FTC v NETFORCE SEMINARS - Legal Case Documents


\|

FTC v NETFORCE SEMINARS

Keywords & Phrases

CaseNo: FVNS118759, CourtCode: FED, CourtName: FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Plaintiff: FTC, State: PA Pennsylvania, UniqueCaseRef: LCD>FVNS118759, Commission, Entry, Complaint, Participation, Act, Sale, Employees, Federal Trade Commission, Active Concert, Epps, Representatives, Permanent Injunction, Distributors, Richard Slaback, Plaintiff Federal Trade, Servants, Stipulate, Materials, Business Venture, Marketing, Agents, Marketing Program, Advertisements, Sales, Reason, Compliance, Netforce Seminars, Complaint States Claims, Consumer, Multi-level Marketing Program, Federal Trade, Provider, Independent Contractors, Darin Epps, Ftc Act , ContentID: 120247529

Case Documents

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT - SLABACK
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 117931

10 pages
PDF

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT - LAMONT
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 117930

14 pages
PDF

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT - EPPS
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 117929

14 pages
PDF

2000-06

STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT - NOLAN
[ see first page and extracted highlights below ] ItemID: 131044

15 pages
PDF

Total Documents: 4 documents , 53 pages

Price: $ 34.95

IVESLCD01 KGI0001

1 . STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT - SLABACK

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

COMMISSION
ENTRY
COMPLAINT
ACT
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
RICHARD SLABACK
SALES
PARTICIPATION
BUSINESS VENTURE
COURT
PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING PROGRAM
WASHINGTON
DISTRIBUTORS
EMPLOYEES
ACTIVE CONCERT
REPRESENTATIVES
COMPLAINT STATES CLAIMS
NORTH FIRST AVENUE
VIOLATIONS
STIPULATE
MATERIALS
NON-CORPORATE ENTITY
WRITTEN NOTICE
PARAGRAPH XIII
COMPLIANCE
JURISDICTION
ADVERTISEMENTS

JUN 2 1 ~001
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
David C. Fix CLERK U S DISTRICT COUKT
James H. Davis DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rm. 238 BY . s DEPUTY
Washington, D.C. 20580
(202)326-3298,(202)326-2837

U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jose' De Jesus Rivera, U.S. Attorney
Ann E. Hanvood (State Bar. No. 12740)
230 North First Avenue, Rm. 4000
Phoenix, Arizona 85025-0085
(602)514-7500

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, ) Civil Action No: 00 2260 PHX RCB
)
Plaintiff, ) ) STIPULATED FINAL
V. ) JUDGMENT AND ORDER FOR
) A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
NETFORCE SEMINARS; RICHARD SLABACK; ) AGAINST RICHARD SLABACK
J.D. NOLAND; DARIN EPPS; and )
EDWARD LAMONT, >
1
Defendants. 1

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") filed a Complaint on November 29,
2000. The Complaint charged Defendant Richard Slaback ("Slaback" or "Defendant") with
violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FI'C Act"), 15 U.S.C. $45.
Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission and Defendant have agreed to entry of this Stipulated Final
Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction ("Order") by the Court to resolve all matters in
dispute in this action without adjudication of any issue of fact or law.
FINDINGS
1, This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and over Defendant.
-

2. The Complaint states claims upon which relief may be granted against Defendant
under Sections 5 and 13(b) of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. $6 45 and 53(b).
3. Entry of this Order is in the public interest.

SNIPPETS:

230 North First Avenue, Rm.

NETFORCE SEMINARS; RICHARD SLABACK;) AGAINST RICHARD SLABACK

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission filed a Complaint on November 29,

The Complaint charged Defendant Richard Slaback with violations of Section 5 of the Federal

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission and Defendant have agreed to entry of this Stipulated

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and over Defendant.

The Complaint states claims upon which relief may be granted against Defendant under Sections

"Prohibited marketing scheme" means a pyramid sales scheme, Ponzi scheme, chain marketing

"Retail Sales" means sales of products, services, or business ventures by Defendant, his

"Retail sales" does not include sales made by participants in a multi-level marketing program

F. "Business Venture" means any written or oral business arrangement, however denominated,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant, his agents, servants, employees and distributors, and a period of seven years from the date the Defendant signs this Order fi-om engaging, participating

an individual or in connection with any Business Venture or Multi-Level Marketing program in

and maintaining a compliance program which includes random,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant, for a period of ten years from the date of entry of irly reflect the income, disbursements, transactions and use of monies; B. Records accurately

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant, for a period of ten years from entry of this Order,

Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580, or at such

The parties hereby stipulate and agree, without further notice to any of them, to entry of

2 . STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT - LAMONT

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

SALE
COMMISSION
PARTICIPATION
EMPLOYEES
DISTRIBUTORS
BUSINESS
MARKETING
AGENTS
COMPLAINT
OFFICERS
ENTRY
SERVANTS
ACTIVE CONCERT
ADVERTISEMENTS
REPRESENTATIVES
REASON
ACT
COMMERCE
FEDERAL TRADE
BUSINESS VENTURE
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
CONSUMER
PROMOTING
MARKETING SCHEME
CONNECTION
DIRECTORS
MATERIALS
COMPLIANCE
PROVIDER

- FILED
-RECEIVED
- RECEIVED -
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION JUN 21NOi
David C. Fix
James H. Davis CLERK lJ S MSTRICT COllm
600 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Rrn 238
Washington, DC 20580
(202)326-3298,(202)326-2837

U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jose' De Jesus Rivera, U.S. Attorney
Ann E. Harwood (State Bar. No. 12740)
230 North First Avenue, Room 4000
Phoenix, Arizona 85025-0085
(602)514-7500

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, ) Civil Action No: 00 2260 PHX
>
Plaintiff, ) STIPULATED FINAL
) JUDGMENT AND ORDER FOR
V. ) A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
) AGAINST EDWARD LAMONT
NETFORCE SEMINARS; RICHARD SLABACK; )
J.D. NOLAND; DARIN EPPS; and >
EDWARD LAMONT, 1
>
Defendants. >

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") filed a Complaint on November 29,

2000. The Complaint charged Defendant Edward Lamont (`kxnont") with violations of Section

5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FIG Act"), 15 U.S.C. $45. Plaintiff Federal Trade

Commission and Defendant have agreed to entry of this Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for

Permanent Injunction ("Order") by the Court to resolve all matters in dispute in this action

SNIPPETS:

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

The Complaint charged Defendant Edward Lamont with violations of Section

of the Federal Trade Commission Act,

Entry of this Order is in the public interest.

The acts and practices of Defendant were or are in or affecting commerce,

"Prohibited marketing scheme" means a pyramid sales scheme, Ponzi scheme,

Rewards are "unrelated" to the sale of products or services to ultimate users if rewards are

Defendant, his successors, assigns, agents, servants, employees, and those persons in active

concert or participation with him to third-party end users.

F. "Business Venture" means any written or oral busiuess arrangement,

and assistance to any person in connection with or incident to the establishment, maintenance,

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant, his successors, assigns, officers, agents,

servants, employees and distributors, and those persons in active concert or participation

advertising, promoting, offering for sale, sale, or distribution of any business venture are

Using misleading advertisements,

Defendant's agents, representatives, employees, or independent contractors comply with

and maintaining a compliance program which includes random,

nature of any consumer complaints.

to representatives of the Commission,

those persons commenced work, and the date and reason for their termination, if applicable.

concert or participation and any sales company, mailhouse, printer, Internet service provider,

advertisements, Web pages, commercial electronic mail, or promotional materials utilized in

To interview current officers, directors, independent contractors, and employees of

3 . STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT - EPPS

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

COMMISSION
EPPS
COMPLAINT
ENTRY
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
ACT
PERMANENT INJUNCTION
SALE
STIPULATE
COURT
PARTICIPATION
PLAINTIFF FEDERAL TRADE
NETFORCE SEMINARS
BUSINESS
EMPLOYEES
DARIN EPPS
FTC ACT
MARKETING
SERVANTS
ACTIVE CONCERT
REPRESENTATIVES
DISTRIBUTORS
RICHARD SLABACK
JUDGEMENT
MATERIALS
DISTRICT
ATTORNEY ANN
JURISDICTION
COMPLAINT STATES CLAIMS

-,
II;;;;;-
FEDERAL. TRADE COhTMISSION - FILED
David C. Fix JlJN 2 12001 __
James H. Davis
600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Room231 CLEFM U S MSTRICT COURT
DlS-iRlCT OF ARIZONA
Washington, DC 20580 8Y s DEPUTY CLERK IJ
(202) 326-3298, (202) 326-2837
UY
U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Jose' De Jesus Rivera, U.S. Attorney
Ann E. Harwood (State Bar. No. 12740)
230 North First Avenue, Room 4000
Phoenix, Arizona 850250085
(602) 5 14-7500

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, ) Civil Action No: 00 2260 PHX RCB
1
Plaintiff, ) STIPULATED FINAL
) JUDGMENT AND ORDER FOR
V. ) A PERMANENT INJUNCTION
) AGAINST DARIN EPPS AND
NETFORCE SEMINARS; RICHARD SLABACK; ) NETFORCE SEMINARS
J.D. NOLAND; DARIN EPPS; and 1
EDWARD LAMONT, ) )
Defendants. ) 1
Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") filed a Complaint on November 29,

2000. The Complaint charged Defendants Netforce Seminars ("Netforce") and Darin Epps

("Epps") with violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FTC Act"), 15

U.S.C. $45. Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission and Defendants have agreed to entry of this

Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction ("Order") by the Court to resolve

SNIPPETS:

U.S. Attorney Ann E. Harwood (State Bar.

Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission

NETFORCE SEMINARS; RICHARD SLABACK;) NETFORCE SEMINARS

The Complaint charged Defendants Netforce Seminars and Darin Epps

with violations of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act,

Stipulated Final Judgment and Order for Permanent Injunction by the Court to resolve

This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and over Defendants.

The Complaint states claims upon which relief may be granted against Defendants

under Sections 5 and 13of the FTC Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. $3 45 and 53.

Entry of this Order is in the public interest.

Venue iu this district is proper under 28 U.S.C. 0 1391 and and 15 U.S.C

"Prohibited marketing scheme" means a pyramid sales scheme, Ponzi scheme,

Rewards are "unrelated" to the sale of products or services to ultimate users if rewards are

Defendant, his successors, assigns, agents, servants, employees, and those persons in active

concert or participation with him to third-party end users.

F. "Business Venture" means any written or oral business arrangement,

distributors, and those persons in active concert or participation with them who receive

to representatives of the Commission,

F. Copies of all sales scripts, training materials, advertisements or other marketing

The parties hereby stipulate and agree, without farther notice to any of them, to entry of

I hereby certify that copies of the Stipulated Final Judgement and Order,for a Permanent

4 . STIPULATED FINAL JUDGMENT - NOLAN

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS

PARTICIPATION
MARKETING PROGRAM
COMMISSION
SALE
EMPLOYEES
MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING
AGENTS
ACTIVE CONCERT
COMPLAINT
ENTRY
REASON
REPRESENTATIVES
CONSUMER
SERVANTS
ACT
OFFICER
ADVERTISEMENTS
PROVIDER
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
MATERIALS
FEDERAL TRADE
WRITTEN NOTICE
FUNDS
BUSINESS
COMPLIANCE
PARAGRAPH
FORMULATES POLICIES
NON-CORPORATE ENTITY
COMPARABLE POSITION

JUL 0

- DIS'IRICT OF ARIZONA

FEDaRAL TRADE COMMISSION, ) CivilActionNo:OO226OPHXFJM
) s*7+Gw7a
Plaintiff, 1 m===mNm
) JUDGMEIWANDORDERFOR
V. ) APERMANEWWJUN~ION
) ASTO J.D. NOLAND
NETFORCESEMINARS;RI~SLABACK;) .
J.D. NOLAND; DARIN EPPS; and 1
EDWARDLAMONT, 1
1
Defendant. 1

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission ("Commission") filed a Complaint on November 29,

2000. The Complaint charged J.D. Noland ("Defendant" or "Noland") with violations of Section

5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act ("FI'C Act"), 15 U.S.C. w5. Plaintiff Federal Trade

C&nmission and Defendant have agreed to entry of a Final Judgment and Order for a Pexmanent

Injunction ("Order") by the Court to resolve all matters in dispute in this action

withouttlial.

FINDINGS

1. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this case and over

Defendant.

2. The Complaint states claims upon which relief may be granted against

1 '

I- -

SNIPPETS:

Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission filed a Complaint on November 29,

The Complaint charged J.D. Noland with violations of Section

of the Federal Trade Commission Act,

C&nmission and Defendant have agreed to entry of a Final Judgment and Order for a Pexmanent

"Multi-level marketing program" means any marketing program in which

sale of products or services to ultimate users.

does not include sales made by participants in a multi-level marketing program to

those persons in active concert or participation with Defendant who receive actual notice of

IT IS FURTHRR ORD&ZETJI that Defendant, his agents, servants, employees and those

Any funds paid pursuant to this Section shall be deposited into a fund

including but not limited to consumer redp,ss and any attendant expenses for the

Defendant is a participant, has an ownership interest or is a director, officer (or comparable

position with a non-corporate entity) of, or is a person who formulates policies or

Defendant's agents, representatives,

Marketing Practices at the address listed in Paragraph XIII.

of the resolution of the complaint and the reason therefore.

[or comparable position with a non-corporate entity) of,

IL Records relating to all any business venture undertaken by Defendant, his agents,

company, mailhouse, printer, Memet service provider, information provider,

F. Copies of all sales scripts, training materials, advertisements or other marketing

of this Order, for purposes of determining or securing compliance with this Order, with

Commission upon reasonable written notice:

independent contractors or those of any corporations, trusts, or persons or other


\|