Advertisements

Category Archives: news alert

WhoIs scamgroup.com – They’ve vowed to Destroy Ripoffreport.com

scamguard2

The website scamgroup.com make the following claim that paying Ripoffoffreport.com to remove complains is a cardinal sin. They have vowed to expose those entities and individuals who pay Ripoffreport.com aka ED Magedson a fee.
The operators of this website is affiliated with a host of consumer complaint websites such as www.scamguard.com others populating the internet

scamguard

This is a brand page for the SCAMGUARD trademark by Marketing Space LLC in Walnut, CA, 91789. Write a review about a product or service associated with this SCAMGUARD trademark. Or, contact the owner Marketing Space LLC of the SCAMGUARD trademark by filing a request to communicate with the Legal Correspondent for licensing, use, and/or questions related to the SCAMGUARD trademark.

On Thursday, July 11, 2013, a U.S. federal trademark registration was filed for SCAMGUARD by Marketing Space LLC, Walnut, CA 91789. The USPTO has given the SCAMGUARD trademark serial number of 86008268. The current federal status of this trademark filing is REGISTERED.

The correspondent listed for SCAMGUARD is
BOYANA BOUNKOVA of
BOUNKOVA & BENNETT
1300 CLAY ST STE 600
OAKLAND, CA 94612-1427

The SCAMGUARD trademark is filed in the category of Computer & Software Services & Scientific Services .

The description provided to the USPTO for SCAMGUARD is Providing a website featuring technology that enables users to disclose, discuss and resolve consumer and business related complaints regarding dishonest or deceptive business practices.

Address lookup
lookup failed:www.scamgroup.com

Domain Whois record
Queried whois.internic.net with “dom scamgroup.com

Domain Name: SCAMGROUP.COM
Registrar: PDR LTD. D/B/A PUBLICDOMAINREGISTRY.COM
Whois Server: whois.PublicDomainRegistry.com
Referral URL: http://www.PublicDomainRegistry.com

Name Server: DNS1.NAUNET.RU
Name Server: DNS2.NAUNET.RU

Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 31-oct-2013
Creation Date: 24-may-2013
Expiration Date: 24-may-2015

Last update of whois database: Wed, 21 May 2014 14:45:18 UTC
Queried whois.publicdomainregistry.com with “scamgroup.com

Domain Name: SCAMGROUP.COM
Registry Domain ID:
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.publicdomainregistry.com
Registrar URL: http://www.publicdomainregistry.com

Updated Date: 31-Dec-2013
Creation Date: 24-May-2013

Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 24-May-2015
Registrar: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
Registrar IANA ID: 303
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: abuse-contact@publicdomainregistry.com
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1-2013775952
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited

Registry Registrant ID: DI_30536874
Registrant Name: Kirill U Viktorovich
Registrant Organization: Kirill U Viktorovich
Registrant Street: Kastanaevskaya 53-193
Registrant City: Moskva
Registrant State/Province: Moskva
Registrant Postal Code: 121108
Registrant Country: RU
Registrant Phone: +7.9269005864
Registrant Email: scamgroup@yandex.ru

Registry Admin ID: DI_30536874
Admin Name: Kirill U Viktorovich
Admin Organization: Kirill U Viktorovich
Admin Street: Kastanaevskaya 53-193
Admin City: Moskva
Admin State/Province: Moskva
Admin Postal Code: 121108
Admin Country: RU
Admin Phone: +7.9269005864
Admin Email: scamgroup@yandex.ru
Registry Tech ID: DI_30536874
Tech Name: Kirill U Viktorovich
Tech Organization: Kirill U Viktorovich
Tech Street: Kastanaevskaya 53-193
Tech City: Moskva
Tech State/Province: Moskva
Tech Postal Code: 121108
Tech Country: RU
Tech Phone: +7.9269005864
Tech Email: scamgroup@yandex.ru
Name Server: dns1.naunet.ru
Name Server: dns2.naunet.ru
DNSSEC:Unsigned
URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System:
http://wdprs.internic.net/
Last update of WHOIS database: 2014-05-21T14:45:29+0000Z

Registration Service Provided By: NAUNET SP

Network Whois record

Don’t have an IP address for which to get a record
DNS records

DNS query for http://www.scamgroup.com failed: TimedOut
DNS query for scamgroup.com failed: TimedOut
No records to display

Advertisements

Arrest of Revenge Porn Operator in Oklahoma

Attorney General Kamala D. Harris Announces Arrest of Revenge Porn Operator in Oklahoma

Friday, February 14, 2014
Contact: (415) 703-5837

LOS ANGELES — Attorney General Kamala D. Harris today announced the arrest of the alleged owner and operator of a revenge porn website who facilitated the posting of more than 400 sexually explicit photos of Californians and extorted victims for as much as $250 each to remove the illicit content.

Casey E. Meyering, 28, of Tulsa, Oklahoma was arrested yesterday in Tulsa by agents with the California Attorney General’s eCrime Unit, the Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety and the Tulsa Police Department. The Attorney General’s Office is seeking a Governor’s warrant for Meyering’s extradition to California, and he remains in custody pending the extradition hearing. According to documents filed in Napa County Superior Court, Meyering has been charged with 5 felony extortion counts.

“This behavior is the very definition of predatory and this website made a game out of humiliating victims for profit,” Attorney General Harris said. “These actions at their core are about one individual exploiting the privacy and trust of others for financial gain. We will continue to investigate and prosecute those who participate in these deplorable and illegal activities.”

Court documents allege that in 2013, Meyering owned and administered the website WinByState.com, which solicits the anonymous, public posting of private photographs containing nude and explicit images of individuals without their permission. Commonly known as revenge porn, the photos maybe obtained consensually by the poster during a prior relationship, or are stolen or hacked.

The investigation into WinByState.com began when a Northern California hacking victim discovered nude photos of herself on this site that had been stolen from her computer, according to court documents. Described as “a user supported website where you can trade your ex-girlfriend, your current girlfriend, or any other girl that you might know,” WinByState.com solicited uploaders to identify their “wins” according to city and state, sometimes using the victim’s complete or partial name. There were over 400 postings in the California forum, and at least one victim was under 18 at the time the photographs were taken, according to court documents.

Court documents also allege that WinbyState.com required victims to pay $250 via a Google Wallet account to remove posted photographs. The account was named TakeDownHammer, and was registered to Meyering at a non-existent Beverley Hills storefront. Law enforcement agents purchased a “takedown” for one the victims in Napa, and traced the funds to Meyering’s bank account in Tulsa, where surveillance footage from the bank identified him withdrawing money from the account.

The California Attorney General’s Office is currently working with GoDaddy.com to suspend the website pending the investigation and identification of additional victims.

In December of last year, Attorney General Harris announced the arrest of Kevin Christopher Bollaert, 27, of San Diego, who operated the revenge porn website ugotposted.com. He was charged with 31 felony counts of conspiracy, identity theft and extortion and is currently awaiting trial.

Attorney General Harris created the eCrime Unit in 2011 to identify and prosecute identity theft crimes, cybercrimes and other crimes involving the use of technology.

Individuals who feel they are victims of WinByState.com or other revenge porn websites should file a complaint with the California Attorney General’s office here: https://oag.ca.gov/contact/consumer-complaint-against-business-or-company.

Please note that a complaint contains only allegations against a person and, as with all defendants, Casey E. Meyering, must be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

# # #

The Online Entrepreneur Inc. aka Dave’s Consulting Associates, Inc

Defendants Behind ‘Online Entrepreneur’
Work-at-Home Scheme Settle FTC Charges

For Release

March 20, 2014

The operators of a business opportunity scheme have agreed to settle Federal PayDayLoanTrade Commission charges that they defrauded consumers through the sale of a work-at-home program that purportedly provided consumers with their own websites that would enable them to earn a significant income by affiliate marketing with websites of well-known companies such as Prada, Sony, Louis Vuitton, and Verizon.

The settlement is part of a federal-state crackdown on scams that falsely promise jobs and opportunities to “be your own boss” to people who are unemployed or underemployed. Under the settlement, the defendants behind the operation, The Online Entrepreneur, will be banned from selling business and work-at-home opportunities.

According to an FTC complaint filed in November 2012, the defendants sold the “Six Figure Program” to consumers as a purportedly no-risk, money-back guaranteed opportunity to make money via their own website, falsely claiming that, for a $27 fee, they would enable consumers to affiliate with well-known companies’ websites and earn commissions. After purchasing the program, consumers learned that they had to pay $100 or more in additional costs just to set up their websites. The court subsequently halted the allegedly deceptive practices, froze the defendants’ assets, and put the companies into receivership pending a court hearing.

The settlement order announced today permanently prohibits The Online Entrepreneur Inc., Ben and Dave’s Consulting Associates, Inc., and David Clabeaux from selling business and work-at-home opportunities, misrepresenting that consumers are likely to earn money and misrepresenting any material fact about a product or service. They also are barred from failing to clearly disclose the terms of any offer before consumers provide billing information, and making a representation unless it is true and the defendants have competent and reliable evidence to substantiate the claim. In addition, the order prohibits these defendants from selling or otherwise benefiting from consumers’ personal information, and failing to properly dispose of customer information.

The order imposes a judgment of more than $2.9 million, which will be suspended when Clabeaux has surrendered real estate, personal property, and bank and investment accounts. The full judgment will become due immediately if the defendants are found to have misrepresented their financial condition. Litigation continues against the remaining defendant, Benjamin Moskel.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the proposed consent judgment was 4-0. The consent judgment was entered by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 13, 2014.

NOTE:  Consent judgments have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

Contact Information

MEDIA CONTACT:

Frank Dorman,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2674

STAFF CONTACT:

Barbara E. Bolton,
FTC’s Southeast Region
404-656-1362

Related Article:

Target Data Beach Highlight How Pervasive This Is Becoming

English: Logo of Target, US-based retail chainThe recent case of Target Corporation data beach where  credit and debit cards data for some 70 million customer accounts were compromised is just another reminder of how pervasive cyber crimes are becoming. An escalating and alarming trend.

Since human existence, crime have always been a part of society. Crime no matter what kind have been local and dealt with by local law enforcement. Crime is like death and taxes or nudity and profanity. Society have accepted these irrational behaviors as lexicons and have dealt with crime through parenting and the community. Today, crime is now at a new level, it’s globalization. It’s international. It’s a global village.

Here’s why. Take the case of the Somalian pirates. These pirates hijacked cargo ships and demand ransom payments for which the multinational ship owners pay the ransom demanded.

In medieval times, pirates who hijacked ships would unload the cargo on board the captured vessels to land and resell the cargo (merchandise) to the public. Today pirates demand ransom payments which are made via bank transfers. Technology has invaded crime. Clearly the Somalian pirates have accomplices and co-conspirators.

Cyber-crimes as we have documented and monitored their activities online over the years  encompasses a network of individuals who are collaborating directly and indirectly by their activities and participation. These incidents are not carried out by some kid or rogue individuals – hackers. This is organized crime. Security experts and news media groups should STOP referring to these thugs as hackers.

These individuals include a web of people, i.e. politicians, investment bankers, venture capitalists, Sleazeball Attorneys, unscrupulous IT Professionals [Data Centers/Hosting Companies. Affiliates], reputable news media group, employers – masquerading as legitimate, criminal store fronts, employees and other  who have access to data management and accessibility and more importantly, our judicial system that allows frivolous complaints to be heard and Judges that seem to tolerate LIES.

To combat cyber crimes, our judicial system need to play a more vigorous and aggressive role. The Courts in it’s infinite wisdom are precluded from throwing out bogus lawsuits. However, Courts do have Judicial Discretion. Courts need to exercise judicial discretion and throw out bogus lawsuits that take up courts time and resources as these criminals see the judicial systems as safe havens.

Because law enforcement  are up against a network of bureaucratic professionals interrelated by their business practices and well financed, any threat of eradicating cyber crime rest with the Courts. Law enforcement are not adequately equip to deal with cyber-crimes. They just don’t have the resources that is required to put a dent in cyber crimes. That is why Judges and Attorneys who are officers of the Court need to take the lead. Courts need to have zero tolerance for lawsuits that are frivolous when it relates to cybercrime and clearly where the public are at risk.

Cyber crime for these individuals is INSTANT LOTTERY WEALTH; such perverse thinking is the root of cybercrime.

How pervasive has this become? Is this the new norms? In this new era of smart phones, ipads, Facebook, Google, Twitter and other technological advancements?

Tell Us What You Think

Buyer Beware: Stay Alert on Cyber Monday

The Monday after Thanksgiving has become known as the biggest online FBIshopping day of the year, with companies offering discounts galore to entice customers. But it’s also a day that scammers hope to use to their benefit by trying to lure in victims with offers that sound too good to be true.

From fraudulent auction sales to gift card, phishing, and social networking scams and more, cyber crime schemes are ever-evolving and, unfortunately, still successful. Here are some tips you can use to avoid becoming a victim of cyber fraud:

  • Purchase merchandise only from reputable sellers, and be suspiciousCredit Card of websites that do not provide contact information; also be wary if the seller only accepts wire transfers or cash.
  • Do not respond to or click on links contained within unsolicited (spam) e-mail.
  • Be cautious of e-mails claiming to contain pictures in attached files; the files may contain viruses. Only open attachments from known senders. Scan the attachments for viruses if possible.
  • DO A WHOIS to see who the OWNER IS
  • Log on directly to the official website for the business identified in the e-mail instead of linking to it from an unsolicited e-mail. If the e-mail appears to be from your bank, credit card issuer, or other company you deal with frequently, your statements or official correspondence from the business will provide the proper contact information.
  • Contact the actual business that supposedly sent the e-mail to verify that the e-mail is genuine.
  • If you are requested to act quickly or there is an emergency that requires your attention, it may be a scam. Fraudsters create a sense of urgency to get you to act quickly.
  • Remember—if it looks too good to be true, it probably is.

This Cyber Monday—and every day—the FBI reminds shoppers to exercise due diligence online. Stay alert and beware of cyber criminals and their aggressive and creative ways to steal money and personal information.

Resources

FTC Settlements Crack Down on Payment Processing Operation

For Release: 11/18/2013

FTC Settlements Crack Down on Payment Processing Operation that Enabled ‘Google Money Tree’ Scammers to Charge Consumers $15 Million in Hidden Fees

The Federal Trade Commission is continuing its crackdown on payment processing operations that enable scam artists to charge consumer accounts despite signs ofSeal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

ongoing fraud and unauthorized transactions.  Today, the Commission announced a proposed settlement resolving allegations that a payment processor, Process America Inc., and its owners, Kim Ricketts, Keith Phillips and Craig Rickard, used unfair tactics to open and maintain scores of merchant accounts for Infusion Media Inc., which perpetrated the “Google Money Tree” work-at-home scheme.  Using these merchant accounts, Infusion Media charged more than $15 million in unauthorized charges on consumers’ debit and credit card accounts.

Payment processors and Independent Sales Organizations (ISOs) enable merchants to charge consumers’ credit cards for products and services.  In exchange, payment processors and ISOs get paid for each payment transaction the merchant processes.

In June 2009, the FTC charged the Infusion Media defendants  with falsely claiming that consumers could earn $100,000 in six months, misrepresenting an affiliation with Google, and tricking consumers into signing up for automatic monthly charges that would continue until the consumer took affirmative steps to cancel.

The complaint against Process America alleges that the defendants knew or should have known that they were processing charges that consumers had not authorized.  Evidence that consumers were being charged without their permission included plainly deceptive statements on merchant websites, notices that the merchant should be placed in Visa and MasterCard chargeback monitoring programs, and chronically excessive chargeback rates – the percentage of charges that are challenged by consumers and result in the charges being reversed.   From 2008 through 2009, the defendants opened and maintained 131 merchant accounts through which the perpetrators processed more than $15 million in unauthorized charges on consumer debit and credit card accounts.

To keep Infusion Media’s merchant accounts open, the defendants allegedly engaged in tactics that were designed to evade fraud monitoring programs implemented by Visa and MasterCard.  These tactics included submitting merchant applications containing false information and “load balancing” – distributing transaction volume among numerous merchant accounts.  As a result, Infusion Media’s scam operated for nearly a year, and Process America continued to earn fees from its payment processing activity.

To resolve the allegations in the complaint, the individual defendants have agreed to separate permanent injunctions containing prohibitions and restrictions on their future payment processing activities:

  • Rickard is banned from payment processing and acting as an ISO.  He is prohibited from acting as a sales agent for any client engaged in (a) unfair or deceptive business practices; (b) certain categories of high-risk activities, including negative-option marketing (where the seller interprets consumers’ silence or inaction as permission to charge them), money-making opportunities, credit card or identity theft protection, timeshare resale services, buying clubs, medical discount plans; or (c) conduct that has qualified a client for a chargeback monitoring program.
  • Rickard is also prohibited from acting as a sales agent for any client without first screening them for unfair or deceptive business practices.  The order imposes a judgment of more than $184,000 that will be suspended based on his inability to pay.  The full judgment will become due immediately if Rickard is found to have misrepresented his financial condition.
  • Ricketts and Phillips are prohibited from acting as payment processors, ISOs, or sales agents for any client engaged in (a) unfair or deceptive business practices; or (b) certain categories of high-risk activities certain categories of high-risk clients.  They also are barred from acting as a sales agent for any client without screening and monitoring them for unfair or deceptive business practices.

In addition, Process America’s Chief Restructuring Officer has agreed to recommend and seek authority from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California to enter into the proposed settlement with the FTC.  Under the proposed settlement:

  • Process America is prohibited from payment processing or acting as an ISO or sales agent for any client engaged in negative-option marketing or unfair or deceptive business practices, and from failing to screen, monitor, and promptly investigate clients for such practices.

The orders prohibit all of the defendants from selling or otherwise benefitting from consumers’ personal information, and failing to properly dispose of customer information.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the complaint and approving the proposed consent judgment was 4-0.  The proposed settlement with Process America is subject to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California’s approval of a Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 Motion for Compromise.  The proposed consent judgments with Process America and the individual defendants are also subject to court approval.

NOTE:  The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest.  Consent judgments have the force of law when approved and signed by the District Court judge.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.  To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call
1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 2,000 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics. Like the FTC on Facebook, follow us on Twitter, and subscribe to press releases for the latest FTC news and resources.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Frank Dorman,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2674
STAFF CONTACT:
Karen S. Hobbs
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3587Benjamin R. Davidson
Bureau of Consumer Protection
202-326-3055

________________________

Federal Trade Commission v. Process America, Inc.; Craig S. Rickard; Kim Ricketts; and Keith Phillips, Defendants.

(United States District Court for the Central District of California)

FTC File No. 102 3184

November 18, 2013

FTC Charges Marketers with Making Unsubstantiated Claims

For Release: 12/02/2010

FTC Charges Marketers with Making Unsubstantiated Claims that They Could Eliminate Consumers’ Debt

As part of its continuing crackdown on scams that target consumers in financial distress, the Federal Trade Commission has charged three debt relief operations

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commis...

Seal of the United States Federal Trade Commission. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

with making unsubstantiated claims to lure consumers nationwide into paying thousands of dollars in up-front fees, but failing to reduce credit card debts as promised.

According to the FTC’s two complaints, the defendants made deceptive claims that consumers who enrolled in their programs could eliminate 30 to 60 percent of their credit card debt and be out of debt in 18 to 36 months. The defendants marketed their services via websites and TV and radio ads that urged consumers to call toll-free numbers for a free consultation and to enroll in their debt relief programs. One operation claimed to use “secret programs most credit card companies won’t tell you about.” The other operation touted its “established relationships” with creditors and claimed that its program would “save you literally thousands of dollars.” The defendants charged consumers up-front administrative fees, monthly maintenance fees, negotiation fees, and in some instances, a cancellation fee.

The FTC’s complaints charge that few consumers received the promised results. Many consumers canceled or dropped out of the programs before their debt was reduced because they couldn’t afford to pay the defendants’‘ sizable advance fees and accumulate money to pay off their debts.

Consumers looking for help with credit card debt should be wary of anyone who tells them to stop paying their bills, to pay someone other than their creditors, or to stop talking to their creditors. Consumers should also be careful about paying for financial assistance before they receive it. The FTC recently announced changes to the Telemarketing Sales Rule that prohibit companies that sell debt relief services over the telephone from charging fees before they settle or reduce a customers’ credit card or other unsecured debt. This ban on advance fees protects all consumers who enroll in a debt relief service after October 27, 2010, and specifies that fees for debt relief services may not be collected until:

  • the debt relief service successfully settles or changes the terms of at least one of the consumer’s debts;
  • there is a settlement agreement, debt management plan, or other agreement between the consumer and the creditor that the consumers has agreed to; and
  • the consumer has made at least one payment to the creditor as a result of the agreement negotiated by the debt relief provider.

The new provisions of the Rule also prevent debt relief providers from front-loading their fees if a consumer has enrolled multiple debts in one debt relief program. Click here for more information about the advance-fee ban. In addition, the Rule requires debt relief providers to make truthful and substantiated claims about their services. The FTC will actively enforce the Rule and these new provisions, as will the states, which also have enforcement authority under the Telemarketing Sales Rule.

The defendants in one of the two cases announced today are Financial Freedom of America, Inc., now known as Financial Freedom Processing Inc., Corey Butcher, and Brent Butcher. The second case names Debt Consultants of America Inc., Debt Professionals of America Inc., Robert Creel, Corey Butcher, and Nikki Creel, also known as Nikki Vrla.

The Commission vote to file the complaints was 5-0. The complaints were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

Click here for facts about settling credit card debts.

NOTE: The Commission authorizes the filing of a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendants have actually violated the law.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad. The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

MEDIA CONTACT:
Frank Dorman,
Office of Public Affairs
202-326-2674
STAFF CONTACT:
Anne LeJeune, FTC’s Southwest Region
Financial Freedom Processing
214-979-9371Shereen El Domeiri, FTC’s Southwest Region
Debt Consultants of America
214-979-9395
 

(FTC File Nos. 0923056, 0923152)
(Financial Freedom, Debt Consultants)

____________________________

Federal Trade Commission, Plaintiff
v.
Financial Freedom Processing, Inc.,
formerly known as Financial
Freedom of America, Inc., a corporation;
Corey Butcher, individually and as an officer of the corporation; and Brent Butcher, individually and as an officer of the corporation,
Defendants.

(United District Court for the Northern District of Texas)

Case No. 3:10-cv-02446

FTC File No.  092 3056

December 2, 2010