Complaint Review: Imergent - Storesonline - securemserve - fair Financial - Duvera - Carlsbad California

A couple of criminals by the name of Lewis and Danks set up a cabal of crooked companies with the sole purpose of defrauding consumers and investors. These included "business opportunity", finance and arbitrage firms. (and maybe others, ECI?)

The names I am personally complaining about are StoresOnLine, SecureMserve and Fair Financial. all wholly owned by iMergent. These "companies" sold contracts in "ballroom seminars" across the US and Canada promising professional services, expert advice and consulting, software and, of particular interest to me, a guaranteed merchant account and a money back guarantee. In fact the service was sub par, the consulting was extra, the software was amaturish, the merchant account wasn't, the money back guarantee wasn't and the experts weren't.

On Feb 28 the state of Texas filed a fraud lawsuit against iMergent. Upon receipt of this lawsuit Lewis and Danks sold $6.5 MILLION of their shares and moved the money to Brazil. (Enc). the stock went from $28/share to $8/share. There are dozens of securities fraud lawsuits. Two are attached. There are no class action lawsuits concerning consumers (what's the point, the money's in Brazil)

They took me for $3500.

realizing that they were crooks, i took the step of putting a stop pay on my account. they confirmed my contention that they were crooks by tapping out our account using debit withdrawal (illegally) using a pin number. The bank is on them like ugly on an ape. They seem to think they will get it back (I doubt it, the moneys in Brazil)

On further investigation I found they had violated article 19 of North Carolina law by not filing a disclosure statement with the state. (enc) I also understand they violated financial law but have not been able to pin down the pertinent statute.

I would like to make the following point: the lack of law in regard to the venue/jurisdiction/arbitration disclaimer permits wide spread fraud to be perpetrated on the citizenry and is in and of itself fraudulent by implying that there is a due process. The first case to hit the federal court resulted from a $150 small claims court judgement in California.

The Federal Court in Case C-02-1227 JF (Pvt) in 2002 said the following with respect to the User Agreement. "Having considered the terms of the User Agreement generally and the arbitration clause in particular, as well as the totality of the circumstances, the Court concludes that the User Agreement and arbitration clause are substantively unconscionable under California law and that arbitration cannot be compelled herein. " The case is awaiting a hearing by the 9th circuit court of appeals which is expected to give a bye.

I have been observing an upsurge in miscreants gaming the system wherin truth, justice and honesty are irrelevant peripheral issues and the law is used to protect the guilty from the innocent. Tricks, gimmicks and cronyism are the order of the day. If the judgement is in my favor, I will not allow it to be rendered moot by accepting a qualified payoff.

Walter

franklinton, North Carolina
U.S.A.