STOCKS & COMMODITIES INVESTMENT CASES

SUBSECTION PAGE 1 OF 2

************************************************************************************************

LATEST MARCH 2025 DISCOVERY

JW PERP(s) AND JW VICTIMS RESCUED BY GOVT

(Probably Why This Case Has Remained Hidden For 16+ Years)

JERSEY FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMISSION v. ALTERNATE INSURANCE SERVICES LTD, DOUGLAS CLARK, and ROBERT LE FUSTEC was a 2005-10 Bailiwick of Jersey FINANCIAL FRAUD case in which several of the 28 ignorant victims were Jehovah's Witnesses, while the main investments salesperson -- Robert Le Fustec aka Bob Le Fustec -- was a Jehovah's Witness -- probably a JW Elder. The religious status of the business owner -- Douglas Clark -- could not be determined. At the end of the day, the Government of Jersey paid most of the P1.6 million in losses back to the  the 28 victims -- paying a maximum of P48,000 "per investor ". UNBELIEVABLY, neither of the two principals nor two salespersons -- John Cronin and David Harrison -- were criminally prosecuted, nor were fined civilly, nor ordered to pay restitution. Here are several selected and edited excerpts from the decision -- not necessarily in order:

"This action is brought by the JFSC ... in relation to advice given by Alternate through Clark, Le Fustec, Cronin and/or Harrison between about September 2000 and July 2002 to 28 individual investors or married couples who were investors.  It is the JFSC's case that such investors were induced to make certain investments and to borrow money in order to make such investments by false, deceptive, and misleading statements made recklessly (but not dishonestly) by Clark, Le Fustec, Cronin and/or Harrison on behalf of Alternate as to the risks involved. ...

"The investors ... were almost all wholly unsophisticated investors. Not a few of them in fact, even after the event and by the time when they came to give evidence in November 2006, were unable to understand how the TIPPs worked in which they had invested. All had placed total reliance on Alternate's personnel, and particularly on Alternate's principal persons (Clark and Le Fustec) in taking up the investments in TIPPs. Most were personal friends of Clark or Le Fustec. ... some of these investors were so lacking in understanding of investments and investment decisions that, as they state they told Le Fustec at the time, they signed the relevant purchase and loan documents without even reading the documents, because they could not understand Le Fustec's verbal explanation and knew that the detailed documents would be beyond their capacity to understand. Several of the investors arranged for documentation coming from the insurance companies and the lenders to go to Alternate and to be held by Alternate, so that they did not even see such documents, unless they had to sign the documents. ...

"Mr and Mrs Investor 4 are a young married couple [with two children. They had been doing business with Bob Le Fustec since 1992].  The husband has suffered from a degenerative spine condition, and in early 2001 when Le Fustec was advising them to invest in a TIPP, the husband had been warned that his early retirement for medical reasons (though he was then only 33 years old) was inevitable. Mr and Mrs Investor 4's mortgage protection cover, taken out through Alternate and Le Fustec, did not extend to cover the husband's spine condition, and they could not keep up their mortgage repayments. They sold their property, and received a balance of P55,000, which they wanted to invest against the time when the husband could no longer work.  They were advised by Le Fustec to invest P40,000 in a TIPP, and the result is that they have lost a substantial part of that P40,000. ...

"At the time when Mr and Mrs Investor 5 entered into a TIPP in May 2001 on Alternate's advice, Mrs Investor 5 was 72 years old and Mr Investor 5 was aged 66. ... They were both retired and not in good health. ... Both receive a States pension, and he receives a Hospital pension.  They own their own house. ... They became clients of Le Fustec in 1985 ...They were cautious and small investors.  They did not like to take risks.  Le Fustec knew this. ... Le Fustec did not explain what a TIPP meant, and did not mention the word "gearing".  Mrs Investor 5 had not heard that word before and still does not know what it means. Le Fustec advised them to enter into a TIPP. As a result of his explanations, Mrs Investor 5 thought that the TIPP was like a mortgage, and did not appreciate that they were signing up to a bank loan ... They considered him a friend and trusted him implicitly.

"In November 2001, Mrs Investor 11 was aged 32 years. She was a widow, her husband having died in September 1999.  She had three small children, aged 7, 6 and 4 years.  She had known Le Fustec for almost all her life, and considered him to be 'like a second father figure to me'.  Le Fustec was a close friend of her husband and was his best man at their wedding. Following her husband's death she received the proceeds of life insurance policies totaling about P145,000 ... She used some of this money to pay their joint debts including those to family members. Apart from these life insurance payments she had no other savings and no real assets. She and her children were living in States accommodation of a low level. ... The result of Alternate's advice through Le Fustec is that Mrs Investor 11 may lose a large part of her original savings, and is tied into the TIPP until 2012-13, unless the policies can be sold.

"In February 2002, Mr Investor 17 was 53 years old and Mrs 17 was 50.  He was employed as a truck driver earning about P20,000 a year. Mrs Investor 17 was employed part-time as a nurse ... earning about P16,000 a year. ... They lived in rented accommodation and had no substantial savings or other assets. They had known Le Fustec for at least 30 years as members of the same congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses.  It is apparent that a number of the other investors are Jehovah's Witnesses, and know Le Fustec through that connection; but the Court does not have exact information as to all of such investors. ... In early 2002, when Le Fustec visited them at home, Mr Investor 17 mentioned that they had about P13,000 and were looking for guidance as to how to invest. Some of this had been saved and the rest was a gift from Mrs Investor 17's mother.  ...

"'A few days later he came back and told us about a type of investment which I now understand is known as a TIPP.   He explained that a lot of people had life insurance policies and didn't want to carry on with them. He suggested that we should buy some of these policies. I believed that it involved paying a single lump sum and then doing no more than waiting until the policies matured at which point we would collect the proceeds.  He told us that everyone was doing it. ... I told him that we were not prepared to take any risk. I said that we would prefer to put the money in the bank than put it at risk.  He told me buying the policies was a safe investment and that there was no need to worry.' ... 

"Mr Le Fustec explained that the investment would mature around 7 years later by which time [he] verbally confirmed that we would receive in the region of P34,000. ... I asked Mr Le Fustec whether it would cost us any money after the initial investment.  He said that it would not. He told us all that we had to do was pay the initial sum of P12,500 and then wait for it to mature.  The figures that he mentioned sounded very good and I asked him whether there was a catch. He said there was no catch and that we would be "quids in" if the person died. I believed what he said without question. We had a fairly close relationship with Mr Le Fustec.  He was aware of our financial position and that we were trusting him with all of our savings. ...

"Mr and Mrs Investor 17 received from Le Fustec for Alternate a standard "reason why" letter which bears the date of 20 February 2002 in Le Fustec's handwriting. ... This letter contains a number of statements which were false or misleading or both, as the Court has previously described. Mr Investor 17's evidence in relation to this letter is as follows:

"'I have difficulties with reading but recall briefly going through this letter. It did not make much sense to me or, I believe, to my wife. We did not ask any questions because we trusted Mr Le Fustec and did not think that he would recommend anything that could harm our interests.  As far as we were concerned the investment was as safe as putting the money in a bank. We didn't complete or read any of the documentation and simply signed where we were asked to do so. He did not take us through the forms and simply said they were something that needed to be signed. I do not believe that Mr Le Fustec explained the investment to us properly. Mr Le Fustec did not tell us that it could make a loss if the value of the loan increased faster than the value of the new policies.  We did not understand that the loan was being taken out in our name in order to make payments relating to the policies or that we could be liable to repay it.  If I had known all of the risks involved I do not believe we would have agreed to make the investment. I would have liked to have made an investment that did not involve a loan but this was not presented to us as an option.'

"Mr Investor 18 ... In February 2002 he was 58 years old and his wife was aged about 64 years.  Both were born in Spain. Both had suffered minor strokes from which they had not fully recovered. He had a disorder of his ears which made him deaf and sometimes affected his balance. He had worked as a carpenter for a hotel group earning about P18,000 a year.  His wife was forced to retire from work because of a back condition. ... They live in rented accommodation ... They have known Le Fustec as a friend for many years. ... In August 2000, he asked Le Fustec to visit them and advise [them about their P20,000 lifetime savings. ...] ...

"In [1997], Mr Investor 26 ... was talking to a fellow member of the Jehovah's Witnesses about the difficulties that we had previously experienced in obtaining sound financial advice. He suggested that we try Mr Le Fustec who is also a Jehovah's Witness.  I thought that this was a good idea and made contact with Mr Le Fustec. Mr Le Fustec came to visit us at home. I explained the problems we had faced with our previous adviser and the previous loss of P30,000 in the 1980s. ... In early 2002, Le Fustec phoned them and asked to visit them 'because he wanted to explain how we could do better with our money'. This meeting and two further meetings with Le Fustec for Alternate are described by Mr Investor 26 in this way:

"'At the appointment Mr Le Fustec told us about traded endowment policies which I understand are known as TIPPs.  He was rattling off a lot of information which I was unable to follow. I felt that he used a lot of financial jargon that was difficult to understand. In particular, I recall Mr Le Fustec mentioning terms such as collateral and gearing.  My wife and I did not understand these expressions.  I asked Mr Le Fustec whether we would be able to draw on our money under his proposed investment because I wanted to make sure that we could freely obtain access. This was very important to me.  He told us that it was possible.  As a result I was not concerned that the policies were not due to mature for a number of years. I remember Mr Le Fustec mentioning anticipated levels of profit to us, which seemed to be very good. I do not specifically recall discussing the level of risk with Mr Le Fustec.  I felt sure that he would not have raised TIPP investments unless they were low risk. I say this because he was fully aware of our attitude towards this issue. We were cautious investors. I believed it was a safe investment and had potential to make a little bit more money than the existing arrangements. We only acted due to the recommendation of Mr Le Fustec and had no independent desire to change matters from how they stood.

"'At the time I was approximately 72 years old and my wife was around 68 years old.  We did not have any substantial assets apart from our home and the two policies purchased through Mr Le Fustec [back in 1997].  We had cash in the region of P15,000 in a bank account, but neither of us had a pension policy.  I was earning in the region of P1,000 per month which was sufficient to meet our living expenses. ... I believe we had approximately three meetings with Mr Le Fustec before committing to the investment. At the first meeting Mr Le Fustec proposed that we take out 10 year policies. Given my age this seemed ridiculous. At the second meeting, he proposed the five year policy which we currently own. At the third meeting we signed up to the investment. I am unable to recall providing Mr Le Fustec with financial information during any of these meetings. I trusted Mr Le Fustec to give us sensible advice in view of our age, circumstances and attitude towards risk.'"

*********************                  *********************

WATCHTOWER RECOVERS $7 MILLION. NOONE CRIMINALLY CHARGED.

DEBORAH S. SKEANS, EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF FRANK E. PAVLIS v. KEY COMMERCIAL FINANCE, LLC; KEY COMMERCIAL FINANCE PROPERTIES, LLC; EQUITY PROS, LLC; and MOBILE AGENCY, LLC. Before we get started, readers should first note the absence of any "human" associated with any of the four named LLC defendants also being named as a defendant. Three guesses why.

Jehovah's Witness MULTI-MILLIONAIRE Frank Edward Pavlis died at the age of 101 in August 2018. Pavlis was the first employee of international chemical giant AIR PRODUCTS when it was founded in 1940. When Pavlis retired in 1980, he had served as corporate Treasurer and VP of three divisions.

When the childless widower died in 2018, Frank Pavlis was a resident of recently constructed LEGACY PLACE COTTAGES in Allentown, Pennsylvania, which is a Jehovah's Witness nursing home owned and operated by JAH JIREH HOMES OF AMERICA, which supposedly has no connection to similarly named nursing homes scattered across Europe, nor any connection whatsoever to any of the WATCHTOWER CULT'S multiple corporate entities.

When Frank E. Pavlis died in 2018, Deborah Skeans held his Power of Attorney. Debbie Skeans is the wife of Darbin T. Skeans, who is Chairman of the Board of JAH JIREH HOMES OF AMERICA. (Debby Skeans has since been added to the BOD.) As Executrix of Pavlis's ESTATE, Deborah Skeans filed this civil FRAUD suit in October 2018, alleging in part per the court:

Plaintiff has asserted five claims against the defendants: declaratory judgment in Count I, common law fraud in Count II, fraudulent concealment in Count III, conversion in Count IV, and unjust enrichment in Count V. The relief demanded by plaintiff includes an injunction, declaratory judgment, restitution, general and punitive damages.

... In or around January 2014, Justin [C.] Billingsley solicited Mr. Pavlis to invest in Allwest. ... Pavlis allegedly invested the sum of seven million dollars in Allwest. ... Billingsley forwarded Mr. Pavlis' investment funds to Allwest and orchestrated the wholesale transfer of this investment from Allwest to KCF, an entity that Mr. Billingsley controlled. ... KCF used Mr. Pavlis' investment to provide funding to Allwest for various projects between 2014 and 2018. ... Pavlis was not made aware of the transfer to KCF and never received documentation reflecting his investment in Allwest. ...

In exchange for his seven million dollar investment, Mr. Pavlis received two convertible promissory notes issued in September and November 2014 in the amounts of three million dollars and four million dollars respectively. ... These promissory notes were accompanied by Note Purchase Agreements[4] purporting to memorialize Mr. Pavlis' investments in KCF. ... Plaintiff alleges that despite representations in the notes and accompanying Note Purchase Agreements that KCF was a valid corporate entity in good standing, KCF had not been formed and did not have a corporate existence prior to December of 2014. ... Moreover, Mr. Pavlis' signature on each of the Note Purchase Agreements appears on its own pre-printed signature page without any identifying language relating it to a specific document. ... Plaintiff generally suggests that due to Mr. Pavlis' advanced age at the time the notes issued, Mr. Pavlis was readily manipulated and defrauded of his investment.

In 2016, plaintiff, acting in her capacity as Mr. Pavlis' Power of Attorney, requested that [Justin] Billingsley provide her with information relating to Mr. Pavlis' real estate investments. ... On November 11, 2016, Mr. Billingsley provided plaintiff with a copy of the September note. ...  In late 2017, plaintiff requested additional information about KCF from Mr. Billingsley. ... In or around February 2018, Mr. Billingsley produced a copy of the November note. ... On June 29, 2018, Mr. Billingsley produced additional documents, including a KCF Confidential Private Placement Memorandum ... dated August 1, 2014, and a subscription agreement ... dated August 18, 2014. ... The PPM did not mention convertible promissory notes and instead related to class A shares totaling one million dollars. ... The Subscription Agreement similarly related to class A shares totaling one million dollars. ... Plaintiff alleges that the PPM and Subscription Agreement are fabrications intended to falsely depict Mr. Pavlis' investment in KCF. ... On June 29, 2018, Mr. Billingsley also provided plaintiff's counsel with three joint venture agreements ... between KCF and each of its three subsidiaries. ... Plaintiff alleges that the Joint Venture Agreements are fraudulent. ... The Joint Venture Agreements provide that KCF:

"may, at its sole discretion, contribute funds to SUBSIDIARY for the purpose of ensuring that SUBSIDIARY is able to meet its operating expense obligations; provided, however, that under no circumstances shall such fund transfers be construed as a loan from PARENT to SUBSIDIARY."

... On July 13, 2018, [Justin C.] Billingsley produced a funding agreement ... between KCF and Allwest, which was dated September 20, 2016. ... Plaintiff alleges that the Funding Agreement is "a post-hoc attempt by KCF, through Billingsley, to create a veneer of legitimacy" to the transfer of Mr. Pavlis' funds from Allwest to KCF. ....

In April 2022, the Delaware USDC announced the following settlement -- with GEORGE CHADWICK SELF signing as the Authorized Representative for the four defendants:

Plaintiff, Deborah S. Skeans, Executrix of the Estate of Frank E. Pavlis ..., and Defendants Key Commercial Finance, LLC, Key Commercial Finance Properties, LLC, Equity Pros, LLC and Mobile Agency, LLC ... hereby stipulate and agree to the entry of full and final JUDGMENT on Count I of the Supplemental Complaint, and the entry of JUDGMENT in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendants Key Commercial Finance, LLC, Key Commercial Finance Properties, LLC, Equity Pros, LLC and Mobile Agency, LLC, jointly and severally in the amount of $7,000,000. The Parties further stipulate and agree to the DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE of Counts II, IH, IV, and V of the Supplemental Complaint.

***

PLAINTIFF PROPOSED VOIR DIRE -- JULY 2021

8. The potential witnesses in this case are: 

Deborah S. Skeans

Darbin Skeans 

Justin Billingsley 

George Chadwick Self

Gary Miller 

David Wyllie 

Edward Lentz, Esq.

Susan Mucciarone

Are you familiar with any of these potential witnesses? ...

10. Many of the witnesses involved in this case are members of the Jehovah's Witnesses religious denomination. If you are selected as a juror in this matter, is there any reason why you would be unable to render an impartial verdict based on the religious convictions of the witnesses?

***

In February 2022, the Defendants' Attorneys filed a complaint with the Court which initially pointed out that the WATCHTOWER SOCIETY was the sole beneficiary of the Pavlis Estate. They then complained that WatchTower corporate counsel RICHARD MOAKE had been privately communicating behind the scenes with both JUSTIN BILLINGSLEY and CHAD SELF, who were the "Authorized Representatives" of their own LLC clients. The following email was submitted as proof. (George C. Self allegedly received a similar email):

From: Richard Moake <richard.d.moake@xxxxx.com> 

Date: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 9:26 PM 

To: jcbillin9@xxxxx.com

Subject: Resolution 

Dear Justin, 

I hope last Sunday's daily text scripture (Proverbs 3:32) and paragraph 8 of this week's congregation Watchtower Study 

Article #49 (based on Leviticus 19:11-13) will motivate you to set matters straight with Jehovah's organization. 

Your brother, 

Rick Moake 

Richard D. Moake

*************************

08/23/2018

SUPERIOR COURT OF ARIZONA, MARICOPA COUNTY

JUSTIN C BILLINGSLEY AND HEATHER BILLINGSLEY v. ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION 

Appellants Justin C. Billingsley and Heather Billingsley seek reversal of the November 7, 2017 Decision of the Arizona Corporation Commission which entered a cease and desist order against Justin Billingsley, ordered the Billingsleys, joint and severally with the other defendants, to pay restitution in the amount of $250,000, and pay administrative penalties in the amount of $15,000. For the following reasons, this Court affirms that Decision.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Securities Division of the Commission ... filed a Notice of Opportunity for Hearing Regarding Proposed Order to Cease and Desist, for Restitution, for Administrative Penalties, and for Other Affirmative Action against LoanGo Corporation ("LoanGo"), the Billingsleys, Jeffrey Scott Peterson and John Keith Ayers and Jennifer Ann Brinkman-Ayers ... alleging violations of the Arizona Securities Act. The Commission joined Heather Billingsley solely for the purpose of determining the liability of the marital community, ...

An Administrative Law Judge ... held a three-day evidentiary hearing. At that hearing, Patricia Rowley testified that she contacted Justin Billingsley when she had $45,000 she needed to invest; he told her he had "just the right place for it". ... According to Rowley, "he knew that we didn't want it to be risky". ... Rowley told Billingsley she did not want an investment that was "too risky", as her husband had Alzheimers and she couldn't afford to lose her investment. ...

Rowley trusted Billingsley, who didn't tell her "much at all" about LoanGo. ... According to Rowley, she sent a check to Billingsley, but received "no information". ... When she eventually did receive information, she "could not believe it, that it was so risky". Billingsley did not tell Rowley that her money would be used to pay commissions or to repay loans. ... At the time she invested, Rowley's net worth was less than one million dollars, and her annual household income was less than $300,000. ... According to Rowley, although the subscription agreement had a box checked indicating that her net worth was over a million dollars, that was not true. ...

Jerry Lowe, an investigator for the Commission, contacted Donald Smeltzer, who had invested $50,000 in LoanGo. ... According to Smeltzer, Billingsley informed him about an investment opportunity with LoanGo, which Billingsley repeatedly said was "low risk". ... Before investing, Smeltzer received no documentation regarding LoanGo. ... At the time, Smeltzer's net worth was less than one million dollars, and his annual household income was less than $300,000. ...

Richard Goble invested $25,000 in LoanGo. ... At the time, he was not worth more than one million dollars and did not have an annual household income over $300,000. ...

Robin Erickson invested $30,000 in LoanGo. ... Billingsley told Erickson the investment was low risk; he did not tell her money would be used to pay commissions or repay loans. ... Erickson's net worth was less than one million dollars and her annual household income was less than $300,000. ...

John Jordan invested $100,000 in LoanGo. ... Billingsley did not tell him that LoanGo had defaulted on anyone else's investments, nor did he tell Jordan that his money would be used for commissions or loan repayments. ... At the time he invested, Jordan's net worth was less than one million dollars and his annual household income was less than $300,000. ... Billingsley never asked Jordan for that information. ...

Records indicated that Billingsley received a $15,000 commission payment from LoanGo. ... He denied receiving a commission. ... According to Billingsley, he never knew the net worth of the Rowleys, or any of the other investors. ...

The ALJ issued a Recommended Opinion and Order on October 10, 2017. The Billingsleys filed Exceptions to the Recommended Order on October 20, 2017. On November 7, 2017, the Commission issued its final Opinion and Order. The Commission found the following facts to be undisputed:

- LoanGo is an expired Utah corporation whose place of business was Chandler, Arizona. 

- LoanGo was never registered by the Commission as a securities salesman or dealer. 

- Billingsley, Peterson, and Ayers created LoanGo as an online payday lending company. 

- Billingsley, Peterson, and Ayers were the only Directors of LoanGo; they owned equal shares of the company. 

- Billingsley, Peterson, and Ayers are not registered by the Commission as securities salesmen or dealers. 

- In September of 2011, Billingsley, Peterson, and Ayers approved a corporate resolution authorizing the Directors to raise $3,000,000 in capital.

The Commission found the LoanGo notes were securities, and none were exempt from registration requirements. ... The Commission found that LoanGo, Billingsley and Peterson violated A.R.S. 44-1841 (unlawful to sell or offer to sell unregistered securities) and A.R.S. 44-1842 (unlawful to sell or offer to sell securities unless dealer or salesman is registered). ...

The Commission found LoanGo and Billingsley violated A.R.S. 44-1991(A) (fraudulent practices) by misrepresenting the level of risk of investing in LoanGo. ... The Commission found that Billingsley and LoanGo violated A.R.S. 44-1991(A) by failing to inform investors that their investment would be used to repay the personal loans made by Billingsley and Peterson. ... The Commission found that LoanGo and Billingsley further violated A.R.S. 44-1991(A) by failing to inform investors that their investment would be used to pay commissions to Billingsley, and by failing to inform investor Jordan of prior defaults on prior notes. ...

The Commission determined that the Billingsleys did not contest the liability of the marital community, and thus failed to rebut the presumption that debts incurred during marriage are community debts. ... The Commission ordered Respondents to cease and desist. ... The Commission also found the Billingsleys liable for restitution in the amount of $250,000. ... 

Finally, the Commission imposed penalties in the amount of $15,000. ... The Billingsleys sought rehearing, and the Commission denied the request. This appeal followed.

***

Affirmed by Arizona Court of Appeals on November 19, 2019.

*************************

WHY ARE CALIFORNIA JWs UNAWARE OF THIS PERSISTENT SCAMMER?

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION v. BRETT E. LOVETT was a 2005-07 California federal court decision. In July 2005, the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) filed a civil complaint against a Jehovah's Witness, named Brett Edward Lovett, then age 35, of Ontario, California, and Lovett's company, Northwest Asset Fund, of Reseda, California. Between October 2002 and August 2005, Brett Lovett fraudulently solicited at least $495,000.00 from at least four fellow Jehovah's Witnesses, purportedly to trade commodity futures, through false promises of high returns from a low-risk investment. In fact, Lovett actually deposited the funds into commodity trading, personal checking, and money market accounts maintained in his own name or in the name of his business, Northwest Asset Fund. Lovett misappropriated a portion of those funds for personal use and to re-pay some of his other customers. In furtherance of the fraud, Lovett created and sent fake reports and account statements to at least two of the customers. 

In November 2007, the federal court issued an order against Lovett ordering him to pay restitution of $181.000.00 to H. Douglas Kelly, and $135,000.00 to Bradford Pate. Lovett was also ordered to pay $320,000.00 in civil penalties. The order also prohibits Brett E. Lovett from engaging in any commodity-related activity, including soliciting funds and engaging in or directing the trading of any commodity futures or options accounts for other persons or entities. Brett Edward Lovett somehow managed to avoid criminal prosecution and doing prison time for these capers.

"The story behind Mr. Lovett's scheme is heartbreaking: he targeted members of his Jehovah's Witness church in a little suburb north of LA, told them he was a "financial advisor and fund manager" (with absolutely nothing to back up those claims), that their money would be safe with him, and asked them to let him trade futures for them. We were tipped off about Lovett's activities after he had defrauded a young man, a former church member, who lost the family's inheritance money in this scam. The young man was a sales clerk at Circuit City, lived at home taking care of his sick mother, and was making ends meet on the proceeds of a $250,000 family inheritance. Lovett found out about the money, targeted him, told the trusting young man that he could guarantee him a monthly income of $1,200 without touching his principal, and assured him that his money would be safe.  You can guess what happened: the money was lost in trading, and what was left went into checking accounts and money market funds in the name of Brett Lovett. Lovett scammed other individuals in the same manner, doctoring account statements to falsely indicate trading profits, and luring people to place their money with him with fraudulent promised of profits at no risk." -- Bart Chilton, Commissioner, United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission, February 8, 2008.

***

 DESIST AND REFRAIN ORDER 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS OVERSIGHT

MARCH 23, 2018

Brett Edward Lovett 

State DPS Legal Aid Information 

Trust Capital Holdings

Carpinteria, California 93013 

The Commissioner of Business Oversight (Commissioner) finds that:

1. At all relevant times, Brett Edward Lovett (Lovett) was a California resident doing business as State DPS Legal Aid Information (LAI) and Trust Capital Holdings (Trust Capital) with offices purportedly located at 5035 7th Street, Carpinteria, California 93013. Lovett filed a fictitious business name registration in Santa Barbara County, California for Trust Capital. 

2. Beginning in or about May 2011, Lovett offered or sold securities in the State of California in the form of promissory notes in LAI in the amount of $25,000 or more to at least one investor. 

3. Beginning in or about March 2012, Lovett sold securities in the State of California in the form of promissory notes in Trust Capital in the amount of $105,000 or more to at least one investor. 

4. The purported purpose of the LAI promissory notes was to raise operating capital to fund a lead generator for legal services. The business was to accept telephone calls and obtain contact Information from persons seeking referrals to free legal services providers in California and both sell the lists or directly refer persons seeking advice on landlord-tenant matters to landlord-tenant attorneys. These referral fees were to provide the revenue necessary to repay the note. 

5. The purported purpose of the Trust Capital promissory notes was to raise capital to take advantage of an investment opportunity presented to Lovett in a hotel being constructed in the United States by Indian business interests. 

6. In connection with the offer and sale of these securities, Lovett, State DPS Legal Aid Information and Trust Capital Holdings made, or caused to be made, misrepresentations of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. These misrepresentations and omissions included, but are not limited to, the following: 

a. Lovett had not been "cleared" of a court order entered against him on November 20, 2007 by a federal court in a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) despite the order requiring Lovett never take any action denying the findings or conclusions contained in the order or do anything that created or tended to create the impression that the order was without a factual basis, excepting testimonial obligations and legal positions in other proceedings to which the CFTC was not a party; 

b. Lovett was still subject to a permanent injunction that, among other things, found that he willfully violated the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

i. making misrepresentations of material fact in the solicitation of at least four individuals affiliated with his religion in investments in commodity futures; 

ii. misappropriating $495,000 in investor funds from at least four different individuals; and, 

iii. making false reports or statements about the status of investor funds to at least two customers; 

c. Lovett was permanently enjoined from defrauding others in connection with the sale of commodity futures and that he was permanently enjoined from engaging in any activity related to trading in any commodity; 

d. Lovett was required to pay $315,943 plus post-judgment interest to investors he defrauded in connection with the sale of commodity futures; 

e. Lovett was required to pay $320,000 plus post-judgment interest as a civil monetary penalty in connection with defrauding investors in the sale of commodity futures; 

f. LAI and Trust Capital investor funds would be used for Lovett's personal expenses; and, 

g. LAI and Trust Capital investors would not receive back all of their principal plus promised interest. 

Based on the foregoing findings, the Commissioner is of the opinion that the securities offered by Brett Edward Lovett, doing business as State DPS Legal Aid Information and Trust Capital Holdings, were offered in this state by means of written or oral communications that included untrue statements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, in violation of Corporations Code section 25401. 

Pursuant to Corporations Code section 25532, Brett Edward Lovett, doing business as State DPS Legal Aid Information and Trust Capital Holdings, is hereby ordered to desist and refrain from offering or selling any security in the State of California, including, but not limited to, promissory notes, by means of any written or oral communication which includes an untrue statement of a material fact or omits to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading. 

***

MARCH 2024

******************

VINCENT JULIUS DORTCH MASS MURDERS-SUICIDE. On the same day that his elderly Jehovah's Witness Father died, active Jehovah's Witness Minister Vincent Dortch purchased the two handguns that he used three weeks later to murder three business associates, wound a fourth associate, and commit suicide as police moved in. 

Vincent Dortch was a member of a large, extended multi-generation African-American Jehovah's Witness Family living along the Atlantic coast from Brooklyn to Lynchburg, Virginia. Vincent Dortch grew up in Brooklyn. As an adult, Dortch lived beyond his means, was constantly in debt that he could not repay, and filed bankruptcy multiple times.

Shortly after the meeting commenced, Dortch pulled one of his two handguns, ripped out the telephone plugin, and began to accuse the three D/Os (two African-Americans and one caucasian) of stealing money from the corporation. Dorch then ordered a fourth attendee to bind the three D/Os with duct tape. Dortch then told the three D/Os that they had a minute or two to pray. Dortch then shot the three D/Os, but also accidentally wounded another man. Dortch ordered the fourth attendee to bind with duct tape the man whom he had accidentally shot. Then, Dortch again shot the three D/Os in their heads for good measure.

Vincent Dortch then kidnapped the two other attendees whom he promised that he would not harm. Dortch wanted them to accompany him to New York, where was another investor whom he wanted to kill, but who had not attended the meeting. Outside the building, the two unharmed attendees managed to talk Dortch out of going after the man in NY. Dortch took them back inside and bound them with duct tape.

In the meantime, the wounded man had managed to get out of his bindings, repair the telephone line, and call 911. Responding police encountered Dortch in the offices. Dortch fired one shot at them before retreating and quickly shooting himself in his head. Names of the two unharmed attendees were not released.

***********************                             ***********************

It really is a small JW world. Recently, this Editor discovered that a JW "Special Pioneer" who had done this editor multiple personal injustices many decades ago, turns out to be a very close California relative of WEP, thus likely involved in one or more of the WEP businesses mentioned on this and following pages. JW Special Pioneer also acted as a "spy" for two other JW Hypocrites mentioned on this very webpage -- when it was JW SP who in fact was the primary perpetrator of the various events. JWs who never get to see the inside of WatchTower World have no clue that it is a SEWER, where only younger RATS are promoted to work for the OLD RATS.

***

WILLIAM E. PARODI SR.

FORMER BETHELITE??? William Edward Parodi Sr. is believed to have been born and reared in Florida, of second generation Cuban parents. In the mid 1960s, William E. Parodi purportedly left university shortly prior to graduating. According to a 1980s marketing brochure, Bill Parodi thereafter took an "entry-level position" with a "large printing firm". Hmmmm!!!

William E. Parodi served on the Orange County, California HOSPITAL LIAISON COMMITTEE for nearly 13 years from 1992 until 2005.

In 2019, William E. Parodi appeared at the June meeting of the Jackson Hole, Wyoming AIRPORT BOARD on behalf of the Jackson Hole Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses seeking the Board's permission to do "cart witnessing" at the Jackson Hole Airport. Bill and "Dee" Parodi have a summer home in Jackson Hole, as reportedly do other wealthy JWs.

We believe that Bill Parodi and his multi-decades computer programmer partner, their multiple computer-related businesses, and their myriad of JW Elder, MS, etc. computer-expert employees are the people actually responsible for many of the much-heralded computer innovations at the various WatchTower Society facilities. 

***

THREE VALLEYS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT ET AL v. WILLIAM E. PARODI, SR. ET AL was a 1988-97 California federal civil court case, in which the aforementioned California Municipalities and governmental entities attempted to recover some of the $8,279,000.00 which they allegedly lost while doing business with the Parodi Brothers and their employers. The lawsuit also requested $16 million in punitive damages. Some entities managed to settle their cases. Other plaintiffs litigated their claims only to have the federal courts send their claims to arbitration -- the awards which some plaintiffs believed to be too small.

***

***          ***

DAVID GOLDFARB

WATCHTOWER SPOKESPERSON

******************              *****************

JERRY STAUFFER v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS (2022) reveals that when Wisconsin's Oxford FPC cancelled weekly "Jehovah's Witnesses" services in February 2017 that Jerry Stauffer was the only inmate attendee of services conducted by local Wisconsin Jehovah's Witness Elder Ron Kneifel, aka Ronald Kneifel. (Services at Oxford FPC may have been started for Stauffer given his June 2016 sentencing.) Transferred to Minnesota due to advancing age reasons, Jerry M. Stauffer (b1948) thereafter attempted unsuccessfully to keep this lawsuit "moot" by alleging that "Jehovah's Witnesses should be part of the regularly scheduled religious services at Oxford FPC" irregardless of Stauffer's absence.

UNITED STATES v. JERRY M. STAUFFER was a 2015-17 Michigan PONZI SCHEME federal prosecution. In 2016, Jerry Stauffer was convicted by a federal jury of one count each of wire fraud and money laundering, in connection with a foreign-currency-exchange (Forex) Ponzi scheme, and was sentenced to two 120-month concurrent sentences. His sentencing guidelines included a commodities-law enhancement and an obstruction-of-justice adjustment. Ordered restitution was $845,679.00.

Jerry M. Stauffer was a resident of Traverse City, Michigan, where he operated a boat-brokerage business named Atlantic Boat Brokers. At some point, Jerry Stauffer began to misrepresent himself as a Forex expert to certain ignorant and gullible local residents. Between 2009 and 2015, Stauffer accepted $1.8 MILLION from 15 persons in Michigan to trade on the Forex market. In return, Stauffer was to receive a share of the trading profits. Investors received monthly brokerage statements showing that Stauffer was trading with their money as promised, and, in several cases, that their investments were performing well. In reality, Stauffer traded very little, if any, investor funds. Jerry Stauffer's Forex trading was merely the cover for a Ponzi scheme. The statements were forged, and the profits were imaginary. After Stauffer told investors that he lost their money in a hack of his brokerage account, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) opened criminal and civil investigations. In February 2015, Jerry M. Stauffer was indicted on one count each of wire fraud and money laundering.

At trial, several investors testified regarding how they came to invest with Stauffer, the representations he made to them, and the hacking story he told when the scheme began to fall apart. Doug Baker testified that after he learned that Stauffer was a Forex trader, Douglas Baker asked to invest and signed an agreement allowing Stauffer to trade foreign currency on his behalf, making an initial investment of $20,000. The contract provided that the investment would be part of a common fund with a target 5% monthly compounding return, that Stauffer was not permitted to use funds for personal use, and that he would receive a share of any profits. Doug Baker made subsequent investments totaling $350,000. Each month, Douglas Baker received payments and account statements purporting to be from the United Kingdom branch of Interactive Brokers (IB), an Internet-based broker. (JW Insiders will recall that there is a RICH NATIONALLY PROMINENT JW FAMILY named "Baker" in downstate Michigan, but we have no idea whether the above "Baker" is part of that JW family.)

The payments stopped after July 2013, however, when Stauffer sent an email to Douglas Baker explaining that his online IB account had been hacked and a "considerable amount" of the funds were lost by the hacker making money-losing trades. Doug Baker received a statement in July 2013 that purported to be for IB account "U90", with an opening balance of $890,322.40 and a closing balance of $192,450. The statement also indicated that the U90 account had margin-trading capabilities.

IB's records contradicted Stauffer's hacking story. Brad Klauseger, an employee in IB's compliance department, testified that IB maintains a database recording all trading activity in an account, and that no two accounts have the same number. IB's records showed that Stauffer had two accounts, "U90" and "U10". The U90 account was opened in June 2010 as an "individual" non-margin account, and was closed in September 2010 without ever being funded. The U10 account permitted currency conversion, but not leveraged Forex trading; it was opened in August 2012 and was funded once with $10,000. The Government introduced as exhibits IB statements Stauffer had sent to investors. Klauseger testified that these statements were not genuine because the notations and trading activity they reflected were inconsistent with the records in IB's database. For example, a purported statement showed the U90 account as being an "advisor" and "margin account", when in reality it was a non-margin "individual" account; the statements also falsely showed that Stauffer's accounts were with IB's United Kingdom, rather than the United States, branch.

The trial lasted four days; the defense presented no evidence and Jerry Stauffer did not testify. In its closing argument, the Government argued that Stauffer accepted funds on the false pretense that they would be added to his Forex fund and invested. Instead, he forged IB statements to make it appear as if he was actively engaged in Forex trading, used investors' funds in a Ponzi-scheme-like manner (diverting money to personal use -- such as paying living expenses and credit-card debt -- while using later investments to pay "profits" on earlier investments), and falsely claimed to have been the victim of a hack to cover up the resulting losses. In his closing argument, Jerry Stauffer argued that he did operate a Forex fund just as he had told investors, that his hacking story was true and the IB statements he gave investors were genuine, and that the Government failed to investigate IB's records or security practices. The jury convicted Jerry M. Stauffer of both counts.

***********************

LYNDE MCCAMMOND, AS TRUSTEE OF THE RANCH ROAD REVOCABLE TRUST, JAMIE FERTSCH, AND JASON HERRING v. FLINT ARROW LLC AND DAVID ROTHENBERG. David B. Rothenberg is the son of second generation Jehovah's Witness Parents, Robert D. Rothenberg and Patricia Rothenberg, of Georgetown, Texas, who are wealthy real estate agents and property developers. David Rothenberg is a brother of Michael Brent Rothenberg. This Texas lawsuit was filed in August 2023, but has had little activity. It involves the construction of a residential home in Georgetown for the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege Breach of Contract, Fraud, and violations of the Texas Construction Trust Funds Act. Defendants are presumed to deny all allegations. Outcome pending.

Also see FLINT ARROW LLC v. BRADFORD BROTHERS ELECTRIC OF AUSTIN LLC which is a 2023-24 state lawsuit filed by David Rothenberg against an electrical contractor who had placed a mechanic's lien on the incomplete residential home. Pending.

See professional video at FLINTARROWNIGHTMARE.COM.

************************

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION v. MICHAEL BRENT ROTHENBERG was a 2018-19 California federal civil court case. ROTHENBERG VENTURES was founded in 2012 by then 28 year-old Michael B. Rothenberg, who was reared in a VERY PROSPEROUS tight-knit, extended, multi-generation Jehovah's Witness family in/around Georgetown, Texas. Michael Rothenberg's (plus two brothers and one sister) "strict" Jehovah's Witness Parents include a father, Robert D. Rothenberg, who is a prosperous Real Estate developer and agent, and a mother, Patricia McMillan Rothenberg, who was a math teacher at Georgetown High School (See R. D. McMILLAN COMPANY). Mike Rothenberg holds a Masters degree from Stanford and a M.B.A. from Harvard. Along with 14 "limited partners", including his Jehovah's Witness Parents, Mike Rothenberg founded ROTHENBERG VENTURES in 2012. Rothenberg changed the name of his company in September 2016 to FRONTIER TECHNOLOGY VENTURE CAPITAL. On December 20, 2019, a federal district court ordered Michael B. Rothenberg to pay more than $31 million in disgorgement, prejudgment interest, and penalties in connection with the misappropriation of investor money. 

In August 2016, multiple investment and technology websites began reporting that this San Francisco, California based venture capital firm had admitted that it was then being investigated by the S.E.C. after a former employee filed a "whistleblower" complaint in July 2016. Three additional former employees reportedly filed unpaid wage claims with the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. A fourth former employee reportedly filed a civil lawsuit seeking reimbursement of business related expenses amounting to nearly $110,000.00. The City of San Francisco reportedly also filed a zoning complaint accusing Rothenberg of operating a business in a rented property zoned as "residential". Outcomes pending.

The SEC's complaint, filed in August 2018, alleged that Rothenberg marketed ROTHENBERG VENTURES a/k/a FRONTIER TECHNOLOGY VENTURE CAPITAL as uniquely positioned to identify millennial entrepreneurs and invest in "frontier technology" companies. Rothenberg and his firm allegedly misappropriated millions of dollars from the firm's funds, which Rothenberg used to support personal business ventures he claimed were self-funded and to pay for private parties and events at high-end resorts and Bay Area sporting arenas.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Rothenberg previously consented to the entry of a final judgment enjoining him from violating the anti-fraud provisions of the Investment Advisers Act, which was approved by the court on October 17, 2018. Rothenberg also agreed to be barred from the securities industry with a right to reapply after five years. Further, Rothenberg and the SEC agreed to have the court determine any monetary relief. The U.S. District Court granted the SEC's motion, ordering Rothenberg to pay disgorgement of $18,776,800, prejudgment interest of $3,663,323, and a civil penalty of $9,000,000.

***

UNITED STATES v. MICHAEL BRENT ROTHENBERG is an ongoing 2020-23 California federal criminal prosecution. Michael Rothenberg has been charged with 23 counts of criminal conduct stemming from his alleged fraudulent activities as founder of Rothenberg Ventures Management Company, LLC. The Government filed a criminal complaint alleging wire fraud on June 25, 2020. A 23 count waiver-less information and grand jury indictment followed on June 26, 2020 and August 20, 2020 respectively. 

Michael Brent Rothenberg, age 36, was charged with 19 felony counts of wire fraud and other crimes in connection with several alleged investment schemes from 2013 to 2016. Mike Rothenberg was alleged to have raised millions of dollars to invest in Silicon Valley start-up companies, but allegedly took much higher fees than those to which he formally agreed. Federal officials said Rothenberg also committed bank fraud with alleged schemes to obtain money to make up for shortfalls in one of the funds he managed. Federal officials allege that, since 2013, Rothenberg fraudulently obtained at least $18.8 million through illegal conduct.

Rothenberg founded a venture capital company, Rothenberg Ventures Management Company, LLC  that he used between 2013 and 2016 to raise and manage four annual funds whose purpose was to invest in Silicon Valley start-up companies, mostly those pursuing virtual reality technology.

The complaint alleges Rothenberg partially funded his money commitment to the second of those funds by committing bank fraud when, in 2014, made false statements about his wealth to his bank while refinancing his home mortgage. Federal officials allege that Rothenberg, while obtaining a $300,000 personal loan, poured some of the ill-gotten money he obtained from the bank into that second fund.

Federal officials also contend that, in 2015 Rothenberg took excessive venture capital fees from one of the funds he was managing at his Rothenberg Ventures Management Company, creating a shortfall in that fund he did didn't want his investors to know about. Rothenberg then allegedly engaged in a scheme to defraud a bank by making false statements and misrepresentations to that bank to obtain a $4 million line of credit to pay back the fund from which he had taken excess fees.

In February 2016, officials said, Rothenberg allegedly engaged in a scheme to defraud an investor who believed was investing in a Rothenberg-owned virtual reality content production company, when in fact most of that money is alleged to have gone somewhere else.

Overall, in connections to the above and other allegations, Rothenberg faces two counts of bank fraud, two counts of making a false statement in a loan application to an FDIC-insured lender, 11 counts of wire fraud and four counts of money laundering. Pending.

NOVEMBER 2023 UPDATE: A federal jury has convicted Rothenberg on nearly all counts. Sentencing has been set for March 2024.

******************                       ******************

UPDATED 2023

In this action, Washington's DOFI alleges that Doris E. Nelson told investors they could earn as much as 60 percent on money Little Loan Shoppe and its numerous affiliates used to make payday loans to consumers. More than 300 American and Canadian investors bought notes worth $29,000,000.00 in U.S. currency and another $26,000,000.00 in Canadian currency. Dee Nelson allegedly told investors that high returns were possible because short-term, high-fee payday loans allowed Little Loan Shoppe to turn their money over several times. However, investors received no payments after March 2009.

In July 2009, the company filed bankruptcy under the name LLS America, LLC. In documents filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, investors claimed Doris Nelson operated the companies as a Ponzi Scheme that paid early investors with money from new investors. DOFI alleges that Doris Nelson is not currently registered to sell her securities in the state of Washington and has not previously been so registered. Also charged was Paul Cooper, who is believed to now be residing in Mexico. DOFI alleges that Paul Cooper facilitated securities transactions for Little Loan Shoppe, and that Paul Cooper is not currently registered as a broker-dealer or securities salesperson in the state of Washington, and has not previously been so registered. Although it is yet to be determined whether Paul Cooper, Doris Nelson, or some other individual(s) connected to the named entities is/are Jehovah's Witnesses, the court document states:

Most investors with LLS affiliated entities learned about the investment opportunity from friends or family members that had previously invested. A number of investors were Jehovah's Witnesses that heard about the investment from fellow Jehovah's Witnesses. Interested individuals were typically referred to Cooper or Nelson for details on the investment.

Washington's Department of Financial Institutions is also seeking a $150,000.00 fine from Doris Nelson, and a $30,000.00 fine from Paul Cooper. DOFI is also asking that Doris Nelson and Paul Cooper be jointly and severally liable for and pay its' Securities Division the costs, fees, and other expenses incurred in the conduct of the administrative investigation and hearing of this matter of not less than $60,000.00.

Several media and/or web articles report that separate civil actions have been filed by investors in Washington and Florida, and possibly in Nevada, Arizona, and Utah. Those lawsuits reportedly are alleging fraud, conspiracy, breach of contract, and violations of numerous Washington securities and consumer protection laws. Nelson and Gamble have reportedly denied any wrongdoing. One discussion board alleges that Doris Nelson's current husband, Dennis Foster, a son named Chris Foster or Christopher Foster, a daughter named Amanda Foster, and a step-son named Adam Nelson are/were high level employees of the various affiliates.

******************           *****************