Tag Archives: Class Action

MICHAEL LEE BURLESON RELEASED ON BOND TODAY

An email sent from VINE services announced that Michael Lee Burleson, jailed in April on criminal charges with John Paul Raygoza and Manuel Eduardo Molina, was released today on bail.

Raygoza was released on bail May 10th and Molina on June 21st.  According to the LASD Inmate Information Center records all three men are scheduled to appear in court again on criminal charges July 15, 2011.

On June 6th John Paul Raygoza was given 6 weeks to get his lawyer problems sorted out in the proposed class action suit filed by lawyers representing 50+ named plaintiffs in a claim  naming him and Push Traffic Inc as defendants.

PDFs of inmate records are at PushTrafficSwindle

Advertisements

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE RAYGOZA CLASS ACTION MATTER

Court documents posted at PushTrafficSwindle give news of the latest developments in the class action suit filed against John Paul Raygoza and his online business ventures.

My understanding of events up to now:

  • Attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Douglas Mattern, et al v. Push Traffic, et al filed motions to amend the complaint (Docs 79 and 80) on January 30, 2011.
  • Raygoza’s lawyers, Neufeld, Marks, Gralnek and Maker (NMGM), filed for an extension of time to consider the amended suit.
  • David Sipes lawyers filed a motion to withdraw as his counsel (Doc 86-2) on February 28, 2011.
  • The judge gave the defendants  an extension of 21 days to file a “pleading responsive to the Second Amended Complaint” (Doc 94) on March 17, 2011.
  • In the meantime, criminal charges were filed against Raygoza on April 14, 2011. On April 27, 2011 Raygoza, Burleson and Molina were arrested and jailed on charges of kidnapping, torture, and a weapons related offence (PDFs of jail records and Raygoza “rap sheet” on PushTrafficSwindle site)
  • Raygoza has since been released on reduced bail; the other two remain in different LA jails. Court date for that case June 7, 2011.
  • Timothy L. Neufeld filed a motion (Docs 108 and 109) on May 2, 2011 to withdraw as counsel for Raygoza – that matter to be dealt with June 6, 2011.

The newest court documents to which I have access are Docs 113, 114 and 115 – PDFs at PushTrafficSwindle.com. My interpretation of the documents, (acknowledging my own inexperience with legalese) follows.

Doc 113, filed by Jonathan Levy (attorney for the plaintiffs in the Raygoza class action suit) on behalf of the plaintiffs, opposes the defendants’ application for even more time to “consider” and respond to the Second Amended Complaint.

The reasons being that while the plaintiffs’ attorneys have been dealing in good faith, the defendants and their attorneys have been less than forthcoming in their communication – attorneys even concealing, at one point, the lack of communication and cooperation with their own client.

Since Raygoza must appear in court June 7 to answer the criminal charges against him, the court date of June 6 in the matter of his attorney’s motion to withdraw their services in the class action matter means time is “of the essence”. Any more stalling tactics in the civil matter jeopardizes the plaintiffs’ right to a reasonable and timely conclusion to their action.

Doc 114, appears to me to be the judge’s notice to the defendants’ counsel (NMGM) that they must notify Raygoza et al that corporations and associations may not legally appear in court without a lawyer. If they choose to do so they risk sanctions including a possible default judgement against them in the class action.

The judge stipulated that NMGM must serve Raygoza with a copy of her “order” and “written notification that defendant John Raygoza must appear at the hearing on the Motion on June 6, 2011 at 9:30 a.m. if no substitution of attorney has been filed by that date….. Failure to comply with this Order shall result in the imposition of sanctions, including but not limited to the entry of default against Defendants.”

(Raygoza may appear by telephone if NMGM makes the required arrangements)

Doc 115 is the proof that NMGM served the required documents to Raygoza personally at his Beverly Hills (penthouse) address.

Sipes’ Lawyers Withdrawing For Non-Payment?

2 New Documents posted on PushTrafficSwindle.com

The first is David Sipes’ lawyer’s “declaration…in support of  his motion to withdraw as Counsel of Record”.

Why?

Seems Sipes isn’t paying lawyers’ bills for himself or Finity Consulting!

Sipes’ glowing testimonial is still showing on Sales Mango’s site. About as impressive as the phony award claims still there.

The second (as I understand it) is the court’s granting of a 21 day “expansion” (extension?) of the time given to the defendants’ lawyers to respond to the amended complaint.

It is to be expected that there will be some stalling tactics, but giving your lawyer reason to stop representing you doesn’t seem like a wise move. However, that’s just my opinion.

 

Comments (copied here to be immediately visible)

  • Chris On April 11, 2011 at 02:00

    Just took a look at SalesMango site. Its construction is strikingly similar to the ignominious, disused and mis-used Pushtraffic site.
    I clicked on “help center” tab and got a technical problem. It is obviously not set up properly. Typical.
    Reminds me of that defunct Pushtraffic support ticket system, where I left 2 critical questions never to be answered. More defunct customer service from a professionally defunct Customer Service Manager.

Raygoza’s Websites Down…

In the interest of making this blog easier to read and more relevant to today, I’ll be reorganizing over the next week. I’ll likely totally remove posts which refer directly to some of John Paul Raygoza’s sites which are no longer online, because those posts were here as a warning. Nothing will be erased,  just “filed” in case anyone wants it later.

Other posts may be edited to reflect recent developments. An example – today I edited the Raygoza court case press release post. I have been editing some all along – for instance removing the names of some marketers from the “Beware of” post, since they are no longer named defendants in the proposed class action, and had their identities stolen by Raygoza and his cohorts.

The stated purpose of this blog was, and still is, to publish warnings and provide resources to those who’ve already been taken by unscrupulous marketers. My experience was with John Paul Raygoza, so the concentration has been on his companies’ scams, but the resource links are here for the use of individuals who feel they’ve been ripped off by anyone online.

A reminder – I welcome comments. They are “moderated” which means once you submit them, they are visible to you alone until I “approve” them. At that point they are visible to anyone. Commenting is set up that way to keep spam comments from showing up mainly.

When you comment I am given your submitted email (which I send a test message to, btw, if I’m in doubt) as well as your IP address. That’s how one of Raygoza’s victims caught him attempting to damage her reputation btw; he (from his provable IP address) tried to diss her using an assumed  forum identity – he was banned. 😀

However, moderation also means you can communicate with me without fear of having it published if you don’t want it to be. Just say that. I respect your right to privacy and will not “publish” anything you don’t want me to (unless you’re John Paul Raygoza, that is).

Any news I’m free to pass on about the lawsuit, I will as it becomes available. If you see anything relevant to it or any other scam that isn’t here, please let me know.

PROPOSED Second Amended Complaint for a Class Action Filed This Week!

Two new documents were filed in United States District Court, Central District of California, on Jan. 30, 2011 by attorneys Thomas Easton, Jonathan Levy and co-counsel, Richard E. Joseph.

The first (Document 79) is a Notice of Motion and Motion to Amend Complaint, which is a request to the Court for an order allowing the filing of Plaintiffs’ proposed Second Amended Complaint.

The second document (Document 80) is the actual PROPOSED MotionVerified Second Amended Complaint, Class Action, Jury Trial Requested. It 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.”

As I understand it the primary differences between the first Amended Complaint and this one are:

John Paul Raygoza, David Sipes and Ted Molina and Raygoza’s various business entities are the only remaining named defendants.

****When investigation determined that their identities and/or material had been stolen by the RCE, the names of Jeff Alderson, Charles Kirkland, Chris Cobb, John Denton, Ron Davies, Craig Beckta, and Jonny Andrews were withdrawn from the previous list of defendants. THEY ARE NO LONGER NAMED IN THE ACTION AGAINST RAYGOZA****

Others were dropped to simplify and facilitate the action. The change to a  “class action”  and reducing the “number of causes of action to just two counts, Fraud and RICO (RICO is an acronym for Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) will also simplify and facilitate.

As we wait for the judge’s ruling on acceptance by the court of this Second Amendment,  we know that, regardless of the outcome, Raygoza, his partners and business enitities are recorded on the internet (for all time) as dishonest and heartless criminals. Hopefully that means they will have a hard time doing business online in the future.

The actual Motion to Amend and PROPOSED Second Amended Complaint for a Class Action may be seen in their entirety at:

http://www.pushtrafficswindle.com

Comments: (copied to be immediately visible)

Donald On April 3, 2011 at 22:12

The case is interesting, but for some of us it does not make any difference, we are already ruined and will never recover any of the money those in the Pushtraffic Empire stole.

We now have to work out with our credit card companies the debt solution, which can result in a further loss to the Tax Man for any debt excused which is treated as taxable income. And any money drawn from an IRA to pay the credit card Companies is taxed again. Try that as a Senior on a fixed income after retirement.
Don

  • Ann On April 4, 2011 at 10:00

    Don, I’m sure you’ve tried to argue the matter with your bank? If not, I hope you take them to task for not checking out the merchants they approve of. In the meantime each name added to the suit lends more credibility.

    So far as the criminal behaviour of John Raygoza and his criminal enterprises, not much new can be said.

    I carry on with this blog in hopes of forewarning “newbies” who may get sucked into the scams Raygoza and his partners continue to run.

    Sorry for your losses – I can relate obviously. Thank you for your comment – each comment brings a little more notice to this blog and helps publicize our cause.

    Ann

  • Sandy On February 5, 2011 at 11:18

    This is so exciting…I bet Raygoza and his Thugs are s**tting bricks right now. Actually, I hope the bricks are stuck…if you know what I mean; then maybe those scum bags will get a taste of their own backed up bull s**t. LOL I can hardly wait until we victims win this case… wiping that smug smile off their faces is going to be so, over the top, sweet. Sandy

Ann  On February 5, 2011 at 12:33

Hey Sandy – why don’t you tell us how you really feel!!!? LOL

Your comments always tell it like the rest of us would like to :)