporation,
23 JOHN RAYGOZA individually and dba
15ROUNDS.COM and PUSHTRAFFIC,
24 pushtraffic.com and SUCCESSRATE and
JUMPLAUNCH and TAX GROUP CENTER,
25 Taxgroupcenter.com, and Rich Maxwell and
johnraygozaswebsites.com,
26
ANDREW MARK WEITZ, ESQ. dba
27 dreammarriage.com,
28 CHRISTOPHER BOSLEY,

1
TED MOLINA,
2
MARIA RAYGOZA,
3
VANESSA HORLLE RAYGOZA,
4
PROGRESSIVE TAX GROUP dba TAX GROUP
5 CENTER and taxgroupcenter.com and
futureendeavor.com, a corporation,
6
DAVID SIPES individually & dba davidsipes.com
7 and TAX GROUP CENTER , &
moneymakingtruth.com & freereviewsites.com,
8
FINITY CONSULTING, LLC, a corporation,
9
JOHN GLEN DENTON individually &
10 dba Justaskbigjohn.com and
explosivecashins.com and powercashsecret.com
11 and TURNKEY INTERNET and MONEY
MONTAGE and JOHN DENTONS
12 MYCONNECTION2WEALTH EBUSINESS
CENTER and johnraygozaswebsites.com and
13 bigjohnews.com,
14 MYEBIZNOW NET INC dba big john
denton,justaskbigjohn.com and
15 explosivecashins.com and powercashsecret.com
and TURNKEY INTERNET and MONEY
16 MONTAGE and JOHN DENTONS
MYCONNECTION2WEALTH EBUSINESS
17 CENTER and johnraygozaswebsites.com and
bigjohnews.com, MULTIFACETED GLOBAL,
18 INC., LTD. a Florida corporation,
19 MULTI FACETED GLOBAL CORP., LTD, dba
Big John Blog, BIG John 2010, Just Ask Big John,
20 Explosive Cashins, a Hong Kong corporation;
21 All sued herein individually & as a joint criminal
enterprise with joint & several liability,
22
and DOES 1 to 100 including Law Firms and
23 credit card payment processing networks which
knowingly aided and abetted defendants’ criminal
24 enterprise,
25 Defendants.
26
27
28

1 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Page

2 I. INTRODUCTORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
II. J URISDICTION & V ENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3 III. P LAINTIFFS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4 IV. D EFENDANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
V. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO RICO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
5
VI. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO THE L ANHAM A CT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
6 VII. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO F RAUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
7 VIII. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO F ALSE A DVERTISING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
IX. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO U NFAIR C OMPETITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
8
X. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO E LDER A BUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
9 XI. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO N EGLIGENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
10 XII. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO M ONEY H AD & R ECEIVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
XIII. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO R ECISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
11
XIV. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO U NAUTHORIZED U SE OF L IKENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
12 XV. C ALIFORNIA B USINESS AND P ROFESSIONS C ODE § 17529.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
13 XVI. C AUSES OF A CTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
C OUNT I ~ V IOLATION OF RICO § 1962(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
14
C OUNT II ~ V IOLATION OF RICO § 1962(b) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
15 C OUNT III ~ V IOLATION OF RICO § 1962(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
16 C OUNT IV ~ V IOLATION OF RICO § 1962(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
C OUNT V ~ V IOLATION OF T HE L ANHAM A CT 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
17
F ALSE A DVERTISING & U NFAIR C OMPETITION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
18 C OUNT VI ~ V IOLATION OF T HE L ANHAM A CT 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
19 U NJUST E NRICHMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
C OUNT VII ~ F RAUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
20
C OUNT VIII ~ F ALSE A DVERTISING ~ C AL. B US. & P ROF. C ODE § 17500 . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
21 C OUNT IX ~ U NFAIR C OMPETITION ~ C AL. B US. & P ROF. C ODE § 17200 . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
22 C OUNT X ~ E LDER & V ULNERABLE P ERSONS F INANCIAL A BUSE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
C OUNT XI ~ N EGLIGENCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
23
C OUNT XII ~ M ONEY H AD & R ECEIVED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
24 C OUNT XIII ~ R ECISSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
25 C OUNT XIV ~ U NAUTHORIZED U SE OF L IKENESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
C OUNT XV ~ C ALIFORNIA B USINESS AND P ROFESSIONS C ODE § 17529.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
26
C OUNT XVI ~ P UNITIVE D AMAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
27 XVII. P RAYER FOR R ELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
28 E XHIBITS A through H . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attached

1 I. I NTRODUCTION
2 1. Once upon a time when the only mail was at the post office, con artists placed ads in
3 magazines advertising: “Make Money at Home Stuffing Envelopes” or “Typing at Home.” The
4 unfortunate victim would pay $10 to learn how to get started in the envelope stuffing or typing
5 at home business - and in exchange for their cash would be provided copy of the same ad that
6 had caught them along with instructions to place ads to snare other unsuspecting souls - today
7 we have the Internet and the stakes are so much higher but the principle is the same - Never give
8 a sucker an even break.
9 2. Defendants, however, have taken this line of scamming to new heights by specifically
10 targeting the elderly, unemployed, and disabled and, not content with making off with tens or
11 hundreds of dollars at a time, have siphoned off tens of thousands of dollars from individual
12 plaintiffs’ credit card accounts and have deceived credit card companies and regulators by
13 claiming to have provided valuable trade secrets to their victims. The majority of plaintiffs are
14 elderly or disabled or effected by other circumstances that made them especially vulnerable to
15 defendants lies. The defendants not only deceived plaintiffs, who only sought to better their lot,
16 and relieved them of their cash but made their lives in many cases a living hell. Defendants are
17 truly miserable chiselers who cheated people who could least afford to lose their savings or
18 become indebted.
19 3. This is a civil action arising under both federal and state law including the Racketeer
20 Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. and the false
21 advertising provisions of The Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. §1125(a), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200
22 et seq. and §17500 et seq. (Unfair Competition & False Advertising), the Elder and Vulnerable
23 Person Financial Abuse Laws of various states and countries, Cal. Civil Code § 3294 (Punitive
24 Damages) and Cal. Civil Code § 1572 (Fraud), the Common Count of Money Had & Received,
25 Recission, Negligence, Unauthorized Use of Likeness and California Business and Professions
26 Code Section 17529.5 (Restrictions on Unsolicited Commercial E-Mail Advertisers)
27 4. The plaintiffs are a diverse group living on four different continents united by several
28 common factors:

1 (1) They all sought out a legitimate home based Internet business due to disability,
2 retirement, unemployment or other good reasons;
3 (2) All were defrauded, lied to, cruelly manipulated, and deceived by defendants who
4 promised massive returns on their investments;
5 (3) Not a single plaintiff earned a return on their money despite the services that may
6 have been provided by defendants;
7 (4) Plaintiffs lost well over $600,000, almost all of which was financed by credit card;
8 (5) Plaintiffs were approached multiple times and resold on the same program often
9 masquerading under various trade names controlled by the same group of defendants;
10 (6) Defendants utilized strong arm sales tactics and made unauthorized charges on credit
11 cards;
12 (7) Defendants, even during the pendency of this lawsuit continue to contact plaintiffs
13 in an attempt to sell the same bogus services yet again under yet another program name.;
14 (8) Defendants utilized threats to plaintiffs and intentionally made false statements to
15 banks, credit companies, and government regulatory and law enforcement agencies, engaged in
16 money laundering, interstate and international travel in furtherance of the criminal enterprise,
17 and utilized the mails, banks and sophisticated telecommunications in the course of their illicit
18 activities;
19 (9) Defendants used the criminal enterprises’ Corporate credit card accounts
20 interchangeably thus for example a plaintiff Bette Anderson’s charge to IncFortune might be
21 billed to JumpLaunch or YourAffiliateSuccess; and
22 (10) Defendants utilized the services of attorney and credit card processors, who were
23 aware of the fraud, to further their criminal enterprises.
24 5. Defendants are based mainly in California and Florida but have worldwide reach
25 including Singapore and Hong Kong. Raygoza, Sipes, and Denton are the principles of the
26 C RIMINAL E NTERPRISE or hereafter as “CE.” The defendants have entered into a common
27 scheme or criminal enterprise and each defendant is jointly and severally liable to plaintiffs for
28 the actions of the others in furtherance of the CE (C RIMINAL E NTERPRISE).

1 6. Defendant Raygoza is the founder of and controls the “R AYGOZA C RIMINAL

2 E NTERPRISES” or hereafter as “RCE” and also known as PushTraffic, IncFortune, Dot Intel, Inc,
3 Successrate, Inc., YourAffiliateSuccess, FutureEdeavor.com, LLC, Jumplaunch and their various
4 assumed business names and websites. The RCE employees who are named defendants include
5 Ted Molina who is Raygoza’s brother, paralegal Chris Bosley, and attorney Andrew Weitz.
6 Raygoza has also utilized his wife Vanessa Horlle Raygoza and his mother, Maria Raygoza to
7 launder and conceal assets.
8 7. Defendant Sipes operates Finity Consulting, LLC and davidsipes.com and is referred
9 herein as the S IPES C RIMINAL E NTERPRISES or as “SCE” .
10 8. Defendant John Denton, based in Florida, owns the Florida corporations John
11 Denton’s Myconnection2wealth Ebusiness Center, Myebiznow Net, Inc., and Turnkey Internet.
12 Denton also does business under various assumed business names and is hereafter referred to
13 as the D ENTON C RIMINAL E NTERPRISES or “DCE”. The Hong Kong corporation Multi Faceted
14 Global Corp. Ltd. has a single nominee Director, Deep Top Consultancy (HK) Ltd., and is
15 beneficially owned by the DCE and launders money on their behalf.
16 9. The RCE, SCE, and DCE, collectively referred to hereafter as the CE (C RIMINAL
17 E NTERPRISE) and employed defendants Raygoza, Sipes, Denton, Bosley, Weitz, and Molina and
18 additional individuals comprising a sales force and support personnel. Sipes, Raygoza, and
19 Denton have set up multiple corporations to launder money and to confuse and frustrate
20 investigations regulatory agencies, law enforcement, banks and credit card companies. They
21 have also shifted the CE from corporation to corporation on the theory that any liability for their
22 criminal actions may be avoided.
23 10. The CE and specifically Christopher Bosley have made intentionally false statement
24 to frustrate investigations by the California Attorney General’s office and the offices of other
25 state and federal regulatory agencies. Bosley and Weitz also made intentional
26 misrepresentations to credit card companies that plaintiffs had entered into binding contracts and
27 had received services for value; by omitting to mention the false promises of profits made to
28 plaintiffs by the CE’s sales force, Raygoza, Molina, Denton, and Sipes.

1 11. After the filing of the initial complaint in the instant case, Raygoza and
2 FutureEndeavor began to harass and threaten plaintiffs in retaliation for filing the complaint by
3 sending unsolicited emails on behalf of FutureEndeavor.com, Raygoza and Tax Group Center
4 threatening plaintiffs with back taxes and the IRS. Tax Group Center is also a dba of
5 Progressive Tax Group, a San Francisco based corporation that entered into a contract with
6 Raygoza and FutureEdeavor.com to send unsolicited spam emails which were then utilized by
7 Raygoza to harass and threaten plaintiffs by claiming they owed money to the IRS.
8 12. Plaintiffs were initially either cold called by salespeople working from an existing
9 list of prospects or were targeted after responding to “feeder” websites controlled, operated or
10 affiliated with defendants John Denton, David Sipes, and John Raygoza that advertise such come
11 ons and taglines as:
12 “Insider Secrets to Making Millions Online - Behind-the-Scenes Blueprint on
How to Profit in the World's Most Lucrative Market” - [successrate.com accessed
13 9-25-10],
14 “Recession Proof Millionaire -They Say Fortunes Are Made During Recessions
And It's Absolutely TRUE... Discover How Average People Are Earning a Solid
15 6-Figure Income In Uncertain Economic Times.” [successrate.com accessed 9-25-
10],
16
“Discover the Secrets We Use To Now Earn $2,700.00+ Every Week, But More
17 Importantly How YOU Too Can Easily Make $100 And More Each Day Of
EXTRA INCOME All From The Comfort Of Your Own Home With Our Proven,
18 Easy to Follow, Step-By-Step Blueprint!” [davidsipes.com/instantcash/index.html
accessed 9-25-10];
19
“Discover the Secrets that Earn me $103,337.11 per month.” [justaskbigjohn.com
20 accessed 9-25-10];
21 “My name is Frederick. I'm disabled and I live in rural Mississippi. I can't get a
job because I'm disabled. But that didn't stop John Raygoza, Louie Obando, and
22 Jen from working with me and helping me make $6,000 per month online.
[http://www.whydowork.com/forums/john-raygoza-not-scam-t18324.html last
23 accessed 9-29-10];
24 “I've seen it from the “inside” after 8 years of experience [sic] and had hundreds
of clients come to me and say they have spent thousands ($20,000 and MORE)
25 and never made a single dime back... I mean, just terrible stories! That's why I'd
be skeptical too...If I H adn't M ade $4,125,645 This Year...”
26 [www.johnraygozaswebsites.com embedded with voice over and streaming video
by John Raygoza and John Denton from YouTube
27 www.youtube.com/watch?v=9j8TrJg1zTwlast accessed 9-27-10].
28

1 The claims made are utterly false, and none of the plaintiffs, many of whom paid more than
2 $20,000 each, ever made a penny of profit from their efforts.
3 13. Defendants Raygoza, Sipes, and Denton also used streaming video and audio,
4 YouTube, Skype, instant messaging, electronic mail, postal mail and seminars in Los Angeles,
5 Malibu and Singapore to recruit and sell plaintiffs.
6 14. Extravagant promises were made to plaintiffs by the CE’s salesmen including
7 Raygoza, Sipes, Molina, and Denton in order to gain access to their credit card and debit card
8 accounts. Promises varied by individual but all of which falsely promised guaranteed returns
9 on their investment. High pressure sales tactics were utilized and the elderly, ill and
10 unsophisticated plaintiffs were targeted especially. Likewise the CE targeted victims in
11 Australia, SE Asia, Europe and elsewhere outside the United States on the theory the victim
12 would have little recourse against them. After plaintiffs bit on the sales pitch they were often
13 overcharged and/or asked for additional buy ins or up sells. Some plaintiffs, but not all them,
14 received boilerplate contracts to fax back to the CE.
15 15. Plaintiffs who attempted to rescind the sales, even within state mandated time limits,
16 were usually unsuccessful. Plaintiffs who disputed the credit card charges with credit card
17 companies, banks, and regulatory agencies found themselves opposed first by Raygoza, Sipes,
18 and Molina and then, if they persisted, by defendants’ inhouse attorney Weitz and paralegal
19 Bosley who made intentionally false representations to the banks and state agencies that services
20 for value had been provided according to contractual arrangement and that plaintiffs involved
21 were well pleased with the trade secrets provided. Bosley and Weitz were aware that plaintiffs
22 did not receive services for value and had been promised guaranteed returns but nevertheless
23 deliberately lied to law enforcement and regulatory agencies in order mislead investigations by
24 the FBI, Los Angeles Police Department, FTC, California Department of Justice and various
25 state attorneys general.
26 16. Plaintiffs were provided a variety of services including webinars, seminars, coaching,
27 DVDs and materials - none of which resulted in plaintiffs earning money but which were used
28 as an opportunity to remarket and upsell plaintiffs. The value of the materials and services

1 provided were negligible in relation to money obtained by the CE. In some cases over $50,000
2 was obtained from plaintiffs in exchange for services or material worth at most a few hundred
3 dollars. In any event, plaintiffs were enticed by the false claims of guaranteed profits and not
4 by the melange of questionable services designed only to further empty their pockets.
5 17. Some plaintiffs attended in person seminars in California and Singapore hosted by
6 Raygoza and Sipes but the seminars were simply used as a marketing opportunity to extract more
7 funds from plaintiffs. The seminars did not result in plaintiffs earning any return on their
8 payments to the CE but were in fact window dressing for the CE just like the coaching and other
9 materials provided.
10 18. Boaz Ruchweiger, a well regarded motivational speaker, was a presenter at over a
11 dozen seminars in 2009, and was promised of up to $100,000 a month by Raygoza if he
12 continued to cooperate. However, Ruchweiger quit in disgust after he discovered seminar
13 participants were highly distressed because of the promises made by the RCE. Ruchweiger also
14 learned Raygoza was using false testimonials to ensnare victims. Ruchweiger received many
15 emails from desperate victims seeking help and despite promises from Raygoza of shared profits
16 disassociated himself from the project called Recession Proof Millions. This did not deter
17 Raygoza who substituted a fictitious person, Rich Maxwell, as the online pitch man for the
18 program in Ruchweiger’s place.
19 19. Instead of receiving valuable services, the plaintiffs were lied to and deceived
20 through high pressure bait and switch tactics designed to empty the victim’s bank and credit card
21 accounts. The price of services provided were based on the amount of available credit the
22 plaintiff possessed or the amount they could afford to pay or borrow and had no relationship to
23 the value of services provided. According to former employees of the CE, the sales force of the
24 CE would promise anything in order to gain access to the plaintiffs’ credit card accounts.
25 20. In one instance an honest coaching employee, Ken Steele, was discharged by Molina
26 and Sipes because he intervened when he prevented an obviously mentally disabled man from
27 spending an additional $5000. Other coaches have quit in disgust after having to deal with
28 repeated pleas by plaintiffs and victims for return of their money.

1 21. No matter how much plaintiffs paid, some much more money than others, all received
2 the same return on their investment - zero.
3 22. A complementary pitch used by PushTraffic, Successrate, Dot Intel,
4 Youraffiliatesuccess and IncFortune involves the purported sale of mentoring and coaching
5 services which promise to make the recipient rich. Youraffiliatesuccess and the Denton
6 controlled corporation promised to make its clients millionaires.
7 23. Plaintiffs were led to believe they were investing in a viable business scheme instead
8 of purchasing services. Assuming the victim’s credit card account or resources held out, over
9 $50,000 was at times extracted by defendants before the victim learned that instead of an
10 investment in a viable business, they had been sold a series of worthless services at a highly
11 inflated price under multiple programs.
12 24. When the victim attempted to reverse credit card charges, the RCE called on its legal
13 staff, Weitz and Bosley, to file false responses to consumer complaints and chargebacks based
14 on adhesion contracts victims have signed under false oral promises of profits, duress and
15 extortion after their credit card accounts had already been emptied by the RCE. Victims who
16 persisted in complaining are threatened with defamation lawsuits by the RCE and its legal staff
17 who falsely disclaimed any knowledge of the fraud committed by their salesmen. Plaintiffs
18 reported receiving threats of violence and other threats from Raygoza, Weitz and others
19 members or employees of the RCE.
20 25. An added element of the CE’s criminality involves a practice by defendants of credit
21 card charges being assessed against plaintiffs without their consent and then upselling the victim
22 with false promises that they would earn back the funds before the first credit card payment
23 would come due.
24 26. Further, defendants engaged in deceptive credit card practice to avoid fraud
25 detection, in one case processing 21 separate $1000 transaction in a short period to milk a credit
26 card and increase its credit limit without the plaintiffs knowledge. Further, at least one CE
27 salesman claimed the CE had an insider at a credit card network on their team. This practice
28 constitutes wire fraud, bank fraud, and mail fraud.

1 27. Many of the plaintiffs were vulnerable elderly and/or disabled and were specifically
2 targeted by the CE because they did not understand the technical aspects of the internet or the
3 terminology utilized, could be easily led and were made to feel stupid if they questioned the
4 outrageous lies of the defendants. Employees of the CE laughed and derided plaintiffs who called
5 in after the fact and desperate for a return of their funds when the promised profits never
6 materialized. In one case, indicative of the defendants’ practice of abusing the elderly, the CE
7 sales staff supervised by Molina placed an elderly individual on a speaker phone and laughed and
8 joked as he begged for his money to be returned according to a former employee who witnessed
9 the cruel spectacle.
10 28. It was a specific tactic of the CE to engage in and encourage financial abuse of elderly
11 and disabled persons because it was determined by Molina, Sipes, Denton, and Raygoza that they
12 were easy marks that could often times be bullied or tricked into granting access to their credit
13 card accounts.
14 29. Bait and switch advertising and false promises of huge profits and high pressure
15 telephone “boiler room” room sales tactics were routinely utilized by the RCE.
16 30. Contracts for services were often called “investments” or “partnerships” or
17 “verifications” in order to deceive plaintiffs but provided only for vague trade secrets to be
18 provided. As a policy and practice of the CE did not memorialize the promises made by the CE’s
19 sales force. When a plaintiff complained to Raygoza, Sipes, or Molina about promises made by
20 CE pitchmen they were told (sometimes falsely) the salesman no longer worked for the RCE and
21 that they were not responsible for promises made by affiliates.
22 31. Those services provided by defendants were in any event not designed to enrich
23 plaintiffs but instead to enrich defendants by providing an opportunity to sell more so called
24 services to plaintiffs who were led to believe they had “invested” in a sure fire turnkey business
25 when in fact they were provided nothing of actual value. Additionally, plaintiffs who attempted
26 in good faith to follow so called the trade secrets imparted by the CE were duped into paying for
27 web hosting to the CE’s JumpLaunch and advertising services like Google Adwords to promote
28 template websites that unwittingly steered more victims to the CE.

1 32. Plaintiffs who in good faith attempted to actually follow the Raygoza “get rich quick”
2 stratagem of trying to recruit further victims via essentially useless websites, invariably failed and
3 wasted more money on advertising their websites with services like Google Adwords™. The
4 websites were template versions of the same website and carried messages identical or similar
5 to:
6 What I discovered will shock YOU!
91% of Work at Home programs are complete and utter SCAM!
7 6% of Work at Home Programs only really make around $500/month
3% of Work at Home programs make over $12,000 per month.
8 Create INCOME through multiple sources and your interests
Work ANYWHERE!
9 Be YOUR OWN BOSS
Have MORE TIME for your pleasures
10 John Raygoza is considered a GURU at making money from anywhere. He
supports a few programs that are in that 3% mentioned above, that generates large
11 amounts of income for people. I have found 3 of those programs and have spoken
with John for verification of the honesty level of these programs.
12
13 For further examples See Exhibits A: One & Two for the complete websites and the following
14 CE controlled websites: http://easymoneyathomeproducts.com/ and
15 http://imlivingadream.com/ [last accessed 9-27-10]
16 33. When plaintiffs attempted to obtain refunds, mediate, dispute, negotiate or arbitrate
17 their claims, they were met with further attempts to extort funds, new “opportunities” to invest
18 money, or were abused, maligned and threatened by defendants Raygoza, Sipes, Molina and
19 Denton and their in-house legal staff Weitz and Bosley.
20 34. The defendants through Weitz, Bosley and others also disputed “chargebacks” and
21 falsely claimed to credit card companies that victims had purchased and received valuable
22 services and were not entitled to a refund. Defendants Raygoza, Sipes, Molina, Bosley, Denton,
23 and Weitz were aware of the “get rich quick” promises made to plaintiffs by themselves and other
24 employees of the CE yet deliberately misled credit card companies and state regulators about the
25 nature of defendants’ businesses and utilized the fraudulent verification documents to oppose
26 chargebacks and legitimate requests for refunds or recession.
27 35. Bosley and Weitz further deliberately misrepresented the CE’s operations to the Public
28 Inquiry Office of the California Department of Justice in Sacramento by characterizing the CE

1 as having provided valuable goods and services and falsely accused victims of defaming the CE.
2 Weitz and Bosley were aware of the criminal activities of the RCE but conspired with the CE and
3 intentionally lied to the California Department of Justice in order to obstruct justice, a violation
4 of California Penal Code §182(5).
5 36. As a result of the above practices these defendant businesses all have the following
6 Better Business Bureau scores:
7 PushTraffic, Inc. (F),
Success Rate dba Dot Intel (D),
8 Inc Fortune dba Push Traffic (F),
Jump Launch (F), and
9 YourAffiliateSuccess.com a.k.a. PushTraffic (F). See www.bbb.org.
10 II. J URISDICTION & V ENUE
11 37. This case arises under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
12 (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. and the false advertising provisions of The Lanham Act, 15
13 U.S.C. §1125(a). Accordingly, this Court has federal question jurisdiction over the subject matter
14 of this action.
15 38. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ non-federal claims pursuant
16 to 28 USC § 1367 and for any claims not otherwise covered by the aforementioned jurisdictional
17 bases. Elder Abuse is internationally recognized through treaty and customary law and is defined
18 by the Word Health Organization as: “A single, or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action,
19 occurring within any relationship where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or
20 distress to an older person.” Alien plaintiffs therefore assert jurisdiction under the Alien Tort
21 Statute 28 U.S.C. § 1350.
22 39. This Court has personal jurisdiction over defendants in that they conduct for profit
23 commerce within the State of California and/or are physically based in California.
24 40. Venue is proper in this Court because the defendants are conducting business and
25 entered into contracts in this District and may be found in this District within the meaning of 28
26 U.S.C. § 1391(c), U.S.C. § 1391(d), and 18 U.S.C. § 1965(a). Defendant DCE is based in
27 Florida, defendants RCE and SCE are based in Southern California and Arizona, defendant
28 Progressive Tax Group dba Tax Group Center is headquartered in San Francisco, and defendant

1 Multifaceted Global Corp. Ltd. is a Hong Kong corporation. The CE is a worldwide enterprise
2 that deliberately targeted victims in out of the way jurisdictions - Australia, England, Ireland,
3 Singapore, Canada, Malaysia and Saipan as well as primarily outside California within the United
4 States in an attempt to avoid liability for its fraudulent and illegal acts. The defendants have
5 operated primarily from Florida, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Arizona, Singapore, and Hong
6 Kong; thus there are multiple proper venues.
7 41. Venue in this district is preferred by plaintiffs as several have received threats,
8 including a death threat to 70 year old Ewing Lee Dale from the RCE which is based in Los
9 Angeles and plaintiffs fear that the RCE, which has connection to a prize fighting promotion
10 corporation, 15rounds.com, will use physical force or threats against plaintiffs, many of whom
11 are elderly and disabled. According to the website for 15rounds.com:
12 “15Rounds.com is a worldwide leader in boxing news, with over 25 active
contributors and more than 1,000 proprietary boxing videos in its archive.
13 15rounds.com was founded by John Raygoza and Ted Molina in 2002 and today
is regarded as an industry standard for investigative reporting, shrewd commentary,
14 in n o v a tiv e ra d io p ro g ra m m in g a n d rin g s id e f ig h t c o v e ra g e .”
[http://www.15rounds.com/about/ last accessed 9-27-10].
15
16 Defendants RCE and DCE have demonstrated no willingness to reign in their abusive tactics
17 towards plaintiffs even after filing of this lawsuit and have continued to aggressively contact
18 plaintiffs via email and telephone with new sales pitches for FutureEndeavor.com LLC and Big
19 John Denton and have threatened plaintiffs via email that the IRS is after them for back taxes
20 under the trade name Tax Group Center. Plaintiffs have complained to the RCE’s counsel of
21 record, Neufeld Law Group, but with little or no effect as plaintiffs have received emails from
22 the RCE as recently as September 21, 2010. Any inconvenience to some of the defendants should
23 be offset by safety concerns of the plaintiffs given the criminal nature of the defendants’
24 activities. These concerns are serious in that the CE continues to retain sensitive financial and
25 personal information and credit card account numbers of the plaintiffs.
26 III. P LAINTIFFS
27 42. Plaintiffs hold all the CE members jointly and severally liable for their losses. The
28 following facts and allegations, however, refer to specific members of the CE with which

1 plaintiffs had contact and the specific acts unique to each plaintiff from which they complain
2 against the CE. All plaintiffs were induced to pay funds to the CE based on material
3 misrepresentation of fact upon which they relied and which were knowing falsehoods made by
4 the CE and its employees and agents in furtherance of their illegal scheme. So there is no
5 question that each and every plaintiff was induced by and relied upon false promise made by the
6 RCE, where available these exact promises are highlighted in bold letters. Where relevant the
7 ages and/or disabilities of the plaintiffs have also been highlighted in bold to show the insidious
8 intentions of the CE to target the aged, vulnerable and infirm whenever possible as easy marks
9 for their get rich quick schemes.
10 43. Mattern v. PushTraffic, Raygoza, IncFortune
11 Plaintiff Douglas Mattern is a resident of Palo Alto, California. His total losses are $30,000
12 including $20,000 to PushTraffic and $10,000 to IncFortune. In August of 2008, he paid $5000
13 and received very poor training from PushTraffic. After two sessions he did not receive any
14 communication for weeks. Then around March of 2009, he received a telephone call from
15 PushTraffic through one of their salesmen named Matthew Silver. Silver made many promises
16 including a large amount of hits to plaintiff’s website that would recover his investment in
17 a couple of weeks and then make substantial profits. Silver cited a figure of $40,000 profit
18 and more. Plaintiff therefore paid PushTraffic an additional $15,000 based on Silver’s false
19 promises of profits that would never be realized. After plaintiff paid the $15,000, there was no
20 communication from PushTraffic. For weeks plaintiff sent emails, postal mail, and telephone
21 calls to PushTraffic, Matthew Silver, and John Raygoza and received no response. Finally he did
22 get a telephone call from John Raygoza, but this came after he sent to Raygoza an email stating
23 he had contacted his credit card bank's fraud unit. Raygoza said Matthew Silver did not work
24 for PushTraffic, but was an independent salesman that gets contracts for PushTraffic and he (John
25 Raygoza) was not responsible for any promises made to plaintiff. Raygoza than invited plaintiff
26 to his office in Los Angeles. Plaintiff stayed in Los Angeles for two days getting one training
27 session that was not very useful. After that visit, he again received no communication from
28 PushTraffic until he complained again. After this he was assigned to a new trainer that led to

1 nothing of value. Then he was told he was in the VIP group would receive personal training from
2 John Raygoza. This was another hoax as after a few sessions there was no more information nor
3 was he informed of any further seminars. This occurred on two occasions. In summary, after
4 more than a year and $20,000 plaintiff had nothing to show for it. His account at PushTraffic
5 showed zero commissions despite providing many leads to PushTraffic for which he was to be
6 paid $5 each. For one project he provided 1,000 leads for Raygoza and his account still read
7 zero. He complained about this in a telephone call to PushTraffic, but he never received an
8 answer. During this period plaintiff also paid $10,000 for training from IncFortune unaware it
9 was the same as PushTraffic. IncFortune however provided no training or anything of value to
10 plaintiff. Later plaintiff, who had yet to earn a dime, was telephoned by a person who called
11 himself John (not John Raygoza). John said that things were going to change for him, and after
12 three breaks in the conversation (when John said he was conferring with Raygoza) John claimed
13 things would be very positive for plaintiff as plaintiff had been promoted from the PushTraffic
14 VIP team (Level III) to the partnership program with Raygoza (Level IV). To become a partner
15 he would need to pay another $30,000. Which plaintiff declined. Around a month after that
16 incident, plaintiff received a call from IncFortune from a person who claimed he had purchased
17 all of Raygoza's companies and he was going to make things right. He said that Raygoza was not
18 involved or even at office but after plaintiff made a few derogatory remarks about Raygoza, the
19 call terminated. When Plaintiff recently sought a return of his $30,000, he was accused by the
20 RCE’s attorney of record of: “Extortion, defamation, slander, and conspiracy.”
21 44. Richard Joseph v. PushTraffic, Raygoza, Denton, Weitz, Bosley
22 Richard Joseph is an attorney in good standing in Michigan. For the past 7 years he has suffered
23 from T6 paraplegia and currently receives Social Security Disability. Over the years as his
24 condition has worsened, he has sought a legitimate work at home opportunity. In November
25 2008, he was telephoned by salesman Rob Martino at PushTraffic. Martino gained plaintiffs trust
26 and learned all about his disability, struggles, and goals. Martino falsely feigned an interest in
27 plaintiff’s well being and Martino even claimed his own brother was a paraplegic which was very
28 likely a lie to gain plaintiff’s confidence. Martino convinced plaintiff to invest $20,000 with

1 PushTraffic but when plaintiff learned that his “confidant” would not be his mentor, he cancelled
2 the contract and the $20,000 was refunded. In February 2009, Martino again began calling
3 plaintiff. Plaintiff’s health condition had gotten far worse and he was battling for his life with
4 a deadly MRSA staph infection requiring hospitalization. Even though aware of this, Martino
5 persisted until plaintiff orally agreed to a refundable $15,000 turnkey investment with Martino
6 and PushTraffic as plaintiff could do no work and could not attend the seminar offered. Martino
7 swore that if this did not work out, “All he had to do was push a button and the money would be
8 refunded.” Plaintiff was briefly released by ambulance from the hospital to attend to business as
9 it was thought he would likely die from MRSA. Martino called plaintiff and demanded he sign
10 a contract, plaintiff physically could not and Martino then pressured plaintiff’s secretary into
11 signing for him. Plaintiff was in the hospital from January to May 2009 and survived the MRSA
12 infection. He then discovered a $20,000 charge on his credit card. Plaintiff attempted to dispute
13 the charges but attorney Weitz and paralegal Bosley, who were aware of the situation, induced
14 the credit card companies to uphold the charges by producing the so called contract. Plaintiff,
15 who was desperately in need of funds to buy medical equipment for his recovery, had relatives
16 attempt to entreat Raygoza to refund the money, however the money was not refunded. In 2010
17 plaintiff has spent additional months hospitalized and in May 2010 was cold called by Denton
18 who claimed he was a friend of Martino in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain more funds. At all
19 times herein, plaintiff was in excruciating pain, heavily medicated and fighting a life threatening
20 illness. Defendants actions have not only damaged plaintiff by taking away money needed for
21 the necessities of life but has also harmed his self esteem as an attorney who was scammed by
22 defendants.
23 45. Sandra Little v. John Denton, IncFortune, DotIntel, Successrate, JumpLaunch,
24 David Sipes, John Raygoza
25 Sandra Little, of Revelstoke, British Columbia, Canada, was victimized in the amount of $15,000
26 by IncFortune and DotIntel with the last act April 2010. Plaintiff initially signed up by salesman
27 John Denton who said he was with IncFortune for $10,000.00. Denton promised plaintiff
28 would be trained by experts to make $20,000 a month and make her initial investment back

1 in one month. Based on these intentional misrepresentations she gave Denton $10,000. Plaintiff
2 has no previous experience with Internet marketing and trusted Denton. Denton tricked plaintiff
3 into signing a contract by calling it a verification. She worked the program diligently with no
4 success and found the training offered to be confusing and unhelpful. About three months into
5 the training, she received a call from a man called Rob Martino. Mr. Martino said that John
6 Denton had noticed that she hadn't made any money to date and that her success was very
7 important to them. Martino said he would go into all her accounts and fine tune them so she
8 could start making money immediately. Martino promised to provide 30,000 client leads for
9 her and one on one coaching. Plaintiff signed up for an additional $5,000 with DotIntel as an
10 “inner circle” client. No services were provided except a seminar. Plaintiff was tricked into
11 signing a contract in October 2009 with JumpLaunch, Successrate and DotIntel by Martino and
12 Denton in order to protect so called trade secrets. Plaintiff contacted John Raygoza and David
13 Sipes about her concerns and was told: “You signed a contract.” They kept ignoring her attempts
14 to get answers until she started threatening to expose them. At one point, Raygoza and Sipes said
15 they would refund her the $5,000 but not the $10,000. When plaintiff through her attorney asked
16 for a portion of the additional $10,000 she was accused through the RCE’s current attorney of
17 record (The Neufeld Law Firm) of, “Extortion, defamation, slander, and conspiracy.”
18 46. Clarence Forcier v. JumpLaunch, PushTraffic, Raygoza, Sipes, Weitz
19 Plaintiff Clarence Forcier, of Bloomington, Minnesota, was victimized in the amount of $30,000
20 by the RCE with the last act April 2010. Plaintiff is age 73 and suffered two debilitating
21 strokes in 2007-2008 with resulting brain damage and is classified a “vulnerable person”
22 pursuant to Minnesota statutes. While looking for a work at home opportunity he happened
23 across an ad for PushTraffic. Plaintiff states: “It was $10,000 for the “really big money” in
24 October 2008 and then it was $19,000 for “3 web sites we are building for you as we speak in
25 January 2009. The $19,000 was supposed to include advertising. The RCE provided a single
26 website hosted by JumpLaunch. In October and November 2008 Sipes provided technical
27 services to Forcier which were useless and made no sense to him. Forcier was contacted again
28 in April 2010 inviting him to affiliate again with the RCE. Plaintiff never received any money

1 and was charged for web hosting by the RCE’s Jumplaunch, paid $1000 to Google for advertising
2 on RCE’s and Sipe’s advice and is now facing foreclosure and eviction from his home due to the
3 false promises of the RCE. The website provided at plaintiff’s expense steered new victims to
4 the RCE. When Plaintiff attempted to complain, he was brutally intimidated by RCE’s attorney
5 Weitz who told him he had a contract and there was nothing he could do about it and the RCE
6 attorney Weitz further misrepresented the situation to the Minnesota Attorney General as one of
7 a disgruntled customer who had received valuable services and trade secrets. The RCE was
8 aware that plaintiff was disabled and vulnerable and exploited the situation to deceive him into
9 going into debt. Plaintiff is now suffering extreme hardship as a result of the RCE’s actions.
10 47. K. Ann Breckenridge v. PushTraffic, Raygoza, Molina, FutureEndeavor, Tax
11 Group Center
12 Plaintiff K. Ann Breckenridge, of Canada, age 66 was victimized in the amount of $4,500 or
13 $5,713 (Canadian) by PushTraffic with the last act March 2010. Plaintiff is disabled and
14 receives a disability pension due to polio related paralysis of her right arm, and back and
15 left shoulder problems. Facts of which defendants were aware from speaking to her. In April
16 2009, PushTraffic salesman Johnny Andrews promised plaintiff would make $50,000 in
17 profits to her website and would not have to pay for services until the profits were achieved.
18 The salesman however asked and received plaintiffs’ Master Card number and immediately
19 charged $4,500 to it placing her account into overdraft without her consent. Plaintiff never
20 entered into a contract for services, tried to cancel immediately and has repeatedly requested a
21 refund from both Molina and Raygoza to no avail. PushTraffic materially misrepresented the
22 situation to plaintiff’s credit card company - BMO- Chargeback Resolution Center when she
23 disputed the charges by falsely claiming she had entered into a contract for services. Since
24 becoming a plaintiff, plaintiff has received threatening email from Raygoza, Tax Group Center
25 and FutureEndeavor.com that the IRS is after her. Tax Group Center collects leads for San
26 Francisco based Progressive Tax Group. Plaintiff did not consent to emails from these entities
27 and the emails were sent after plaintiff filed suit herein.
28 48. Arline Oliphint v. PushTraffic, IncFortune, Sipes, FutureEndeavor.com

1 Plaintiff Arline J. Oliphint, of Phoenix, Arizona, was victimized in the amount of $10,000 by
2 PushTraffic and IncFortune with the last act August 2009. In July 2009, plaintiff, who was
3 recently widowed, received an unsolicited phone call by a man who called himself Ron Davies
4 although this was not his real name as plaintiff verified from the real Ron Davies who was known
5 to her. The false Ron Davies told the plaintiff her existing online business would quickly
6 earn $10,000 a month if she signed up. Various other false promises were made to the plaintiff
7 causing her to pay a total of $10,000 to the RCE in a series of credit card transactions. She
8 stopped paying when she was asked to pay another $10,000 to move up to the next level. Plaintiff
9 was provided worthless training and three basic web pages full of lies about PushTraffic similar
10 to the lies told her by Davies about earning $10,000 per month. Plaintiff complained to Sipes at
11 a PushTraffic Seminar on August 21, 2009 to no avail about the deceptive promises made to her
12 but Sipes did nothing except mail to her a DVD and some photos from the seminar via US Mail.
13 On July 14, 2010 after the filing of this lawsuit, plaintiff received a phone call from a salesman
14 at FutureEndeavor attempting to obtain more funds from her. The salesman named Marcel stated
15 that FutureEndeavor was the successor firm to IncFortune and Successrate. Continued cold
16 calling of victim plaintiffs constitutes a pattern of harassment by the CE in furtherance of the CE.
17 Plaintiff, a widow, was ruined financially by the CE and lost all her savings and was alarmed that
18 the defendants continue to harass her. The $10,000 taken from her by defendants was the
19 proceeds of her late husband’s life insurance policy.
20 49. Ewing Lee Dale v. PushTraffic, IncFortune, Molina
21 Plaintiff Ewing Lee Dale, age 70 of Jackson, Georgia, was victimized in the amount of $20,000
22 by PushTraffic and IncFortune with the last act January 2010. In May 2009, plaintiff who is
23 retired and in poor health with diabetes and Parkinson's Disease was cold called by a
24 PushTraffic salesman who convinced him to part with $20,000 in exchange for false promises
25 of big profits. Plaintiff did not understand what he had signed up for and never earned any
26 money. Plaintiff was targeted after dinnertime when CE salesmen found him to be sleepy,
27 disoriented and agreeable to their demands In January 2010, a salesman from IncFortune cold
28 called plaintiff after dinnertime and attempted to obtain $15,000 with similar false promises and

1 obtained plaintiff’s credit card number and used it to charge $15,000. Plaintiff was later able to
2 get the $15,000 charges removed from the credit card by Chase. Plaintiff has suffered financially,
3 his credit damaged and he has difficulty paying medical bills. Plaintiff was repeatedly targeted
4 by the CE because he was vulnerable to their lies, sick, and elderly. Plaintiff received nothing
5 of value in exchange for his funds. When plaintiff persisted in complaining, he was threatened
6 with death and a lawsuit by PushTraffic employees Hernan Severino and Ted Molina. Georgia
7 further protects Elderly Persons such as plaintiff, defined as any person 60 years of age or older
8 [O.C.G.A. § 10-1-850 (2)], against unfair or deceptive business practices resulting in a loss of
9 property or assets, or mental or emotional anguish [O.C.G.A. § 10-1-852] , by imposing a civil
10 penalty of up to $10,000 in addition to any other penalties incurred when the act is against an
11 elderly person [O.C.G.A. § 10-1-851], and establishes a civil cause of action to recover actual as
12 well as punitive damages for injuries suffered as a result of an offense of the act [O.C.G.A. §
13 10-1-853]. Plaintiff alleges the above practices by defendants fall within the Georgia statutes
14 protecting elderly persons from financial abuse. The RCE continues, without consent of plaintiff,
15 to use a fraudulent testimonial with plaintiff’s likeness to promote the scam product Rich
16 Maxwell’s Recession Proof Million:
17 “I have had the pleasure of meeting Rick and spending 4 hours listening to him
speak. I have never been so thrilled with a speaker as I was with Rick. He had my
18 attention every second, even when he spilled his and my coffee. To use his own
words he is “Unbelievable”-E. Lee Dale Jackson, GA.” See Exhibit C.
19
20 50. Greg Traxler v. IncFortune, JumpLaunch, David Sipes
21 Plaintiff Greg Traxler, a citizen of Colorado, was victimized in the amount $58,000 by
22 IncFortune. In December 2009 IncFortune’s salesman, Robert Tarentino, lied repeatedly to
23 plaintiff about guaranteed profits to obtain $30,000. Tarentino then sent a voice recording
24 to plaintiff to assure him that $30,000 was already on deposit at IncFortune in plaintiff’s
25 account and that it would be wired as soon as plaintiff sent another $28,000 investment and
26 signed the fraudulent contract with IncFortune and JumpLaunch that was offered by
27 Tarentino. Tarentino stated that plaintiff was a now a partner with IncFortune. Plaintiff,
28 believing he had no option to obtain back the initial $30,000, paid the additional $28,000 and

1 signed the contract in the amount of $58,000. Plaintiff provided wire transfer coordinates for the
2 $30,000. The extortion and wire fraud worked, however, plaintiff received no money or anything
3 of value from IncFortune and JumpLaunch in exchange for his $58,000 investment. Sipes, using
4 a Jumplaunch email address, then took charge of the account but provided none of the promised
5 services or investment returns nor did he speak with the plaintiff in February 2010.
6 51. Bette Anderson v. IncFortune, JumpLaunch, John Denton, MyEbiznow.net,
7 BigJohnBlog, John Raygoza, Christopher Bosley
8 Plaintiff Bette Anderson, of Minneapolis, Minnesota , was victimized in the amount of $2,000
9 by IncFortune. Plaintiff was first contacted by a MyEbiznow representative and then signed up
10 by Denton. Denton claimed that he was a millionaire who had achieved his wealth through
11 Internet marketing. He stated that through the program he was promoting, and that plaintiff
12 would have a check for $5,000 by the following Friday. He talked about flying her down to
13 Malibu, expenses paid, for one-on-one instruction on how to implement this program. Denton
14 claimed and plaintiff relied on his false promise that she would earn $1,000 per day, $5,000
15 per week and likely $175,000 per year. Plaintiff told Denton she was currently unemployed
16 with little money. He emphasized how this program could change her situation. Denton asked
17 about her financial accounts and credit cards and asked if she had $10,000 to get started in this
18 endeavor. Plaintiff told him she only had two credit cards, one with a $500 credit limit and the
19 other with a $3,000 credit limit. He said something to the effect of let’s see how much credit you
20 have available on the higher limit card, and before she knew it, he had charged her card for
21 $2,000. Plaintiff voiced concern that she had bills that were auto-charged to the account and that
22 this could put her over the credit limit and that she would have no additional credit with which
23 to charge other needed items. Denton further stated that to achieve the $10,000 amount he had
24 initially wanted to charge to her account, she needed to do some leveraging. She then found out
25 from the credit card company that he actually had attempted to charge the card an additional $500
26 without her knowledge or approval, but fortunately it did not go through because the credit limit
27 was maxed. As predicted, she did sustain a $40 over limit fee due to subsequent auto-charges for
28 monthly bills. Denton induced her to sign a contract with IncFortune for services which

1 misrepresented as a mere formality to protect trade secrets and stated:

2 “Attached is a verification agreement to make sure that I am doing business
with you, Bette. Please print out the agreement and fax it back to me so we can get
3 your business set up immediately. My fax number is 310-634-0490.”
4
The verification agreement was actually styled a contract by IncFortune and JumpLaunch and was
5
later used to prevent plaintiff from successfully disputing the credit card charge. Plaintiff
6
received worthless materials based upon promises of big profits. Plaintiff attempted to rescind
7
but IncFortune through paralegal Christopher Bosley intentionally misrepresented the situation
8
to both Capital One in June 2010 and the Minnesota Attorney General in March 2010 as a
9
contractual dispute rather than the truth which was plaintiff had been scammed by Denton’s false
10
promises of guaranteed returns. Plaintiff also discussed the matter with John Raygoza who said
11
he would take care of plaintiff, plaintiff interpreted that as a threat based on the tone of delivery
12
by Raygoza. On June 22, 2010, plaintiff was re-solicited by John Denton dba Big John Blog
13
offering her profits of $100 a day as an inducement to enter to another scam and
14
$146,306.47 in just 30 days. The email was signed, “My hand in Success, BIG John - Head
15
Honcho JustAskBigJohn.” “This special deal is just for my loyal subscribers only.”
16
52. Lillian Cornelius v. Pushtraffic, IncFortune, Successrate, Sipes, Raygoza,
17
JumpLaunch
18
Plaintiff Lillian Cornelius, age 80 of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, was victimized in the amount
19
of $10,000 in installments by IncFortune, PushTraffic, JumpLaunch and Successrate beginning
20
in September 2009 after relying on lies of a PushTraffic salesman. Pushtraffic telephone
21
salesman Richard Verala promised plaintiff she would earn a minimum of $2500 within 30
22
days to induce her to sign up. He sent an email to her stating she would recoup her
23
investment in 30 days. Verala was aware plaintiff was elderly and know little about the Internet
24
in general. Plaintiff attempted to follow the advice of the RCE’s IncFortune, Successrate,
25
JumpLaunch and PushTraffic but achieved no results. Plaintiff complained in person to David
26
Sipes in December 2009 about the promise made by Verala and provided a copy of the email to
27
Sipes but received no response from Sipes. Sipes in fact was well aware of the false promises
28
made by the RCE sales force but deflected complaints about it. Emails to Sipes and Raygoza
1 seeking an answer also achieved no effect although plaintiff was solicited by Jeff Alderson for
2 yet another RCE program. When Plaintiff tried to follow the program as outlined by Successrate
3 - Google Adwords suspended the account for her website bestwaytomakemoneyfromhome.com
4 due to multiple advertising violations. The website copy provided by the RCE in exchange for
5 $10,000 was the usual template full of lies and deception:
6 Avoid Scams: Make Sure You Read This Important Message.
Tired of systems that don't work??
7 See my Top 3 Work at Home Programs.
Hi, I’m Lillie. I spent 13 months and over $13,600.00 searching for honest, work
8 at home programs. What I discovered will shock YOU!
91% of Work at Home programs are nothing but false hope!
9 6% of Work at Home Programs only really make around $500/month
3% of Work at Home programs make over $12,000 per month.
10 Create MULTIPLE streams of INCOME
Work ANYWHERE!
11 I Discovered 3 Programs that I'm using to achieve my $10,000 a month goal. I
spend around 12 hours per week and soon will be generating full time income
12 [http://bestwaytomakemoneyfromhome.com last accessed 9-27-10]
13 Plaintiff is elderly and had to borrow money from relatives to pay the credit card debt incurred.
14 Plaintiff has further suffered emotional distress and economic hardship caused by the CE’s
15 intentional and negligent actions towards her. The 80 year old plaintiff was made an unwitting
16 accomplice to the CE scam which harvested the email addresses of potential victims generated
17 by the web page paid for by the plaintiff. Although Ontario lacks specific legislation regarding
18 elder financial abuse, the Public Health Agency of Canada defines Elder Financial Abuse as a
19 crime:
20 “Financial abuse is the misuse of an older adult's money or belongings by a
relative or a person in a position of trust...Financial abuse is a CRIME.”
21 [See www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/ncfv-cnivf/publications/agefinancialab-eng.php last
visited 9/27/10].
22
23 52. Steve Fortosis v. PushTraffic, Sipes, JumpLaunch
24 Plaintiff Steve Fortosis of Sarasota, Florida, was victimized in the amount of $15,000 in March
25 2009 by PushTraffic with the last act April 2010. PushTraffic salesman Leo Mendez relentlessly
26 pressured plaintiff and his wife into parting with $15,000 by guaranteeing over and over again
27 that PushTraffic knew they were total beginners online and that PushTraffic would earn back the
28 money for them while they learned internet marketing. Mendez said the $15,000 would be

1 recouped within a few months and that plaintiff would earn an easy $5000 a month
2 thereafter. Plaintiff was provided the usual template websites hosted by JumpLaunch. When two
3 months passed without any evidence of earning the money back, PushTraffic’s Joel Lansky said
4 he was going to put plaintiff into a “new, huge money-making project” called Recession Proof
5 Millions. PushTraffic salesman Frank Perez also attempted to get plaintiff to invest another
6 $15,000 with promises that $700,000 could be earned in one year. When plaintiff asked for
7 proof, Perez was not heard from again. Through April 2009, plaintiff attempted to diligently
8 utilize the PushTraffic materials and resources provided by Sipes to earn money but never earned
9 anything.
10 53. Luke Youree v. PushTraffic, Youraffiliatesuccess, Raygoza, JumpLaunch
11 Plaintiff Luke E. Youree, of Saint James, New York, was victimized in the amount of $4,200 by
12 PushTraffic and Youraffiliatesuccess. Plaintiff, who is disabled and receives Social Security
13 Disability for schizoaffective disorder, was cold called by a PushTraffic telephone salesman
14 in August 2007. The salesman promised plaintiff would make thousands of dollars per week
15 on his computer, working a few hours per week from home. Plaintiff paid $2,400 and
16 received the usual useless template website and was charged hosting for it by JumpLaunch.
17 Plaintiff diligently followed the PushTraffic program for one year and made no money. RCE
18 salesman Rob Martino contacted plaintiff in July 2008 and offered to put him in the “inner circle”
19 or “the fast track” where plaintiff would work with John Paul Raygoza, personally. Plaintiff paid
20 $1,800 but received no new services nor any contact from John Raygoza. Plaintiff made no
21 money and only accrued credit card debt as a result of the defendants’ lies and has suffered
22 extreme financial hardship due to his limited income and inability to work.
23 54. Beverly Stewart v. PushTraffic, Sipes, Raygoza, Molina, IncFortune
24 Plaintiff Beverly Stewart, age 65 of Greeley Colorado, was victimized in the amount of $20,000
25 by PushTraffic and IncFortune from July to September 2009. Craig Beckta at PushTraffic called
26 plaintiff on July 3 2009. He said he would personally build a website for her and she’d be
27 making money by July 10, 2009. Beckta said plaintiff would be going to his Malibu house to
28 celebrate all the money she'd be making by then. Plaintiff paid $10,000 to PushTraffic but never

1 earned any money. On July 23, 2009, Frank Perez from PushTraffic called plaintiff. He
2 promised plaintiff he would personally put up a website for her that would make money the next
3 day. When she said Craig Beckta had promised that, but she hadn't made any money yet, Perez
4 said she had signed up for the wrong program. Plaintiff paid the $10,000 but a couple hours later
5 plaintiff called Woody in billing at PushTraffic and rescinded the transaction. Plaintiff was
6 shocked on August 22, 2009 when she received her credit card statement and found out the
7 second $10,000 had been charged. Plaintiff then spoke with both Sipes and Raygoza. Raygoza
8 promised plaintiff he would refund the $10,000 if she signed a contract with IncFortune for
9 $10,000 and then he would refund $20,000. Raygoza kept the additional $10,000 and only
10 refunded the first $10,000. Molina who identified himself as head of sales then tried to sell
11 more services to plaintiff in September 2009 by promising “tons of money within 15 days.”
12 Plaintiff never earned any money and her ongoing complaints are unanswered by the RCE. In
13 Colorado, under C.R.S. Title 18, an at-risk adult is any person 60 years of age or older, or any
14 person who is 18 years of age or older and is a person with a disability, as defined in C.R.S.
15 18-6.5-102(1). The Colorado Legislature has recognized that elderly are at greater risk of
16 financial exploitation than the general population. See C.R.S. 18-6.5-101.
17 55. James Blanscett v. IncFortune, PushTraffic, Successrate, Denton, Raygoza, John
18 Denton's MyConnection2Wealth eBusiness Center, MyEbizNow.Net Inc, MoneyMontage,
19 Sipes
20 Plaintiff James K Blanscett, age 69 of Kennewick, Washington, was victimized in the amount
21 of $13,800 by IncFortune. His first contact with Raygoza, IncFortune, and PushTraffic, was
22 arranged through John Denton. He responded to an email ad by John Denton on 21 October
23 2009. Denton’s email indicated association with MyEWbizNow.Net Inc, MoneyMontage.com
24 as well as indicating that Connection2Wealth.com was available for assistance 24/7 online. It
25 also noted that John Denton was the CEO and founder of MyEbizNow.Net Inc. Plaintiff had a
26 number of conversations with John Denton prior to being sold on the “program” for making
27 money online. Denton promised many times that plaintiff would earn money and plaintiff
28 believed him. Thereupon John Denton immediately referred plaintiff to John Raygoza and

1 IncFortune/PushTraffic to join and for which he was charged $10,000. Plaintiff called John
2 Denton a number of times with little success in obtaining assistance, dissatisfaction with program,
3 and request for refund. Plaintiff had contact with David Sipes during the seminar he attended in
4 Los Angeles on 3-4 December 2009 that was sponsored by IncFortune. Sipes conducted the
5 seminar and made a presentation on Free Traffic Strategies. Sipes indicated that he was
6 associated with IncFortune as a business partner. Presenters at the seminar included Boaz
7 Rauchwerger, John Raygoza, Folusho Orakunle, and David Sipes. Sipes indicated to contact him
8 direct providing phone number and email address for concerns or problems. Plaintiff sent email
9 to David Sipes (david@incfortune.com) on 14 December 2009 requesting assistance in resolving
10 problems with no effective response. Plaintiff then sent a number of emails to David Sipes, Jack
11 Hill, John Denton, and John Raygoza requesting a refund but no refund was ever received. A
12 PushTraffic salesman also withdrew $1,380 from plaintiff’s checking account without his consent
13 and which resulted in an additional overdraft fees of $1,200.
14 56. Laurence Woods v. PushTraffic, JumpLaunch, IncFortune, Successrate,
15 Denton, Molina, Bosley, Raygoza, Tax Group Center
16 Plaintiff Lauri (Laurence) Woods, age 87 of Sunnybank South Queensland, Australia, was
17 victimized in the amount of $40,000 by PushTraffic and $15,000 by IncFortune and JumpLaunch.
18 In August 2008, plaintiff was approached by PushTraffic salesmen Denton, Molina, and others
19 who eventually extracted $40,000 from plaintiff. Plaintiff believed he was purchasing a money
20 making internet business but instead earned nothing. In April 2010, plaintiff was approached by
21 Bruce Knight of IncFortune who falsely claimed he had nothing to with Raygoza or PushTraffic
22 in order to gain plaintiff’s trust. Knight made promises he would help plaintiff earn back his
23 money through a hosting deal with JumpLaunch, Inc Fortune and Successrate. Plaintiff
24 paid IncFortune $15,000 by credit card but tried to cancel within 24 hours when he became
25 suspicious that IncFortune was affiliated with PushTraffic. IncFortune has not reversed the
26 charges and is opposing the charge back through Bosley who is falsely representing services were
27 provided. Elder Abuse in Queensland, Australia is defined as follows:
28 “Any act occurring within a relationship where there is an implication of trust,
which results in harm to an older person. Abuse can include physical, sexual,
1 financial, psychologic a l a n d so c ia l a b u se a nd/or ne gle c t.” [

http://www.eapu.com.au/ElderAbuse.aspx]
2
The treatment of plaintiff by defendants meets the definition of Elder Abuse in Queensland. On
3
September 15, 2010 plaintiff received an unsolicited and threatening email from Raygoza and his
4
Tax Group Center claiming he owed money to the IRS as follows:
5
Subject: Laurie & Barbara Woods Urgent: IRS may be AFTER you!!
6 Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 13:42:01 -0400
From: John Paul Raygoza (Hosting Expert) <admin@2007besthost.com>
7 To: Laurie & Barbara Woods <woods.laurie@gmail.com>
Hi Laurie & Barbara Woods,
8 The IRS may owe you money, or you may owe the IRS money
Yes, it sounds stupid but the truth is that Laurie & Barbara Woods may actually be
9 qualified for a refund.
You probably think this is a hoax. Therefore, I've included there website:
10 http://www.taxgroupcenter.com/lp?a_aid=JR
Laurie & Barbara Woods
11 Don't pay the IRS any money until you visit:
http://www.taxgroupcenter.com/lp?a_aid=JR
12 Have a IRS free day,
John R.
13
57. Robin Wingrove v. PushTraffic
14
Plaintiff Robin Wingrove, age 62 of Duffy, Australia, was victimized in the amount of $3,000
15
(Australian) by PushTraffic in July 2009. Plaintiff is a retired civil servant and was cold called
16
in July 2009 by a PushTraffic salesman named John and subjected to a high pressure sales pitch.
17
When plaintiff said he did not have the $7,000 John required, John suggested that he check
18
plaintiff’s credit cards for the balance. Plaintiff gave their numbers to him on the very strict
19
proviso that he was not to take any money out. About 2 minutes later, plaintiff got a call from
20
one of his two credit card providers asking if he had made a purchase of $3000. Plaintiff denied
21
the charge and asked if could they stop it which they did. Plaintiff immediately telephoned his
22
other credit card provider who informed him that a payment of $3,000 had gone through and
23
when plaintiff asked them if they could stop it they replied in the negative. John called plaintiff
24
back and promised him an income of $9000 per month and ignored plaintiff’s protests.
25
When plaintiff did receive a contract from PushTraffic, he signed it feeling he had no other
26
remedy. Plaintiff has earned no money to date.
27
58. Deborah Proffer v. PushTraffic, Raygoza, Tax Group Center
28
Plaintiff Deborah Proffer, age 50 of Advance, Missouri, is totally disabled with severe neck and
1 back problems which make it very hard for her to function normally which defendants and
2 Raygoza were made aware of, and was victimized in the amount of $18,000 by PushTraffic in
3 April 2009. In April 2009, plaintiff was first contacted by Rob Arturo who signed her up for
4 $2,500. Arturo promised a mentoring program to build profitable websites and coaching. During
5 the conversation he stated plaintiff would be great for their Inner Circle SEO program. An hour
6 or two later Raygoza called plaintiff about a joint venture with him. Raygoza said he would
7 match whatever amount of money plaintiff invested. Plaintiff stated she could not afford
8 to lose a lot of money but Raygoza assured her he didn't want to lose money so therefore
9 she would not lose money. Raygoza stated that plaintiff would be receiving checks from his
10 office for $5,000 every week from the joint venture. Plaintiff explained to Raygoza in one of
11 many phone conversations and that she was looking for a way to supplement her disability
12 income. Raygoza assured her that she was going into a joint venture with him and she would
13 receive a check for $5,000 a week directly from his office. Raygoza told her he would also pay
14 her credit card bills from his office also, therefore she had nothing to loose. Plaintiff was
15 guaranteed to make back money fast enough to pay the credit cards very quickly and she also
16 wouldn't have to worry about paying them back. Raygoza made multiple false representations
17 to plaintiff to lure her into handing over the money. Plaintiff never received a dime and never
18 again heard about the joint venture. Plaintiff finally tracked down Raygoza and complained in
19 a phone call. Raygoza asked when she began with PushTraffic and she gave him the date and he
20 stated that her six months were up, “tough luck.” Plaintiff became very angry and he hung up on
21 her. In July 2010, after this complaint was filed, plaintiff began received disturbing unsolicited
22 email from John Raygoza and Tax Group Center claiming she may owe the IRS money which
23 stated on September 21, 2010:
24 From: John Paul Raygoza <admin@2007besthost.com>
To: Deb Proffer <redacted>
25 Sent: Tue, September 21, 2010 6:12:48 AM
Subject: Deb Proffer Urgent: IRS may be AFTER You!!
26 Hi Deb Proffer,
The IRS may owe you money, or you may owe the IRS money
27 Yes, it sounds stupid but the truth is that Deb Proffer may actually be qualified for
a refund.
28 You probably think this is a hoax. Therefore, I've included there (sic) website:
Tax Group Center
1 Deb Proffer:
Don't pay the IRS any money until you visit:
2 Tax Group Center
Have a IRS free day,
3 John R.
P.S. Don't pay the IRS a dime, let them pay you!
4 Tax Group Center
107 W. Portland Street #411a, Phoenix, AZ 85003, USA
5 To unsubscribe or change subscriber options visit:
http://www.aweber.com/z/r/?nBxMjOystCwcbEwsHAwMtEa07BxsTKyMHA==
6
59. Martin de Courcey v. PushTraffic, YourAffiliateSuccess, Raygoza
7
Plaintiff Martin De Courcey, of Ireland, was victimized in the amount of $10,282.74. $5,947
8
directly and the remainder in costs incurred trying to follow Raygoza’s plan by PushTraffic and
9
YourAffiliateSuccess in 2007 and 2008. Plaintiff purchased a copy of the YourAffiliateSuccess
10
handbook for $37 on the 30th December 2007. Within a day Raygoza phoned him to encourage
11
plaintiff to attend a seminar which he was holding in Singapore at the end of January 2008 called
12
“The Truth.” He told plaintiff that it would be life changing and guaranteed that plaintiff
13
would be making some serious money before he even left the weekend long course. Plaintiff
14
paid to PushTraffic $5,000 to reserve a seat at the seminar based on Raygoza’s promises. In
15
Singapore, plaintiff was told by Raygoza he could earn $40,000 a month. Plaintiff returned to
16
Ireland in February 2008 after completing the three day course and made a number of phone calls
17
to Raygoza seeking his help in trying to set up an Internet business. Raygoza provided nothing
18
useful but did manage to extract an additional $800 from plaintiff. In July 2008 plaintiff
19
attempted to get a refund to no avail as Raygoza told the credit card company that services had
20
been provided.
21
60. David Lemasters v. PushTraffic, Raygoza
22
Plaintiff David Lemasters, age 63 of Olive Hill, Kentucky, was victimized in the amount of
23
$7,000 by PushTraffic in July 2009. Plaintiff was telephoned by PushTraffic salesman Rob
24
Martino. Martino promised that plaintiff would recover his investment within 30 days
25
(before his credit card bill would be due). Martino claimed money would arrive within a week
26
of signing up full well knowing that plaintiff would most likely never receive any money and
27
definitely not within thirty days. Plaintiff returned a signed contract on July 24, 2009. However,
28
his credit card was charged on July 23, 2009 before the contract was received. Though the
1 contract was for $10,000, Martino said he would cover $3,000 of it. The $7,000 put plaintiff’s
2 card at its limit. The contract promised an “instant turnkey website” would be provided. Plaintiff
3 diligently tried to work the Raygoza plan, attended training seminars, and purchased advertising
4 as directed by the RCE for the worthless template website that promoted the RCE, but the
5 “turnkey” website did not earn anything for plaintiff. In December 2009 plaintiff tried to obtain
6 a refund from Raygoza and Sipes but received no response from them.
7 61. Marc Mintz v. PushTraffic
8 Plaintiff Marc Mintz, of Monroe Township, New Jersey, was victimized in the amount of
9 $10,080 by PushTraffic in 2008 to 2009. In November 2008, plaintiff purchased a product called
10 the “4 day challenge;” this was promoted as a program for “Newbie’s” that said anyone with a
11 computer and basic computer knowledge could understand the program and instructions, establish
12 a web site, use affiliate marketing with “Click Bank Products,” to make commissions. Plaintiff
13 could not understand the product and requested a refund of $79.99 from PushTraffic. Plaintiff
14 then received a phone call from a man who identified himself as Dave Gale from PushTraffic,
15 also on the phone was a Rob Martino. Dave Gale did a high pressure sales pitch regarding
16 purchasing an affiliate marketing program with PushTraffic. Gale claimed that PushTraffic
17 would drive valuable traffic to plaintiff’s website. In November 2008, plaintiff paid
18 PushTraffic $10,000 via Master Card for the so called Mastermind program. Plaintiff received
19 the usual template websites promoting Raygoza’s fraudulent “get rich quick scheme” including
20 the notorious copy:
21
“I have been involved in affiliate marketing now for over 10 years and have found
22 that over 97% of the so called get rich quick programs are scams. . . I have
personally reviewed the top 50 programs online for affiliate marketing and the only
23 2 or 3 that work are . . .”
24 Plaintiff protested that this website was fraud and that there were thousands of similar websites
25 all put up by defendants. Further plaintiff protested he could not vouch for the veracity of such
26 statements and did not want to be part of a fraudulent scheme but was ignored by defendants and
27 earned no money. Plaintiff’s wife is battling cancer and the financial loss to plaintiff has been
28 an extreme hardship.

1 62. Benita Sandifer v. IncFortune, Successrate, Sipes

2 Plaintiff Benita Sandifer, retired and age 66 of Colchester, Essex, England, was victimized in the
3 amount of $10,000 by IncFortune and Successrate in late 2009. Plaintiff was “cold called” by
4 a salesman who called himself Robert Tarantino. He offered her one to one mentoring and
5 coaching by experienced Internet Marketers. She said that she could not afford such help as she
6 was retired on a pension and could not go into debt and his response was to say that they offered
7 different levels to suit peoples finances. She was told that she would have 6 websites set up and
8 ready to sell top products that were tested and known to make massive sales and that these
9 millionaire marketers would be “holding her hand” to ensure her success. She asked why they
10 would do this and the reply was that they were looking to set up a training company and were
11 looking for testimonials from successful pupils. She was passed at some point onto another man
12 who said he was Harwood Hamilton and said something to the effect that if she was serious about
13 making money on the internet this was her big opportunity. At some point she was passed onto
14 a man identifying himself as Jeff Alderson. He asked if plaintiff had a credit card and if so he
15 could just ascertain what her credit level would be if she gave him details. $5,000 was the sum
16 spoken of and she was told it was nothing really just a small investment because her six
17 websites would have three times that in her account in less than 30days so she wouldn’t be
18 paying any interest. Alderson (thought to be Raygoza using a pseudonym) said plaintiff would
19 have enough money within a week or two to go on a cruise to Alaska and she should book one
20 straight away if she signed up. Alderson said he would be sending a confidentiality and
21 verification document to sign just to protect their secret methods from being copied. Plaintiff did
22 this and then never heard another word from him. Embedded in the document was the price, not
23 the $5,000 agreed to but $10,000. Plaintiff was then charged $16,000 on her credit card by
24 IncFortune and tried to get a refund. Sipes finally refunded the $6,000 in January 2010 but not
25 the other money and disclaimed any responsibility for statements by the RCE sales staff. Plaintiff
26 received nothing of value and earned no money.
27 63. Lowell Radder v. PushTraffic, Molina, Raygoza, Tax Group Center,
28 YourAffiliateSuccess

1 Plaintiff Lowell Radder, age 71 of Bellingham, Washington, was victimized in the amount of
2 $25,000 by PushTraffic in 2009. Ted Molina and John Raygoza at PushTraffic made various
3 promises on several occasions that plaintiff would start earning money immediately but he never
4 saw a dime. They told plaintiff he would earn all his money back before the credit card bill
5 arrived but instead eventually gave him a template website for YourAffiliateSuccess. After
6 Molina and Raygoza extracted $25,000 from plaintiff they ceased communication and only after
7 plaintiff called for days, several times a day, he was given a seminar in Los Angeles and provided
8 coaching but nothing came of it. He unwittingly managed to ensnare a few victims but was not
9 paid for that either. Finally he realized he had been duped and discontinued his association with
10 the RCE. After becoming a plaintiff in this lawsuit, on September 15, 2010, plaintiff received
11 an alarming email from Raygoza and Tax Group Center titled “Subject: Lowell Urgent: IRS may
12 be AFTER you!!” The continued contact by the RCE even after he has been identified as a
13 plaintiff is alarming and plaintiff fears other retaliation by the RCE, Raygoza and Molina.
14 64. Heidi Plach v. PushTraffic, Denton,
15 Plaintiff Heidi Plach of California, was victimized in the amount of $1,000 by PushTraffic in
16 2009 plus $2,000 spent on advertising. On June 30, 2009, plaintiff was contacted by Robert
17 Tarentino of PushTraffic. He stated that John Denton had asked him to call about a website to
18 conduct business. He told her that this would cost $10,000 which was to be used to pay for
19 advertising for the year. He would put in another $10,000 of his own money which would
20 guarantee her a profit of at least $180,000 for the first year. Then he put her through to John
21 Denton. When she spoke with Denton, he stated he would put in another $5,000 so plaintiff
22 could make $250,000 her first year. Plaintiff was charged $15,000 on her credit card. When
23 she complained, Denton guaranteed she would make me the $15,000 within 21 days. The
24 $15,000 was not used for advertising, so plaintiff had to spend an additional $2,000 to promote
25 the worthless website that was eventually provided. Plaintiff never received any money and has
26 not heard from PushTraffic since August 2009; and still owes $15,000 plus interest on her credit
27 card. Plaintiff lives in Los Angeles and is concerned about retaliation by the RCE.
28 65. Desmond Menz v. IncFortune, Raygoza

1 Plaintiff Desmond Menz, age 60 is a resident of Australia, was victimized in the amount of
2 $13,000 by IncFortune in June 2009 by credit card and wire transfer. He was cold called and
3 promised big profits by an IncFortune salesperson if he invested. IncFortune salesperson Patricia
4 Law told plaintiff of an elaborate scheme involving thousands of e-books and so called Beta
5 platforms which would generate guaranteed income of $9,000 to $19,000 per week. Law also
6 falsely claimed that IncFortune was a US government contractor in order to obtain client’s
7 trust. When plaintiff threatened to reverse the wire transfer, IncFortune’s employee Ruel
8 Mitchell guaranteed the income estimate, guaranteed income within a week or two,
9 guaranteed the $14,000 would be paid back shortly and that it was refundable. Plaintiff was
10 also contacted by John Raygoza impersonating well known Internet marketer Jeff Alderson.
11 According to Alderson in an email to plaintiff after the fact: “This is terrible! These people have
12 no right to ever call anyone and say they are me. That is fraudulent...John Raygoza's email is
13 jraygoza@spamarrest.com. I am emailing him right now myself. I won't stand for this behavior
14 directed at any of my customers.” In July 2009 plaintiff attempted to get a return of funds after
15 receiving no tangible services or income. Through June 2010 plaintiff has contacted numerous
16 individuals at PushTraffic, including John Raygoza, but has received no refund.
17 66. Bramwell Hester v. IncFortune, Successrate, and JumpLaunch, Sipes
18 Plaintiff Bramwell Hester, age 69 of San Remo, Australia, was victimized in the amount of
19 $10,000 by IncFortune, Successrate, and JumpLaunch in 2009. Using plaintiff’s personal
20 information from his web hosting account at JumpLaunch, salesman Harwood Hamilton, cold
21 called plaintiff on behalf of IncFortune. Hamilton promised to match the $10,000 price of the
22 training offered by IncFortune. Hamilton sold plaintiff a seminar package in Los Angeles for
23 $10,000 around August 1, 2010. On August 16, 2010 Raygoza attempted to obtain more money
24 from plaintiff by calling him and stating that for another $10,000 he will take plaintiff to his
25 house for personal one-to-one coaching in the Internet business. Plaintiff however had no further
26 funds. Plaintiff attended the seminar run by Sipes and Raygoza but found it was worthless and
27 that individuals who had paid a minimal amount also attended as well as then 86 year old co-
28 Plaintiff Laurence Woods who had been charged $40,000. Plaintiff suffered severe swelling in

1 his legs due to the long trip from Australia which required several months of treatment. The so
2 called seminar did not even involve use of a computer. Instead of teaching the marketing and
3 profit making secrets of the internet as promised, plaintiff received nothing of value and earned
4 no money. Plaintiff was provided a template website touting a Raygoza program entitled
5 Recession Proof Millions. After a brief period of time, plaintiff removed the website as it became
6 apparent it existed only ensnare other victims for the RCE. The website RecessionProofMillions
7 still owned by PushTraffic features the likeness of plaintiff used without his consent and false
8 quotation:
9
“In the first few minutes of sitting in front of Rick as he taught with such boundless
10 enthusiasm, I felt I loved this man! Indeed it would be hard not to. I learned so
much from him then and now even more from this excellent production. If you hate
11 wading through waffle, you will love this! The presentation is concise, accurate and
step-by-step. I highly recommend this epic work - Bramwell Hester.”
12
Along with plaintiff are featured the pictures of and quotes by Raygoza and Sipes as if plaintiff
13
is one of their associates. See Exhibit C.
14
67. Malcolm Duffy v. IncFortune, Pushtraffic, Successrate
15
Plaintiff Paul Malcolm Duffy, of Peacehaven, East Sussex, England, was victimized in the
16
amount of $3,000 by IncFortune in 2009. In October 2009, RCE affiliates Charles Kirkland and
17
Jeff Alderson sold plaintiff a product called “Social Money Magnet.” Following the purchase
18
plaintiff was given access to the download page where at the bottom of that page
19
there was a message saying “You will get a personal call from one of my Millionaire Mentors!”
20
Plaintiff was telephoned by an IncFortune-PushTraffic-Successrate salesman who said he worked
21
with Jeff Alderson and Jeff personally wanted plaintiff in the program. The salesman made the
22
following false statement and high pressure sales pitch that convinced plaintiff the program was
23
legitimate and he was mislead into believing the call was from Jeff Alderson’s office as the
24
“salesman” said Jeff had just come into the office and he broke away from me to speak with
25
“Jeff” about taking the last place available for coaching. With “Jeff’s” ‘approval’, the
26
“salesman” hyped up the fact that Jeff wants plaintiff ‘in’ and that plaintiff would lose the place
27
if he did not take it there and then. The price was $15,000 but the salesman settled for $3,000
28
because that was all the credit plaintiff had on his card. When IncFortune attempted to charge
1 a second $3,000 fee to plaintiff’s credit card without his consent, plaintiff became alarmed and
2 became aware he had been scammed.
3 68. Melanie Rogers & Margaret Gramshaw v. IncFortune, Denton, JumpLaunch,
4 MyConnection2Wealth, Raygoza, Tax Group Center
5 Plaintiff Melanie Rogers, who has a learning disability, has received SSI and attended school
6 through the 9 th grade, and her mother Margaret Granshaw, age 70, both of Louisiana, were
7 jointly victimized in the amount of $3,600 by defendants in 2009. In April 2009, Melanie who
8 was unemployed received emails from John Denton advertising a money making “free website”
9 for $40. Melanie purchased what she thought was a website from Denton but did not get a free
10 website, instead she received a bill for $118 from JumpLaunch for hosting services. Melanie did
11 not understand and called JumpLaunch and Denton’s MyConnection2Wealth.com in Florida.
12 Plaintiff asked for a refund from JumpLaunch and they said James Murphy would contact her.
13 Murphy contacted plaintiff and sold her CDs by John Raygoza called “The Truth” for $399 after
14 she said she could not afford $5,000 to $15,000 for coaching services. In August 2009, James
15 Murphy repeatedly called plaintiffs and said he was the owner of IncFortune. Murphy told
16 plaintiffs they would make $5,000 within 45 days and $5,000 each month thereafter.
17 Murphy spent two hours making his pitch. More and more calls ensued and when plaintiffs asked
18 that they be stopped, Murphy said they would only stop when plaintiffs paid and signed a contract
19 with IncFortune. Plaintiff told Murphy her credit cards were maxed out but Murphy stated that
20 if she gave him the account numbers he could get money from them and in any event she would
21 earn her costs back in 45 days. Murphy was able to extract money from plaintiffs’ debit card and
22 plaintiffs paid IncFortune $3,400 for training based on Murphy’s lies but never earned a cent.
23 Plaintiffs attempted in vain to utilize the services to earn back their money but have received
24 nothing to date and cannot comprehend the material offered to them. The so called coach was
25 abusive when plaintiffs could not understand him or his instructions. After several weeks
26 plaintiffs repeatedly complained about the lack of money promised. On September 14, 2009,
27 Murphy replied: “I think you are looking for a “get rich quick” scheme and they do not exist.”
28 Plaintiffs continued to complain on an almost daily basis as to the lack of promised money.

1 Finally, on December 10, 2009, Raygoza called plaintiff Melanie Rogers and told her she was not
2 working her business. Plaintiff told Raygoza she had no business. Raygoza then said that people
3 pay him $15,000 to show them how to make $20,000 or more. Raygoza asked plaintiff if she had
4 that kind of money. When plaintiff responded to Raygoza that she had no money, he hung up the
5 phone. Plaintiffs continued to complain to defendants through January 2010 but achieved no
6 results. Plaintiffs were vulnerable individuals, elderly and with a learning disability, defendants
7 preyed upon these disabilities and repeatedly contacted plaintiffs until they had extracted all of
8 the money in plaintiffs’ possession. On September 21, 2010, plaintiff Melanie Rogers did
9 however receive a scam email from John Raygoza and Tax Group Center claiming plaintiff owed
10 the IRS money which disturbed plaintiff.
11 69. Stella Tan v. IncFortune, Denton, PushTraffic, Raygoza, Weitz, MyEbizNow.net,
12 Inc., JumpLaunch
13 Plaintiff Stella Tan, age 72 of Canada, was victimized in the amount of $30,000 (Canadian) by
14 IncFortune in July 2009. In June 2009 plaintiff, who has a heart condition and lives on a small
15 fixed pension, paid $97 for a software package called ExplosiveCashins from John Denton and
16 MyEbizNow.net, Inc. of Naples, Florida, which was never fulfilled. Plaintiff at the same time
17 was sold a hosting package at JumpLaunch for $118. Denton called plaintiff personally to
18 congratulate her and give his personal phone number which turned out to be the phone number
19 for PushTraffic as plaintiff learned when she called to complain about non fulfillment of her
20 order. In July, plaintiff received a call from Bruce at PushTraffic who said he was upgrading her
21 from the package sold her by Denton. Plaintiff believed this was a replacement of the $97
22 software she never received from Denton and signed the faxed agreement without carefully
23 reading it and was instead immediately charged $4,000 on her credit card towards an obligation
24 of $20,000. On July 20 th, 2009 Raygoza contacted plaintiff who told Raygoza that she had
25 credit card debt problems and Raygoza said he would help her get out of debt. Plaintiff gave
26 him 5 credit card numbers. He then charged her $20,000 and maxed out her credit cards.
27 Plaintiff then tried to cancel and get a refund. Raygoza promised to refund $4000 but never did.
28 On July 27, 2009 plaintiff was emailed by Jeff Gold from PushTraffic that despite the fact she

1 would be missing out on $25,000 a month in profits, the $4000 charge would be refunded. The
2 credit card disputes were largely unsuccessful due to intentional misrepresentations by attorney
3 Weitz that plaintiff had received valuable services to the various credit card companies. Plaintiff
4 never earned any money as promised and was not refunded $4,000 and was unable to effect the
5 return of the unauthorized charges by Raygoza for $20,000.
6 70. Joseph Kaye v. PushTraffic, Raygoza, Weitz
7 Plaintiff Joseph Kaye, of Houston, Texas, was victimized in the amount of $20,000 by
8 PushTraffic in May 2009. Plaintiff tried to cancel the transaction on the third business day after
9 he was charged $20,000 by PushTraffic. But Raygoza managed to convince plaintiff not to
10 cancel by promising a 100% money back guarantee for a full year and that plaintiff would
11 be debt free in 30 days. Plaintiff went to Los Angeles for a seminar and was unconvinced and
12 again tried to cancel in July 2009. Plaintiff was approached by Hernan Severino, Raygoza's
13 personal assistant, in regards to setting up his inner circle “exclusive” for those coming to learn
14 “Raygoza's inside secrets.” When plaintiff persisted in disputing the credit charges in July 2009,
15 Severino began a series of threatening phone calls in which he stated: “You will get no further
16 help, and will miss out on everything we are doing to help,” and “You are going to regret this,
17 because we will take legal action against you and you will lose even more.” “Unless you sign a
18 new contract and give us valid credit card numbers, we are going to rake you over the coals.”
19 “We know how to do that, we have an attorney (Weitz) who is a specialist in this and never
20 loses.” Severino caused plaintiff such distress he signed a new contract in July 2009 and gave out
21 his credit card number but came to his senses and was able to get the bank to rescind the second
22 transaction. Raygoza has not refunded plaintiff’s initial money, the CRE legal staff and Weitz
23 has opposed plaintiff’s attempt to clear the charge from his credit account, and plaintiff has
24 received nothing of value.
25 71. Chris Yorke v. PushTraffic, Denton, Sipes, Raygoza, Tax Group Center
26 Plaintiff Chris Yorke, age 60 of Mosman, Australia, was victimized in the amount of $8,000 by
27 PushTraffic in May 2009. Plaintiff was also bombarded with approximately fifty unsolicited
28 emails from John Denton and the DCE promoting the CE and its various iterations of the get rich

1 quick scheme. On May 7, 2009, a representative of PushTraffic named Alex Sainz phoned
2 plaintiff and promised him a working commercial website in 30 days. The site was to be built
3 with the aid of PushTraffic mentors, who, Sainz claimed, had a 100% success record. Plaintiff
4 was promised he would earn his money back in 30 days. When PushTraffic did not perform
5 as promised, he complained to Ruel Mitchell and Harwood Hamilton at PushTraffic and he
6 attempted to seek a refund from Sipes and others at the RCE but received nothing despite sending
7 faxes and courier letters. On September 16, 2010, plaintiff did however receive a scam email
8 from John Raygoza and Tax Group Center claiming plaintiff owed the IRS money which
9 disturbed plaintiff.
10 72. Les Jones II v. PushTraffic, Raygoza, JumpLaunch
11 Plaintiff Les Jones II, age 66 of Excelsior Springs, Missouri, was victimized in the amount of
12 $12,500 by PushTraffic in 2009. After being prospected by several PushTraffic salesman,
13 Raygoza contacted plaintiff and laid out an elaborate scenario regarding a “Joint Venture”
14 with Raygoza personally and Raygoza guaranteed that plaintiff would make enough money
15 to replace his investment after the first month and to pay back Raygoza who claimed he
16 would contribute the same amount of cash as plaintiff. Raygoza promised profits of $30,000
17 to $50,000 after 90 days. Plaintiff paid $12,500 but heard nothing more until he complained and
18 was invited to Los Angeles for a seminar. Plaintiff never received any money or joint venture but
19 did receive worthless training materials and was promised commissions from JumpLaunch’s
20 affiliate program but was never paid. Plaintiff has a heart condition and limited mobility;
21 defendants made off with half his retirement savings which had already been diminished due to
22 the faltering economy. Plaintiff’s quality of life has been dramatically effected due to defendants.
23 73. Virginia Lagos v. PushTraffic, Raygoza, JumpLaunch, Sipes
24 Plaintiff Virginia Lagos, of Sydney, Australia, was victimized in the amount of $10,000
25 (Australian) by PushTraffic. Plaintiff was contacted by telephone salesman Steven Johnson of
26 PushTraffic in September 2008. The price of the promised services was supposed to be $5,000
27 (US) but instead plaintiff’s credit card was charged $7,500 (US). Johnson falsely promised
28 on September 21, 2010 that plaintiff would earn the money back by September 26, 2010

1 from the website that would be provided. Plaintiff relied on the false promise made by
2 Johnson. Plaintiff received some coaching services which were unilaterally suspended by Sipes
3 in August 2009 and applied to Raygoza in writing for a refund but never received an answer.
4 Plaintiff was supposed to receive a money making website but received only the domain
5 greatestwebhosting.com hosted by JumpLaunch with no content.
6 74. Debbie Knisely v. PushTraffic, Denton, MyEbizNow.NET Inc.,Raygoza,
7 JumpLaunch, Successrate, Sipes, IncFortune, JumpLaunch, YourAffiliateSuccess
8 Plaintiff Debbie Knisely, of Sale Creek, Tennessee, was victimized in the amount of $25,000 by
9 PushTraffic and the RCE in late 2009. In August 2009 plaintiff ordered a product for $50 from
10 Denton’s MyEbizNow.NET Inc. She was then subjected to a barrage of high pressure email from
11 Denton promising profits of over $100,000 per year. John Denton of MyEbizNow.NET Inc. then
12 called plaintiff at work in August of 2009 and talked to her about investing $10,000 with
13 PushTraffic, Successrate, IncFortune, and JumpLaunch. Plaintiff was told that she would start
14 making money before the credit card bill went through. Plaintiff paid Denton in four
15 consecutive installments from her debit card account. In September 2009 plaintiff received an
16 email from Sipes identifying himself as Vice President of Successrate. A month later plaintiff
17 went to Los Angeles where she met Raygoza who promised her that she would make big
18 money. In December 2009, Robert Artino of PushTraffic called and talked plaintiff into
19 spending another $5,000 with IncFortune, YourAffiliateSuccess, and JumpLaunch, telling her he
20 understood that she didn’t have the time and that he would treat her website as his own, do
21 everything it needed to get it to make money. A couple of days later PushTraffic’s Jack Hill
22 called plaintiff and talked her into spending another $10,000 and again assured her that
23 everything would be taken care of as far as getting this website up and running as if it was his
24 own and that plaintiff would be part of the Inner Circle team. The $10,000 was paid in a wire
25 transfer of $6,500 and PayPal electronic transfer of $1,500 with the understanding the balance
26 of $2,000 would be paid once the website earned money. However, plaintiff’s credit card was
27 immediately charged $2,000 without her consent. Plaintiff complained to Raygoza in December
28 2009 and tried to rescind the $10,000 transaction but Raygoza did not respond. Plaintiff was told

1 by a JumpLaunch employee in February 2010 she was in a program called “Your Site Name
2 Affiliate.” Plaintiff never earned any money and tried to obtain a refund but it was denied by the
3 RCE.
4 75. Rob Willis v. IncFortune, Sipes
5 Plaintiff Rob Willis, of Perth, Western Australia, was victimized in the amount of $10,000 by
6 IncFortune in June 2009. After purchasing an inexpensive software program from Charles
7 Kirkland & Jeff Alderson, plaintiff’s contact information was sold or provided to IncFortune.
8 IncFortune’s salesman James Murphy contacted plaintiff and promised him a two day course in
9 Malibu and three ready-made cash producing websites that were guaranteed to give a return
10 on plaintiff’s investment within 60 days. Plaintiff received a trip to Los Angeles but no
11 websites or cash and met with Sipes who provided worthless seminar materials. Plaintiff
12 eventually learned through a former PushTraffic coach that the entire program was a fraud and
13 that victims like plaintiff never earned any money even if they followed all the advice provided.
14 Plaintiff attempted to obtain a refund form Murphy and Sipes but received no substantive
15 response except that he needed to have more faith in the program.
16 76. Patricia Ledoux v. PushTraffic, Weitz
17 Plaintiff Patricia Ledoux, of Lake Forest, California, was victimized in the amount of $7,000 by
18 PushTraffic in October 2008. In October 2008 plaintiff purchased services from PushTraffic for
19 $5,000. She was cold called by Matt Alhouse who said he was account manager at PushTraffic,
20 he stated that with this mentoring, plaintiff would receive a free website, 25 hours of one-on-one
21 mentoring along with 33 hours of group mentoring and 4 free passes to their seminar in Los
22 Angeles. Plaintiff was promised that for additional $2,000 (originally $10,000), plaintiff would
23 receive increased traffic to her website and she agreed. PushTraffic provided neither appropriate
24 training or any traffic. What induced plaintiff to pay PushTraffic was that plaintiff was
25 promised by Alhouse she would generate sales of $3,000 to $5,000 per week in the first 90
26 days. Plaintiff was provided some coaching services but after several months her coach informed
27 her that PushTraffic was an unethical scam. Plaintiff complained to Harwood Hamilton at
28 PushTraffic that she was not receiving services or the free passes to the seminar promised to

1 effect. When plaintiff attempted to obtain a refund or seek mediation through the Better Business
2 Bureau, PushTraffic’s Corporate Counsel Andrew Weitz opposed the refund and deliberately
3 misrepresented the situation as one of a misunderstanding even though he knew the plaintiff had
4 been defrauded. Plaintiff has heard nothing from PushTraffic since October 2009.
5 77. Michael Schaetzel v. PushTraffic, Sipes, Weitz
6 Plaintiff Michael Schaetzel, of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, was victimized in the amount of $14,000
7 by PushTraffic in 2009. In June 2009, plaintiff was initially approached by Donny Robbins of
8 PushTraffic who obtained $1,000 from him. Shortly thereafter Bruce Knight obtained another
9 $4,000 from plaintiff. Rob Martino obtained $9,000 more by stating plaintiff would be in an
10 exclusive group if he paid and would make lots of money. Plaintiff relied on the
11 representations made by Robbins, Knight, and Martino who all promised plaintiff would
12 start making money within month. Plaintiff became suspicious within 30 days and got in
13 contact with a former PushTraffic mentor, Ken Steele, who warned him that PushTraffic was a
14 fraudulent scam. Plaintiff tried to cancel in July 2009 but was threatened with legal action by the
15 RCE’s employee Hernan Severino who said they were multimillionaires with powerful lawyers
16 who would call all the shots and that plaintiff had better do as they say or else. Plaintiff then
17 reversed the credit card charges but Sipes and Weitz convinced the credit card company to
18 reinstate the charges with intentionally false representations that valuable services had been
19 provided. Plaintiff received nothing of value and no money.
20 78. Janis Johnson v. Future Endeavor, IncFortune, Denton
21 Janis Johnson age 58 is a citizen of Texas and has a mental disability Major Depression
22 Chronic Syndrome and Anxiety Panic Disorder that keeps her at home. She is the care
23 provider for elderly father. Plaintiff was telephoned by Denton in February 2009 and told Denton
24 about her disability and he said he would “help” her because she had a “humble heart.” Instead
25 Denton turned her over to IncFortune which extracted $50,000 from plaintiff on false promises
26 of profits. Plaintiff earned no money after being provided the usual services: seminar, template
27 websites, and coaching. Plaintiff attended an IncFortune seminar at the Malibu beach house
28 where Boaz Rauchwerger was one of the speakers. A few months later Raygoza via web

1 conference began promoting a book by Boaz Rauchwerger called “Recession Proof Millions.”
2 A plaintiff noted that there was a website called
3 hmigroupmoneymaking.com/recessionproofmillions/bonuspage.html on which Rauchwerger and
4 others appeared. Plaintiff then noticed in early 2010 that Rauchwerger had been removed from
5 the page and as the author of the book and had been replaced by a person named Rich Maxwell
6 who is a fictitious creation of Raygoza. On July 16, 2010 plaintiff received a phone call from a
7 salesman named Jay Francisco who said he was representing a company named FutureEndeavor.
8 He said his company had taken over IncFortune and “other entities” and he would like to talk to
9 plaintiff in order to “rekindle our relationship.” Plaintiff told him that she didn't recognize his
10 name or his voice and she wasn't going to talk to him. Plaintiff hung up the phone. He called
11 plaintiff back about 2 minutes later and she let the answering machine pick up the call. He left
12 a message saying that he still wanted to talk to her for a few minutes and that maybe he could
13 reimburse some of the money she had invested with “the entities.” He also said he had
14 knowledge was that she invested in 2009. Francisco called back again on June 17, 2010. On
15 September 15,2010, plaintiff who already was cheated out of $5,000 by an entity called the Tax
16 Club to which she was earlier referred by John Raygoza received the following threatening email
17 which caused plaintiff further distress and :
18 From: John Paul Raygoza (Hosting Expert) <admin@2007besthost.com>
To: Janis Johnson
19 Sent: Wed, Sep 15, 2010 12:44 pm
Subject: Janis Johnson Urgent: IRS may be AFTER you!!
20 Hi Janis Johnson,
21 Yes, it sounds stupid but the truth is that Janis Johnson may actually be qualified
for a refund.
22 You probably think this is a hoax. Therefore, I've included there website:
http://www.taxgroupcenter.com/
23 Janis Johnson
24 http://www.taxgroupcenter.com/
25 John R.
26 Plaintiff has suffered great financial loss and extreme emotional distress due to the intentional
27 acts of defendants.
28 79. John Uys v. IncFortune, JumpLaunch, YourAffiliateSuccess, Raygoza, Sipes

1 John Uys age 56 of Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, lost $40,000 to defendants and has
2 suffered extreme privation as a result including inability to provide the necessities of life for
3 himself such as food. His credit rating was also ruined. On June 24, 2009 Ruel Mitchell from
4 IncFortune called plaintiff. Mitchell said Incfortune had been training people to earn an income
5 on the internet since 2001, and was currently earning $3 to $5 million dollars a month. Mitchell
6 promised that for a $30,000 investment plaintiff was guaranteed an income of $15,000 to
7 $20,000 per week by bank wire transfer. Mitchell called by the next day and reduced the price
8 to $15,000 to get started with a second tranche to follow. Plaintiff provided credit card number
9 and in a series of five credit card transactions IncFortune removed $15,000 from plaintiff’s
10 accounts. Plaintiff then received a verification contract that did not reflect the promises made.
11 In response to this Mitchell stated that the contract the agreement was drawn up by lawyers and
12 did not state the true intent and agreement of the company (IncFortune, YourAffiliateSuccess, and
13 JumpLaunch) ss it was only drawn up as a formality to protect trade secrets. Based on this
14 reassurance, plaintiff borrowed $15,000 from his wife to pay the second tranche. To be on the
15 safe side, plaintiff reported Mitchell’s promises to IncFortune, James Murphy responded and
16 stated that Mitchell’s statement were fraud but reiterated plaintiff would be earning money very
17 soon and that arrangements would be made to fly plaintiff to Los Angeles. IncFortune made
18 travel arrangements and transported plaintiff to the “Malibu Mansion” where he met Sipes and
19 Raygoza. Sipes reiterated that plaintiff would get back his $30,000 if he did not make
20 $30,000 in the first month. Shortly thereafter in late July 2009 plaintiff realized he had paid
21 $30,000 for website template hosted by JumpLaunch that would not earn any money and that he
22 was enmeshed in a fraudulent scheme that required him to lie to others via false testimonial
23 solicited by Sipes who said, “Ethics and marketing do not go together.” Plaintiff demanded a
24 refund from Sipes and Raygoza in writing due to fraud. Plaintiff sent numerous communications
25 pleading for the return of his money due to personal circumstances and hardships. Plaintiff’s wife
26 had demanded the return of her funds. In August 2009 Raygoza indicated he might be willing
27 to compromise. But added:
28
“As far as Amex, MasterCard, or Visa is concern – there is no way Visa or
1 MasterCard will favor you in this case so we are not scared of a chargeback. We’ve
processed millions online and we’d be “complete fools” if we didn’t know how to
2 secure our money.”
3 Raygoza did not make an offer to compromise but instead offered to sell plaintiff 1000 leads for
4 $300. Plaintiff made further attempts to secure a refund to no avail. In his phone conversation
5 with IncFortune plaintiff noted that IncFortune representatives had stated that all calls were
6 recorded.
7 80. Barbara Poulson v. IncFortune, Denton, Weitz, Bosley
8 Barbara Poulson, age 66 of Richland, Washington lost $30,000 to defendants. In July 2009
9 plaintiff was subjected to a barrage of emails from John Denton and the DCE soliciting her to join
10 one of the DCE’s money making schemes. Plaintiff then received many calls from salesmen from
11 the DCE one of which induced her to pay $10,000 to IncFortune. in exchange for a guaranteed
12 return of investment. IncFortune made arrangement for plaintiff to travel to Los Angeles where
13 no one would answer her question about making her money back. An IncFortune salesman in
14 December 2009 then called plaintiff and asked how much her limit was on her credit card. He
15 said he only needed this because being that she was working with them as a partner they needed
16 to know she would be able to follow up. However he assured plaintiff no payment would go to
17 them until she earned a profit. In fact, he said she should start seeing a profit in July 2009. He
18 said she would be working with the top people and would be getting in on a different level. The
19 following month, January 2010, plaintiff was mortified to see $20,000 more charged on her credit
20 card to the card’s limit. She immediately called the card company and put it in dispute. After
21 three months they said they could not or would not take it off as she had authorized payment and
22 due to the misrepresentation made by Weitz and/or Bosley. To date plaintiff has not earned a
23 penny and is out $30,000 in credit card debt. On September 20, 2010 plaintiff received the
24 following solicitation from Raygoza, Future Endeavor and Tax Group Center claiming she owed
25 money to the IRS:
26 From: John Paul Raygoza <info@youraffiliatesuccess.com>
To: Barbara <redacted>
27 Sent: Mon, September 20, 2010 1:07:43 PM
Subject: Urgent: Barbara, The IRS May Be Looking For You?
28 Hi Barbara,
I recently saved a lot of money by hiring a really good CPA.
1 The best thing is that this person wasn't expensive - and the plus side is I got back
a huge tax refund:
2 http://futureendeavor.com/clients/taxgroupcenter.com/
I could have owed a lot more money to the IRS but I actually got money back!
3 The IRS may owe you money, or you may owe the IRS money. If you owe money
to the IRS, imagine knowing somebody who can reduce that amount by up to
4 300%. My friend has offered to give you a FREE consultation:
http://futureendeavor.com/clients/taxgroupcenter.com/
5 John
P.S.
6 Don't pay the IRS any money until you visit:
http://futureendeavor.com/clients/taxgroupcenter.com/
7
Plaintiff incurred $30,000 in debt because of the actions of the CE including deliberately false
8
representations made by the CE to her credit card company to cover up outright theft of $20,000.
9
Plaintiff is retired and can ill afford to lose this money. The callous and oppressive nature of the
10
CE is evident by the September 20, 2010 email in which they attempted to ensnare plaintiff in yet
11
another fraudulent activity.
12
81. Mark Mayott v IncFortune, PushTraffic, Raygoza, Sipes
13
Mark Mayott of Vancouver, Canada, who works as a parking lot attendant, was called by Jeff
14
Gold who represented that he owned IncFortune on July 8, 2009. Gold said: “Hi, Mark I see you
15
are looking for an online business?” Plaintiff answered in the affirmative. Gold asked how old
16
plaintiff was and about his children. Gold then asked if plaintiff had credit cards, their numbers
17
and how much available credit on each one. Gold promised plaintiff guaranteed income and
18
a weekly check beginning in 7 days. Gold told plaintiff that if he signed a document he
19
would fax over that the income stream would begin immediately. Plaintiff signed up and was
20
charged $10,000 by PushTraffic. The income stream did not start. However plaintiff was
21
transported to Los Angeles for a seminar. Sipes and Raygoza presented at the seminar. When
22
plaintiff returned home he was called by Jeff Alderson who convinced plaintiff he was in the
23
wrong program and charged him $18,000 to join IncFortune so he could get immediate income
24
and a turnkey website business. Plaintiff has never received a single cent income and been
25
unsuccessful in getting a refund. The credit card companies have garnisheed his earnings to pay
26
back the $28,000 debt.
27
82. Wayne and Jade Daily v. PushTraffic, Denton, Raygoza, Weitz
28
In early 2009, plaintiffs were contact by Denton who promised them they would earn
1 $10,000 to $15,000 a month if they purchased personal training from Raygoza. Based on this
2 intentional lie, plaintiffs paid $10,000 to PushTraffic through their credit cards. Raygoza made
3 arrangements for plaintiffs to be transported to Los Angeles for his seminar. Plaintiffs then
4 received coaching services March through July 2009 and spent $700 additional on advertising the
5 usual CE template website. In July 2009 plaintiffs had not received the money promised by
6 Denton and realized they had been scammed when Google Adwords barred them from advertising
7 because the website provided by the CE was contrary to their policies (fraud). Plaintiffs applied
8 for a refund to Raygoza. Raygoza’s response was to refer him to his “contract.” Plaintiffs then
9 attempted to dispute the credit card charges but attorney Weitz knowing misrepresented the
10 situation to the credit card companies by claiming valuable services were provided. Plaintiffs
11 losses total $10,700.
12 83. Florence Majanil v. IncFortune, JumpLaunch, PushTraffic, Denton
13 Florence Majanil of Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia received a call on August 22, 2009 from
14 PushTraffic salesman Bruce Knight. Knight promised plaintiff that she could have a website
15 that earned $3500 a week for free. The only catch would be that PushTraffic would get 25%
16 of the profits. Knight promised she would make money in 21 to 45 days. Knight also
17 promised to match the money plaintiff put into the scheme. Knight obtained plaintiff’s credit card
18 number and while she was on the telephone charged $6,500 on her credit cards without her
19 knowledge to the credit of PushTraffic and IncFortune. He faxed plaintiff a contract to review
20 without telling her the credit card had already been charged. Plaintiff signed and sent the contract
21 back to Knight. She was then contacted by JumpLaunch and sold a hosting contract. Plaintiff
22 was provided a website http://myprofitableinternetbusiness.com.
23 The website content however shocked plaintiff because it was blatant fraud and stated:
24 “Hi, I’m Florence Majanil. I spent 15 months and over $17,600.00 searching for
honest, work at home programs. What I discovered will MAKE YOU MAD!”
25
On August 30, 2009 Knight requested plaintiff travel to Los Angles for a seminar. But on
26
September 6, 2009 Knight asked for another $1000. When plaintiff refused Knight and
27
PushTraffic ceased communication with her. However, Denton then called plaintiff in mid
28
September 2009 and tried to sell her a website. He claimed he was not associated with
1 PushTraffic but when she refused, he said, “Don’t you have four credit cards?” Plaintiff hung
2 up. As a result of defendant’s deliberate actions, plaintiff has been financially ruined and has
3 suffered a heart attack due to stress.
4 84. Maryann Borzillary v. Denton, MyEbizNow.net Inc., JumpLaunch, Weitz
5 In August 2009, plaintiff who lives in Rochester, New York was called by Denton with
6 MyEbiznow.net who sold her a website to be managed and hosted by PushTraffic and
7 JumpLaunch in a series of transactions between April 29, 2009 and May 7, 2009. Denton
8 claimed he was a millionaire and was friends with Sergey Brin who owns Google. Denton
9 said he would fly plaintiff to California and shake her hand. Denton also told plaintiff he
10 was going to be adding money to plaintiff’s account every week or every other day and he
11 would be speaking to her everyday. Based on these lies, plaintiff paid $1,628 to defendants.
12 Plaintiff attempted to work the program provided but the mentor/coach Ken Steele provided
13 PushTraffic became aware she had very limited skills. After three weeks plaintiff became
14 convinced she had been cheated by Denton and attempted to dispute the credit card charges but
15 Weitz opposed the chargebacks and reinstated the charges. The loss of $1,628 was an extreme
16 hardship to plaintiff.
17 85. Dale Matthews v. Denton, IncFortune
18 Dale Matthews of Bucyrus, Ohio purchased a product on the Internet for $7 from John Denton
19 and DCE. He received a call on or about May 2009 from Bruce Knight who said he was calling
20 for Denton, who was the man behind the $7 product, and they were offering to take a select few
21 of the members and personally “tutor” them. Knight convinced plaintiff to upgrade his
22 membership for less than $100. John Denton then called plaintiff the same day. Denton said that
23 he was looking for 6-8 people to personally train and said that Bruce Knight had contacted him
24 and had referred plaintiff as a good candidate. Denton said that he wanted to bring plaintiff and
25 a few others to his home in Los Angeles for three days of personal training. Denton stated that
26 he wanted plaintiff to upgrade to the VIP level at a cost of $10,000. Plaintiff told him there was
27 no way he could pay that amount since he had just lost his job. Denton stated that plaintiff
28 could put it on his credit card and that Denton would build a web site and would drive

1 traffic to the site so that plaintiff could be earning money within a week and to expect a
2 check within the next two weeks. After determining that plaintiff didn’t have $10,000 worth
3 of credit available Denton said that he would accept $6,000 and that he would make up the rest
4 out of his pocket. Denton then emailed plaintiff a contract from IncFortune and asked him to
5 sign it and send it to the email address
6 (jgold@yahoo.com) so he could get started building his web site. Denton called a few more times
7 and said he would be in contact with plaintiff throughout the process and was anxious to meet and
8 shake plaintiff’s hand when he arrived in Los Angeles. But after plaintiff signed and emailed the
9 contract back he never received any more calls from Denton. He was however transported to a
10 seminar in Los Angeles in September 2009. Plaintiff never received any traffic to his site from
11 Denton and never received a check as promised. Plaintiff made several attempts to contact
12 Denton but got no response.
13 86. Esther Lesperance v. Raygoza, PushTraffic, IncFortune, Denton, Sipes,
14 Bosley, Weitz
15 Esther Lesperance of Winnipeg, Canada lost $20,000 to defendants. In March 2009 plaintiff
16 purchased a DVD called “The Truth” by John Raygoza. On April 3, 2009 she received a high
17 pressure phone call from a salesman at PushTraffic promising plaintiff could earn thousands of
18 dollars selling e-books on the Internet. After Raygoza got on the phone and promised plaintiff
19 annual income of $60,000, she agreed to pay $5000. Plaintiff received services from
20 PushTraffic but earned no money. On August 20, 2009 plaintiff received another phone call from
21 Raygoza saying he had a very exciting offer for her and if she only paid $20,000 he would treat
22 her website like his own, he himself would personally guarantee that she would get all her
23 money back by the end of 2009 but extra money was needed to advertise her site. Raygoza
24 assured her that this worked ever time, since he was a millionaire at the age of 26 years old and
25 he loved to help people. Based on these lies plaintiff paid IncFortune $15,000. On September
26 23, 2009 plaintiff was flown to Los Angeles by defendants for a 2 day seminar hosted by Raygoza
27 to learn Internet Marketing. The Boaz Rauchwerger website was used at the seminar as an
28 example of what could be done for plaintiff. Here she met other people who had a very similar

1 story - amounts of money paid vary greatly but benefits or teaching all seemed very similar with
2 hardly any response from the company and no results. They complained to Hernan Joel Severino,
3 but his response was: “What do you want me to do about it, I only arrange the seminars.” In
4 October 2009 Hernan Joel called plaintiff and said Raygoza and Sipes were in the room and that
5 all her money ($15,000) had been used up on coaching services. Finally, on November 30, 2009
6 plaintiff received another call from Jack Hill of IncFortune offering a “wonderful new
7 opportunity” to work personally with John Raygoza and Folusho Orakunle. Hill offered to make
8 plaintiff a junior partner of the company, the same as John Denton. Plaintiff was to run the
9 Canadian division but in order for her to do this they needed her credit rating to be better than it
10 was at this point. So Jack Hill said please get me your highest maxed out credit card number so
11 that we can decide how to proceed to put your rating back to having a green flag instead of the
12 current red flag. Plaintiff knew John Denton had scammed $15,000 from Heather Paredes. John
13 Raygoza got on the phone for a minute to distract plaintiff while Hill charged her credit card
14 account up to the maximum without her consent. Plaintiff started crying and said she never
15 authorised any withdrawal and Hill said: “Oh other people have cried as well but they are very
16 thankful to us now because this system works and you must believe and have faith because these
17 people are now earning $30,000 a month and are very happy.” In the end Hill relented and
18 withdrew the unauthorized charge but plaintiff did not know so for a week and suffered intense
19 emotional distress. Plaintiff attempted to get her money refunded but paralegal Bosley and
20 attorney Weitz lied to the state attorney general and credit card companies that legitimate services
21 had been provided to plaintiff. Most recently, the RCE’s attorney of record (Neufeld Law Group)
22 threatened plaintiff with a lawsuit for defamation, slander, extortion and conspiracy if she
23 continued to seek a refund. The RCE also continues without consent to use a fraudulent
24 testimonial by plaintiff and her likeness to promote its scam product Rich Maxwell’s Recession
25 Proof Millions without her consent which reads:
26 “I was fortunate to be able to attend Rick's seminar in LA a few weeks ago. He has
the enthusiasm of a young child. It's impossible not to get caught up in it and the
27 next thing you know, you're on the same wavelength knowing without a doubt,
Hey, I can do this too. I must warn you though, beware of his sense of
28 humor!”-Esther Lesperance Winnipeg, Manitoba” at the RCE controlled website:
hmigroupmoneymaking.com/recessionproofmillions/bonuspage.html.
1 See Exhibit: C.
2 87. Al and Diane Breit v. IncFortune, Sipes, Raygoza
3 Allan and Diane Breit of Echo, Wisconsin were cold called in May 2009 by James Murphy
4 representing IncFortune. Murphy offered the Breit’s a turnkey Internet business provided
5 by IncFortune and promised they would earn back their entire $15,000 in 30 days. The
6 Breits were taken in by Murphy’s lie and agreed to pay $15,000. IncFortune then transported the
7 Breit’s to Los Angeles for a seminar at which Sipes was a presenter as well as motivational
8 speaker, Boaz Rauchwerger. In June 2009, Murphy promised to send a technician named Louis
9 Obando to the Breit’s home in Wisconsin to set up their turnkey internet business that would
10 require only one hour of work per week for the sum of $10,000. The Breit’s believed Murphy
11 and paid another $10,000. However nothing came of these efforts and plaintiffs never earned a
12 penny.
13 88. Carlyn Perona v. PushTraffic, JumpLaunch, Sipes, Raygoza
14 Carlyn Perona of Reno, Nevada was telephoned on July 1, 2009 by salesman Brent Austin of
15 PushTraffic who offered her the Mastermind and Inner Circle programs for $15,000. Austin
16 promised within one year she would be making over $100,000 and within two years over
17 $1,000,000. Austin furthered made a money guarantee and stated she would earn her entire
18 investment back before her next credit card statement came due. Austin was able to
19 convince plaintiff to invest $10,000 from her credit card with PushTraffic and JumpLaunch.
20 Plaintiff was transported to Los Angeles by PushTraffic for a seminar. However by October 23,
21 2009, plaintiff was yet to see a penny in income and emailed Sipes and Raygoza demanding a
22 refund. Sipes and Raygoza did not respond. On November 2, 2009 plaintiff wrote yet again to
23 Sipes and Raygoza. Plaintiff to date has been unable to effect a refund from the RCE.
24 89. Tayeko “Tye” Nakawaga v. IncFortune, Raygoza Bosley
25 Tye Nakawaga, age 74 of Laveen, Arizona, whose source of income is a monthly Social Security
26 Retirement check of $997 was called by a salesman Jack Hill from IncFortune on March 26,
27 2010. Hill falsely claimed he represented Google and Clickbank and that according to their
28 records, plaintiff was looking for a profitable home based business. Plaintiff was looking to

1 supplement her income and Hill’s lies disarmed her suspicions. Hill claimed Google and
2 Clickbank would provide a profitable website for plaintiff but she had to produce her credit
3 cards to show her credit worthiness. Plaintiff supplied her credit card account number but did
4 not authorize charges and Hill said he would not use them. Hill said he was interested in her
5 MasterCard accounts because he knew someone on the inside there. Hill then and there without
6 authorization charged $30,000 on her credit cards nearly causing plaintiff a heart attack. Hill then
7 said John Raygoza who had just finished a telephone call with his friend the CEO of Google,
8 wanted to speak with plaintiff. Raygoza spoke to plaintiff and said she would all her money back
9 in three months and convinced plaintiff to sign an agreement. However, plaintiff called back the
10 night of March 26, 2010 and cancelled. Raygoza called plaintiff back on March 27, 2010 and
11 personally guaranteed plaintiff’s investment. IncFortune then provided plaintiff the usual scam
12 template website that they gave to all their victims. Plaintiff complained and was provided
13 another scam website for a weight loss product she was unfamiliar with. On April 16, 2010 Rob
14 Martino from the RCE called plaintiff and told her that he had a new product that would be
15 guaranteed to earn back all her money. Martino stripped the desperate plaintiff’s Discover and
16 American Express card’s of an additional $27,000. Plaintiff became unnerved as her credit was
17 ruined and her only income was $997 a month from Social Security. Plaintiff soon realized she
18 had been scammed and tried to get a refund which was refused. She was, however, able to obtain
19 refunds totaling $30,000 from American Express, Discover Card, and PayPal. The PayPal
20 transaction had been disguised by defendants as a series of small transaction avoid detection. But
21 plaintiff still owes $30,000. When plaintiff disputed the charges and reported IncFortune to the
22 state attorneys general of Arizona and California, Bosley intentionally misrepresented as recently
23 as August 2010 that the situation was one of valuable services received when in fact he knew
24 plaintiff had been scammed and would never see a return of her investment.
25 90. Karen Houdashell v. PushTraffic, JumpLaunch, Successrate, Raygoza, Tax
26 Group Center
27 Karen Houdashell of Richardson, Texas lost $21,000 to the defendants. Plaintiff is the care
28 provider for her elderly relative which makes it difficult for her to take a full time job. On July

1 21, 2009, plaintiff received a phone call from a salesman identifying himself as John Hill from
2 Underground Seminars. He informed plaintiff that by the end of the month she could have 10-15
3 websites and would be trained in how to manage the accounts. He said that the ball would roll
4 quickly. He said that she would have two dedicated coaches and she would have the flexibility
5 of working from anywhere with her laptop. Hill said that she would receive checks every two
6 weeks and he asked for her home address which plaintiff provided. Hill inquired about plaintiff’s
7 debt situation and found he she had not worked full time since 2006. He sent an agreement to
8 review. He told her she would be selling computer software and data marketing and that she
9 needed to think like Bill Gates and she would have to use money to make money and to qualify
10 for a marketing platform for 2-3 websites. He asked if plaintiff had a Visa or MasterCard. She
11 said yes, but they were maxed out. He said she should start with credit cards (Visa, MasterCard,
12 or American Express). Plaintiff agreed to a $3,000 initial investment. Hill said that the initial
13 investment would be paid off in 3-6 months, as well as the current balances on all of the
14 other cards. She gave Hill her Visa, MasterCard, and American Express numbers. He informed
15 plaintiff that PushTraffic had special arrangements with all the leading credit cards (MasterCard,
16 Visa, and American Express) and the companies knew that people associated with PushTraffic
17 would be paying of all their total debt in 2-6 months. He had plaintiff on hold for a little while
18 he conferred with the finance department and then came back on the line. Hill told plaintiff that
19 there was $3,000 available credit on her MasterCard, none on her Visa, and maybe some on her
20 American Express card. Hill then charged $3,000 on her MasterCard but said she would need
21 another $7,000 to go to the Malibu Mansion seminar. Later that evening Hill called again and
22 informed her that through a special arrangement with MasterCard, he had charged $18,000 more
23 on her Diner’s Club MasterCard, something she had not authorized. Plaintiff was stunned but
24 signed an agreement not knowing what else to do. The next day after a sleepless night, on July
25 21, 2009 plaintiff called Diner’s Club MasterCard to find out what happened, there was no
26 special relationship, instead Hill had engaged in money laundering by disguising the $18,000
27 transaction as 21 separate $1,000 transactions. Hill called plaintiff to tell her she would be
28 receiving 100 websites and that she should partner with Jeff Alderson and Brent Austin.

1 PushTraffic transported plaintiff to Los Angeles on August 19-21, 20009 for a seminar and
2 plaintiff discussed her situation with Raygoza. Raygoza assured her it would be a “walk in the
3 park.” Plaintiff however never received a penny in income but on September 22, 2010, plaintiff
4 received the following unsolicited email from defendants as part of the ongoing CE conspiracy
5 to resell victims:
6 From: John Paul Raygoza <admin@2007besthost.com>
To: Karen M Houdashell <redacted>
7 Sent: Wed, September 22, 2010 9:43:46 AM
Subject: Karen M Houdashell Urgent: IRS may be AFTER You!!
8 Hi Karen M Houdashell,
9 Yes, it sounds stupid but the truth is that Karen M Houdashell may actually be
qualified for a refund.
10 You probably think this is a hoax. Therefore, I've included there website:
Tax Group Center
11 Karen M Houdashell:
12 Tax Group Center
13 John R.
P.S. Don't pay the IRS a dime, let them pay you!
14 Tax Group Center
15 91. Joyce Hoke v. PushTraffic
16 Joyce Hoke lives in California and is over age 60. On April 21, 2009, plaintiff was contacted by
17 Michael Vincent who said he worked for PushTraffic and was offering a chance to make a lot
18 of money working from home. Vincent asked next about her credit cards and plaintiff said they
19 were almost maxed out. Plaintiff told Vincent she needed money because she had a lot of bills
20 and a daughter ill with cancer. Vincent offered her a turnkey Internet business and somehow
21 managed to charge $10,000 on her credit card after obtaining the account numbers from plaintiff.
22 Plaintiff was so upset she could not eat or sleep. Pushtraffic provided some coaching and
23 transported plaintiff to Malibu for a seminar. She was provided the web site
24 quickwebcashprofit.com which was the usual template pushing Raygoza’s program. Plaintiff
25 tried to complain to the Better Business Bureau with no result.
26 92. Plaintiffs, designated and presently unnamed but to be identified later, include at least
27 twenty more individuals known to plaintiffs’ attorneys who have been victimized by defendants
28 or are seeking refunds from defendants but who have been intimidated and/or deterred from suing

1 by defendants’ threats of retaliation including lawsuits against them. Others are still laboring
2 under the misconception encouraged by defendants that they will somehow earn back their money
3 through defendants’ illegal scheme. Other have complained to law enforcement including the
4 FBI, California Department of Justice, various state attorneys general and the Los Angeles Police
5 Department but are unaware of the deliberate misrepresentations and obstructions to justice that
6 have been made by attorney Weitz, paralegal Bosley, and other currently unknown attorneys who
7 will be identified at a later date. These include elderly and disabled individuals, at least one over
8 age 90, and about which further details will emerge during discovery.
9 IV. D EFENDANTS
10 93. The Raygoza-Sipes-Denton Criminal Enterprises (CE) consist of seven California
11 corporations directly controlled by Raygoza: PushTraffic, IncFortune, Dot Intel, LLC.
12 Successrate, Inc., YourAffiliateSuccess, Future Endeavor.com, LLC, and JumpLaunch; Denton’s
13 Florida corporation: MyEbizNow.net, Inc and the Hong Kong nominee corporation Multi Faceted
14 Global Ltd., Inc. Sipes controls the California corporation Finity Consulting, LLC which is a
15 twin to Raygoza’s Dot Intel, LLC. Several key employees of Raygoza are also defendants, Weitz,
16 and Bosley. Raygoza crime family members include John Raygoza’s brother Ted Molina. The
17 CE’s assets have been concealed by John Raygoza’s mother Maria Raygoza and wife Vanessa
18 Horlle Raygoza. The CE has also utilized a wide variety of dba’s as noted in the case caption.
19 Tax Group Center is linked to both Raygoza’s Future Endeavor.com LLC. and the San Francisco
20 based corporation, Progressive Tax Group. Defendants are sued individually and jointly and
21 severally as co-conspirators.
22 94. John Raygoza, age 29, is a resident of California. Raygoza controls corporations,
23 sales forces, and personally has involved himself in the CE as one its principles. Raygoza claims
24 to be have become millionaire at age 26 and does upwards of $10 million a year through the CE.
25 In Raygoza’s own words: “Discover How I've Made Over $4.1 MILLION Dollars... In Just 365
26 Days... With A System That Has Never Yet Failed!” Excerpted from www.thetruthdvdseries.com/
27 [Last visited October 2, 2010].
28 95. David Sipes, a resident of California, is Raygoza’s partner in the CE and a resident

1 of California. In Sipe’s own words:

2 “You will find me traveling a lot and working with my good friend and Internet
Marketing Expert himself, John Paul Raygoza, CEO of Push Traffic. Together we
3 are building a sales and coaching program like no other which is focused only
helping Internet Marketers maximize their backend and providing their clients with
4 our one of a kind VIP coaching servic e .” Exc e rpte d f ro m
davidsipes.com/about_me/about_me.htm.
5
6 At the RCE, Sipes supervised the coaching staff and ran the seminars. Sipes as an officer of the
7 RCE also handled customer complaints and uniformly did not refund money despite having full
8 knowledge of the criminal enterprise and false promises made. Further Sipes promotes Raygoza
9 and the RCE through SCE websites like freereviewsites.com linked from davidsipes.com. See
10 Exhibit G1-2.
11 96. Ted Molina, a resident of California is John Raygoza’s half brother and Director of
12 Sales for the Raygoza Criminal Enterprises and helped along with Raygoza and Sipes develop
13 the sales pitches and programs used to ensnare plaintiff in the CE’s web. Molina directly
14 supervised the CE salesmen as General Manager of the Raygoza owned corporations: Murphy,
15 Hill, Austin, Alderson, Martino, Mitchell, Sainz, Silver, Gold and others who inflicted so much
16 damage on plaintiffs. When former CE coaching employee Ken Steele prevented a disabled man
17 from being cheated of $5,000 by CE sales staff, Molina demanded Steele go get “his $5,000
18 back.”
19 97. John Denton is a resident of Florida and goes by the name of “Big John Head
20 Honcho.” Denton controls the Florida corporation MyEbizNet.com, Inc. In Big John’s own
21 words:
22 “The Most Interesting Marketer In The World, If It Ain't BIG Bucks, It Ain't BIG
John! DISCOVER The "REAL" Secrets To Being A Sugar Daddy With Lots Of
23 SUGAR.” Excerpted from www.myspace.com/541979604.
24 Denton steered prospective victims to the CE, sold plaintiffs on a lie, and resold plaintiffs again.
25 Denton has also registered the following dba with the Florida department of Corporations:
26 Turnkey Internet.
27 98. PushTraffic was incorporated in California in May 2007 and its president is John
28 Raygoza. It markets the four part scheme, Advantage, Executive, Mastermind, and Inner Circle

1 via the internet, telephone, chat and in person. The cost is as much as $58,000. However,
2 regardless of which package the victim purchases, the results are the same, the victim does not
3 earn income. According to defendant Bosley in a July 15, 2010 letter to the California
4 Department of Justice on behalf of IncFortune which he claimed was PushTraffic’s successor in
5 interest: “That company is no longer operating and all records of payments, goods shipped, or
6 services provided are not retrievable.” See Exhibit D.
7 99. IncFortune was incorporated in February 2009 in California and its president is John
8 Raygoza. IncFortune markets a parallel scheme to PushTraffic and often is cross sold to the same
9 victims. IncFortune also is a get rich quick scheme:
10 “We at IncFortune will educate you in the business strategies and concepts only
gained at the top IVY League schools. We bring step by step instructions, through
11 one on one coaching with industry leading experts.”
12 IncFortune purportedly sells mentoring and coaching but the promises of riches and lack of
13 results are as fraudulent as those of PushTraffic. IncFortune’s registered agent is the Neufeld
14 Law Group.
15 100. Dot Intel, Inc. was incorporated in California in August 2009 and was converted to
16 a LLC in September 2009. It’s marketing scheme’s content is the same as IncFortune except that
17 it purports to have been founded by an individual named Rob Artino A.K.A. Rob Martino. Dot
18 Intel in fact is controlled by John Raygoza. Dot Intel’s registered agent is the Neufeld Law
19 Group.
20 101. Successrate, Inc. was incorporated in California in June 2009 and its president is
21 John Raygoza. The content of Successrate’s website and marketing scheme is identical to
22 IncFortune and DotIntel. Successrate’s registered agent is the Neufeld Law Group.
23 102. Youraffiliatesuccess was incorporated in California in July 2007 and its president
24 is John Raygoza. As of June 2010, Youraffiliatesuccess claims to be:
25 “‘SOLD OUT’ Due to the overwhelming response from people all across the
world, Singapore, Australia, Europe, UK, Canada, and the United States.
26 YourAffiliateSuccess is now closed.”
27 Youraffiliatesuccess purported to sell banner ads through its affiliates but instead was a scam as
28 is evidenced by the content of its cached website which promised victims they could become

1 millionaires just like Raygoza. See Ex 3.

2 103. JumpLaunch was incorporated in California in December 2007. Its president is John
3 Raygoza and the registered agent is the Neufeld Law Group. JumpLaunch provides internet
4 hosting and search engine optimization packages costing anywhere between $5 and $2,400. It
5 also provides services to the other members of the RCE and provides marketing leads from its
6 customer.
7 104. FutureEndeavor.com, LLC is a California corporation incorporated October 2, 2009.
8 It’s principle officer is John raygoza and registered agent is the Neufeld Law Group.
9 FutureEndeavor’s involvement as part of the CE has been twofold: intimidation of plaintiff and
10 an attempt to sell plaintiffs on yet another scam. After the filing of this lawsuit, FutureEndeavor
11 salesmen contacted some of the plaintiffs. Neufeld Law Firm was asked to cease and desist from
12 harassing plaintiffs. However, FutureEndeavor in partnership with Progressive Tax Group doing
13 business as Tax Group Center sent offensive and harassing emails to plaintiffs as recently as
14 September 21, 2010 informing them the IRS was after them and trying to ensnare them in yet
15 another scam.
16 105. MyEbizNow.net, Inc is a Florida corporation incorporated January 2, 2009. The
17 principle officer is John Denton. MyEixNow.net is the engine behind the CE, bringing in
18 hundreds of prospective victims, including about half the instant plaintiffs, by selling low priced
19 software that purport to make millions but actually used to prospect for CE victims by upselling
20 them to services controlled by the Raygoza corporations.
21 106. Finity Consulting, LLC is a California corporation incorporated November 30, 2007.
22 The only listed partner with the California Secretary of State is David Sipes although the website
23 lists Sipes’ wife Marina Skegin as the CEO. The website of defendant Dot Intel is virtually the
24 same as Finity Consulting. Plaintiffs allege that Finity Consulting is part of the CE and that is
25 used to prospect for victims and/or launder funds.
26 107. Multifaceted Global Corp. Inc. is a Hong Kong corporation doing business as Just
27 Ask Big John and controlled by Denton through a nominee director, Deep Top Consultancy, Inc.
28 Multifaceted also launders money for the CE and DCE by providing an offshore Hong Kong bank

1 account. See Exhibits F1-2.

2 108. Progressive Tax Group is a California corporation based in San Francisco doing
3 business as Tax Group Center. Progressive Tax Group entered into an arrangement with Raygoza
4 and Future Endeavor.com LLC to prospect for clients via scma emails that were received by
5 plaintiffs and informed plaintiffs the IRS is after them. See Exhibit H.
6 109. Andrew Weitz was the in house or corporate attorney for the RCE in 2009-2010.
7 Weitz was present during sales calls and attended seminars. Weitz had full knowledge of false
8 promises made by the RCE, their credit card manipulations, and intimidation of clients. Weitz
9 assisted the CE by providing form adhesion contracts and instructing Raygoza to make sure
10 plaintiffs’ signed the contract or verifications. Weitz then intentionally made hundreds of
11 misrepresentations to the Better Business Bureau, state attorneys general, Federal Trade
12 Commission, banks and credit card companies, and other regulatory agencies that complaining
13 parties including plaintiffs has actually received services and that the CE was in no way
14 responsible for their misery and financial losses. Weitz traded on his status as a licensed
15 California attorney to assist the CE in stripping the elderly, disabled, and unemployed of assets
16 and placing them into debt. Weitz’s current registration with the California Bar lists him as
17 having Active Status and lists his address as “dreammarriage.com” 9701 Wilshire Bld. Beverly
18 Hills, California.
19 110. Christopher Bosley is the CE’s paralegal and has performed much the same function
20 as Weitz above. In one instance Bosley misled the California Department of Justice by claiming
21 PushTraffic which is an active California corporation had ceased business and that no records
22 existed. See Exhibit D. Bosley made numerous similar misrepresentations to banks, credit card
23 companies and other agencies.
24 111. Maria Raygoza is the mother of John Raygoza and is a resident of California. Maria
25 Raygoza was the initial registered agent for several of the Raygoza corporations and is an affiliate
26 of FutureEndeavor,com, LLC through her California corporation Sales Mango. Substantial
27 criminal assets gained by the RCE through illegal means have been transferred to accounts under
28 the control of Maria Raygoza.

1 112. Vanessa Horlle Raygoza is the wife of John Raygoza, a resident of California and
2 a citizen of Brazil. Assets of the RCE have been transferred to and concealed under the name of
3 defendant Horille-Raygoza.
4 113. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as
5 DOES 1 - 100, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs
6 will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained. Plaintiffs
7 are informed and believe and therefore allege that each of the fictitiously named defendants are
8 responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that plaintiffs’ injuries as
9 herein alleged were proximately caused by such defendants. These fictitiously named defendants
10 are herein referred to collectively as “defendants” and include agents, employees, affiliates and
11 lawyers associated with the RCE, some of whom have used fictitious names in dealing with
12 plaintiffs to mask their actual identities. Plaintiff further assert that Doe defendants include
13 attorneys, law firms, and credit card processors that have knowingly and intentionally assisted in
14 this criminal enterprise and will be named when discovered.
15 V. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO RICO
16 All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants except Progressive Tax Group
17 114. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if plead fully herein the entire section of the
18 complaint under “plaintiffs” which spells out in details the actions complained of herein.
19 115. From all relevant times beginning with the founding of PushTraffic in 2007 to
20 present, defendants conspired with one another to defraud plaintiffs and others and to obtain the
21 property of plaintiffs and others through illegal conduct, including extortion and bank, credit card,
22 mail, and wire fraud.
23 116. The complex scheme to defraud and racketeering activities through which the
24 defendants succeeded in taking illegally the property of plaintiffs and other victims consisted of
25 an intricate pattern of individual transactions and group transactions controlled by John Raygoza,
26 Sipes, and Denton with help from Weitz, Molina, and Bosley and assets concealed under the
27 names of Maria Raygoza, Vanessa Horlle Raygoza, Finity Consulting, LLC, and Multifaceted
28 Global Ltd., Inc. of Hong Kong.

1 117. In carrying out the scheme to defraud plaintiffs and other victims, defendants
2 engaged, inter alia, in conduct in violation of criminal statutes including mail, wire, and bank
3 fraud, 18 U.S.C. §1341, §1343, §1344 ; use of false identities, 18 U.S.C. § 1342, blackmail and
4 extortion, 18 U.S.C. § 1951; interstate and foreign travel in aid of racketeering enterprises, 18
5 U.S.C. § 1952; and money laundering, 18 U.S.C. §1957. For example, bank wire transfers were
6 utilized both domestically and internationally to receive funds as part of the criminal scheme.
7 Credit card, debit card, and PayPal accounts belonging to plaintiffs were emptied often without
8 their consent. Additionally, credit limits were tampered without plaintiffs’ consent so that more
9 debt was loaded on accounts. Questionable transactions were disguised as a series of small
10 transactions, in one case 21 separate $1000 credit card charges, to defeat bank anti fraud
11 detection. Banks and federal and state agencies were lied to repeatedly about the nature of the
12 CE and the promises extended to plaintiffs. False identities were adopted by the defendants
13 including Jeff Alderson by Raygoza (Sandifer and Menz), Rich Maxwell, use of false testimonials
14 as related by Boaz Ruchweiger and others as set forth in the “plaintiffs” section of the complaint.
15 Plaintiffs were subject to high pressure sales pitches which amounted to extortion when they were
16 told that they needed to make additional investments or lose their previous investment - see
17 “plaintiffs” section of the complaint for details. (See also Many instances of interstate travel are
18 documented in the “plaintiffs” section of the complaint primary among which were the
19 international and domestic travel for seminars arranged by the CE, travel by principles of the CE
20 including Raygoza to conduct seminars in Singapore (De Courcey), and travel to Wisconsin by
21 a CE employee to set up a phony internet business (Al & Diane Breit).
22 118. The activities of the defendants in the formation and execution of the scheme and
23 artifice to defraud, acts of extortion, and money laundering caused and continue to cause
24 pervasive and substantial harm to persons engaged in interstate and foreign commerce, including
25 harm to the plaintiffs, victims, and potential victims. Plaintiffs were neophyte Internet marketeers
26 or people looking for legitimate work at home opportunities. Defendants have amassed their
27 millions by almost exclusively by abusing credit card accounts of the elderly, disabled, the
28 working poor, retired, and unemployed who can least afford these losses. The CE has reached out

1 to encompass victims in Malaysia, Australia, England, Ireland, Saipan, and Canada as it reckoned
2 that foreign residents would have little or no recourse against the CE. In fact eighteen plaintiffs
3 are from outside the United States, seven plaintiffs are disabled, and fourteen plaintiffs are 65 or
4 older.
5 119. During the relevant times, and in furtherance of and for the purpose of executing the
6 scheme and artifice to defraud, defendants on numerous occasions used, and caused to be used,
7 interstate and foreign wire facilities, including bank and credit card accounts, as a means to
8 obtain money and property by means of false pretenses, constituting the offense of mail fraud,
9 in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341; use of a fictitious name in carrying out fraud, in violation of 18
10 U.S.C. § 1342; wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343; bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.
11 § 1344; and conspiracy to commit the aforementioned fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1349. See plaintiffs
12 section (§§ to 50) of complaint for complete details.
14 scheme and artifice to defraud, defendants conspired to, attempted to, or did obstruct, delay or
15 affect commerce, by extortion as defined in, and in violation, of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(b)(2).
16 Extortionate acts included a death threat by Hernan Severino and Molina to 70 year old Ewing
17 Lee Dale in Georgia and numerous instances of plaintiffs’ money being held hostage to
18 extortionate demands for more investments as outlined in the plaintiffs section of the complaint.
20 scheme and artifice to defraud, defendants traveled interstate and internationally to Singapore and
21 used the telephone and internet VOIP technology to commit, solicit, or simulate acts of violence
22 in furtherance of unlawful activity and to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate the
23 promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of unlawful activity, in violation of 18
24 U.S.C. § 1952. Specifically Ewing Lee Dale received a telephone death threat from Molina and
25 Severino and numerous instances of use of telecommunication to defraud plaintiffs is detailed in
26 the plaintiffs section of the complaint.
27 122. During the relevant times, defendants knowingly and intentionally and attempted to
28 transport, transmit, and transfer monetary instruments and funds from inside the United States to

1 or through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States from or through
2 a place outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful
3 activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956. Specifically, defendant corporations Successrate, Dot
4 Intel, PushTraffic, JumpLaunch, IncFortune, and YourAffiliate success made use of their
5 commercial credit card accounts to collect funds from plaintiffs across the United States and in
6 foreign countries. The funds were then collected in corporate accounts and then disbursed to
7 Sipes, Denton, Raygoza, Maria Raygoza, Vanessa Raygoza, Molina, and Weitz. Other funds
8 were reinvested in new ventures like FutureEndeavor and Sales Mango or allied companies like
9 15rounds.com, Finity Consulting and the Denton controlled entities, MyEbizNow.net Inc and
10 Multifaceted Global Corp. Ltd. Defendants Raygoza and Maria Raygoza have transported some
11 of the funds outside the United States and defendant Denton has set up a Hong Kong entity,
12 Multifaceted Global Corp Limited in order to launder funds outside the United States. Foreign
13 plaintiffs have transmitted funds to accounts controlled by the CE within the United States by
14 wire, electronic transfer and credit card.
15 VI. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO THE L ANHAM A CT
16 All Plaintiffs who were provided template websites vs. Raygoza, Sipes, JumpLaunch,
17 Successrate, IncFortune, PushTraffic, Dot Intel, YourAffiliateSuccess
18 123. The elements for a false advertising claim under Section 43(a) of The Lanham
19 Act codified as 15 U.S.C. §1125(a) are: (1) a false statement of fact by the defendant in a
20 commercial advertisement about its own or another’s product; (2) the statement actually
21 deceived or has the tendency to deceive a substantial segment of its audience; (3) the
22 deception is material, in that it is likely to influence the consumer’s purchasing decision; (4)
23 the defendant caused its false statement to enter interstate commerce; and (5) the plaintiff has
24 been or is likely to be injured as a result of the false statement, either by a direct diversion of
25 sales from itself to defendant or by a lessening of the good will associated with its products.
26 124. The plaintiffs have standing to sue under The Lanham Act as competitors to the
27 RCE. The RCE scheme as much as it was carried out at times in regards to some or all of the
28 plaintiffs involved setting up a websites which competed with the RCE websites. The

1 plaintiff or victim was then supposed to be paid a set amount for each client referral provided
2 to the RCE. In essence, the plaintiff was set up as a competitor to the RCE and was
3 competing for the same clientele, individuals seeking a legitimate home based Internet
4 business.
5 125. The advertising employed by the RCE was false in that promised impossible
6 returns that could never have been achieved by the any of the purchasers; the deception and
7 inducement were the plausibly false promises of quick riches as exemplified in “I Discovered
8 3 Programs that made me over $24,500 per month. I spend around 12 hours per week and I
9 replaced my full time job in 2 weeks.” See Exhibit E which is the cookie cutter template
10 website provided to the many of the plaintiffs as detailed in the plaintiffs section of the
11 complaint.
12 126. The RCE operated interstate and promoted the false advertising worldwide
13 through the internet, direct sales calls, and seminars and trade shows and seminars held in
14 California, Singapore, and elsewhere. For example, the RCE advertised the blatantly false
15 Recession Proof Millions program discussed supra while Denton advertised Money Montage
16 which promised income of $103,337.11 per month. See http://www.justaskbigjohn.com/.
17 127. The RCE false advertising using the resources of the RCE made it impossible for
18 plaintiffs to compete on a level footing. The false advertising also engendered so much
19 adverse publicity and complaints to the Better Business Bureau [bbb.org] and online forums
20 like Rip Off Report™ that any potential good will towards plaintiffs’ advertising ventures
21 were poisoned by the RCE. Several plaintiffs had their accounts suspended by Google
22 Adwords because the RCE provided template websites were deemed fraudulent. As a result
23 every one of plaintiffs’ home based businesses failed from the inception.
24 VII. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO F RAUD
25 All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants except Maria Raygoza, Vanessa Raygoza,
26 Multifaceted Global Corp., Inc., Finity Consulting LLC and Progressive Tax Group
27 128. The elements of fraud under California law are “a representation, usually of fact,
28 which is false, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance upon the

1 representation, and damage resulting from the justifiable reliance.” Stansfield v. Starkey, 220
2 Cal. Appellant. 3d 59, 72-73 (1990).
3 129. Defendants knowingly made through their internet advertisements numerous
4 intentional misrepresentations about their products, the gist of which were that plaintiffs
5 would be purchasing a guaranteed profitable home based internet business when in fact the
6 substandard package of service provided by defendant RCE that provided little of value. See
7 plaintiffs section (§§ 50) for the false promises highlighted in bold made to each plaintiff.
8 130. Defendants also utilized high pressure pitchmen and boiler room salesmen who
9 falsely promised huge profits and turnkey businesses to plaintiffs. And after accessing
10 plaintiffs and other victims’ debit and credit accounts, they emptied these accounts to their
11 limits and promised that profits would be in hand before the first payment would come due
12 from the bank.
13 131. Defendants also practiced upselling and reselling to those they have initially
14 defrauded with more false promises that they would recoup their money through joint
15 ventures with John Raygoza that could not fail due to the direct participation of Raygoza or
16 similar false tales as detailed in the plaintiffs section of the complaint.
17 132. Plaintiffs relied on the seemingly plausible statements of defendants. Defendants
18 utilized well known and trusted trademarks from AOL™, MySpace™, MSN™, Yahoo™,
19 CNNMoney™, Forbes™, CBSMarketwatch™ and Google™ in their presentations and ads to
20 provide legitimacy and allay suspicions. See Ex. PT2
21 133. Defendants also utilized their “Malibu Beach Mansion” as symbol of success and
22 as a venue to upsell victims and plaintiffs in person. However Ruchweiger and others were
23 warned by Raygoza not tell plaintiffs that the mansion was rented as he wanted them to think
24 it belonged to Raygoza.
25 134. False and factitious written and video testimonials promising vast wealth were
26 also utilized by defendants. See for example John Paul Raygoza on the Beach Work at Home.
27 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDk5F3H8sdA&feature=related]
28 135. John Raygoza also used his so called “crib” or condo located 1155 South Grand

1 Ave., Los Angeles, California, as a prop for his fraudulent inducement and produced a video
2 called John Paul Raygoza Lifestyle - a Look at Where John Raygoza Lives .
3 [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3y52hK2v3M&NR=1]
4 136. Some of the plaintiffs were particularly vulnerable to Raygoza’s blandishments as
5 they were “newbies” or technologically unsophisticated, disabled, in financial distress,
6 unemployed, disabled or elderly. The RCE marketing staff took advantage of plaintiffs’
7 gullibility and their circumstances.
8 137. All plaintiffs lost their investments and suffered additional losses when they
9 attempted to implement the RCE’s surefire home business. All defendants have profited to
10 the detriment of the plaintiffs. The actual details are plead in specificity in the plaintiffs
11 section of the complaint.
12 VIII. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO F ALSE A DVERTISING
13 All Plaintiffs versus all Defendants except Maria Raygoza, Vanessa Raygoza,
15 138. To state a claim for false advertising under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 , the
16 plaintiff must show that (1) the statements in the advertising are untrue or misleading and (2)
17 the defendants knew, or by the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that the
18 statements were untrue or misleading. People v. Lynam, 253 Cal.App.2d 959, 965 (1967).
19 139. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs and bring this action
20 pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17535.
21 140. Defendants continue to this day to engage in a pattern and practice of false
22 advertising as noted infra and constitute a danger to the public at large.
23 IX. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO U NFAIR C OMPETITION
26 141. California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. forbids unfair
27 competition defined as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent act or practice. Plaintiffs
28 incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of the complaint.

1 142. Defendants utilized high pressure phone solicitors and telephonic marketeers in
2 making their fraudulent sales pitches to plaintiffs. Denton, Raygoza, and the sales force under
3 the control of Molina relied heavily upon making cold calls to prospective victims under the
4 guise of offering them a home based business. The Raygoza Criminal Enterprise maintained a
5 telephone boiler room in Los Angeles Under various guises detailed under the individual
6 plaintiffs, defendants obtained plaintiffs’ credit card account numbers purportedly to assess
7 their creditworthiness. Plaintiff were immediately charged large sums of money prior to
8 consenting to purchasing any product. The services promised, namely a money making home
9 business were never provided as not a single plaintiff earned any money. Plaintiffs’ orders
10 were not fulfilled or refunded within thirty days pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
11 17538(a).
12 143. Several plaintiffs tried to rescind their purchases from RCE within 30 days of
13 purchase. RCE has refused to refund the claims in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §
14 17538(a). Other plaintiffs tried to rescind immediately and rarely succeeded. In any event
15 defendants never delivered what was the actual subject of the transaction - services that would
16 result in guaranteed profits.
17 144. On information and belief, plaintiffs allege defendants have not registered with
18 the state and/or complied with the requirements of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17511 et seq.
19 regulating telephonic sales and therefore operate an illegal telephone boiler room operation in
20 California.
21 X. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO E LDER A BUSE
22 All Elderly and Disabled Plaintiffs versus all Defendants except Maria Raygoza,
Vanessa Raygoza, Multifaceted Global Corp., Inc., Finity Consulting LLC
23 and Progressive Tax Group
24 145. The following plaintiffs are age 65 or older: Forcier, Breckenridge, Ewing Lee
25 Dale, Cornelius, Stewart, Blanscett, Woods, Sandifer, Radder, Hester, Tan, Jones, Poulson
26 and Nakawaga, their ages being stated in the plaintiffs section of the complaint. The
27 following plaintiffs are disabled: Joseph, Forcier, Dale, Youree, Proffer, Rogers, and Johnson.
28 146. According to the WHO (World Health Organization) elder abuse is often defined

1 as a single, or repeated act, or lack of appropriate action, occurring within any relationship
2 where there is an expectation of trust which causes harm or distress to an older person.
3 Elderly generally means a person 60 or 65 years of age. Plaintiffs include individuals 65 or
4 older and/or disabled who were specifically targeted by the RCE because of their age,
5 disabilities, medical conditions and lack of sophistication about the Internet. These vulnerable
6 individuals could not resist the blandishments of CE’s sales force and were not able to
7 adequately+ look out for themselves. These individuals were least able to afford the financial
8 losses caused by the CE.
9 147. This constitutes a conspiracy to commit Elder Financial Abuse pursuant to Cal.
10 Wel. & Inst. Code § 15610.30 and violations of the laws of Minnesota, Georgia, and
11 international law.
12 148. As to Clarence Forcier, a citizen of Minnesota, this constitutes Maltreatment of a
13 Vulnerable Adult as Forcier at all times relevant herein was a victim of stroke and a senior
14 citizen with brain damage unable to protect himself adequately and receiving in home
15 services. The high pressure sales tactics of defendants, false promises, and targeting of
16 Forcier due to his medical condition violated Minnesota Statutes § 626.557 subdivision 20.
17 Forcier seeks compensatory damages in the amount of $90,000 ($30,000 trebled) plus attorney
18 fees and costs pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 626.557 subdivision 20.
19 149. As to Ewing Dale Lee, Georgia further protects Elderly Persons such as plaintiff,
20 defined as any person 60 years of age or older [O.C.G.A. § 10-1-850 (2)], against unfair or
21 deceptive business practices resulting in a loss of property or assets, or mental or emotional
22 anguish [O.C.G.A. § 10-1-852] , by imposing a civil penalty of up to $10,000 in addition to
23 any other penalties incurred when the act is against an elderly person [O.C.G.A. § 10-1-851],
24 and establishes a civil cause of action to recover actual as well as punitive damages for
25 injuries suffered as a result of an offense of the act [O.C.G.A. § 10-1-853].
26 150. Plaintiffs believe that abuse of the elderly and disabled falls under customary
27 international law and that those plaintiffs not resident in the United States may bring a cause
28 of action for abuse. As to plaintiffs in the United States, various state schemes protect the

1 elderly and disabled but may not provide for civil remedies. Plaintiffs therefore seek a
2 declaratory finding, statutory damages, and punitive damages.
3 XI. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO N EGLIGENCE
4 All Plaintiffs against RCE corporations, Raygoza, Sipes, Molina,
6 151. Raygoza, Molina, Sipes and the various corporations failed to supervise their
7 sales staffs’ from making false promises to plaintiffs. As a result of these false promises
8 which have been disclaimed by Raygoza, Sipes, and Molina a long term pattern emerged of
9 which Raygoza, Sipes, and Molina were aware but did nothing to prevent. The false promises
10 of profits and money induced each and every plaintiff to engage the so called services of
11 defendants. Plaintiffs complained frequently to Raygoza, Molina and Sipes about the abusive
12 actions of their sales force. Yet Raygoza, Sipes and Molina either ignored or disclaimed any
13 responsibility. This constitutes a pattern of negligent behavior and gross negligence that has
14 harmed each and every plaintiff financially and emotionally.
15 152. Defendants FutureEndeavor, Raygoza and Progressive Tax Group, despite a
16 warning on July 16, 2010 from plaintiffs’ attorneys to Neufeld Law Group, the registered
17 agent for Future Endeavor.com LLC and attorney for Raygoza, for defendants to cease and
18 desist soliciting plaintiffs, have continued to engage in a campaign of unsolicited email to
19 some of the plaintiffs as detailed in the plaintiffs’ section of this complaint which terrorized
20 and intimidated the plaintiffs by telling them the IRS was after them and attempting to ensnare
21 them in yet another Raygoza scam. This email campaign which was totally unwarranted and
22 caused emotional distress to plaintiffs. The company ultimately behind the emails was
23 Progressive Tax Group which did not exercise appropriate concern or control over its
24 affiliates Tax Group Center, Raygoza, and FutureEndeavor.com LLC. Progressive Tax
25 Group, which was only interested in harvesting leads, negligently entrusted it marketing to
26 Raygoza and FutureEndeavor who despite warning from plaintiffs’ attorney tried yet again to
27 scam plaintiffs who have no need of tax advice having had all their wealth already stolen by
28 the CE.

1 XII. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO M ONEY H AD & R ECEIVED

2 All Plaintiffs against All Defendants except Progressive Tax Group
3 153. Plaintiff all paid money to defendants in expectation that promises made by
4 defendants of guaranteed returns on their investments would be achieved as detailed in the
5 plaintiffs section of the complaint incorporated herein by reference.
6 154. Plaintiffs did not earn any return of their investment but the funds were not
7 refunded to plaintiffs.
8 155. Plaintiffs therefore allege the existence of a constructive trust and demand
9 restitution of their money from the various defendants.
10 XIII. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO R ECISSION
11 All Plaintiffs against the RCE Corporations
12 156. Defendants as part of their scheme had most of the plaintiffs sign documents
13 called verifications or contracts.
14 157. All plaintiffs were told the documents were just verifications or unimportant
15 confirmations.
16 158. Defendant utilized fraud, deceit, and duress to force plaintiffs to sign the
17 documents as outlined in the plaintiffs section of the complaint.
18 159. Plaintiff Richard Joseph had been told he was dying and was on his supposed
19 death bed yet was hounded by the RCE to sign the document. When he physically could not
20 they hounded his secretary until she signed for him.
21 160. All contracts with PushTraffic have been lost according to defendant Bosley’s
22 July 15, 2010 letter to the California Department of Justice. See Exhibit D.
23 161. The documents were used to further the CE by Bosley, Weitz, Raygoza, Sipes
24 and others by utilizing them to oppose requests for refunds by plaintiffs, chargebacks from the
25 banks and credit card companies and to obstruct justice.
26 162. The documents in question contained a restrictive arbitration clause.
27 163. Plaintiffs seek a finding of recission and that the clause was invalid ab initio due
28 to fraud, duress, coercion, lack of capacity and their use which was not to memorialize an

1 agreement but to perpetuate a criminal enterprise.

2 XIV. F ACTS P ERTAINING TO U NAUTHORIZED U SE OF L IKENESS
3 Esperance, Dale, and Hester vs. Raygoza, Sipes, RCE corporations
4 164. California Civil Code § 3344 provides for a statutory remedy when a person’s
5 photograph is used without their consent to advertise a product: Any person who knowingly
6 uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in
7 products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting
8 purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior
9 consent...shall be liable for damages...”
10 165. The RCE scam website Rich Maxwell’s Recession Proof Millions -
11 www.hmigroupmoneymaking.com/recessionproofmillions/bonuspage.html [last viewed
12 October 3, 2010] utilizes pictures of plaintiffs Hester, Dale, and Esperance and false
13 testimonials endorsing a scam product called Rich Maxwell’s Recession Proof Millions. See
14 Exhibit C.
15 166. The website in question is a feeder website for the RCE by providing leads for it.
16 167. Not only are plaintiffs’ photos used without their consent but the testimonials for
17 the scam product were made up by defendants.
18 168. The website was originally framed for Boaz Ruchweiger but the fictitious Rich
19 Maxwell was substituted after Ruchweiger refused to work with the RCE due to its abusive
20 and fraudulent activities.
21 169. Plaintiffs are particularly disturbed by the use of their photos as they are shown
22 check and jowl with the photos of their tormentors: Raygoza, Sipes, Murphy, and Severino
23 who are also endorsing the scam product and fake impresario Rich Maxwell.
24 170. Severino being the same individual who along with Molina made a death threat to
25 plaintiff Dale.
26 XV. C ALIFORNIA B USINESS AND P ROFESSIONS C ODE § 17529.5
27 Plaintiffs Who Received Email from Tax Group Center -
Breckenridge, Woods, Proffer, Radder, Rogers, Yorke, Poulson. Houdashell
28 vs. Raygoza, FutureEndeavor,com, LLC and Progressive Tax Group

1 171. California Business and Professions Code Section § 17529.5(a)(3) provides a

2 remedy for unsolicited emails sent from California which: “The e-mail advertisement has a
3 subject line that a person knows would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably
4 under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the
5 message.”
6 172. The email in question received by various plaintiffs as detailed in the plaintiffs
7 section has the following subject line: “Urgent: IRS may be AFTER you!!”
8 173. The email was sent by California resident Raygoza and California corporation
9 Future Endeavor.com on behalf of California corporation Progressive Tax Group doing
10 business as Tax Group Center.
11 174. The purported purpose of the mass emailing was to trick unsuspecting recipients
12 into clicking onto the taxgroupcenter.com and the website and calling a phone number that
13 provides lead for Progressive Tax Group.
14 176. The Tax Group center website is also hosted as a subdomain by Future
15 Endeavor.com, LLC at http://futureendeavor.com/clients/taxgroupcenter.com/ [last visited
16 10/3/2010].
17 177. Progressive Tax Group is the verified beneficiary of the unsolicited emails as all
18 calls received and other leads received are routed to Progressive Tax Group agents.
19 XVI. C AUSES OF A CTION
20 C OUNT I ~ V IOLATION OF RICO § 1962(a)
22 178. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate herein, as though fully set forth, the allegations
23 of all preceding paragraphs of the complaint.
24 179. Defendants individually and as coconspirators received income from a pattern of
25 racketeering, as described below.
26 180. The defendants and the Raygoza Criminal Enterprise (RCE) received income as a
27 result of their racketeering, which was effected through mail, bank and wire fraud, money
28 laundering, extortion, and violations of the Travel Act which included, but is not limited to, a

1 pattern of deceit and lying to obtain funds, intentionally placing unconsented-to charges on
2 credit and debit cards, deception in obtaining confidential credit card account numbers,
3 moving money between banks accounts domestically and internationally in furtherance of a
4 crime, foreign and interstate travel in furtherance of a crime, and extortion and blackmail of
5 victims including a death threat. Defendants then invested the proceeds of their criminal
6 activities in their various corporations, some of which were set up to launder funds - Finity
7 Consulting, LLC and Multifaceted Global Corp., Ltd. or concealed assets with family
8 members. Several corporations were set up with solely with the proceeds of the criminal
9 enterprise including IncFortune, Multifaceted Global Corp., Inc, Youraffiliatesuccess and
10 Future Endeavor.com, LLC. As a result of this income defendants established, have
11 maintained and have expanded the Raygoza Criminal Enterprise (RCE), Denton Criminal
12 Enterprise (DCE) and Sipes Criminal Enterprise (SCE) which utilizes plaintiff victim’s money
13 to continue to commit crimes.
14 181. As a direct and proximate result of above defendants’ use of racketeering
15 plaintiffs have suffered direct losses and damages in an amount in excess of $750,000.
16 C OUNT II ~ V IOLATION OF RICO § 1962(b)
18 182. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if set out in full.
19 183. The defendants individually and as coconspirators received income from a pattern
20 of racketeering, as described above in which victims are recruited via Internet or cold called.
21 The victims are promised guaranteed returns - fraud and theft by false pretenses. The CE then
22 prospected the victim’s credit accounts and extracts as much cash as possible often without
23 the plaintiffs’ consent. The victim is not provided any return on investment but is bewildered
24 by an array of shoddy services and materials including template websites the victim promotes
25 that lead other victims to the CE. The victims is then resold another time or two if possible on
26 the same program under a different name. When the victim complains, a so called contract is
27 used to defeat chargebacks, requests for refunds, and inquiries by regulatory agencies and law
28 enforcement - obstruction of justice and bank fraud. Defendant Raygoza claims to have

1 earned over $4 million dollars in a single year. Defendant Denton also claims to be a
2 millionaire as a result of his Internet activities.
3 184. The actions of defendants have effected interstate and foreign commerce by
4 committing interstate and international wire fraud, credit card fraud, and creation of a global
5 network of criminal activity including establishment numerous criminal enterprise
6 corporations and dba’s to fleece the elderly disabled, unemployed, and retired on four
7 continents.
8 185. As a direct result of the operations of the criminal enterprise, plaintiffs have
9 suffered direct losses and damages in excess of $750,000
10 C OUNT III ~ V IOLATION OF RICO § 1962(c)
13 187. All individual defendants conducted and participated in the conduct of the RCE
14 through a pattern of racketeering activity.
15 188. The pattern of racketeering included mail, bank, and wire fraud, money
16 laundering, extortion, violations of the Travel Act, and other illegal acts as set forth above and
17 in the plaintiffs section of the complaint in particularity. Defendants as part of their illegal
18 enterprise made travel arrangements to bring plaintiffs to Los Angeles, Malibu and Singapore
19 and themselves traveled to Singapore, Hong Kong and Wisconsin in furtherance of the
20 conspiracy.
21 189. As a direct and proximate result of above defendants’ racketeering conduct,
22 plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount in excess of $750,000.
23 C OUNT IV ~ V IOLATION OF RICO § 1962(d)
26 200. Pursuant to the Illegal Scheme, the above defendants conspired among
27 themselves, and with others, to violate section §1962(a), (b), (c). The ringleaders in the
28 conspiracy were Raygoza, Sipes, and Denton. Raygoza also recruited members of his own

1 family, his brother, wife, and mother into the conspiracy and employees Bosley and Weitz.
2 201. The above defendants knowingly agreed among themselves to commit or
3 participate in at least two Predicate Acts in furtherance of the Conspiracy. The predicate acts
4 include money laundering, theft, extortion, bank, mail and wire fraud, obstruction of justice
5 and receiving stolen property as detailed in the plaintiffs’ section of the lawsuit and elsewhere
6 herein.
7 203. Given the complexity and far-reaching nature of the Conspiracy, coupled with the
8 number of instances in which the above defendants engaged in the Predicate Acts alleged
9 herein, the Predicate Acts committed by the above defendants could not have been committed
10 without coordination and agreement among the above defendants to knowingly participate in
11 the Conspiracy.
12 204. Raygoza, Sipes, and Denton were the principle conspirators and assisted by
13 Molina, Weitz, and Bosley using the corporations and entities set up by the conspirators.
14 Maria Raygoza, Denton, and Vanessa Horille Raygoza have helped to conceal and receive
15 funds generated by the conspiracy. Weitz and Bosley acted to prevent chargebacks and
16 investigations. Sipes stifled refund inquiries by plaintiffs and to provide services as window
17 dressing for the conspiracy. Denton, Raygoza, and Molina directly made fraudulent promises
18 to plaintiffs and/or supervised directly the sales force.
19 205. As a direct and proximate result of above defendants’ racketeering conspiracy,
20 plaintiffs have suffered damages in an amount in excess of $750,000.
21 C OUNT V ~ V IOLATION OF T HE L ANHAM A CT 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
F ALSE A DVERTISING & U NFAIR C OMPETITION
22
All Plaintiffs who were provided template websites vs. Raygoza, Sipes, JumpLaunch,
25 207. The defendants received income from a pattern of false advertising that promised
26 large and guaranteed profits based on a home based internet business model in which
27 participants had no chance of success or earning money.
28 208. Defendants further competed with their own clients for prospects and customers

1 as part of the scheme and used false advertising and unethical and illegal promises of profits
2 as noted above as part of their scheme.
3 209. Defendant’s false advertising and unfair competition has irreparably damaged
4 plaintiffs and continues to irreparably damage plaintiffs’ businesses. Plaintiffs invested in
5 advertising their Internet marketing activities however either their accounts have been
6 suspended for fraud because they were promoting defendants’ fraudulent product or they have
7 been driven out of business as marketeer by defendants.
8 210. Plaintiffs are entitled to all damages for infringement, including any statutory
9 damages under the Lanham Act.
10 211. Defendants’ aforesaid activities constitute unfair competition under 15 United
11 States Code, § 1125(a) (section 43 of the Lanham Act), and under the common law.
12 212. Plaintiffs have been irreparably damaged by defendants to an extent not yet
13 determined and defendants have irreparably damaged plaintiffs and continue to irreparably
14 damage plaintiffs.
15 213. Plaintiffs are entitled to all damages for infringement, including any statutory
16 damages under the Lanham Act.
17 C OUNT VI ~ V IOLATION OF T HE L ANHAM A CT 15 U.S.C. §1125(a)
U NJUST E NRICHMENT
18
All Plaintiffs who were provided template websites vs. Raygoza, Sipes, JumpLaunch,
21 215. As an intended, direct, foreseeable and proximate cause of defendants’ wrongful
22 and unjustified conduct, plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer injury as set forth
23 herein, including damages in the form of lost business opportunities and lost profits from their
24 websites.
25 216. Plaintiffs are entitled to the return, by way of disgorgement, restitution,
26 divestiture, and/or other equitable remedy, of such monies, and is entitled to an order
27 enjoining defendants from engaging in future unjustified conduct that is similar to the conduct
28 complained of herein.

1 217. In partial or full alternative to the preceding claims for relief, plaintiffs have no
2 adequate remedy at law for the injunctive relief sought herein and therefore seek such relief to
3 remedy otherwise irreparable harm.
4 C OUNT VII ~ F RAUD
5 All Plaintiffs v. All Defendants except Maria Raygoza, Vanessa Raygoza,
8 219. Defendants made numerous, intentionally false and misleading material
9 representations to plaintiffs via salesmen and websites about income and business potential
10 and plaintiffs relied to their detriment thereon as detailed under each individual plaintiff in the
11 plaintiffs sections of the lawsuit where in the fraudulent inducements are in bold.
12 220. Defendants used intentionally false statements to induce plaintiffs to permit
13 defendants to strip their credit card and other accounts of all available funds and to sign
14 adhesion contracts or verifications which purported to waive all their rights to a fair remedy.
15 221. Defendants made numerous intentionally false and misleading statements about
16 the value of their services to plaintiffs who relied to their detriment thereon namely that
17 plaintiffs’ “investment” would be paid back in full within a short time period usually 30 days
18 and that large profits and regular checks would be received by plaintiffs and variations thereof
19 as specifically plead under each plaintiff. Defendants further lied to credit card companies,
20 banks, and government and law enforcement agencies by claiming that the adhesion contracts
21 for provision of defective services somehow absolved them of any responsibility to refunds
22 plaintiffs’ money. Defendants however intentionally withheld information about the false
23 promises made to each and every plaintiff of assured profits that induced them to enter into
24 arrangements with defendants.
25 222. Defendants’ entire business model was based on a pattern of lies and intentional
26 and spectacular distortions of the truth designed to ensnare plaintiffs and empty their bank and
27 credit card accounts rather than provide a legitimate services. The purpose of defendants
28 business in the main was criminal fraud with minor exceptions as noted herein.

1 C OUNT VIII ~ F ALSE A DVERTISING ~ C AL. B US. & P ROF. C ODE § 17500
5 224. The defendants received income from a pattern of false advertising that promised
6 large and guaranteed profits based on a home based internet business model in which
7 participants had little or no chance of success. Examples of the false and misleading
8 advertising are found in Exhibits A1, A2, B, C, E, G1, H.
9 225. Defendants further competed with their own clients like the plaintiffs who were
10 budding Internet marketeers for prospects and customers as part of the scheme and used false
11 advertising and unethical and illegal promises of profits as noted above as part of their
12 scheme. Exhibit E is the notorious cookie cutter website that defendants sold for as much as
13 $30,000. The websites never returned money but did steer additional victims to the
14 defendants. The websites were ostensibly owned by the plaintiffs but competed with
15 hundreds or thousands of similar websites owned and operated by defendants.
16 226. Defendants’ false advertising and unfair competition has irreparably damaged
17 plaintiffs and continue to irreparably damage plaintiffs’ businesses.
18 C OUNT IX ~ U NFAIR C OMPETITION ~ C AL. B US. & P ROF. C ODE § 17200
22 228. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to California Business & Professions Code §
23 17204.
24 229. California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq. forbids unfair
25 competition, defined as any unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent act or practice.
26 230. Plaintiffs seek disgorgement of profits by defendants acquired as a result of their
27 unfair business practices.
28

1 C OUNT X ~ E LDER & V ULNERABLE P ERSONS F INANCIAL A BUSE

2 All Elderly and Disabled Plaintiffs versus all Defendants
except Maria Raygoza, Vanessa Raygoza, Multifaceted Global Corp., Inc.,
3 Finity Consulting LLC and Progressive Tax Group
5 232. Defendants used fraud to obtain the trust of plaintiffs and to take the property of
6 those plaintiffs age 65 or older and targeted specifically elderly plaintiffs due to their
7 perceived ignorance of the internet and desire to supplement their retirement income.
8 233. Defendants also targeted disabled plaintiffs for the same reason as above.
9 234. Defendants continue to wrongfully retain the plaintiffs’ funds and plaintiffs
10 therefore seek an order of restitution, statutory remedies to the laws of the various states and a
11 declaratory finding.
12 C OUNT XI. N EGLIGENCE
13 All Plaintiffs against RCE corporations, Raygoza, Sipes, Molina, Denton
16 236. Raygoza, Molina, Sipes, Denton and the various corporations failed to supervise
17 their sales staffs’ from making false promises to plaintiffs. As a result of these false promises
18 which have been disclaimed by Raygoza, Sipes, and Molina a long term pattern emerged of
19 which Raygoza, Sipes, and Molina were aware but did nothing to prevent. The false promises
20 of profits and money induced each and every plaintiff to engage the so called services of
21 defendants. Plaintiffs complained frequently to Raygoza, Molina and Sipes about the abusive
22 actions of their sales force. Yet Raygoza, Sipes and Molina either ignored or disclaimed any
23 responsibility. This constitutes a pattern of negligent behavior and gross negligence that has
24 harmed each and every plaintiff financially and emotionally.
25 237. Defendants FutureEndeavor, Raygoza and Progressive Tax Group despite a
26 warning from plaintiffs’ attorney to Neufeld Law Group, the registered agent for Future
27 Endeavor.com LLC and attorney for Raygoza, engaged in a campaign of unsolicited email to
28 some of the plaintiffs as detailed in the plaintiffs’ section of this complaint which terrorized

1 and intimidated the plaintiffs by telling them the IRS was after them and attempting to ensnare
2 them in yet another Raygoza scam. This email campaign which was totally unwarranted and
3 caused emotional distress to plaintiffs. The company ultimately behind the emails was
4 Progressive Tax Group which did not exercise appropriate concern or control over its
5 affiliates Tax Group Center, Raygoza, and FutureEndeavor.com LLC. Progressive Tax Group
6 which was only interested in harvesting leads negligently entrusted it marketing to Raygoza
7 and FutureEndeavor who despite warning from plaintiff’ attorney tried yet again to scam
8 plaintiffs who have no need of tax advice having had all their wealth already stolen by the CE
9 238. Plaintiffs’ seek compensatory damages for the negligence and gross negligence
10 of defendants.
11 C OUNT XII. M ONEY H AD & R ECEIVED
12 All Plaintiffs against All Defendants except Progressive Tax Group
14 240. Plaintiffs all paid money to defendants in expectation that promises made by
15 defendants of guaranteed returns on their investments would be achieved as detailed in the
16 plaintiffs section of the complaint incorporated herein by reference.
17 241. Plaintiffs did not earn any return of their investment but the funds were not
18 refunded to plaintiffs.
19 242. Plaintiffs therefore allege the existence of a constructive trust and demand
20 restitution of their money from the various defendants.
21 C OUNT XIII. R ECISSION
22 All Plaintiffs against the RCE Corporations
23 243. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs as if set out in full
24 244. Plaintiffs seek recission of the arbitration clause of the alleged contracts as void
25 ab initio due to fraud, duress, lack of capacity, and extortion by defendants as explained infra.
26 245. Further the arbitration clause is void as against public policy as it was part of the
27 criminal conspiracy and designed to intentionally further the criminal conspiracy of
28 defendants by denying plaintiffs any meaningful or economical recourse.

1 C OUNT XIV. U NAUTHORIZED U SE OF L IKENESS

2 Esperance, Dale, and Hester vs. Raygoza, Sipes, RCE corporations
4 247. California Civil Code § 3344 provides for a statutory remedy when a person’s
5 photograph is used without their consent to advertise a product: Any person who knowingly
6 uses another's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in
7 products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting
8 purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior
9 consent...shall be liable for damages...
10 248. Plaintiffs seek statutory damages, disgorgement of profits, attorney fees, and
11 punitive damages as permitted by statute owing to the egregious nature of defendants’ actions.
12 C OUNT XV. C ALIFORNIA B USINESS AND P ROFESSIONS C ODE § 17529.5
13 Plaintiffs Who Received Email from Tax Group Center
- Breckenridge, Woods, Proffer, Radder, Rogers, Yorke, Poulson. Houdashell
14 vs. Raygoza, FutureEndeavor,com, LLC and Progressive Tax Group
16 250. California Business and Professions Code § 17529.5(a)(3) provides a
17 remedy for unsolicited emails sent from California which: “The e-mail advertisement has a
18 subject line that a person knows would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably
19 under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the
20 message.”
21 251. Plaintiffs seek Liquidated damages of one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each
22 unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement transmitted in violation of this section, up to one
23 million dollars ($1,000,000) per incident.
24 C OUNT XVI. P UNITIVE D AMAGES
26 253. Plaintiffs seeks punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3294 in that
27 defendants have utilized fraud, oppression, and malice as particularized in the section of
28 complaint dealing with plaintiffs including but not limited to exploiting the elderly, disabled

1 and unemployed in such a manner that many individuals were no longer able to provide the
2 necessities of life due to indebtedness caused by defendants and that punitive damages are
3 required as an example be set to deter future conduct of this sort;
4 XVII. P RAYER FOR R ELIEF
5 W HEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court:
6 1. Appoint a Receiver to take control of defendants’ assets used in the R AYGOZA
7 C RIMINAL E NTERPRISES, including the Malibu Beach Mansion, John Raygoza’s “Crib,” the
8 S IPES C RIMINAL E NTERPRISES, and the D ENTON C RIMINAL E NTERPRISE, and to prevent
9 destruction of business records and to prevent transfer of assets overseas in furtherance of
10 defendants’ criminal enterprise;
11 2. For compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and for treble
12 damages under the RICO and Lanham Act;
13 3. Punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code § 3294 in that defendants have utilized
14 fraud, oppression, and malice as particularized in the section of complaint dealing with
15 plaintiffs including but not limited to exploiting the elderly, disabled and unemployed in such
16 a manner that individuals are no longer able to provide the necessities of life due to
17 indebtedness caused by defendants and that punitive damages are required as an example be
18 set to deter future conduct of this sort;
19 4. Direct defendants to return all assets belonging to plaintiffs and received by
20 defendants in the amount of $750,000 or more;
21 5. Civil penalties pursuant to Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17536;
22 6. Order defendants to disgorge all profits earned through false and deceptive
23 advertising and unfair competition;
24 7. Damages for negligence for those plaintiffs who were terrorized by threatening
25 emails from Raygoza, FutureEndeavor, and Tax Group center on behalf of Progressive Tax
26 Group;
27 8. Award plaintiffs the costs of this action, including attorney and expert fees; and
28 other reasonable expenses;

1 9. Rescind or invalidate any mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts they may be

2 tendered by defendants as contrary to public policy and/or invalid due to lack of capacity,
3 coercion, or fraud; and additionally, find invalid defendants’ claim that they have not retained
4 any records from PushTraffic including presumably alleged contracts even though numerous
5 plaintiffs dealt with PushTraffic as recently as 2009;
6 10. Civil penalties pursuant to the Elder and Vulnerable Persons Abuse laws of
7 various states as applicable, liquidated damages pursuant to California Business and
8 Professions Code Section 17529.5 and statutory damages pursuant to California Civil Code §
9 3344 including attorney fees, punitive damages, treble damages and costs where applicable by
10 statute;
11 11. A declaratory finding that defendants have targeted the elderly and disabled in
12 violation of international law; and,
13 12. Grant such other and further relief as shall seem just to the Court.
14 DATED: October 4, 2010.
s/ Thomas Easton, Esq
15 THOMAS EASTON
16 s/ Jonathan Levy, Esq.
JONATHAN LEVY
17 Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs
18
19
20 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
21 I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing document has been filed
22 with the Courts’ CM/ECF filing system on this 4th day of October, 2010, which will provide
23 service on all counsel of record.
24
s/Thomas Easton, Esq.
25 Thomas Easton
26
27
28

Matter Et Al. v. Pushtraffic Et Al. Lawsuit Filed October 4, 2010

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Matter Et Al. v. Pushtraffic Et Al. Lawsuit Filed October 4, 2010

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Case3:10-cv-02924-TEH Document24 Filed10/04/10 Page1 of 84

1 THOMAS EASTON CSB #109218

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 1 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 2 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 3 of 84

1 T ABLE OF C ONTENTS Page

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 4 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 5 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 6 of 84

1 6. Defendant Raygoza is the founder of and controls the “R AYGOZA C RIMINAL

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 7 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 8 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 9 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 10 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 11 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 12 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 13 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 14 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 15 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 16 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 17 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 18 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 19 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 20 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 21 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 22 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 23 of 84

1 misrepresented as a mere formality to protect trade secrets and stated:

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 25 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 26 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 27 of 84

1 financial, psychologic a l a n d so c ia l a b u se a nd/or ne gle c t.” [

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 32 of 84

1 62. Benita Sandifer v. IncFortune, Successrate, Sipes

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 33 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 34 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 35 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 37 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 38 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 39 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 40 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 41 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 42 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 43 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 44 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 49 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 50 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 52 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 53 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 54 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 55 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 56 of 84

1 of California. In Sipe’s own words:

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 57 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 58 of 84

1 millionaires just like Raygoza. See Ex 3.

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 59 of 84

1 account. See Exhibits F1-2.

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 60 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 61 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 62 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 63 of 84

~ FIRST AM ENDED COM PLAINT ~ 10-CV-2924 THE ~ Page 64 of 84