Proposed Second Amended Class Action

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

of 81SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT ~ CV10-9860 DMG (JCx) ~

THOMAS EASTON CSB #109218LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS EASTON

967 Sunset DrSpringfield OR 97477Tel: [email protected]

JONATHAN H. LEVY CSB #15803237 Royale Pointe DrHilton Head SC 29926Tel: 202-318-2406Fax: [email protected] for Plaintiffs

OF COUNSEL

Richard E. Joseph, Esq.Michigan State Bar No. P39924203 Mason StCharlevoix, MI 49720

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOUGLAS MATTERN,RICHARD JOSEPH,SANDRA LITTLE,CLARENCE FORCIER,K. ANN BRECKENRIDGE,ARLINE J. OLIPHINT, EWING LEE DALE,GREG TRAXLER,BETTE ANDERSON,LILLIAN CORNELIUS, STEVE FORTOSIS,LUKE E. YOUREE, BEVERLY STEWART,JAMES K BLANSCETT,LAURI (LAURENCE) WOODS,ROBIN WINGROVE,DEBORAH PROFFER,MARTIN DE COURCEY,DAVID LEMASTERS,MARC MINTZ,BENITA SANDIFER,LOWELL RADDER,HEIDI PLACH,DESMOND MENZ,BRAMWELL HESTER ,PAUL MALCOLM DUFFY,MELANIE ROGERS,MARGARET GRANSHAW,

NO. CV10-9860 DMG (JCx)

VERIFIED SECOND AMENDEDCOMPLAINT CLASS ACTION

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

Case 2:10-cv-09860-DMG -JC Document 80 Filed 01/30/11 Page 1 of 81 Page ID #:1162

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


STELLA TAN,JOSEPH KAYE,CHRIS YORKE,LES JONES II,VIRGINIA LAGOS,DEBBIE KNISLEY,ROB WILLIS,PATRICIA LEDOUX,MICHAEL SCHAETZEL,JANIS JOHNSONJOHN UYS,BARBARA POULSON,MARK MAYOTT, WAYNE & JADE DALY, husband & wife,FLORENCE MAJANIL,MARYANN BORZILLARY,DALE MATTHEWS,ESTHER LESPERANCE,ALLAN & DIANE BREIT, husband & wife,CARLYN PERONA,TYE NAKAWAGA,KAREN HOUDASHELL,JOYCE HOKE,GRACE ADELE,JAMES HORLACHER,ROBERT OLD, JR.on their own behalf and on behalf of thosesimilarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PUSHTRAFFIC, dba truthdvdseries.com,recessionproofmillions.com, inc., acorporation,

INCFORTUNE, a corporation,

DOT INTEL, LLC., a corporation,

SUCCESSRATE, INC., a corporation,

YOURAFFILIATESUCCESS, acorporation,

JUMPLAUNCH, a corporation,

FUTURE ENDEAVOR.COM, LLC, acorporation,

FINITY CONSULTING, LLC, acorporation,

JOHN RAYGOZA individually and dba


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


15ROUNDS.COM and PUSHTRAFFIC, pushtraffic.com and SUCCESSRATE andJUMPLAUNCH and TAX GROUPCENTER, Taxgroupcenter.com, and RichMaxwell and johnraygozaswebsites.com,

TED MOLINA,

DAVID SIPES individually & dbadavidsipes.com,

All sued herein individually & as a jointenterprise with joint & several liability,

and DOES 1 to 100 including defendants,employees and contractors of the defendantswho have deliberately masked their identitiesby using pseudonyms and falsely assumingthe identities of ALDERSON, ANDREWS,BECKTA, COBB, DAVIES, DENTON, KIRKLANDand others.

Defendants.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

II. FACTS COMMON TO ALL PLAINTIFFS & CLASS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

III. JURISDICTION & VENUE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

V. FACTS PERTAINING TO FRAUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

TABLE ONE - SUMMARY OF FRAUDULENT ACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18-27

VI. FACTS PERTAINING TO RICO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

TABLE TWO - RICO PREDICATE ACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-33

VII. PLAINTIFFS & THEIR ALLEGATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

VIII. DEFENDANTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

IX. PUNITIVE DAMAGES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

X. EQUITABLE TOLLING & FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

XI. CAUSES OF ACTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

COUNT I ~ VIOLATION OF RICO § 1962(c) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

COUNT II ~ FRAUD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

XI. JURY TRIAL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ECF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

VERIFICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


I. INTRODUCTION

1. This Second Amended Complaint is a class action in which named Plaintiffs bring

this action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated who have been victimized

by Defendants. The events herein occurred from May 2007 to the present. The Second

Amended reduces the number of causes of action to just two counts, Fraud and RICO,

reduces the number of named Defendants and adds three Plaintiffs.

2. Defendants are all in the business of Internet Marketing and Consulting,

Advertising, Search Engine Optimization, Web Hosting and similar pursuits but have also

used these activities as a cover to commit fraudulent acts including but not limited to placing

unauthorized charges on credit cards, wire, mail and bank fraud, extortion, money

laundering, obstruction of justice and identity theft.

3. This is a civil action arising under federal law including the Racketeer Influenced

and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. §

1332(d)(2)(A).

II. FACTS COMMON TO ALL PLAINTIFFS & CLASS

4. The plaintiffs and class are a diverse group living on five different continents

united by several common factors:

(1) They all sought out a legitimate home based Internet business due to disability,

retirement, unemployment or for other good reasons;

(2) All were defrauded, lied to repeatedly, cruelly manipulated, and deceived over a

period of time by defendants who falsely stated as fact that massive returns on their

investments were assured in order to induce Plaintiffs to sign a so called "Verification" for

services - a document termed a Verification and containing only the Plaintiff's signature, the

primary purpose of which was deceive the PlaintiffS into believing they had no remedy at

law and to mislead governmental agencies, banks, and credit card companies into believing

that a legitimate and fair business transaction had occurred instead of fraud and racketeering.

(3) Not a single plaintiff earned a return on their investment despite any services that

were provided by defendants;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


(4) Losses to the plaintiffs are in excess of $900,000 and losses to the class are in

excess of $5 million, almost all of which was financed by credit and debit card, mailed via

US Postal Service or transferred by bank wire or PayPal;

(5) Plaintiffs were often approached multiple times and resold on the same program

or variations thereof often masquerading under various trade names controlled by the same

group of defendants but all yielding the same result: No income or profits generated or

tangible benefit to the plaintiff;

(6) Defendants utilized false and stolen identities in inducing plaintiffs to buy their

services and made unauthorized charges on credit cards;

(7) Defendants on occasion utilized threats to plaintiffs including threats of lawsuits

and routinely and intentionally made deceptive statements to banks, credit card companies,

and government regulatory and law enforcement agencies. Defendants engaged in money

laundering, interstate and international travel in furtherance of the criminal enterprise, and

utilized the mails, wires and sophisticated telecommunications in the course of their

activities; and Defendants falsely claimed close associations with Google, Sergey Brin,

Clickbank, MasterCard, and the US Government.

5. Defendants are based in California but have worldwide reach and have physically

traveled all over the United State and abroad to perpetrate their scheme. The Defendants have

entered into a common scheme or criminal enterprise and each Defendant is jointly and

severally liable to Plaintiffs for the actions of the others in furtherance of the RICO

ENTERPRISE.

6. Defendants Ryagoza, Sipes, and Molina were all officers of the corporations:

PushTraffic, IncFortune, Dot Intel, Inc, Successrate, Inc., YourAffiliateSuccess,

FutureEndeavor, LLC and Jumplaunch and their various assumed and fictitious business

names and websites at all times mentioned herein. Defendant Ted Molina is Raygoza’s

brother and was jointly with Sipes and Raygoza in charge of sales operations at these various

entities at all times mentioned herein. David Sipes is the principle officer of Finity

Consulting LLC, and was with Molina and Raygoza in charge of SEO, seminars, affiliate


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


sales and customer relations at all the Raygoza entities at all times mentioned herein.

Regardless of how they were titled at the various RICO Enterprises, Rayoza, Sipes, and

Molina jointly controlled the Defendant corporations and were not mere employees of the

Defendant corporations which were their virtual alter egos.

7. The Defendants used websites, telephone boiler rooms, streaming video and audio,

the US Mail, home visits, DVDs, YouTube(tm), Skype(tm), instant messaging, electronic

mail, postal mail and in person seminars in Los Angeles, Malibu and Singapore to recruit and

sell Plaintiffs.

8. Knowingly false statements were made to Plaintiffs by the Defendants including

Raygoza, Sipes and Molina in order to gain access to their credit card and debit card accounts

and place unauthorized charges. Statements varied by individual but all falsely stated

guaranteed returns of some sort on their investment. Some plaintiffs, but not all them,

received boilerplate documents termed Verifications to fax back to the defendants which

were then used to block charge backs resulting from credit card disputes and to obstruct

inquiries by the Federal Trade Commission, Los Angeles Police department and various state

attorneys general public inquiry units. Defendants also assumed false or stolen identities in

making false statements to the plaintiffs and offered false money back guarantees. The terms

joint venture, matching funds and partnership with Raygoza and the defendants were also

misused by defendants to deceive plaintiffs into buying high priced packages of dubious

services from Defendants.

9. Plaintiffs who attempted to rescind the sales, even within state mandated time

limits, were usually unsuccessful. Plaintiffs who disputed the credit card charges with credit

card companies, banks, and regulatory agencies found themselves opposed by defendants'

attorneys and paralegals who made intentionally misleading representations to the banks and

state agencies that services for value had been provided but omitted mention of the false

statements of fact, unauthorized credit card charges and inducements offered to Plaintiffs and

the use of false and stolen identities to ensnare the Plaintiffs.

10. Plaintiffs and members of the class were sometimes provided a variety of services


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


including webinars, seminars, coaching, DVDs and materials - none of which resulted in

Plaintiffs earning money but which were often used as an opportunity to remarket and up-sell

Plaintiffs.

11. Some Plaintiffs and class members were transported by Defendants across state

lines and internationally to attended in person seminars in California and Singapore hosted

by Raygoza, Sipes and Molina.

12. Boaz Rauchwerger, a nationally known and well regarded motivational speaker,

was a presenter at over a dozen of Defendants' seminars in 2008-2010, and was offered

payment of up to $100,000 a month by Raygoza if he continued to cooperate with the RICO

enterprise. However, Rauchwerger quit the RICO enterprise in disgust after he discovered

and observed that seminar participants were highly distressed because of the false statements

made by the defendants regarding guaranteed income that never manifest itself.

Rauchwerger also learned Raygoza was using false testimonials and false identities to

ensnare victims. Rauchwerger received many emails from desperate victims seeking help and

despite offers from Raygoza of shared profits disassociated himself from the Defendants.

This did not deter Raygoza who substituted a fictitious person of his own creation, Rich

Maxwell, as an online pitch man in Rauchweiger’s place and usurped many of Rauchwerger's

identifiable marketing mannerisms and proprietary content in order deceive existing and

prospective clients.

13. The Plaintiffs were deceived through statements of guaranteed profits and

refunds. The price of services provided were based on the amount of available credit the

plaintiff possessed or the amount they could afford to pay or borrow and had no relationship

to the actual value of any services provided. According to former employees of the

Defendants, whose names cannot be revealed owing to legal intimidation by Defendants, the

sales force of the Defendants would and did as a practice under the direction of Raygoza,

Sipes and Molina state all manner of falsehoods and bogus inducements in order to gain

access to the Plaintiffs' credit card accounts.

14. In one instance an honest marketing coaching employee, Ken Steele, was


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


discharged by Molina and Sipes because he intervened on behalf of a class member when he

prevented an obviously mentally disabled man from spending an additional $5000 with

defendants. Other coaches quit in disgust after having to deal with repeated pleas by

Plaintiffs and victims for return of their money or questions about the whereabouts of their

guaranteed income.

15. No matter how much Plaintiffs paid, some much more money than others, all

received the same return on their investment - zero.

16. Plaintiffs were led to believe they were investing in a viable and profitable

business scheme as joint venturers or partners instead of purchasing services. Assuming the

victim’s credit card account or resources held out, over $50,000 was at times extracted by

Defendants before the victim learned that instead of an investment in a viable business, they

had been sold a series of services under multiple program names that yielded no return on

investment.

17. When the victim as often happened, attempted to reverse credit card charges, the

Defendants instructed their legal staff to file misleading responses to consumer complaints

and charge backs based on documents termed "Verficiations" that victims, but not the

Defendants, signed under the influence of false oral statements of profits, duress and

extortion often after their credit card accounts had already been emptied by the Defendants

thus holding the victims' money hostage. Victims who persisted in complaining were

threatened with defamation and extortion lawsuits by the Defendants and their attorneys who

implausibly disclaimed any knowledge of the fraud committed by their salesmen or Molina,

Sipes, and Raygoza. Plaintiffs reported receiving implied threats of violence and other

similar threats from Raygoza, Molina and others members or employees of the Defendants.

18. An added element of the defendants racketeering involved a practice by

defendants of credit card charges being assessed against Plaintiffs without their consent and

then up-selling the victim with false statements that they would earn back the funds before

the first credit card payment would come due thus knowingly kiting the credit card account

since the statements of guaranteed returns would never materialize. Additionally, some


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Plaintiffs who did not agree to purchase services or sign a Verification nonetheless were

unable to reverse the unauthorized charges made to their accounts due to Defendants false

protestations to banks and credit card companies that valuable services had been provided

and the charges made with the consent of the victim.

19. Further, Defendants engaged in deceptive credit card practices to avoid fraud

detection, in one case processing 21 separate $1,000 transactions in a short period to milk a

credit card dry and increase its credit limit without the plaintiffs' knowledge. Further, at least

one of Defendants' salesmen claimed the Defendants’ had an insider at a credit card network

on their team.

20. Many of the Plaintiffs were vulnerable elderly (e.g. 80, 87, and 93 years old)

and/or disabled (e.g. Paraplegic, stroke victim, terminally ill) and were specifically targeted

by the Defendants because they did not understand the technical aspects of the Internet or the

terminology utilized, could be easily led and were made to feel stupid or inadequate if they

questioned the defendants’ intentions. As a practice the employees of the Defendants laughed

and derided Plaintiffs who called in after the fact and were desperate for a return of their

funds when the stated profits never materialized. In one case, indicative of the Defendants’

practice of abusing the elderly, the Defendants’ sales staff supervised by Molina, Raygoza,

and Sipes placed an elderly individual on a speaker phone and laughed and joked as he

begged for his money to be returned according to a former employee who witnessed the cruel

spectacle.

21. It was a specific tactic of the Defendants to engage in and encourage financial

abuse of elderly and disabled persons because it was discovered by Molina, Sipes, and

Raygoza that they were easy marks that could often times be bullied or tricked into granting

access to their credit card accounts and were unlikely to fight back effectively due to illness

and disability. Likewise, Defendants targeted English speaking victims on five different

continents since they perceived that class members from Singapore, South Africa, England,

Canada, Malaysia, New Zealand, Ireland, Saipan or Australia would have no economically

available legal recourse against the California based Defendants.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


22. So called Verifications for services were utilized by Defendants that were often

called investments or partnerships or joint ventures or trade secret protections in order to

deceive plaintiffs into signing them. As a policy and practice, the Defendants did not

memorialize the statements made by the Defendants’ sales force though there some

conversations were recorded and are in the possession of Defendants. When a Plaintiff

complained to Raygoza, Sipes, or Molina about the terms, statement or offers made by the

Defendants or their agents, the Plaintiffs were falsely told the salesman no longer worked for

the Defendants and that Defendants were not responsible for statements made by affiliates or

employees when in fact the so called affiliates were Raygoza, Molina or their agents posing

as the affiliates. When state and federal regulators and attorneys general public inquiry

offices contacted the Defendants or their legal staff on behalf of victims Defendant

companies, the Defendants stated as a policy that the corporations involved were no longer

were in business and claimed the records were lost or destroyed in order to conceal the

existence of the RICO enterprise as a whole and to obstruct justice.

23. Plaintiffs who in good faith attempted to actually follow the Raygoza get rich

quick stratagem of trying to recruit further victims via essentially useless websites, invariably

failed and wasted more money on advertising their websites with services like Google

Adwords or had their accounts suspended by Google for violations of their anti fraud policy.

The websites involved were template versions of the same website and carried copy identical

or similar to:

What I discovered will shock YOU!

91% of Work at Home programs are complete and utter SCAM!

6% of Work at Home Programs only really make around $500/month

3% of Work at Home programs make over $12,000 per month.

Create INCOME through multiple sources and your interests

Work ANYWHERE!

Be YOUR OWN BOSS

Have MORE TIME for your pleasures


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


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 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.

24. When Plaintiffs attempted to obtain refunds, mediate, dispute, negotiate or

arbitrate their claims, they were met with further attempts to extort funds, new opportunities

to invest money, or were abused, maligned and threatened by defendants including Raygoza,

Sipes, Molina and their in-house legal staff with lawsuits for defamation, libel and extortion.

25. The Defendants also vigorously disputed credit card charge-backs which occurred

when a victim disputed a credit card charge as fraudulent or unauthorized. Defendants

Raygoza, Sipes, and Molina and their legal staff and lawyers were aware of the get rich quick

statements made to plaintiffs by Defendants yet deliberately misled credit card companies,

banks and state regulators about the nature of Defendants’ business practices and utilized the

fraudulent Verification documents to oppose charge backs and legitimate requests for

refunds.

26. The use of false and stolen identities was also a major feature of the Defendants

RICO enterprise and sales practices. Defendants’ sales force as an established and

specifically authorized practice often used pseudonyms to avoid detection or variations of

their actual or one another's names. This practice also permitted the Defendants to disclaim

knowledge to regulators, victims and credit card companies that a particular salesman was no

longer employed or was an independent contractor. The Defendants and in particular Sipes

and/or Raygoza also entered into a series of affiliate agreements with various established

Internet marketers who sold reasonably priced products, usually for less than $100. The

affiliates were encouraged to provide the names of software purchasers who might be

interested in legitimate coaching or marketing services. Sipes, Molina, and Raygoza

represented their services as legitimate and beneficial and pointed to their lavish Malibu,

Singapore, and Los Angeles seminars and well known presenter such as Boaz Rauchwerger

as proof of their goodwill and legitimacy. If a prospect provided by the affiliates purchased


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


the defendants services the affiliate was supposed to get a commission set at 25% but often

was not paid at all. Instead the defendants simply misappropriated the name of the affiliate,

impersonated the affiliate and made all manner of false statements in the name of the

affiliate. The advantage to defendants was that the name of the affiliate was known and

trusted by the victim and in the event of a complaint; the affiliate and not defendants would

face the blame and the Defendants’ attorneys were provided an opportunity for plausible

deniability in response to allegations of fraud.

27. Known affiliates whose identities were stolen by Defendants from 2008 to present

include Jeff Alderson, Charles Kirkland, Chris Cobb, John Denton, Ron Davies, Craig

Beckta, and Jonny Andrews. When Kirkland became aware his identity had been stolen he

repeatedly contacted Raygoza and Sipes who did not return his calls and continued the

practice. Jeffrey Alderson contacted Raygoza in 2010 after numerous complaints by his

clients but Raygoza denied stealing Alderson's identity and continued the practice. Jonny

Andrews met with Raygoza and Sipes in person and when he received a complaint forwarded

it to Sipes. When the impersonations continued, Andrews whose reputation and brand were

damaged made ten additional cease and desist requests to Sipes which were ignored. John

Denton terminated his relationship with Defendants after numerous reports that Defendants'

sales staff were impersonating him. Sipes met with Craig Bectka in person and convinced

him to become an affiliate. Within a month Beckta suspected defendants had stolen his

identity. Sipes and Raygoza were notified by Beckta but did not respond immediately

although Raygoza eventually denied any impersonation had happened. Nonetheless Beckta

was not convinced and terminated his relationship with the defendants. On at least one

occasion Mr. Beckta assisted a victim with a charge back against defendants.

III. JURISDICTION & VENUE

28. This case arises under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

(RICO), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq. and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2)(A). Accordingly, this Court

has federal question jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action.

29. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants in that they conduct for


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


profit commerce within the State of California and/or are physically based in California and

in this District.

30. Venue is proper in this Court because the Defendants are conducting business and

entered into contracts in this District and may be found in this District.

IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

31. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action under the

provisions of Rule 23(a) and (b)(1) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on

behalf of the following Class: All persons and entities, worldwide and domestically, that

purchased services and/or products related to Internet Marketing from a Defendant between

May 1, 2007 and the present (the “Class Period”) in reliance upon false statements or

guarantees of: Earnings, return of investment, refunds, matching funds, false identities, false

claims of association with Google, Clickbank, MasterCard, the United States government or

their officers and directors or were the victims of unauthorized charges to their credit cards

by the defendants. This class excludes any judicial officer who is assigned to hear any aspect

of this action, governmental entities, Defendants, co-conspirators, and the present and former

parents, predecessors, subsidiaries and affiliates of the foregoing.

32. Plaintiffs estimate that there are between two to three thousand of Class members

as above described who are owed money by defendants, the exact number and their identities

being known by Defendants, making the Class so numerous and geographically dispersed

that joinder of all members in impracticable.

33. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, which questions relate

to the existence of the fraud and RICO Enterprise alleged, and the type and common pattern

of injury sustained as a result thereof, including, but not limited to:

(a) Whether Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a combination as an

associated in fact enterprise to commit fraud, money laundering, wire fraud, bank and credit

fraud, extortion, obstruction of justice, identity theft and other acts in furtherance of their

fraud and RICO enterprise.

(b) The identity of the participants in the associated in fact RICO enterprise;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


(c) The ongoing and interconnected nature of the RICO enterprise alleged in this

Complaint and the nature and character of the acts performed by Defendants and others in

furtherance of the RICO enterprise and fraud;

(d) Whether the alleged activities of defendants violated the RICO act

(e) Whether the conduct of Defendants and others, as alleged in this Complaint,

caused injury to the business and property of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class due

fraud by Defendants;

(f) The effect of Defendants' acts on Interstate commerce;

(g) The appropriate measure of damages sustained by Plaintiffs and other members of

the Class.

34. Plaintiffs are all direct purchasers or were alleged by Defendants to be, of Internet

Marketing Services from Defendants and their interests are coincident with and not

antagonistic to those of the other members of the Class. Plaintiffs are members of the Class,

have claims that are typical of the claims of the Class members, and will fairly and

adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class. In addition, Plaintiffs are

represented by lawyers who are competent and experienced in the prosecution of RICO and

class action litigation.

35. The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would

create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications under differing state and national laws.

36. The questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class predominate

over any questions affecting only individual members, including legal and factual issues

relating to liability and damages.

37. A class action is superior to other available methods available for the fair and

efficient adjudication of this controversy. Treatment as a class action will permit a large

number of similarly situated persons to adjudicate their common claims in a single forum

simultaneously, efficiently and without duplication of effort and expense that numerous

individual actions would engender. The Class is readily definable and is one for which

records should exist in the files of Defendants and third parties, and prosecution as a class


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


action will eliminate the possibility of repetitious litigation. Class treatment will also permit

the adjudication of relatively small claims by many Class members who otherwise could not

afford to litigate against California based defendants from across the country and around the

world claims such as is asserted in this Complaint. This class action presents no difficulties

of management that would preclude its maintenance as a class action and is a garden variety

claim for fraud and RICO remarkable only for the global scope and breadth of the

Defendants actions.

V. FACTS PERTAINING TO FRAUD

38. The elements of fraud under California law are a representation, usually of fact,

which is false, knowledge of its falsity, intent to defraud, justifiable reliance upon the

representation, and damage resulting from the justifiable reliance. Stansfield v. Starkey, 220

Cal. Appellant. 3d 59, 72 73 (1990). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) requires fraud be

plead with particularity - the fraud allegations as to each Plaintiff are set out with

particularity in the section of this complaint following labeled “Plaintiffs” and “Common

Facts” and herein incorporated by reference and the rudiments and pattern of fraud is further

set forth in Table One infra. Due to the intentional use of false and stolen identities by the

Defendants not all the true of identities of Defendants agents are known but each and every

act committed was by Defendants or at their direction and the true details are known to the

Defendants and Sipes, Raygoza, and Molina who were the principles among the Defendants

responsible at all times for sales, seminars, affiliates, and customer service. Plaintiffs have

attempted to inject precision or some measure of substantiation in order to place the

Defendants on notice of their actions but in all cases the relationship between Plaintiffs and

Defendants was relatively lengthy and ongoing with numerous interactions and the Plaintiffs

in all instances are known to the Defendants and there is sufficient substance to the allegation

to provide appropriate notice to defendants. Further the substantiating documents and records

such as they exist are largely in the possession of the Defendants who maintained phone logs,

phone recordings, documents, ledgers, emails, and other electronic data substantiating the

substance of each and every one of the alleged transactions.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


39. The individual false statements made to Plaintiffs by Defendants regarding

guaranteed profits and income that induced reliance are highlighted in bold and are contained

in the fllowing section “Plaintiffs” and are incorporated herein by reference.

40. The Defendants used a variety of stock false statement or techniques to induce

credible reliance by Plaintiffs including but not limited to the following:

(a) Defendants obtained access to Plaintiffs’ credit card accounts by falsely claiming

that they were just checking the victim’s credit worthiness or using an inside source to adjust

the account in favor of the victim but instead the defendants simply placed unauthorized

charges on the cards;

(b) Defendants used the terms and offers of joint venture amd partnership with

Raygoza when such joint ventures and partnerships as defined in the normal and legal

meaning did not exist;

(c) Defendants practiced up-selling and reselling to those they had initially defrauded

with false stories of successor companies, new programs, or new services when in fact

plaintiffs had no chance of earning money and only invested further funds because their

initial funds were “held hostage” by the Defendants.

(d) Defendants business claimed relationships that did not exist with Google, Sergey

Brin, the United States government, Clickbank, Mastercard and their officer and directors

that did not exist in fact;

(e) Defendants misappropriated the identities of affiliate Internet marketers Jeff

Alderson, Charles Kirkland, John Denton, Chris Cobb, Ron Davies, Craig Beckta, and Jonny

Andrews to induce reliance by Plaintiffs as set forth in detail in the sections Plaintiffs and

Common Facts.

(f) Defendants as a practice as set forth in detail in the sections Plaintiffs and

Common Facts and incorporated herein by reference made false statements that they were

using so called matching funds to pay part of a Plaintiffs’ expenses or as a contribution to a

partnership or joint venture with Defendants. The matching funds however did not exist and

were not paid into any account or to Plaintiffs’ favor.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


(g) Defendants made a practice of inducing Plaintiffs to sign a document called a

Verification by making numerous false statements of fact about trade secrets andthen utilized

the Verification documents or had their law firm utilize these documents to misrepresent the

situation to credit card companies, banks, agencies, and law enforcement to defeat Plaintiffs'

attempts to secure refunds.

(h) Defendants made false statements as to the existence of guaranteed return of

income, guaranteed profits, and money back guarantees.

41. All plaintiffs lost their investments and suffered additional losses when they

attempted to implement the defendants home business or implement advice provided by

Defendants. All Defendants have profited to the detriment of the Plaintiffs. The actual details

are plead in specificity in the Plaintiffs and Common Facts section of the complaint and the

following table.

42. The following Table One summarizes the claims of each Plaintiff, the identity of

the Defendants when known, the false statements or acts committed by the Defendants, and

the Plaintiffs monetary loss:

TABLE ONE - SUMMARY OF FRAUDULENT ACTS

Plaintiff Defendant(s) or

Agent

Fraudulent Act or

Statement

Loss

Mattern Silver 1. Guaranteed return

of investment.

$30,000

Joseph Martino 1. Guaranteed refund

2. Unauthorized

charge to credit card

$20,000


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Little “Denton”

Martino

1. Guaranteed return

of investment

2. Use of stolen

identity

1. Guaranteed income.

$10,000

$5,000

Forcier “Unknown salesmen” 1. Guaranteed income. $30,000

Bresckenridge “Jonny Andrews” 1. Guaranteed income.

2. Use of stolen

identity.

3. Unauthorized

charge to credit card

$4500

Oliphint “Ron Davies” 1. Guaranteed income.

2. Use of stolen

identity.

$10,000

Dale “Unknown salesmen” 1. Guaranteed income. $10,000

Traxler Tarentino 1. Guaranteed income.

2. False statement of

money on account in

Plaintiff’s favor.

$58,000

Anderson “John Denton” 1. Guaranteed income.

2. Use of stolen

identity.

3. Unauthorized

charge to credit card.

$2000

Cornelius Verala 1. Guaranteed income. $10,000


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Fortosis Mendez 1. Guaranteed return

of investment.


$15,000

Youree “UnknownSalesman”

Martino


1. Partnership with

Raygoza

$2400

$1800

Stewart “Craig Beckta” 1. Guaranteed income.

2. Use of stolen

identity.

$10,000

Blanscett “John Denton” 1. Guaranteed income.

2. Use of stolen

identity.

3. Unauthorized

withdrawal from debit

card.

$12,580

Woods “John Denton”

Molina

Kinght


2. Use of stolen

identity.


of investments.

$40,000

$15,000

Wingrove “John” 1. Unauthorized

charges to credit card.

$3000


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Proffer Arturo

Raygoza

1. Guaranteed profits.


of investment.

3. Partnership with

John Raygoza.

4. Matching funds.

$18,000

De Courcey Raygoza 1. Guaranteed income. $10,282

LeMasters Martino 1. Guaranteed return

of investment.

2. Matching Funds.

$7,000

Mintz Martino

Gale

1. Valuable traffic. $10,000

Sandifer Tarantino

Hamilton

“Jeff Alderson”

1. Use of stolen

identity.



of investment.

4. Unauthorized

charges to credit card..

$10,000

Radder Molina

Raygoza



of investment.

$25,000

Plach Tarentino

“John Denton”

1. Use of stolen

identity.



of investment.

4. Matching Funds.

$17,000


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Menz Law

Mitchell

“Jeff Alderson”


2. Guaranteed refund.


of investment.

4. Use of stolen

identity.

5. False claim of

affiliation with US

government.

$14,000

Hester Hamilton 1. Matching funds. $10,000

Duffy “Jeff Alderson” 1. Use of stolen

identity.

$3000

Rogers & Granshaw Murphy 1. Guaranteed income.


$3400

Tan “John Denton”

Bruce

Raygoza

Gold

1. Use of stolen

identity.

2. Unauthorized



$24,000

Kaye Raygoza 1. Guaranteed refund.


$20,000

Yorke Sainz 1. Guaranteed return

of investment.

$8000


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Jones Raygoza 1. Joint Venture.


of investment.

3. Matching funds.

4. Guaranteed profits.

$12,500

Lagos Johnson 1. Guaranteed return

of investment.

2. Unauthorized


$7,500

Knisely “John Denton”

Artino

Hill


2. Use of stolen

identity.



2. Unauthorized


$10,000

$5,000

$10,000

Willis Murphy 1. Guaranteed return

of investment.

$10,000

Ledoux Alhouse 1. Guaranteed income. $7,000

Schaetzel Robbins

Knight

Martino

1. Guaranteed income. $14,000

Johnson “John Denton” 1. Use of stolen

identity.


$50,000


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Uys Mitchell

Sipes



$30,000

Poulsen “John Denton”

“Unknown IncFortune

Salesman”

1. Use of stolen

identity.


of investment.

1. Access to credit

card to check credit

worthiness.

2. Unauthorized


2. False claim of

partnership.

$10,000

$20,000

Mayott Gold

“Jeff Alderson”


1. Use of stolen

identity.

$10,000

$18,000

Daily “John Denton” 1. Use of stolen

identity.


$10,700

Majanil Knight 1. Guaranteed income.

2. Matching funds.

3. Partnership.

4. Unauthorized


$6500


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Borzillary “John Denton” 1. Use of stolen

identity.


3. False relationship

with Google’s

founder, Sergey Brin.

$1628

Matthews “John Denton” 1. Use of stolen

identity.


3. Matching funds.

$6000

Lesperance Raygoza 1. Guaranteed income.


of investment.

$20,000

Breit Murphy

Obando


of investment.


$25,000

Perona Austin 1. Guaranteed income.


$10,000


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Nakawaga Hill

Raygoza

Martino

1. False relationship

with Google and

Clickbank claimed.

2. Access to credit


worthiness.

3. Unauthorized




$30,000

Houdashell Hill 1. Guaranteed income.

2. Access to credit


worthiness.

3. Guaranteed retunr

of investment.

4. Unauthorized


$21,000

Hoke Vincent 1. Unauthorized


$10,000


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Adele Hill

Artino

Knight

1. Guaranteed income


of investment


1. Claimed money

owed for services

$15,000

$26,000

$6,000

Horlacher “John Denton”

Raygoza

Sipes

1. Use of stolen

identity.


of investment.


$10,000

$30,000

Old Unknown PushTraffic

Salesman

Raygoza



of investment.

2. Unauthorized


$20,000

$11,000

TOTAL LOSSES TO

PLAINTIFFS:

$941,790


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


VI. FACTS PERTAINING TO RICO

43. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference as if plead fully herein all the preceding

paragraphs of the complaint and the following Sections regarding Plaintiffs and Defendants.

44. From all relevant times beginning with the founding of PushTraffic in May 2007

to present, defendants worked with one another to defraud Plaintiffs and others and to obtain

the property of Plaintiffs and engaged in numerous instances of illegal conduct, including

extortion, mail and wire fraud and money laundering as noted in the “Plaintiffs” section of

the complaint in a pattern of racketeering activity involving interstate and international

commerce.

45. Through a common scheme to defraud and racketeering activities the Defendants

succeeded in taking illegally the property of Plaintiffs and other victims through an intricate

pattern of individual transactions and group transactions controlled by John Raygoza, Sipes,

and Molina and utilizing their Corporate entities and their various fictitious names. These

same individuals, Raygoza, Molina, and Sipes also individually and through employees

committed the racketeering activities both directly and indirectly.

46. The RICO Enterprise is an association in fact enterprise consisting of all the

defendants regardless of their separate legal identities. The structure of each of the Corporate

members of the RICO Enterprise invariably included some combination of Raygoza, Sipes,

Molina or all three as principle officers united in a common purpose to defraud victims. The

RICO Enterprise also worked through independent law firms and financial institutions to

achieve its goals. The RICO enterprise is coherent and ongoing, still in operation using at a

minimum the names JumpLaunch, John Raygoza, FutureEndevaor, IncFortune, and Finity

Consulting with some combination of Raygoza, Sipes, and Molina or all three involved at all

times.

47. While the Defendant corporations engaged in various racketeering activities they

did also service legitimate clientele and provide marketing and web hosting services separate

from the RICO enterprise. For example Future Endeavor entered into an agreement with

Progressive Tax Group in 2010 to supply leads and Jump Launch provides web hosting


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


services to many individuals unrelated to events complained of herein. The records of the

Defendants will contain numerous other instances of legitimate marketing, advertising,

and web hosting clientele separate from the RICO Plaintiffs or Class members.

48. In carrying out the scheme to defraud plaintiffs and other victims, Defendants

engaged, inter alia, in a pattern of conduct in violation of criminal statutes including mail

fraud, wire fraud, violation of the Hobbs Act, money laundering and interstate and foreign

travel in aid of racketeering enterprises as follows:

(a) The defendants made a series of knowingly false statements that were virtually

impossible to realize in order to induce victims to transfer funds to them. The false

representations were not just mere statements or expressions of opinion but were deliberately

made as part of an ongoing racketeering scheme which falsely offered to deliver such things

as Guaranteed Return on Investment, Money Back Guarantee, Joint Ventures and

Partnerships which did not exist and return of Initial Investment before Credit Card Payments

came due. The details of the fraud are contained in the sections of the complaint labeled

Plaintiffs & Their Allegations, Common Facts and in the section labeled Fraud and all

incorporated herein by reference.

(b) The Defendants engaged in a pattern of fraud by using the fraudulently obtained

Verification forms to fend off charge backs and investigations by banks and credit card

companies and in doing so deliberately misrepresented through attorneys and others that the

Plaintiffs were merely disgruntled customers.

(c) Defendants as a regular business practice placed unauthorized charges on victims’

credit and debitcard accounts and then either induced the victim to sign a Verification while

their money was held hostage or simply kept the money while falsely claiming to third parties

services had been provided. The details of these practices are contained in the sections of the

complaint labeled Plaintiffs & Their Allegations, Common Facts and Fraud and incorporated

herein by reference.

(d) The defendants engaged in money laundering through the practices of disguising

credit card and PayPal transactions as a series of small transaction to avoid anti fraud


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


program detection and manipulating credit card accounts to permit overcharges. The details

of these practices are contained in the sections of the complaint labeled Plaintiffs & Their

Allegations, Common Facts and Fraud and incorporated herein by reference.

(e) The activities of the Defendants in the formation and execution of the scheme and

artifice to defraud, acts of extortion, and money laundering caused and continue to cause

pervasive and substantial harm to persons engaged in interstate and foreign commerce,

including harm to the plaintiffs, victims, and potential victims. Plaintiffs were neophyte

Internet marketers or people looking for legitimate work at home opportunities. Defendants

have amassed their millions almost exclusively by abusing credit card accounts of the elderly,

disabled, the working poor, retired, and unemployed, all victims who can least afford these

losses. The RICO Enterprise reached out to encompass victims in Malaysia, Australia,

England, Ireland, Saipan, and Canada as it reckoned that foreign residents would have little

or no recourse against the defendants. In committing these acts, the RICO Enterprise also

utilized the US Postal Service to obtain funds from victims and mail out materials including

DVDs and promotional items.

49. During the relevant times, and in furtherance of and for the purpose of executing

the scheme and artifice to defraud, Defendants traveled interstate and internationally to

Singapore and used the telephone and Internet technology to threaten acts of violence in

furtherance of unlawful activity and to promote, manage, establish, carry on, and facilitate

the promotion, management, establishment, and carrying on of unlawful activity.

50. During the relevant times, Defendants knowingly and intentionally and attempted

to transport, transmit, and transfer monetary instruments and funds from inside the United

States to or through a place outside the United States, and to a place in the United States

from or through a place outside the United States, with the intent to promote the carrying

on of specified unlawful activity and maintained an account at Wells Fargo Bank to handle

incoming bank wires from overseas victims. Foreign plaintiffs have transmitted funds to

accounts controlled by the Defendants within the United States by wire, electronic transfer

and credit card including but not limited to Defendants' accounts with Wells Fargo,


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Authorize.net, and PayPal.

51. The following Table describes in summary the predicate criminal acts perpetrated

by the Defendants.

TABLE TWO - RICO PREDICATE ACTS

Plaintiff(s) Defendant(s) Predicate Act Date

Horlacher Raygoza

Sipes

18 U.S.C. § 1341

Mail Fraud - Plaintiff

mailed a check for

$27,000 to Defendants

relying upon false

statements by

Raygoza and Sipes

that they would triple

his money in 90 days.

September 2010

All All - use of the

telephone and Internet

to defraud Plaintiffs

18 U.S.C. § 1343

Wire Fraud including

use of the telephone -

See Section following

entitled “Plaintiffs”

for details.

May 2007 to present


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Mattern

Little

Oliphint

Dale

Blanscett

DeCourcey

Lemasters

Radder

Hester

Kaye

Jones

Willis

LeDoux

Johnson

Mayott

Daily

Matthews

Lesperance

Breit

Perona

Houdashell

Hoke

Horlacher

Old

Breit

All including

Raygoza, Sipes,

Molina

18 U.S.C. § 1953

Interstate and foreign

travel or

transportation in aid

of racketeering

enterprises

Defendants caused

and made

arrangements for

Plaintiffs to travel to

Los Angeles, Malibu

or Singapore. See

Section following

entitled “Plaintiffs”

Defendants’ employee

Obando was sent to

Plaintiffs homes to set

May 2007 to present

2009

June 2009


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Nakawaga

Houdashell

Raygoza

Martino

Hill

18 U.S.C. § 1956

Money Laundering

Transactions were

disguised as a series

of many smaller

transactions to avoid

detection by anti fraud

programs at credit

card companies and

PayPal.

May 2010

July 2009

Dale Molina

Severino

18 U.S.C. § 1951.

Interference with

commerce by threats

or violence

Threats of implied

violence and legal

actions were made to

intimidate victims and

discourage them from

pursuing refunds.

Death threat made to

Plaintiff to quell

complaints.

January 2010

VII. PLAINTIFFS & THEIR ALLEGATIONS

52. Plaintiffs hold all the Defendants jointly and severally liable for their losses. The

following facts and allegations, however, refer to specific Defendants when and if


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


identifiable with which Plaintiffs had contact and the specific acts unique to each Plaintiff

from which they complain against the Defendants individually and as class representatives.

Defendants in this section specifically refers to all Defendants individually and as a

combination and as a RICO enterprise. All Plaintiffs were induced to pay funds to the

Defendants based on material misrepresentation of fact upon which they relied and which

were knowing falsehoods made by the Defendants and in furtherance of their scheme. So

there is no question that each and every Plaintiff was induced by and relied upon false

statements of fact made by the Defendants, where available these exact false statements of

facts are highlighted in bold letters. Where relevant the ages and/or disabilities of the

plaintiffs have also been highlighted in bold to show the tendency of the Defendants to target

the aged, vulnerable and infirm.

53. As a result of the practice by Defendants of using false, and stolen identities as

well as multiple and interchangeable Corporate identities and fictitious business names, the

exact identities of some of the Defendants are in doubt but it is not in doubt that they were all

agents acting on instructions of the Defendants or the Defendants themselves using assumed

identities. Further, Plaintiffs dealt with numerous Defendants and were often unsure as to

which Defendant they were actually dealing with and Corporate defendants were often used

interchangeably by the Defendants. The management of the Corporate defendants always

however included Raygoza, Sipes, and Molina thus the Corporate entities were used

interchangeably as part of the RICO enterprise and to commit fraud.

54. Douglas Mattern is a resident of Palo Alto, California. His total losses are

$30,000 including $20,000 to PushTraffic and $10,000 to IncFortune. In August of 2008, he

paid $5,000 and received training from PushTraffic. After two sessions he did not receive

any communication for weeks. Then around March of 2009, he received a telephone call

from PushTraffic through one of their salesmen named Matthew Silver. Silver made many

false statements including claiming that a large amount of hits to plaintiff’s website that

would be guaranteed to recover his investment in a couple of weeks and then make

substantial profits. Silver cited a figure of $40,000 profit and more. Plaintiff therefore


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


paid PushTraffic an additional $15,000 based on Silver’s false statements of profits. After

plaintiff paid the $15,000, there was no communication from PushTraffic. For weeks

plaintiff sent emails, postal mail, and telephone calls to PushTraffic, Matthew Silver, and

John Raygoza and received no response. Finally he did get a telephone call from John

Raygoza, but this came after he sent to Raygoza an email stating he had contacted his credit

card bank's fraud unit. Raygoza said to Mattern that Matthew Silver did not work for

PushTraffic, but was an independent salesman that gets contracts for PushTraffic and he

(John Raygoza) was not responsible for any statements made to plaintiff. Raygoza than

invited plaintiff to his office in Los Angeles. Plaintiff stayed in Los Angeles for two days

getting training. After that visit, he again received no communication from PushTraffic until

he complained again. After this he was assigned to a new trainer that led to nothing of value.

Then he was told he was in the VIP group would receive personal training from John

Raygoza. But after a few sessions there was no more information nor was he informed of any

further seminars. This occurred on two occasions. In summary, after more than a year and

$20,000 plaintiff had nothing to show for it. His account at PushTraffic showed zero

commissions despite providing many leads to PushTraffic for which he was to be paid $5

each. For one project he provided 1,000 leads for Raygoza and his account still read zero.

He complained about this in a telephone call to PushTraffic, but he never received an answer.

During this period Plaintiff also paid $10,000 for training from IncFortune unaware it was

the same entity as PushTraffic. IncFortune however provided no training or anything of value

to plaintiff. Later Plaintiff, who had yet to earn a dime, was telephoned by a person who

called himself John (not John Raygoza). John said that things were going to change for him,

and after three breaks in the conversation (when John said he was conferring with Raygoza)

John claimed things would be very positive for Plaintiff as Plaintiff had been promoted from

the PushTraffic VIP team (Level III) to the partnership program with Raygoza (Level IV).

To become a partner he would need to pay another $30,000, which Plaintiff declined.

Around a month after that incident, Plaintiff received a call from IncFortune from a person

who claimed he had purchased all of Raygoza's companies and he was going to make things


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


right. He said that Raygoza was not involved or even in the office but after plaintiff made a

few derogatory remarks about Raygoza, the call terminated. When Plaintiff recently sought a

return of his $30,000, he was accused by the defendants’ attorney of record of extortion,

defamation, slander, and conspiracy. In sum, Plaintiff specifically relied on several false

statements made by Silver. Raygoza claimed Silver was not an employee and denied Silver's

statements of a guaranteed return on investment and when confronted with this fact, Raygoza

refused to provide a refund and opposed Mattern’s attempt to obtain return of his funds

eventually instructing his attorneys to threaten Mattern with a lawsuit for defamation, libel

and extortion.

55. Richard Joseph is an attorney in good standing in Michigan. For the past 7

years he has suffered from T6 paraplegia and currently receives Social Security

Disability. Over the years as his condition has worsened, he sought a legitimate work at

home opportunity. In November 2008, he was telephoned by salesman “Rob Martino” from

PushTraffic’s sales force supervised by Molina. Martino gained Joseph’s trust and learned all

about his disability, struggles, and goals. Martino falsely feigned an interest in Joseph’s well

being and Martino even claimed his own brother was a paraplegic which was very likely a lie

to gain Plaintiff’s confidence. Martino convinced plaintiff to invest $20,000 with PushTraffic

but when plaintiff learned that Martino would not be his mentor, he cancelled the

Verification and the $20,000 was refunded. In February 2009, Martino again began calling

Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s health condition had gotten far worse and he was battling for his life

with a deadly MRSA staph infection requiring hospitalization. Even though aware of

this, Martino persisted until Plaintiff orally agreed to a refundable $15,000 turnkey

investment with Martino and PushTraffic as Plaintiff could do no work and could not attend

the seminar offered. Martino swore that if this did not work out, all he had to do was

push a button and the money would be refunded. Plaintiff was briefly released by

ambulance from the hospital to attend to make final arrangements as it was thought he would

likely die from MRSA. Martino called Plaintiff and demanded he sign a contract, Plaintiff

physically could not and Martino then pressured Plaintiff’s secretary into signing for him.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Plaintiff was in the hospital from January to May 2009 and survived the MRSA infection.

He then discovered an unauthorized $20,000 charge on his credit card. Plaintiff attempted

to dispute the charges but PushTraffic induced the credit card companies to uphold the

charges by producing the so called Verification that had not been signed by Plaintiff.

Plaintiff, who was desperately in need of funds to buy medical equipment for his recovery

had relatives attempt to entreat Raygoza to refund the money, however the money was not

refunded. In 2010 plaintiff has spent additional months hospitalized and in May 2010 was

cold called by a person falsely posing as Denton from one of the Raygoza entities who

claimed he was a friend of Martino in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain yet more funds. At

all times herein, Plaintiff was in excruciating pain, heavily medicated and fighting a life

threatening illness. Defendants’ actions have not only damaged Plaintiff by taking away

money needed for the necessities of life but has also harmed his self esteem as an attorney

who was abused by Defendants. Were it not for the false statement of a no hassle refund

made by Martino, Plaintiff would not have entered into any negotiations with Defendants and

in any event Plaintiff lacked the capacity to sign a Verification and in fact did not sign a

Verification or authorize charges to his credit card.

56. Sandra Little, of Revelstoke, British Columbia, Canada, was victimized in the

amount of $15,000 by IncFortune and DotIntel. Plaintiff was initially signed up by a

salesman falsely assuming the identity of John Denton who said he was with IncFortune.

For $10,000 “Denton” stated Plaintiff would be trained by experts to make $20,000 a month

and would definitely make her initial investment back in one month. Based on

these intentional misrepresentations she gave “Denton” $10,000. Plaintiff has no previous

experience with Internet marketing and trusted “Denton” who she believed to be the real

John Denton, a well known Internet marketer. This false Denton tricked plaintiff into signing

a Verification. Plaintiff worked the program diligently with no success and found the training

offered to be confusing and unhelpful to her. About three months into the training, she

received a call from a man called “Rob Martino” working for the Defendants. Martino said

that “John Denton” had noticed that she hadn’t made any money to date and that her success


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 All ages as of October 1, 2010.1


was very important to them. Martino said he would go into all her accounts and fine tune

them so she could start making money immediately. Martino stated he would provide

30,000 client leads for her and one on one coaching. Based on Martino’s statements Plaintiff

signed up for an additional $5,000 with DotIntel as an inner circle client. No services were

provided except a seminar. Plaintiff was then tricked into signing a Verification document in

October 2009 with JumpLaunch, Successrate and DotIntel by Martino and “Denton” in order

to protect so called trade secrets. Plaintiff shortly thereafter contacted John Raygoza and

David Sipes about her concerns and was told: “You signed a contract and have no remedy.”

Sipes and Raygoza kept ignoring her attempts to get answers until she started threatening to

expose them. At one point, Raygoza and Sipes said they would refund her the $5,000 but not

the $10,000. When Plaintiff asked for a portion of the additional $10,000 she was accused

through the Defendants’ current attorney of record of: extortion, defamation, slander,

and conspiracy, and threatened with a lawsuit.

57. Clarence Forcier, of Bloomington, Minnesota, was victimized in the amount of

$30,000 by the Defendants with the last act in April 2010. Plaintiff is age 73 and suffered1

two debilitating strokes in 2007-2008 with resulting brain damage and is classified a

vulnerable person pursuant to Minnesota elder protection statutes. While looking for a

work at home opportunity he happened across an ad for PushTraffic. Plaintiff was told by

Defendants’ salesman: “It was $10,000 for the really big money,” in October 2008 and

then it was $19,000 for “3 web sites we are building for you as we speak in January 2009.”

Defendants made statements that were relied upon that guaranteed Plaintiff would recoup

his investment. The $19,000 was supposed to include advertising. The Defendants provided

a single website hosted by JumpLaunch. In October and November 2008 Sipes provided

technical services to Forcier which seemed useless and made no sense to him. Forcier was

contacted again in April 2010 inviting him to affiliate again with the Defendants. Plaintiff

never received any money and was charged for web hosting by the Jumplaunch, paid $1000


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


to Google for advertising on Sipe’s advice and is now facing foreclosure and eviction from

his home due to the false statements of the Defendants. The website provided at Plaintiff’s

expense steered new victims to the Defendants. When Plaintiff attempted to complain, he

was brutally intimidated by Defendants’ attorney Weitz who told him he had a “contract” and

there was nothing he could do about it and Defendants’ legal staff further mischaracterized

the situation to the Minnesota Attorney General as one of a disgruntled customer who had

received valuable services and trade secrets. The Defendants were aware that Plaintiff

was disabled and vulnerable and exploited the situation to deceive him into going into

debt. Plaintiff is now suffering extreme hardship as a result of the Defendants’ actions.

58. Plaintiff K. Ann Breckenridge, of Canada, age 66, was victimized in the amount

of $4,500 or $5,713 (Canadian) by PushTraffic. Plaintiff is disabled and receives a

disability pension due to polio related paralysis of her right arm, and back and left

shoulder problems. In April 2009, a PushTraffic salesman using the false identity of well

known Internet marketer, Jonny Andrews, falsely stated plaintiff would make $50,000 in

profits to her website and would not have to pay for services until the profits were

achieved. “Andrews” asked and received Plaintiff’s Master Card number and immediately

charged $4,500 to it placing her account into overdraft without her consent. Plaintiff

never entered into a a written agreement for services and never signed a Verification,

she tried to cancel immediately and has repeatedly requested a refund from both

Molina and Raygoza to no avail. PushTraffic materially misrepresented the situation to

Plaintiff’s credit card company when she disputed the charges by falsely claiming she had

entered into a contract for services.

59. Arline J. Oliphint, of Phoenix, Arizona, was victimized in the amount of $10,000

by PushTraffic and IncFortune. In July 2009, plaintiff, who was recently widowed, received

an unsolicited phone call by a man who called himself “Ron Davies” a well known Internet

marketer known to Plaintiff. The bogus Ron Davies falsely stated to the Plaintiff her existing

online business would quickly earn $10,000 a month if she signed up. Various other false

statements were made to the Plaintiff causing her to pay a total of $10,000 to the Defendants


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


in a series of credit card transactions. She became concerned when she decided to look for

the PushTraffic website and discovered there was a discrepancy between what was offered

on the website and what had been verbally sold to her. At that point, she had only managed

to pay $7,500 of the $10,000 that had been requested. But the website showed two packages

priced at $5,000 and $10,000 respectively, with services similar to what was described on the

phone. Both packages were nearly identical and both included the 3-day seminar. The only

difference was that the $10,000 package included a joint venture with John Raygoza. So she

asked if she could stay with the $5,000 package and get a refund of $2,500. The salesman

laughed at giving a refund, then started to say the $7,500 could be adequate, but then

convinced her that the $10,000 level was necessary for the VIP treatment they wanted to give

her. Plaintiff, a widow, was ruined financially by the Defendants and lost all her savings. The

$10,000 taken from her by Defendants was the proceeds of her late husband’s life insurance

policy.

60. Ewing Lee Dale, age 70 of Jackson, Georgia, was victimized in the amount of

$20,000 by PushTraffic and IncFortune. In May 2009, plaintiff who is retired and in poor

health with diabetes and Parkinson's Disease was cold called by a PushTraffic salesman

who convinced him to part with $20,000 in exchange for false statements of big profits.

Plaintiff did not understand what he had signed up for and never earned any money. Plaintiff

was targeted after dinnertime when the salesman found him to be sleepy, disoriented and

agreeable to their demands In January 2010, another salesman from IncFortune cold called

plaintiff after dinnertime and attempted to obtain $15,000 with similar false statements and

obtained Plaintiff’s credit card number and used it to charge $15,000. Plaintiff was later able

to get the $15,000 charges removed from the credit card by Chase. Plaintiff has suffered

financially, his credit was damaged and he has difficulty paying medical bills. Plaintiff was

repeatedly targeted by the Defendants because he was vulnerable to their lies, sick, and

elderly. Plaintiff received nothing of value in exchange for his funds. When plaintiff

persisted in complaining, he was threatened with death and a lawsuit by PushTraffic

employee “Hernan Severino” and defendant Ted Molina.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


61. Greg Traxler, a citizen of Colorado, was victimized in the amount $58,000 by

IncFortune. In December 2009 IncFortune’s salesman, Robert Tarentino, lied repeatedly to

plaintiff about guaranteed profits to obtain $30,000. Tarentino then sent a voice

recording to plaintiff to assure him that $30,000 in profits was already on deposit at

IncFortune in Plaintiff’s account and that it would be wired as soon as plaintiff sent

another $28,000 investment and signed the fraudulent Verification with IncFortune and

JumpLaunch. Tarentino falsely stated that plaintiff was a now a Partner with IncFortune.

Plaintiff, believing he had no option to obtain back the initial $30,000, paid the additional

$28,000 and signed the Verification in the amount of $58,000. Plaintiff provided wire

transfer coordinates for the $30,000. Plaintiff received no money or anything of value from

IncFortune and JumpLaunch in exchange for his $58,000 partnership investment. Sipes,

using a Jumplaunch email address, then took charge of the account but provided none of the

stated services or investment returns nor did he speak with the Plaintiff on February 2010

when plaintiff tried to call him.

62. Bette Anderson, of Minneapolis, Minnesota , was victimized in the amount of

$2,000 by IncFortune. Plaintiff was contacted by someone falsely claiming to be John

Denton. “Denton” claimed that he was a millionaire who had achieved his wealth through

Internet marketing. He stated that through the program he was promoting, and that plaintiff

would have a check for $5,000 by the following Friday. He talked about flying her down

to Malibu, expenses paid, for one on one instruction on how to implement this program.

“Denton” claimed and Plaintiff relied on his false statement that she would earn $1,000

per day, $5,000 per week and likely $175,000 per year. Plaintiff told “Denton” she was

currently unemployed with little money. He emphasized how this program could change her

situation. “Denton” asked about her financial accounts and credit cards and asked if she had

$10,000 to get started in this endeavor. Plaintiff told him she only had two credit cards, one

with a $500 credit limit and the other with a $3,000 credit limit. He said something to the

effect of let’s see how much credit you have available on the higher limit card, and before

she knew it, he had charged her card for $2,000 without her consent. Plaintiff voiced


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


concern that she had bills that were auto charged to the account and that this could put her

over the credit limit and that she would have no additional credit with which to charge other

needed items. “Denton” further stated that to achieve the $10,000 amount he had initially

wanted to charge to her account, she needed to do some leveraging. She then found out from

the credit card company that he actually had attempted to charge the card an additional $500

without her knowledge or approval, but fortunately it did not go through because the credit

limit was maxed. As predicted, she did sustain a $40 over limit fee due to subsequent auto

charges for monthly bills. “Denton” induced her to sign a Verification with IncFortune for

services which he misrepresented as a mere formality to protect trade secrets and stated in an

email: “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 your business

set up immediately. My fax number is 310 634 0490.” The Verification agreement obtained

by IncFortune and JumpLaunch was later used to prevent Plaintiff from successfully

disputing the credit card charge. When Plaintiff attempted to rescind but IncFortune

intentionally misrepresented the situation to both Capital One in June 2010 and the

Minnesota Attorney General in March 2010 as a civil dispute rather than the truth which was

plaintiff had been defrauded by “Denton’s” false statements of guaranteed returns. Plaintiff

also discussed the matter with John Raygoza who said he would “Take care of plaintiff,”

Plaintiff interpreted that as a threat based on the tone of delivery by Raygoza which was

menacing.

63. Plaintiff Lillian Cornelius, age 80 of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, was victimized

in the amount of $10,000 in installments by IncFortune, PushTraffic, JumpLaunch and

Successrate beginning in September 2009 after relying on the false statements of a

PushTraffic salesman. Pushtraffic telephone salesman Richard Verala stated to plaintiff

she would earn a minimum of $2500 within 30 days to induce her to sign up. He sent an

email to her stating she would recoup her investment in 30 days. Verala was aware

plaintiff was elderly and knew little about the Internet in general. Plaintiff attempted to

follow the advice of IncFortune, Successrate, JumpLaunch and PushTraffic but achieved


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


no results. Plaintiff complained in person to David Sipes in December 2009 about the

statement made by Verala and provided a copy of the email to Sipes but received no

response from Sipes. Sipes in fact was well aware of the false statements made by the

Defendants’ sales force but deflected complaints about it as part of his role in the RICO

enterprise. Emails to Sipes and Raygoza seeking an answer also achieved no effect

instead Plaintiff was solicited by a person posing as “Jeff Alderson” who attempted to

obtain more funds from her on behalf of defendants. When Plaintiff tried to follow the

program as outlined by Successrate her Google Adwords account was suspended due to

multiple violations of Google’s anti fraud program. The website copy provided by the

Defendants in exchange for $10,000 was the usual template full of lies and deception:

Avoid Scams: Make Sure You Read This Important Message.

Tired of systems that don't work??

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 at home programs. What I discovered will shock YOU!

91% of Work at Home programs are nothing but false hope!

6% of Work at Home Programs only really make around $500/month

3% of Work at Home programs make over $12,000 per month.

Create MULTIPLE streams of INCOME

Work ANYWHERE! 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

[http://bestwaytomakemoneyfromhome.com last accessed 9-27-10]

Plaintiff is elderly and had to borrow money from relatives to pay the credit card debt

incurred. Plaintiff has further suffered emotional distress and economic hardship caused by

the Defendants’ intentional and negligent actions towards her. The 80 year old Plaintiff was

made an unwitting accomplice to the Defendants’ scheme which harvested the email

addresses of potential victims generated by the web page paid for by the Plaintiff. Although


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Ontario lacks specific legislation regarding elder financial abuse, the Public Health Agency

of Canada defines Elder Financial Abuse as a crime: “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.” [See www.phac aspc.gc.ca/ncfv cnivf/publications/agefinancialab eng.php last

visited 9/27/10].

64. Steve Fortosis of Sarasota, Florida, was victimized in the amount of $15,000 in

March 2009 by PushTraffic. PushTraffic salesman Leo Mendez relentlessly pressured

plaintiff and his wife into parting with $15,000 by guaranteeing over and over again that

PushTraffic knew they were total beginners online and that PushTraffic would earn back

the money for them while they learned internet marketing. Mendez said the $15,000

would be recouped within a few months and that plaintiff would earn an easy $5,000 a

month thereafter. Plaintiff was provided the usual template type websites hosted by

JumpLaunch that falsely promised big returns on investments. When two months passed

without any evidence of earning the money back, PushTraffic’s Joel Lansky said he was

going to put plaintiff into a new, huge money-making project called Recession Proof

Millions. PushTraffic salesman Frank Perez also attempted to get Plaintiff to invest

another $15,000 with false statements that $700,000 could be earned in one year. When

plaintiff asked for proof, Perez was not heard from again. Through April 2009, Plaintiff

attempted to diligently utilize the PushTraffic materials and resources provided by Sipes

to earn money but never earned anything.

65. Luke E. Youree, of Saint James, New York, was victimized in the amount of

$4,200 by PushTraffic and Youraffiliatesuccess. Plaintiff, who is disabled and receives

Social Security Disability for schizoaffective disorder, was cold called by a PushTraffic

telephone salesman in August 2007. The salesman stated plaintiff would make thousands

of dollars per week on his computer, working a few hours per week from home.

Plaintiff paid $2,400 and received the usual useless template website and was charged

hosting for it by JumpLaunch. Plaintiff diligently followed the PushTraffic program for one

year and made no money. Defendants’ salesman Rob Martino contacted plaintiff in July 2008


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


and offered to put him in the inner circle or the fast track where plaintiff would work with

John Paul Raygoza, personally. Plaintiff paid another $1,800 but received neither new

services nor any contact from John Raygoza. Plaintiff made no money and only accrued

credit card debt as a result of the Defendants’ misrepresentations and has suffered extreme

financial hardship due to his limited income and inability to work.

66. Plaintiff Beverly Stewart, age 65 of Greeley Colorado, was victimized in the

amount of $20,000 by PushTraffic and IncFortune from July to September 2009. Someone at

PushTraffic posing as well known Internet marketer Craig Beckta called Plaintiff on July 3

2009. He said he would personally build a website for her and she’d be making money

by July 10, 2009. “Beckta” said plaintiff would be going to his Malibu house to

celebrate all the money she'd be making by then. Plaintiff paid $10,000 to PushTraffic but

never earned any money. On July 23, 2009, Frank Perez from PushTraffic called plaintiff.

He stated to plaintiff he would personally put up a website for her that would make

money the next day. When she said Craig Beckta had stated the same thing but that she

hadn’t made any money yet, Perez said she had signed up for the wrong program. Plaintiff

paid the $10,000 but a couple hours later plaintiff called “Woody” in billing at PushTraffic

and rescinded the transaction. Plaintiff was shocked on August 22, 2009 when she received

her credit card statement and found out the second $10,000 had been charged without her

consent. Plaintiff then spoke with both Sipes and Raygoza. Raygoza stated to plaintiff he

would refund the $10,000 if she signed a Verification with IncFortune for $10,000 and

then he would refund the whole $20,000. Raygoza kept the additional $10,000 and only

refunded the first $10,000. Molina who identified himself as head of sales then tried to sell

more services to plaintiff in September 2009 by stating she would receive, Tons of money

within 15 days. Plaintiff never earned any money and her ongoing complaints are

unanswered by the Defendants. In Colorado, under C.R.S. Title 18, an at risk adult is any

person 60 years of age or older, or any person who is 18 years of age or older and is a person

with a disability, as defined in C.R.S. 18 6.5 102(1). The Colorado Legislature has

recognized that elderly are at greater risk of financial exploitation than the general


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


population. See C.R.S. 18 6.5 101.

67. James K Blanscett, age 69 of Kennewick, Washington, was victimized in the

amount of $13,800 by IncFortune. Plaintiff responded to an email ad by the actual John

Denton on 21 October 2009. Plaintiff was referred to Defendants at which point Defendants'

salesman assumed the name John Denton and stated many times that plaintiff would

earn money until plaintiff believed him. Thereupon “John Denton” immediately referred

plaintiff to John Raygoza and IncFortune/PushTraffic to join their programs and for which

Plaintiff was charged $10,000. Plaintiff called the false “John Denton” a number of times

with little success in obtaining assistance, expressing dissatisfaction with program, and

requesting a refund. Plaintiff also had contact with David Sipes during the seminar he

attended in Los Angeles on 3/4 December 2009 that was sponsored by IncFortune. Sipes

conducted the seminar and made a presentation on Free Traffic Strategies. Sipes stated to

Plaintiff that he was associated with IncFortune as a business partner. Presenters at the

seminar included Boaz Rauchwerger, John Raygoza, Folusho Orakunle, and David Sipes.

Sipes suggested Plaintiff contact him direct and provided a phone number and email address

for concerns or problems. Plaintiff sent email to David Sipes ([email protected]) as

suggested by Sipes on 14 December 2009 requesting assistance in resolving problems and

received no response. Plaintiff then sent a number of emails to David Sipes, Jack Hill, “John

Denton,” and John Raygoza requesting a refund but no refund was ever received. A

PushTraffic salesman also withdrew $1,380 from Plaintiff’s checking account without

his consent and which resulted in an additional overdraft fee of $1,200.

68. Lauri (Laurence) Woods, age 87 of Sunnybank South Queensland, Australia, was

victimized in the amount of $40,000 by PushTraffic and $15,000 by IncFortune and

JumpLaunch. In August 2008, plaintiff was approached by PushTraffic salesmen “Denton,”

Molina, and others who eventually extracted $40,000 total from plaintiff. Plaintiff believed

he was purchasing a money-making internet business based on the representations of

Denton and Molina but instead earned nothing. In April 2010, Plaintiff was approached by

Bruce Knight of IncFortune who falsely claimed he had nothing to with Raygoza or


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


PushTraffic in order to gain Plaintiff’s trust due to the original losses in 2008. Knight made

statements he would help Plaintiff earn back his money through a hosting deal with

JumpLaunch, Inc Fortune and Successrate. Plaintiff paid IncFortune $15,000 by credit

card but tried to cancel within 24 hours when he became suspicious that IncFortune was

affiliated with PushTraffic. IncFortune did not reverse the charges and opposed the charge

back but Plaintiff eventually regained control of the $15,000 payment. Elder Abuse in

Queensland, Australia is defined as follows: 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, financial, psychological and social abuse and/or neglect.

69. Robin Wingrove, age 62 of Duffy, Australia, was victimized in the amount of

$3,000 (Australian) by PushTraffic in July 2009. Plaintiff is a retired civil servant and

was cold called in July 2009 by a PushTraffic salesman named “John.” When plaintiff said

he did not have the $7,000 John required, John suggested that he check Plaintiff’s credit

cards for the balance. Plaintiff gave their numbers to him on the very strict proviso that

he was not to take any money out. About 2 minutes later, Plaintiff got a call from one of

his two credit card providers asking if he had made a purchase of $3000. Plaintiff denied

the charge and asked if could they stop it which they did. Plaintiff immediately telephoned

his other credit card provider who informed him that a payment of $3,000 had gone through

and when Plaintiff asked them if they could stop it they replied in the negative. John called

Plaintiff back and stated to he was guaranteed an income of $9,000 per month and ignored

Plaintiff’s protests. When Plaintiff did receive a Verification document after the charges had

been made from PushTraffic, he signed it feeling he had no other remedy in Australia.

Plaintiff has earned no money to date.

70. Deborah Proffer, age 50 of Advance, Missouri, is totally disabled with severe

neck and back problems which make it very hard for her to function normally which

Defendants and Raygoza were made aware of, and was victimized in the amount of $18,000

by PushTraffic in April 2009. In April 2009, Plaintiff was first contacted by “Rob Arturo”

who signed her up for $2,500. Arturo described to Plaintiff a mentoring program to build


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


profitable websites and coaching would be provided for her by Defendants. During the

conversation he stated plaintiff would be great for their Inner Circle SEO program. An hour

or two later Raygoza called plaintiff about a joint venture with him. Raygoza said he

would match whatever amount of money plaintiff invested. Plaintiff stated she could not

afford to lose a lot of money but Raygoza assured her he didn't want to lose money so

therefore she would not lose money. Raygoza stated that Plaintiff would be receiving

checks from his office for $5,000 every week from the joint venture. Plaintiff explained to

Raygoza in one of many phone conversations that she was looking for a way to supplement

her disability income. Raygoza assured her that she was going into a joint venture with

him and she would receive a check for $5,000 a week directly from his office. Raygoza

told her he would also pay her credit card bills from his office also, therefore she had

nothing to loose. Plaintiff was guaranteed by Raygoza to make back money fast enough

to pay the credit cards very quickly and she also wouldn't have to worry about paying

them back. Raygoza made multiple false representations to plaintiff to lure her into handing

over the money. Plaintiff never received a dime and never again heard about the joint

venture. Plaintiff finally tracked down Raygoza and complained in a phone call. Raygoza

asked when she began with PushTraffic and she gave him the date and he stated that her six

months were up and said, “Tough luck.” Plaintiff became very angry and Raygoza hung up

on her.

71. Martin De Courcey, of Ireland, was victimized in the amount of $10,282.74.

$5,947 directly and the remainder in costs incurred trying to follow Raygoza’s plan by

PushTraffic and YourAffiliateSuccess in 2007 and 2008. Plaintiff purchased a copy of

the Defendants' YourAffiliateSuccess handbook for $37 on the 30th December 2007. Within

a day Raygoza phoned him to encourage plaintiff to attend a seminar which he was holding

in Singapore at the end of January 2008 called The Truth. He told Plaintiff that it would be

life changing and guaranteed that plaintiff would be making some serious money before

he even left the weekend long course. Plaintiff paid to PushTraffic $5,000 to reserve a seat at

the seminar based on Raygoza’s false statements. In Singapore, Plaintiff was told by


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Raygoza he could earn $40,000 a month. Plaintiff returned to Ireland in February 2008

after completing the three day course and made a number of phone calls to Raygoza seeking

his help in trying to set up an Internet business. Raygoza provided nothing useful but did

manage to extract an additional $800 from plaintiff. In July 2008 plaintiff attempted to get a

refund to no avail as Raygoza told the credit card company that services had been provided.

72. David Lemasters, age 63 of Olive Hill, Kentucky, was victimized in the amount

of $7,000 by PushTraffic in July 2009. Plaintiff was telephoned by PushTraffic salesman

“Rob Martino.” Martino stated as a fact that plaintiff would recover his investment

within 30 days (before his credit card bill would be due). Martino claimed money

would arrive within a week of signing up full well knowing that plaintiff would most

likely never receive any money and definitely not within thirty days. Plaintiff returned a

signed Verification on July 24, 2009. However, his credit card was charged on July 23, 2009

before the Verification was received. Though the Verification was for $10,000, Martino

falsely said he would cover $3,000 of it to induce Plaintiff's reliance. The $7,000 put

Plaintiff’s card at its limit. The Verification provided that an instant turnkey website would

be provided. Plaintiff diligently tried to work the Raygoza plan, attended training seminars,

and purchased advertising as directed by the Defendants for the worthless template website

that promoted the Defendants’ scheme, but the turnkey website did not earn anything for

plaintiff. In December 2009 plaintiff tried to obtain a refund from Raygoza and Sipes but

received no response from them.

73. Plaintiff Marc Mintz, of Monroe Township, New Jersey, was victimized in the

amount of $10,080 by PushTraffic in 2008 to 2009. In November 2008, Plaintiff purchased a

product called the 4 day challenge; this was promoted as a program for newbies that said

anyone with a computer and basic computer knowledge could understand the program and

instructions, establish a web site, use affiliate marketing with Click Bank Products to make

commissions. Plaintiff could not understand the product and requested a refund of $79.99

from PushTraffic. Plaintiff then received a phone call from a man who identified himself as

Dave Gale from PushTraffic, also on the phone was a Rob Martino. Dave Gale made a sales


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


pitch regarding purchasing an affiliate marketing program with PushTraffic. Gale claimed

that PushTraffic would drive valuable money -making traffic to Plaintiff’s website. In

November 2008, Plaintiff paid PushTraffic $10,000 via Master Card for the so called

Mastermind program. Plaintiff received the usual template websites promoting Raygoza’s

fraudulent get rich quick scheme including the notorious copy:

I have been involved in affiliate marketing now for over 10 years and have

found 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 2 or 3 that work are . . “

Plaintiff protested that this website was fraud and that there were thousands of similar

websites all put up by defendants. Further Plaintiff protested he could not vouch for the

veracity of such statements and did not want to be part of a fraudulent scheme but was

ignored by Defendants and earned no money. Plaintiff’s wife is battling cancer and the

financial loss to plaintiff has been an extreme hardship.

74. Benita Sandifer, retired and age 66 of Colchester, Essex, England, was victimized

in the amount of $10,000 by IncFortune and Successrate in late 2009. Plaintiff was cold

called by a salesman who called himself Robert Tarantino. He offered her one to one

mentoring and coaching by experienced Internet Marketers. She said that she could not

afford such help as she was retired on a pension and could not go into debt and his response

was to say that they offered different levels to suit peoples' finances. She was told that she

would have 6 money-making websites set up and ready to sell top products that were

tested and known to make massive sales and that these millionaire marketers would be

holding her hand to ensure her success. She asked why they would do this and the reply

was that they were looking to set up a training company and were looking for testimonials

from successful pupils. She was passed at some point onto another man who said he was

Harwood Hamilton and said something to the effect that if she was serious about making

money on the internet this was her big opportunity. At some point she was passed onto a man

falsely identifying himself as Jeff Alderson. He asked if Plaintiff had a credit card and if


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


so he could just ascertain what her credit level would be if she gave him details. $5,000

was the sum spoken of and she was told it was nothing really just a small investment

because her six websites would have three times that in her account in less than 30 days

so she wouldn’t be paying any interest. Alderson (thought to be Raygoza using a stolen

identity) said Plaintiff would have enough money within a week or two to go on a cruise

to Alaska and she should book one straight away if she signed up. “Alderson” said he

would be sending a confidentiality and Verification document to sign just to protect their

secret methods from being copied. Plaintiff did this and then never heard another word from

him. Embedded in the document was the price, not the $5,000 agreed to but $10,000.

Plaintiff was then charged $16,000 on her credit card by IncFortune and tried to get a refund.

Sipes finally refunded the $6,000 in January 2010 but not the other money and disclaimed

any responsibility for statements by the Defendants sales staff. Plaintiff received nothing of

value to her and earned no money.

75. Lowell Radder, age 71 of Bellingham, Washington, was victimized in the amount

of $25,000 by PushTraffic in 2009. Ted Molina and John Raygoza at PushTraffic made

various statements on several occasions that plaintiff would start earning money

immediately which Radder relied upon but he never saw a dime. Molina and Raygoza told

plaintiff he would earn all his money back before the credit card bill arrived but instead

eventually gave him a template website for YourAffiliateSuccess. After Molina and Raygoza

extracted $25,000 from plaintiff they ceased communication and only after Plaintiff called

for days, several times a day, was he was given a seminar in Los Angeles and provided

coaching but nothing came of it In the way of the stated profits. Plaintiff unwittingly

managed to ensnare a few victims for the Defendants but was not paid for that either. Finally

he realized he had been duped and discontinued his association with the Defendants.

76. Heidi Plach of California, was victimized in the amount of $15,000 by

PushTraffic in 2009 plus another $2,000 spent on advertising. On June 30, 2009, Plaintiff

was contacted by Robert Tarentino of PushTraffic. He falsely stated that “John Denton”

personally had asked him to call about a website to conduct business. He told Plaintiff that


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


this would cost $10,000 which was to be used to pay for advertising for the year. He would

put in another $10,000 of his own money which would guarantee her a profit of at least

$180,000 for the first year. Then he put her through to some posing as “John Denton.”

When she spoke with “Denton,” he falsely stated he would put in another $5,000 so

plaintiff could make $250,000 her first year. Plaintiff was charged $15,000 on her credit

card. When she complained, “Denton” guaranteed she would make me the $15,000 within 21

days. The $15,000 was not used for advertising, so plaintiff had to spend an additional

$2,000 to promote the worthless website that was eventually provided. Plaintiff never

received any money and has not heard from PushTraffic since August 2009; and still owes

$15,000 plus interest on her credit card.

77. Plaintiff Desmond Menz, age 60 is a resident of Australia, was victimized in the

amount of $13,000 by IncFortune in June 2009 by credit card and wire transfer. He was cold

called and offered big profits by an IncFortune salesperson, “Patricia Law,” if he invested.

IncFortune salesperson Patricia Law told Plaintiff of an elaborate scheme involving

thousands of e-books and so called Beta platforms which would generate guaranteed income

of $9,000 to $19,000 per week. Law also falsely claimed that IncFortune was a US

government contractor in order to obtain the Plaintiff’s trust. When Plaintiff threatened to

reverse the wire transfer, IncFortune’s employee Ruel Mitchell guaranteed the income

estimate, guaranteed income within a week or two, guaranteed the $14,000 would be

paid back shortly and that it was refundable. Plaintiff was also phoned by John Raygoza

impersonating well known Internet marketer Jeff Alderson in an attempt to assuage Plaintiff's

misgivings. According to the real Alderson in an email to plaintiff after the fact: This is

terrible! These people have no right to ever call anyone and say they are me. That is

fraudulent...John Raygoza's email is [email protected]. I am emailing him right

now myself. I won't stand for this behavior directed at any of my customers. In July 2009

Plaintiff attempted to get a return of funds after receiving no tangible services or income.

Through June 2010 Plaintiff has contacted numerous individuals at PushTraffic, including

John Raygoza, but has received no refund.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


78. Plaintiff Bramwell Hester, age 69 of San Remo, Australia, was victimized in the

amount of $10,000 by IncFortune, Successrate, and JumpLaunch in 2009. Using Plaintiff’s

personal information from his web hosting account at JumpLaunch, salesman Harwood

Hamilton, cold called Plaintiff on behalf of IncFortune. Hamilton falsely stated he would

match the $10,000 price of the training offered by IncFortune in order to make the

training seem more valuable. Hamilton sold plaintiff a seminar package in Los Angeles for

$10,000 around August 1, 2010. On August 16, 2010 Raygoza attempted to obtain more

money from Plaintiff by calling him and stating that for another $10,000 he will take Plaintiff

to his house for personal one to one coaching in the Internet business. Plaintiff however had

no further funds. Plaintiff attended the seminar run by Sipes and Raygoza but found it was

worthless and that individuals attending had all been charged varying amounts. Plaintiff

suffered severe swelling in his legs due to the long trip from Australia which required several

months of treatment. The so called seminar did not even involve use of a computer. Instead

of teaching the marketing and profit making secrets of the internet as stated, Plaintiff

received nothing of value to him and earned no money. Plaintiff was provided a template

website touting a Raygoza program entitled Recession Proof Millions. After a brief period of

time, Plaintiff removed the website as it became apparent it existed only ensnare other

victims for the Defendants. The website Recession Proof Millions featured the likeness of

plaintiff used without his consent and a false quotation: In the first few minutes of sitting in

front of Rick as he taught with such boundless 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 wading through waffle, you will love this! The presentation

is concise, accurate and step by step. I highly recommend this epic work . Bramwell Hester.

Along with Plaintiff are featured the pictures of and quotes by Raygoza and Sipes as if

Plaintiff is one of their associates along with the false person Rich Maxwell who was created

by Defendants when Boaz Rauchwerger ceased his affiliation with Defendants.

79. Paul Malcolm Duffy, of Peacehaven, East Sussex, England, was victimized in the

amount of $3,000 by IncFortune in 2009. In October 2009, Internet Marketers Charles


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Kirkland and Jeff Alderson sold Plaintiff a modestly priced product called Social Money

Magnet. Following the purchase Plaintiff was given access to the download page where at

the bottom of that page there was a message saying: You will get a personal call from one of

my Millionaire Mentors! Plaintiff was telephoned by an IncFortune-PushTraffic-Successrate

salesman who said he worked with Jeff Alderson and falsely stated Jeff personally wanted

plaintiff in the program. The salesman made false statements that convinced Plaintiff the

program was legitimate and he was misled into believing the call was from Jeff

Alderson’s office as the salesman falsely said Jeff had just come into the office and he

broke away from me to speak with Jeff about taking the last place available for

coaching. With “Jeff’s” approval, the salesman hyped up the fact that Jeff wants

plaintiff in and that plaintiff would lose the place if he did not take it there and then.

The price was $15,000 but the salesman settled for $3,000 because that was all the credit

plaintiff had on his card. IncFortune also attempted to charge a second $3,000 fee to

plaintiff’s credit card without his consent.

80. Plaintiff Melanie Rogers, who has a learning disability, has received SSI and

attended school through the 9th grade, and her mother Margaret Granshaw, age 70, both

of Louisiana, were jointly victimized in the amount of $3,600 by defendants in 2009. In April

2009, Melanie who was unemployed received emails from John Denton advertising a money

making free website for $40. Melanie purchased what she thought was a website from

Denton but did not get a free website, instead she received a bill for $118 from JumpLaunch

for hosting services. Melanie did not understand and called JumpLaunch. But when Plaintiff

asked for a refund from Defendant JumpLaunch they said James Murphy would contact her.

Murphy contacted Plaintiff and sold her CDs by John Raygoza called The Truth for $399

after she said she could not afford $5,000 to $15,000 for coaching services. In August 2009,

James Murphy repeatedly called plaintiffs and falsely said he was the owner of IncFortune.

Murphy told plaintiffs they would make $5,000 within 45 days and $5,000 each month

thereafter. Murphy spent two hours making his pitch. More and more calls ensued and when

Plaintiffs asked that they be stopped, Murphy said they would only stop when Plaintiffs paid


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


and signed a Verification with IncFortune. Plaintiff told Murphy her credit cards were

maxed out but Murphy stated that if she gave him the account numbers he could

extract money from them and in any event she would earn her costs back in 45 days.

Murphy was able to extract money from Plaintiffs’ debit card and Plaintiffs paid IncFortune

$3,400 for training based on Murphy’s assurances of a guaranteed return of investment.

Plaintiffs attempted in vain to utilize the services to earn back their money but have received

nothing to date and cannot comprehend the material offered to them. The so called coach was

abusive when Plaintiffs could not understand him or his instructions. After several weeks

Plaintiffs repeatedly complained about the lack of money. On September 14, 2009, Murphy

replied: I think you are looking for a get rich quick scheme and they do not exist. Plaintiffs

continued to complain on an almost daily basis as to the lack of money. Finally, on

December 10, 2009, Raygoza called Plaintiff Melanie Rogers and told her she was not

working her business. Plaintiff told Raygoza she had no business. Raygoza then said that

people pay him $15,000 to show them how to make $20,000 or more. Raygoza asked

plaintiff if she had that kind of money. When plaintiff responded to Raygoza that she had no

money, he abruptly hung up the phone. Plaintiffs continued to complain to Defendants

through January 2010 but achieved no results.

81. Stella Tan, age 72 of Canada, was victimized in the amount of $30,000

(Canadian) by IncFortune in July 2009. In June 2009 Plaintiff, who has a heart condition

and lives on a small fixed pension, paid $97 for a software package called

ExplosiveCashins from John Denton and MyEbizNow.net, Inc. of Naples, Florida, which

was never fulfilled. Plaintiff at the same time was sold a hosting package at JumpLaunch for

$118. Someone posing as “Denton” called Plaintiff personally to congratulate her and give

his personal phone number which turned out to be the phone number for PushTraffic as

Plaintiff learned when she called to complain about non fulfillment of her order. In July,

plaintiff received a call from “Bruce” at PushTraffic who said he was upgrading her from the

package sold her by Denton. Plaintiff believed this was a replacement of the $97 software

she never received from Denton and signed the faxed Verification without carefully


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


reading it and was instead immediately charged $4,000 on her credit card towards an

obligation of $20,000. On July 20th, 2009 Raygoza contacted Plaintiff who told Raygoza

that she had credit card debt problems and Raygoza said he would help her get out of debt.

Plaintiff gave him 5 credit card numbers. He then charged her $20,000 and maxed out

her credit cards without her consent. Plaintiff then tried to cancel and get a refund.

Raygoza agreed to refund $4000 but never did. On July 27, 2009 Plaintiff was emailed by

“Jeff Gold” from PushTraffic that despite the fact she would be missing out on $25,000 a

month in profits, the $4000 charge would be refunded. The credit card disputes were largely

unsuccessful due to intentional misrepresentations by Defendants’ attorney that plaintiff had

received valuable services to the various credit card companies. Plaintiff never earned any

money and was not refunded $4,000 by Gold and was unable to obtain the return of the

unauthorized charges by Raygoza for $20,000.

82. Joseph Kaye, of Houston, Texas, was victimized in the amount of $20,000 by

PushTraffic in May 2009. Plaintiff tried to cancel the transaction on the third business day

after he was charged $20,000 by PushTraffic. But Raygoza managed to convince Plaintiff

not to cancel by promising a 100% money back guarantee for a full year and that

Plaintiff would be debt free in 30 days. Plaintiff went to Los Angeles for a seminar and

was unconvinced and again tried to cancel in July 2009. Plaintiff was approached by

“Hernan Severino,” Raygoza's personal assistant, in regards to setting up his inner circle

exclusive for those coming to learn Raygoza’s inside secrets. When Plaintiff persisted in

disputing the credit charges in July 2009, Severino conducted a campaign of inimidation

through a series of threatening phone calls in which he repeatedly stated: You will get no

further help, and will miss out on everything we are doing to help, and you are going to

regret this, because we will take legal action against you and you will lose even more

unless you sign a new Verification and give us valid credit card numbers, we are going

to rake you over the coals. We know how to do that, we have an attorney who is a

specialist in this and never loses. Severino caused plaintiff such distress with these

seemngly credible threats of litigation he signed a new Verification in July 2009 and gave out


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


his credit card number but came to his senses and was able to get the bank to rescind the

second transaction. Raygoza has not refunded Plaintiff’s initial money, the Defendants have

opposedPplaintiff’s attempt to clear the charge from his credit account, and Plaintiff has

received nothing of value to him.

83. Plaintiff Chris Yorke, age 60 of Mosman, Australia, was victimized in the amount

of $8,000 by PushTraffic in May 2009. On May 7, 2009, a representative of PushTraffic

named Alex Sainz phoned plaintiff and sold him a working profitbale commercial website

to be built within in 30 days. The site was to be built with the aid of PushTraffic mentors,

who, Sainz claimed, had a 100% success record. Plaintiff was told by Sainz he would

earn his money back in 30 days. Based on this statement, Plaintiff paid $8000 to

Defendants. When PushTraffic did not perform as stated, he complained to Ruel Mitchell

and Harwood Hamilton at PushTraffic and he attempted to seek a refund from Sipes but

received nothing despite sending many faxes and courier letters.

84. Les Jones II, age 66 of Excelsior Springs, Missouri, was victimized in the amount

of $12,500 by PushTraffic in 2009. After being prospected by several PushTraffic salesmen,

Raygoza personally contacted Plaintiff and laid out an elaborate scenario regarding a

Joint Venture with Raygoza and Raygoza guaranteed that plaintiff would make enough

money to replace his investment after the first month and to pay back Raygoza who

falsely claimed he would contribute the same amount of cash as plaintiff. Raygoza stated

there would be profits of $30,000 to $50,000 after 90 days. Plaintiff paid $12,500 but heard

nothing more until he complained and was invited to Los Angeles for a seminar. Plaintiff

never received any money or joint venture but did receive training materials and was credited

commissions from JumpLaunch’s affiliate program but was never paid the commissions.

Plaintiff has a heart condition and limited mobility; defendants made off with half his

retirement savings which had already been diminished due to the faltering economy.

Plaintiff’s quality of life has been dramatically affected due to Defendants.

85. Plaintiff Virginia Lagos, of Sydney, Australia, was victimized in the amount of

$10,000 (Australian) by PushTraffic. Plaintiff was contacted by telephone salesman “Steven


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Johnson” of PushTraffic in September 2008. The price of the proposed services was

supposed to be $5,000 (US) but instead Plaintiff’s credit card was charged $7,500 (US).

Johnson falsely stated on September 21, 2008 that Plaintiff would earn the money back

by September 26, 2008 from the website that would be provided. Plaintiff relied on the

false statement made by Johnson. Plaintiff received some coaching services which were

unilaterally suspended by Sipes in August 2009 and applied to Raygoza in writing for a

refund but never received an answer. Plaintiff was supposed to receive a money-making

website but received only the domain greatestwebhosting.com hosted by JumpLaunch with

no content.

86. Debbie Knisely, of Sale Creek, Tennessee, was victimized in the amount of

$25,000 by PushTraffic and the Defendants in late 2009. In August 2009 Plaintiff ordered a

product for $50 from John Denton’s MyEbizNow.NET Inc. One of Defendants’ salesman

posing as John Denton of MyEbizNow.NET Inc. then called Plaintiff at work in August of

2009 and talked to her about investing $10,000 with PushTraffic, Successrate, IncFortune,

and JumpLaunch. Plaintiff was told that she would start making money before the credit

card bill went through. Plaintiff paid “Denton” in four consecutive installments from her

debit bank card account. In September 2009 Plaintiff received an email from Sipes

identifying himself as Vice President of Successrate. A month later Plaintiff went to Los

Angeles where she met Raygoza who falsely stated to her that she would make big money.

In December 2009, Robert Artino of PushTraffic called and talked Plaintiff into spending

another $5,000 with IncFortune, YourAffiliateSuccess, and JumpLaunch, telling her he

understood that she didn’t have the time and that he would treat her website as his own, do

everything it needed to get it to make money. A couple of days later PushTraffic’s “Jack

Hill” called Plaintiff and talked her into spending another $10,000 and again assured her

that everything would be taken care of as far as getting this immensely profitable

website up and running as if it was his own and that plaintiff would be part of the Inner

Circle team. The $10,000 was paid in a wire transfer of $6,500 and PayPal electronic

transfer of $1,500 with the understanding the balance of $2,000 would be paid once the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


website earned money. However, Plaintiff’s credit card was immediately charged $2,000

without her consent. Plaintiff complained to Raygoza in December 2009 and tried to

rescind the $10,000 transaction but Raygoza did not respond. Plaintiff was told by a

JumpLaunch employee in February 2010 she was in a program called Your Site Name

Affiliate. Plaintiff never earned any money and tried to obtain a refund but it was opposed by

the Defendants.

87. Rob Willis, of Perth, Western Australia, was victimized in the amount of $10,000

by IncFortune in June 2009. After purchasing an inexpensive software program from Charles

Kirkland & Jeff Alderson, Plaintiffs contact information was provided to IncFortune.

IncFortune’s salesman “James Murphy” contacted plaintiff and sold him a two day seminar

in Malibu and three ready-made cash producing websites that were guaranteed to give a

return on Plaintiff’s investment within 60 days. Plaintiff relied on Murphy's false

statement of Return on Investment within 60 days and entered into an agreement with

Defendants. Plaintiff received a trip to Los Angeles but no websites or cash and met with

Sipes who provided some seminar materials. Plaintiff eventually learned through a former

PushTraffic coach that the entire program was a fraud and that victims never earned any

money even if they diligently followed all the advice provided. Plaintiff attempted to obtain a

refund form Murphy and Sipes but received no substantive response except that he needed to

have more faith in the program.

88. Patricia Ledoux, of Lake Forest, California, was victimized in the amount of

$7,000 by PushTraffic in October 2008. In October 2008 plaintiff purchased services from

PushTraffic for $5,000. She was cold called by Matt Alhouse who said he was an account

manager at PushTraffic, he stated that with mentoring Plaintiff would receive a free website,

25 hours of one on one mentoring along with 33 hours of group mentoring and 4 free passes

to their seminar in Los Angeles. Plaintiff was told that for additional $2,000 (originally

$10,000), plaintiff would receive increased traffic to her website and she agreed.

PushTraffic provided neither appropriate training nor any traffic. What induced plaintiff to

pay PushTraffic was that plaintiff was told by Alhouse she would generate sales of $3,000


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


to $5,000 per week in the first 90 days. Plaintiff was provided some coaching services but

after several months her coach informed her that PushTraffic was an unethical scam. Plaintiff

complained to Harwood Hamilton at PushTraffic that she was not receiving services or the

free passes to the seminar When Plaintiff attempted to obtain a refund or seek mediation

through the Better Business Bureau, Defendants’ opposed the refund and deliberately

misrepresented the situation as one of a legitimate misunderstanding to the BBB even though

Defendants knew the Plaintiff had been defrauded. Plaintiff has heard nothing from

PushTraffic since October 2009.

89. Michael Schaetzel, of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin, was victimized in the amount of

$14,000 by PushTraffic in 2009. In June 2009, Plaintiff was initially approached by Donny

Robbins of PushTraffic who obtained $1,000 from him. Shortly thereafter Bruce Knight

obtained another $4,000 from plaintiff. Rob Martino obtained $9,000 more by stating

plaintiff would be in an exclusive group if he paid and would make lots of money.

Plaintiff relied on the representations made by Robbins, Knight, and Martino who all

stated plaintiff would start making money within a month. Plaintiff became suspicious

within 30 days and got in contact with a former PushTraffic mentor, Ken Steele, who warned

him that PushTraffic was a fraudulent scam. Plaintiff tried to cancel in July 2009 but was

threatened with legal action by the Defendant's employee Hernan Severino who said

Defendants were multimillionaires with powerful lawyers who would call all the shots and

that plaintiff had better do as they say or else. Plaintiff then reversed the credit card charges

but Sipes convinced the credit card company to reinstate the charges with intentionally false

representations that valuable services had been provided. Plaintiff received nothing of value.

90. Janis Johnson age 58 is a citizen of Texas and has a mental disability, Major

Depression Chronic Syndrome and Anxiety Panic Disorder that keeps her at home

most of the time. She is the care provider for elderly father. Plaintiff was telephoned by

someone posing as Denton in February 2009 and she told “Denton” about her disability and

he said he would help her because she had a humble heart. Instead Denton on behalf of

IncFortune extracted $50,000 from plaintiff on false statements of guaranteed profits.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Plaintiff earned no money after being provided the usual services: seminar, template

websites, and coaching. Plaintiff attended an IncFortune seminar at the Malibu beach house

where Boaz Rauchwerger was one of the speakers. A few months later Raygoza via web

conference began promoting a book by Boaz Rauchwerger called Recession Proof Millions.

plaintiff noted that there was a website called

hmigroupmoneymaking.com/recessionproofmillions/bonuspage.html on which Rauchwerger

and others appeared. Plaintiff then noticed in early 2010 that Rauchwerger had been removed

from the page as the author of the program and had been replaced by a person named Rich

Maxwell who is a fictitious creation of Raygoza. On July 16, 2010 plaintiff received a phone

call from a salesman named Jay Francisco who said he was representing a company named

Future Endeavor. He said his company had taken over IncFortune and othe Raygozar entities

and he would like to talk to Plaintiff in order to rekindle their relationship. Plaintiff told him

that she didn't recognize his name or his voice and she wasn't going to talk to him. Plaintiff

hung up the phone. He called Plaintiff back about 2 minutes later and she let the answering

machine pick up the call. He left a message saying that he still wanted to talk to her for a few

minutes and that maybe he could reimburse some of the money she had invested with the

Raygoza entities. He also said he had knowledge was that she invested in 2009. Francisco

called back again on June 17, 2010. Plaintiff has suffered great financial loss and extreme

emotional distress due to the intentional acts of defendants.

91. John Uys of Saipan, Northern Mariana Islands, lost $40,000 to defendants and has

suffered extreme privation as a result including inability to provide the necessities of life for

himself such as food and shelter. His credit rating was also ruined. On June 24, 2009 Ruel

Mitchell from IncFortune called Plaintiff. Mitchell said Incfortune had been training

people to earn an income on the Internet since 2001, and that he was currently earning

$3 to $5 million dollars a month. Mitchell stated that for a $30,000 investment plaintiff

was guaranteed an income of $15,000 to $20,000 per week payable by bank wire

transfer. Mitchell called by the next day and reduced the price to $15,000 to get started with

a second tranche to follow. Plaintiff provided credit card number and in a series of five credit


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


card transactions IncFortune removed $15,000 from Plaintiff’s accounts. Plaintiff then

received a Verification that did not reflect the statements made by Mitchell. In response to

this Mitchell stated that the Verification was drawn up by lawyers and did not state the

true intent and agreement of the company (IncFortune, YourAffiliateSuccess, and

JumpLaunch) as it was only drawn up as a formality to protect trade secrets. Based on

this reassurance, plaintiff borrowed $15,000 from his wife to pay the second tranche. To be

on the safe side, plaintiff reported Mitchell’s statements to IncFortune. James Murphy

responded and disclaimed Mitchell’s statement but reiterated Plaintiff would be earning

big money very soon and that arrangements would be made to fly Plaintiff to Los Angeles.

IncFortune made travel arrangements and transported plaintiff to the Malibu Mansion where

he met Sipes and Raygoza. In Malibu Sipes reiterated that plaintiff would get back his

$30,000 if he did not make $30,000 in the first month. Shortly thereafter in late July 2009

plaintiff realized he had paid $30,000 for a website template hosted by JumpLaunch that

would not earn any money and that he was enmeshed in a fraudulent scheme that required

him to lie to others via a false video testimonial solicited by Sipes who had said, ethics and

marketing do not go together. Plaintiff demanded a refund from Sipes and Raygoza in

writing due to fraud. Plaintiff sent numerous communications pleading for the return of his

money due to personal circumstances and hardships. Plaintiff’s wife had demanded the return

of her funds. In August 2009 Raygoza indicated he might be willing to compromise. But

added: “As far as Amex, MasterCard, or Visa is concerned there is no way Visa or

MasterCard will favor you in this case so we are not scared of a charge back. We’ve

processed millions online and we’d be complete fools if we didn’t know how to secure our

money.” Raygoza did not make an offer to compromise but instead offered to sell Plaintiff

1000 leads for $300. Plaintiff made further attempts to secure a refund to no avail. In his

phone conversation with IncFortune Plaintiff noted that IncFortune representatives had stated

that all calls were recorded.

92. Barbara Poulson, age 66 of Richland, Washington lost $30,000 to defendants. In

July 2009 Plaintiff received many telephone calls from Defendants’ salesmen some of whom


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


assumed the false identity of John Denton. One of these salesmen induced her to pay $10,000

to IncFortune in exchange for a guaranteed return of investment. IncFortune made

arrangement for plaintiff to travel to Los Angeles where no one including Sipes would

answer her question about making her money back. An IncFortune salesman in December

2009 then called Plaintiff and asked how much her limit was on her credit card. He said

he only needed this because being that she was working with them as a partner they

needed to know if she would be able to follow up on her end of the deal. However he

assured plaintiff no payment would go to them until she earned a profit. In fact, he said

she should start seeing a profit in July 2009. He said she would be working with the top

people and would be getting in on a different level. The following month, January 2010,

Plaintiff was mortified to see $20,000 more in unauthorized charges on her credit card to the

card’s limit. She immediately called the card company and put it in dispute. After three

months they said they could not or would not take it off as she had authorized payment based

on the false statements of Defendants to the credit card company. To date Plaintiff has not

earned a penny and is out $30,000 in credit card debt. Plaintiff incurred $30,000 in debt

because of the actions of the Defendants including deliberately false representations made by

the Defendants to her credit card company to cover up outright theft of $20,000. Plaintiff is

retired and can ill afford to lose this money.

93. Mark Mayott of Vancouver, Canada, who works as a parking lot attendant, was

called by Jeff Gold who falsely represented that he owned IncFortune on July 8, 2009.

Gold said: “Hi, Mark I see you are looking for an online business?” Plaintiff answered in the

affirmative. Gold asked how old Plaintiff was and about his children. Gold then asked if

plaintiff had credit cards, their numbers and how much available credit on each one. Gold

stated Plaintiff was guaranteed income and a weekly check beginning in 7 days. Gold

told Plaintiff that if he signed a document he would fax over that the income stream

would begin immediately. Plaintiff signed up and was charged $10,000 by PushTraffic.

The income stream did not start. However Plaintiff was transported to Los Angeles for a

seminar by Defendants. Sipes and Raygoza presented at the seminar. When plaintiff returned


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


home he was called by someone posing as Jeff Alderson who convinced Plaintiff he was in

the wrong program and charged him $18,000 to join IncFortune so he could get immediate

income and a turnkey website business. Plaintiff has never received a single cent of

income and has been unsuccessful in getting a refund. The credit card companies have

garnisheed his earnings to pay back the $28,000 debt.

94. In early 2009, Wayne and Jade Daily were contacted by someone who had

assumed the name of John Denton who stated to them they would earn $10,000 to $15,000

a month if they purchased personal training from Raygoza. Based on this inducement,

plaintiffs paid $10,000 to PushTraffic through their credit cards. Raygoza made arrangements

for plaintiffs to be transported to Los Angeles for his seminar. Plaintiffs then received

coaching services March through July 2009 and spent $700 additional on advertising the

usual template website. In July 2009 plaintiffs had not received the money mentioned by

“Denton” and realized they had been scammed when Google Adwords barred them from

advertising because the website copy provided by the Defendants was contrary to their anti

fraud policies. Plaintiffs applied for a refund to Raygoza. Raygoza’s response was to refer

him to his so called Verification. Plaintiffs then attempted to dispute the credit card charges

but Defendants’ attorney misrepresented the situation to the credit card companies by

claiming valuable services were provided. Plaintiffs’ losses total $10,700.

95. Florence Majanil of Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia received a call on August

22, 2009 from PushTraffic salesman Bruce Knight. Knight stated to Plaintiff that she

would have a website that earned $3500 a week for free. The only catch would be that

PushTraffic would get 25% of the profits. Knight stated as fact she would make money

in 21 to 45 days. Knight also claimed he would match the money plaintiff put into the

scheme. Knight obtained Plaintiff’s credit card numbers to check ger creditworthiness as

partner and while she was on the phone placed an unauthorized charge for $6500 on her

credit cards to the credit of PushTraffic and IncFortune. He faxed plaintiff a Verification to

review without telling her the credit card had already been charged. Plaintiff signed and sent

the Verification back to Knight believing it reflected the non existent partnership. She was


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


then contacted by JumpLaunch and sold a hosting contract. Plaintiff was provided a website

http://myprofitableinternetbusiness.com. The website content however shocked plaintiff

because it was blatant fraud and stated: 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! On August 30, 2009 Knight requested Plaintiff travel to Los Angles for a

seminar. But on September 6, 2009 Knight asked for another $1000. When plaintiff refused,

Knight and PushTraffic ceased communication with her. However, someone who had

assumed the identity of Denton then called Plaintiff in mid September 2009 and tried to sell

her a website. He claimed he was not associated with PushTraffic but when she refused, he

correctly said, “Don’t you have four credit cards?” Plaintiff hung up. As a result of

Defendants’ deliberate actions, Plaintiff has been financially ruined and has suffered a heart

attack due to stress.

96. In August 2009, Maryann Borzillary who lives in Rochester, New York was

called by a salesman of Defendants posing as Denton and sold her a website to be managed

and hosted by PushTraffic and JumpLaunch in a series of transactions between April 29,

2009 and May 7, 2009. The false Denton claimed he was a millionaire and was a

personal friend with Sergey Brin who owns Google. Denton said he would fly plaintiff

to California and shake her hand. Denton also told plaintiff he was going to be adding

money to Plaintiff’s account every week or every other day and he would be speaking

to her everyday. Based on these lies, plaintiff paid $1,628 to defendants. Plaintiff attempted

to work the program provided but the mentor/coach Ken Steele provided by PushTraffic

became aware she had very limited cognitive skills. After three weeks Plaintiff became

convinced she had been cheated by “Denton” and attempted to dispute the credit card charges

but Defendants opposed the charge backs and reinstated the charges. The loss of $1,628 was

an extreme hardship to plaintiff.

97. Dale Matthews of Bucyrus, Ohio purchased a product on the Internet for $7 from

the real John Denton. He received a call on or about May 2009 from Bruce Knight who said

he was calling for Denton, who was the man behind the $7 product, and they were offering to


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


take a select few of the members and personally tutor them. Knight convinced plaintiff to

upgrade his membership for less than $100. A salesman of Defendants using the false

identity of John Denton then called plaintiff the same day. “Denton” said that he was looking

for 6 to 8 people to personally train and said that Bruce Knight had contacted him and had

referred plaintiff as a good candidate. “Denton” said that he wanted to bring plaintiff and a

few others to his home in Los Angeles for three days of personal training. Denton stated that

he wanted plaintiff to upgrade to the VIP level at a cost of $10,000. Plaintiff told him there

was no way he could pay that amount since he had just lost his job. Denton stated that

plaintiff could put it on his credit card and that Denton would build a web site and

would drive traffic to the site so that plaintiff could be earning money within a week

and to expect a check within the next two weeks. After determining that plaintiff didn’t

have $10,000 worth of credit available Denton said that he would accept $6,000 and that he

would make up the rest out of his pocket. Denton then emailed plaintiff a Verification

from IncFortune and asked him to sign it and send it to the email address ([email protected])

so he could get started building his web site. Denton called a few more times and said he

would be in contact with plaintiff throughout the process and was anxious to meet and shake

plaintiff’s hand when he arrived in Los Angeles. But after plaintiff signed and emailed the

Verification back he never received any more calls from Denton. He was however

transported by Defendants to a seminar in Los Angeles in September 2009. Plaintiff never

received any traffic to his site from Denton and never received a check. Plaintiff made

several unsuccessful attempts to contact Denton

98. Esther Lesperance of Winnipeg, Canada lost $20,000 to Defendants. In March

2009 plaintiff purchased a DVD called The Truth by John Raygoza. On April 3, 2009 she

received a phone call from a salesman at PushTraffic promising plaintiff could earn

thousands of dollars selling e-books on the Internet. Then Raygoza got on the phone and

offered plaintiff annual income of $60,000 if she agreed to pay $5000 now. Plaintiff

received services from PushTraffic but earned no money. On August 20, 2009 plaintiff

received another phone call from Raygoza saying he had a very exciting offer for her


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


and if she only paid $20,000 he would treat her website like his own, Raygoza claimed

he would personally guarantee that she would get all her money back by the end of

2009 but extra money was needed to advertise her site. Raygoza assured her that this

worked every time, since he was a millionaire at the age of 26 years old and he loved to

help people. Based on these lies plaintiff paid IncFortune $15,000. On September 23, 2009

Plaintiff was flown to Los Angeles by Defendants for a 2 day seminar hosted by Raygoza

to learn Internet Marketing. The Boaz Rauchwerger website was used at the seminar as an

example of what could be done for Plaintiff. Here she met other people who had a very

similar story with varying amounts of money paid to attend the seminar but none had ever

earned any money from the Defendants’ scheme. They all complained to Hernan Joel

Severino, but his response was: “What do you want me to do about it, I only arrange the

seminars.” In October 2009 Hernan Joel called plaintiff and said Raygoza and Sipes were in

the room and that all her money ($15,000) had been used up on coaching services. However

the $15,000 had never been set aside by defendants and this was a lie. Finally, on November

30, 2009 Plaintiff received another call from Jack Hill of IncFortune offering a wonderful

new opportunity to work personally with John Raygoza and Folusho Orakunle. Hill offered

to make Plaintiff a junior partner of the company, the same as “John Denton.”

Plaintiff was to run the Canadian division but in order for her to do this they needed

her credit rating to be better than it was at this point. So Jack Hill said please get me

your highest maxed out credit card number so that we can decide how to proceed to put

your rating back to having a green flag instead of the current red flag. Plaintiff knew

someone using the name John Denton had scammed $15,000 from Heather Paredes. John

Raygoza got on the phone for a minute to distract Plaintiff while Hill charged her credit

card account up to the maximum without her consent. Plaintiff started crying and said she

never authorized any withdrawal and Hill said: “Oh, other people have cried as well but they

are very thankful to us now because this system works and you must believe and have faith

because these people are now earning $30,000 a month and are very happy.” In the end Hill

relented and withdrew the unauthorized charge but plaintiff did not know so for a week and


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


suffered intense emotional distress. Plaintiff attempted to get her other money refunded but

Defendants’ legal staff lied to the state attorney general and credit card companies that

legitimate services had been provided to Plaintiff. Most recently, the Defendants’ attorney

threatened plaintiff with a lawsuit for defamation, slander, extortion and conspiracy if she

continued to seek a refund.

99. Allan and Diane Breit, husband and wife, of Echo, Wisconsin were cold-called in

May 2009 by James Murphy representing IncFortune. Murphy offered the Breit’s a turnkey

Internet business provided by IncFortune and stated they would earn back their entire

$15,000 in 30 days. The Breits were taken in by Murphy’s lie and agreed to pay $15,000.

IncFortune then transported the Breit’s to Los Angeles for a seminar at which Sipes was a

presenter as well as motivational speaker, Boaz Rauchwerger. In June 2009, Murphy sent a

technician named Louis Obando to the Breit’s home in Wisconsin to set up their turnkey

internet business that Obando said would require only one hour of work per week.

Obando charged the Breits $10,000. The Breit’s believed Murphy and Obando and paid the

$10,000. However nothing came of these efforts and plaintiffs never earned a penny.

100. Carlyn Perona of Reno, Nevada was telephoned on July 1, 2009 by salesman

Brent Austin of PushTraffic who offered her the Mastermind and Inner Circle programs for

$15,000. Austin stated as fact that within one year she would be making over $100,000

and within two years over $1,000,000. Austin furthered made a money guarantee and

stated she would earn her entire investment back before her next credit card statement

came due. Austin was able to convince plaintiff to invest $10,000 from her credit card with

PushTraffic and JumpLaunch. Plaintiff was transported to Los Angeles by PushTraffic for a

seminar. However by October 23, 2009, plaintiff was yet to see a penny in income and

emailed Sipes and Raygoza demanding a refund. Sipes and Raygoza did not respond. On

November 2, 2009 plaintiff wrote yet again to Sipes and Raygoza who did not reply.

Plaintiff to date has been unable to obtain a refund from the Defendants.

101. Tye Nakawaga, age 74 of Laveen, Arizona, whose sole source of income is a

monthly Social Security Retirement check of $997 was called by a salesman Jack Hill from


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


IncFortune on March 26, 2010. Hill falsely claimed he represented Google and Clickbank

and that according to their records, Plaintiff was looking for a profitable home based

business. Plaintiff was looking to supplement her income and Hill’s lies disarmed her

suspicions. Hill falsely claimed Google and Clickbank would provide a profitable website for

plaintiff but she had to produce her credit cards to show her credit worthiness. Plaintiff

supplied her credit card account number but did not authorize charges and Hill said he would

not use them. Hill said he was interested in her MasterCard accounts because he knew

someone on the inside there. Hill then and there without authorization charged $30,000

on her credit cards nearly causing plaintiff a heart attack. Hill then said John Raygoza

who had just finished a telephone call with his friend the CEO of Google, wanted to

speak with plaintiff. Raygoza spoke to plaintiff and said she would get all her money back

in three months and convinced plaintiff to sign a Verification. However, Plaintiff called back

the night of March 26, 2010 and cancelled. Raygoza called Plaintiff back on March 27, 2010

and personally guaranteed plaintiff’s investment. IncFortune then provided plaintiff the

usual template website that they gave to all their victims. Plaintiff complained and was

provided another website for a weight loss product she was unfamiliar with. On April 16,

2010 Rob Martino called Plaintiff and told her that he had a new product that would be

guaranteed to earn back all her money. Martino stripped the desperate Plaintiff’s Discover

and American Express cards of an additional $27,000. Plaintiff became unnerved as her

credit was ruined and her only income was $997 a month from Social Security. Plaintiff soon

realized she had been scammed and tried to get a refund which was refused. She was,

however, able to obtain refunds totaling $30,000 from American Express, Discover Card,

and PayPal. The PayPal transaction had been disguised by defendants as a series of small

transactions to avoid detection by PayPal's anti money laundering and anti fraud programs.

But plaintiff still owes $30,000. When plaintiff disputed the charges and reported IncFortune

to the state attorneys general of Arizona and California, Defendants intentionally

misrepresented as recently as August 2010 that the situation was one of valuable services

received when in fact they knew plaintiff had been scammed and would never see a return of


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


her investment.

102. Karen Houdashell of Richardson, Texas lost $21,000 to the defendants. Plaintiff

is the care provider for her elderly relative which makes it difficult for her to take a full time

job. On July 21, 2009, Plaintiff received a phone call from a salesman identifyinghimself as

John Hill from John Raygoza's Underground Seminars. He informed Plaintiff that by the end

of the month she could have 10 to 15 profitable websites and would be trained in how to

manage the accounts. He said that the ball would roll quickly. He said that she would have

two dedicated coaches and she would have the flexibility of working from anywhere with her

laptop. Hill said that she would receive checks every two weeks and he asked for her home

address which plaintiff provided. Hill inquired about Plaintiff’s debt situation and found he

she had not worked full time since 2006. He sent an agreement to review. He told her she

would be selling computer software and data marketing and that she needed to think like Bill

Gates and she would have to use money to make money and to qualify for a marketing

platform for 2 or 3 websites. He asked if plaintiff had a Visa or MasterCard. She said yes, but

they were maxed out. He said she should start with credit cards (Visa, MasterCard, or

American Express). Plaintiff agreed to a $3,000 initial investment. Hill said that the initial

investment would be paid off in 3 to 6 months, as well as the current balances on all of

the other cards. She gave Hill her Visa, MasterCard, and American Express numbers. He

informed plaintiff that PushTraffic had special arrangements with all the leading credit

cards (MasterCard, Visa, and American Express) and the companies knew that people

associated with PushTraffic would be paying of all their total debt in 2 to 6 months. He

had Plaintiff on hold for a little while he conferred with the “finance department” and then

came back on the line. Hill told Plaintiff that there was $3,000 available credit on her

MasterCard, none on her Visa, and maybe some on her American Express card. Hill then

charged $3,000 on her MasterCard but said she would need another $7,000 to go to the

Malibu Mansion seminar. Later that evening Hill called again and informed her that through

a special arrangement with MasterCard, he had charged $18,000 more on her Diner’s

Club MasterCard, something she had not authorized. Plaintiff was stunned but signed an


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


agreement not knowing what else to do. The next day after a sleepless night, on July 21, 2009

plaintiff called Diner’s Club MasterCard to find out what happened, and learned there was no

special relationship with defendants, instead Hill had engaged in money laundering by

disguising the $18,000 transaction as 21 separate transactions. Hill called plaintiff to tell her

she would now be receiving 100 profitable websites and that she should partner with Jeff

Alderson and Brent Austin neither of whom were actually partners of defendants.

PushTraffic transported plaintiff to Los Angeles on August 19-21, 2009 for a seminar and

plaintiff discussed her situation with Raygoza. Raygoza assured her it would be a walk in the

park. Plaintiff however never received a penny.

103. Joyce Hoke lives in California and is over age 60. On April 21, 2009, plaintiff

was contacted by a person calling themselves “Michael Vincent” who said he worked for

PushTraffic and was offering a chance to make a lot of money working from home.

“Vincent” asked next about her credit cards and Plaintiff said they were almost maxed out.

Plaintiff told “Vincent” she needed money because she had a lot of bills and a daughter ill

with cancer. Vincent offered her a turnkey Internet business and without her consent

managed to charge $10,000 on her credit card after obtaining the account numbers

from plaintiff. Plaintiff was so upset she could not eat or sleep. PushTraffic provided some

coaching and transported plaintiff to Malibu for a seminar. She was provided the web site

quickwebcashprofit.com which was the usual template pushing Defendants’ program.

Plaintiff tried to complain to the Better Business Bureau with no result. But for Vincent's

unauthorized charges on her credit card accounts and Plaintiff's fear she would lose her

funds, Plaintiff would not have entered into any relationship with defendants.

104. Grace Adele, age 63 of Elkhart, Indiana is a sole proprietor of a tax and

accounting home based business. She invested $47,000 in 3 transactions with Defendants as

follows. On February 10, 2010, she received a phone call from Jack Hill. Hill said that Jeff

Alderson, a well known Internet marketer, had provided her name as someone interested in

Internet income. Alderson had in fact ceased all relationships with Defendants in January

2010 and requested they cease and desist from using his name in relation to their activities


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


due to identity theft of his name by defendants’ sales force who were impersonating

Alderson. Plaintiff had previously purchased software from Alderson and recognized the

name. Hill related that IncFortune had a program which would pay off her initial

investment in 90 days, would provide leads, and would be a viable business within 180

days. Hill asked plaintiff about her business ideas and then said he needed to talk with

Raygoza who he claimed was in the room, after a brief pause Hill came back on the line and

said Raygoza thought those were all great money making ideas. Hill then sold her the

Successrate program for $15,000. Within 3 weeks Defendants managed to extract an

additional $35,000 from Plaintiff's credit cards in a series of phone calls touting guaranteed

profits and by using a document called a General User/Confidentiality/Verification

Agreement but was signed only by Plaintiff and whose primary purpose was to prevent credit

card charge backs and defeat investigations by state attorneys general. Plaintiff never earned

any money.

105. James Horlacher of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina was telephoned on August 23,

2009 by a salesman of Defendants pretending to be John Denton. The false “Denton” said

he had made millions of dollars online and could do the same for Plaintiff when Plaintiff said

he might be interested, he was telephoned two days later by Rob Tarentino of PushTraffic

who stated to Plaintiff he would earn back his investment of $10,000 in three to six

months. Based on this representation, Plaintiff paid $10,000. On September 22, 2009,

plaintiff attended a seminar in Los Angeles where he met Raygoza and Sipes who both told

plaintiff that for $30,000 additional he could triple his money in 90 days. Plaintiff paid

$3,000 on his credit card and mailed a check for $27,000 to defendants. Plaintiff followed

Raygoza's advice and wasted an additional $3,000 on expenses but never earned any money

for a total loss of $40,000.

106. Robert Old, Jr. of Bonham, Texas was born September 17, 1917, thus is 93

years old, and supports himself with a Social Security Retirement check of slightly more

than $900 a month and is the sole caretaker for his wife who has Alzheimer's disease.

Defendants took $20,000 from Mr. Olds in May 2009 and another $11,000 in September


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


2009. A PushTraffic salesman took the initial $20,000 from the Plaintiff for a surefire

investment in a website called besthealthyheart.com guaranteed to make money.

Defendants demanded Plaintiff come to Los Angeles for a seminar which he could not

because of his wife's Alzheimer condition. PushTraffic’s Obando instead came to Texas for

three days to set up a website that earned no money at all. In September 2009 Raygoza

phoned Plaintiff and told him that if he provided his credit card number, Raygoza

would replace the worthless website with one that would earn back the $20,000.

Raygoza then made unauthorized charges of $11,000 on the credit card which exceeded

its limit. Raygoza provided no $20,000 or website and refused to respond to a request for a

refund.

VIII. DEFENDANTS

107. The RICO Enterprise consists of eight California corporations directly

controlled by Raygoza, Molina, and Sipes: PushTraffic, IncFortune, Dot Intel, LLC.

Successrate, Inc., YourAffiliateSuccess, Future Endeavor.com, LLC, and JumpLaunch and

Finity Consulting, LLC. The Defendants have also utilized a wide variety of fictiitious names

some of which are noted in the case caption. While the all entities may have a separate legal

existence to one they are all associated in fact as a common enterprise. Defendants are sued

individually and jointly and severally as co-conspirators.

108. John Raygoza is a resident of California. Raygoza claims to be have become

millionaire at age 26 and grosses upwards of $10 million a year through his companies.

In Raygoza’s own words: “Discover How I've Made Over $4.1 MILLION Dollars... In

Just 365 Days... With A System That Has Never Yet Failed!” Excerpted from

www.thetruthdvdseries.com/ [Last visited October 2, 2010].

109. David Sipes, a resident of California, is Raygoza’s partner in fact and a resident

of California. In Sipe’s own words: “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 are building a sales and coaching program like no other which is

focused only helping Internet Marketers maximize their backend and providing their clients


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


with our one of a kind VIP coaching service.” Excerpted from

davidsipes.com/about_me/about_me.htm. Sipes supervised the coaching staff and ran the

seminars among other duties. Sipes as an officer of the various corporations also handled

customer complaints.

110. Ted Molina, a resident of California is John Raygoza’s brother and Director of

Sales for the Raygoza controlled Enterprises and helped along with Raygoza and Sipes

develop the sales pitches and programs used to ensnare plaintiffs. Molina along with Sipes

and Raygoza jointly directly supervised the salesmen as General Manager of the defendant

corporation sand helped implement and carry out the use of false and stolen identities by

Defendants' sales force. Raygoza was also the “enforcer” for the Defendants. When former

CE coaching employee Ken Steele prevented a disabled man from being cheated of $5,000

by Defendants’ sales staff, Molina demanded Steele go get His $5,000 back. Molina also

made threats to various Plaintiffs and was involved with a death threat to Plaintiff Dale.

111. PushTraffic was incorporated in California in May 2007 and its president is John

Raygoza. In a July 15, 2010 letter to the California Department of Justice, IncFortune

claimed it was PushTraffic’s successor in interest: “That company is no longer operating and

all records of payments, goods shipped, or services provided are not retrievable.” In fact all

the Corporate entities are controlled by the same principals and were used interchangeably

and often operated from the same physical addresses and utilized the same personnel. It was

operating procedure by Defendants to establish multiple entities to confuse government

agencies and consumers alike and when a particular operation received too much negative,

its operation were simply succeeded by IncFortune, FutureEndeavor, or Finity Consulting.

The entities however were simply multiple personas of the same combination of enterprises

all controlled by Defendants Raygoza, Sipes, and Molina.

112. IncFortune was incorporated in February 2009 as a so called successor to

PushTraffic and its president is John Raygoza.

113. Dot Intel, Inc. was incorporated in California in August 2009 and was converted

to a LLC in September 2009. It purports to have been founded by an individual named Rob


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Artino. Dot Intel in fact is controlled by Raygoza, Sipes, and Molina while Artino works for

the RICO enterprise of Defendants.

114. Successrate, Inc. was incorporated in California in June 2009 and its president is

John Raygoza.

115. Youraffiliatesuccess was incorporated in California in July 2007 and its

president is John Raygoza. As of June 2010, Youraffiliatesuccess claims to be: “SOLD OUT

Due to the overwhelming response from people all across the world, Singapore, Australia,

Europe, UK, Canada, and the United States. YourAffiliateSuccess is now closed.”

116. JumpLaunch was incorporated in California in December 2007. Its president is

John Raygoza. In addition to being part of the RICO enterprise and fraudulent acitivites,

JumpLaunch does provide legitimate web hosting services.

117. FutureEndeavor.com, LLC is a California corporation incorporated October 2,

2009. It’s principle officer is John Raygoza. In addition to being part of the RICO enterprise

the company does service commercial clients’ unrelated to the matters herein in the field of

marketing.

118. Finity Consulting, LLC is a California corporation incorporated November

30, 2007. The only listed partner with the California Secretary of State is David Sipes

although the website listed Marina Skegin as the CEO of the corporation in August 2010.

The content website of the defendant Dot Intel is virtually the same as Finity Consulting.

Finity Consulting is part of the RICO enterprise in that it provides the same services as the

other Defendants, has the same principle and has been used an alter ego corporation utilizing

the same personnel and practices as the other members of Defendants’ RICO Enterprise

despite its separate Corporate identity. For example in 2010, after the commencement of this

action, Finity entered into an arrangement with two Utah corporations to sell Internet

Marketing programs that falsely stated guaranteed returns which was merely a continuation

of the existing RICO Enterprise under different names to avoid the adverse publicity

generated by this lawsuit.

119. Plaintiffs are unaware of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


as DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sues these defendants by such fictitious

names. Plaintiffs will amend this complaint to allege their true names and capacities when

ascertained. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and therefore allege that each of the

fictitiously named defendants are responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein

alleged, and that Plaintiffs’ injuries as herein alleged were proximately caused by such

defendants. These fictitiously named Defendants are herein referred to collectively as

defendants and include agents, employees, affiliates, paralegals and lawyers associated with

the Defendants’ RICO enterprise, many of whom have used fictitious names in dealing with

plaintiffs to mask their actual identities.

IX. PUNITIVE DAMAGES

120. Punitive damages are warranted under California Code of Civil Procedure §

3249 as follows:

(1) The Defendants targeted elderly including up to age 93, infirm, and disabled

victims including one his apparent death bed and victims out of the state and country who

had little recourse to legal assistance;

(2) The Defendants engaged in a regular pattern of such malicious and despicable

conduct such as making threats of death and groundless lawsuits, and mocking victims who

attempted to seeks refunds;

(3) The Defendants deprived victims of the necessities life including food and shelter

by financially ruining them and causing individuals on fixed incomes and pensions to endure

crushing debt.

(4) The Corporate defendants ratified the above conduct and encouraged it;

(5) The Defendants such as Finity Consulting, IncFortune, and Future Endeavor have

continued to engage in this conduct even after the service of the lawsuit and must be

punished to deter further and continuing conduct of this nature.

(A) In particular: Defendants placed a distressed elderly class member on a

speaker phone and laughed at him when he attempted to seek a refund;

(B) Defrauded Joseph, a paraplegic, while he was in the hospital with a near


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


fatal staph infection and made an unauthorized charge on his credit and refused to refund

money even when it was known plaintiff needed the money for medical equipment.

(C) Defrauded Forcier, a stroke survivor, who is now facing eviction from his

home due to his financial losses caused by defendants;

(D) Defrauded Oliphint, of the proceeds of her husband's life insurance policy;

(E) Defrauded 80 year old Cornelius and 87 year old Woods;

(F) Defrauded 72 year old Tan by obtaining five of her credit card account

numbers by claiming Defendants would get out of debt but instead placed charges on them;

(G) Defrauded Uys of $40,000 causing him such hardship that he could not

afford food or shelter;

(H) Defrauded Mayott, a Canadian parking lot attendent, of $28,000 causing

his wages to be garnisheed;

(I) Defrauded Majanil of Malyasia of so much money that she suffered a heart

attack due to stress and shame;

(J) Defrauded 74 year old retiree Nakawaga who lived on a fixed income of

$997 a month and caused her to incur $30,000 in debt she can not pay back;

(K) Defrauded 93 year old Old of $20,000 which forced plaintiff to borrow

against his life insurance to pay off the credit card debt incurred.

X. EQUITABLE TOLLING & FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

121. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators affirmatively

and fraudulently concealed their unlawful conduct.

122. Neither Defendants nor their co-conspirators told Plaintiffs or other Class

members that they were engaging in racketeering or fraud and in fact strenuously denied

these allegations to plaintiffs, government agencies, banks, credit card companies and law

enforcement. Accordingly, many of the Plaintiffs and Class members could not have

discovered full truth and extent the violations alleged herein earlier until shortly before the

filing of the Second Amended Complaint in the actions comprising this litigation because

Defendants and their co-conspirators conducted their conspiracy secretly, concealed the


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


nature of their unlawful conduct and acts in furtherance thereof, and fraudulently concealed

their activities through various other means and methods designed to avoid detection

including the use of stolen identities which was only recently verified.

123. Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a pattern of racketeering and

fraud by concealing their activities and conducting them in secret and using false and stolen

identities while also engaging in legitimate marketing and Internet activities. As a result of

Defendants and their co-conspirators’ fraudulent concealment, all applicable statutes of

limitations affecting the Plaintiffs’ and the Class’s claims have been tolled.

124. Plaintiffs and the Class members did not discover, nor could have discovered

through reasonable diligence, that Defendants and their co-conspirators were using stolen

identities until October 2010, when this lawsuit was filed by a few individual plaintiffs

against former defendants such as Denton who secured counsel who investigated and

revealed the scope and breadth of the stolen identity use by defendants.

125. As a result of the fraudulent concealment of the fraud and RICO enterprise,

Plaintiffs assert the tolling of the applicable statute of limitations affecting the causes of

action by Plaintiffs and the members of the Class.

XI. CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I ~ VIOLATION OF RICO § 1962(c)

126. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the preceding paragraphs as if set out in

full including the section “RICO” above.

127. All individual defendants conducted and participated in the conduct of the RICO

Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity along with certain law firms, lawyers,

and paralegals. The RICO enterprise included companies involved in legitimate business

enterprise and effected interstate commerce.

128. The pattern of racketeering included predicate acts of mail, and wire fraud,

money laundering, violations of the Travel Act, extortion, and other illegal acts as set

forth above and in the Plaintiffs section of the complaint in particularity.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


189. As a direct and proximate result of above Defendants racketeering conduct,

Plaintiffs have lost a minimum of $941,790 and the class of victims have suffered damages

in an amount in excess of $5,000,000.

COUNT II ~ FRAUD

129. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all the preceding paragraphs as if set out in

full.

130. Defendants made numerous, intentionally false and misleading material

representations to Plaintiffs about income and business potential including guaranteed

income, reurn of investment, money back guarantees, and matching funds and Plaintiffs

relied to their detriment thereon as detailed under each individual Plaintiff in the Plaintiffs

section of the lawsuit wherein the fraudulent inducements are in bold Vide supra.

131. Defendants used intentionally false statements regarding checking

creditworthiness, partnerships, joint ventures, and matching funds to induce Plaintiffs to

permit defendants to strip their credit card and other accounts of all available funds and to

sign Verifications.

132. Defendants made numerous other intentionally false and misleading statements

to Plaintiffs and third parties such as banks, credit card companies, and government agencies

about the existence of service agreement and fabricated relationships with Google, Sergey

Brin, ClickBank, master Card, and the US government, upon which Plaintiffs relied to their

detriment.

133. Defendants’ entire business model was based on a pattern of lies and intentional

and spectacular distortions of the truth designed to ensnare plaintiffs and empty their bank

and credit card accounts rather than provide legitimate services. Some of the fraud detailed

in the Plaintiffs' section, the specific fraudulent practices included:

(a) Use of the stolen identities of ALDERSON, ANDREWS, BECKTA, COBB,

DAVIES DENTON, and KIRKLAND when making false representations to plaintiffs in

order deceive plaintiffs into believing they were dealing with known and trusted Internet

marketers;


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


(b) The use of pseudonyms and impersonations to mask the true identities of those of

the defendants and their employees committing fraud so that plaintiffs were left no remedy

and to provide defendants deniability that fraud had occurred;

(c) A practice of making false representations including guaranteed return of

investment and profits, money back guarantees when no such income, profits, or guarantees

existed in order to induce plaintiffs to part with their money;

(d) A pattern and practice of placing unauthorized charges on Plaintiffs’ credit cards;

(e) The misuse of Verifications to defeat charge backs and other attempts by

Plaintiffs to obtain refunds.

134. As a direct result of Defendants fraud Plaintiffs have lost a minimum of

$941,790 and the Class have suffered damages in excess of $5 million.

XI. JURY TRIAL

135. Plaintiffs request a trial by jury.

XII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court:

1. Award compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and for treble

damages, costs and attorney fees under the RICO Act;

2. Award punitive damages in that defendants have utilized fraud, oppression, and

malice as particularized above including but not limited to exploiting the elderly, disabled

and unemployed in such a manner that individuals are no longer able to provide the

necessities of life due to indebtedness caused by defendants and that punitive damages are

required as an example be set to deter future conduct of this sort;

3. Award plaintiffs the costs of this action, including attorney and expert fees; and

other reasonable expenses;

4. Grant such other and further relief as shall seem just to the Court.

DATED: January 30, 2011. s/ Thomas Easton, Esq THOMAS EASTON

s/ Jonathan Levy, Esq. JONATHAN LEVY


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28


Of Attorneys for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the forgoing document has been filedwith the Courts’ CM/ECF filing system on this 30th day of January, 2011, which will provide service on all counsel of record.

s/Thomas Easton, Esq. Thomas Easton


Proposed Second Amended Class Action

Documents

Transcript of Proposed Second Amended Class Action