Thread: Fortune High-Tech Marketing FHTM Helping People or Pyramid Scheme???

Originally Posted by datruth

Another dumb fuck who doesnt know the truth. Isaacs DID NOT lose any lawsuit for trademark infringement with FHTM. I heard that FHTM paid Isaacs to go away after the judge realized their case was ridiculous and without merit.

We have heard similar stories that say FHTM beat Isaacs - but the fact prove otherwise. "Isaacs and FHTM have agreed to disagree and go their separate ways" Seems to me like FHTM wants Isaacs to go away. If they had a case with merit they would not have conceded to "go away".

You need to contact Yvonne Day (dayandcompany@yahoo.com)- she has similar stories. Its too bad that the NC DOJ didint take you seriously.

Originally Posted by NCQueen

I was in FHTM for a little over a year. I would urge anyone looking at this opportunity to stay away. I made it to regional and everything was going well at first. Then after six months or so it became impossible to find new people to join. I signed up one of my long time "friends" and he started out well and then also leveled off. About three months ago this "friend" invited me to his home to meet some people he had met at an FHTM meeting. There were a couple of celebrities there as well as some heavy hitters that anyone associated with FHTM would recognize. There was a presentation, and then about half of the dozen or so people who attended joined on the spot. My "Friend" who I thought was on my team had actually signed up a member of his family under another team who had a more aggressive upline! Talk about a stab in the back! But what is worse, is that he told me that I could join under his daughter, and be a "big hitter" as well. All I had to do is change the last digit of my Social security number. I was even more shocked at this request. He told me that this is how many have made their teams so large so fast and that there are several people who are in two or more teams at once.
I filed a complaint with FHTM compliance and they did an investigation and told me that they had taken care of the problem and those involved are no longer involved with FHTM. (This is the short version of my story) But less than a week later the same "friend" asked me again if I would like to join his new team. How can this be? I said I would not be a part of any changing of Social Security numbers and left it at that. But then a member of my downline informed me that this "Friend" tried to get her to sign up with the same idea. I told her that this was not legal and that she should not do it. After that I along with another member of my downline recorded several meetings and got everything on tape. We even got one person to change their SSN to join even though they too were a member of my downline. So now this person was in my downline as well as his. Thinking that I had enough to blow the lid off of this guy I presented it to FHTM again. Once again they said it was taken care of. Well, This "friend" still promoted FHTM after the fact. I decided to then report this to the NC Department of Justice. A month later, I get a letter from the state saying that they are satisfied with FHTM's actions in this matter and those involved have been terminated from their positions. So that is the end of the story right? Not really. To my disbelief, my so called friend has several pictures on Facebook from last weekend that he spent at Todd Rowland's house and he is still promoting FHTM. Now that's what I call justice. Once again this is just a short version of a very long story.

You are obviously a jealous asshole with no real knowledge about your posting.

Originally Posted by bankalchemist

as with any opportunity if its to good to be true then it must be. my understanding is this organization was a mass reseller of middle of the road everyday items. obviously their infrastructure was not ready for the success which fell upon them rapidly. I came to know of this group when updating myself on a real schiester who had stolen our firms identity for his use several years ago. (website) so he could sell his expertise by using our identity and materials. Joseph Issacs of the Tampa Bay area. It appeared he aligned himself with this group and then lifted their website the same way so what was their rightful business he was loading as his own. When they sued him he screamed scam and opened up pandora's box to confuse the real issue which was his crime of business theft from the beginning. Issacs has been involved in the Russian Bride import business, married one and beat her, both banks he claims to have started released him and paid him to go away. So if you come across Issacs run the other way.

What did FHTM win against Isaacs? Do you have any documented proof of this? Any court documents showing they won the case? We have heard that FHTM walked away to save their business because the lawsuit had no merit.

Wserra didnt analyze the lawsuit docs. He read the original suit and assumed it was won by FHTM. That is NOT CORRECT!

Originally Posted by Soapboxmom

Wserra analyzed the legal docs. I don't believe for a second there is any misinterpretation there. Mr. Isaacs lost the trademark infringement suit filed against him. Why don't we talk about that. Post the judgment and any orders and fill us in.

Soapboxmom

For goodness' sakes,

Mr Isaacs "lost" the trademark infringement case:

Isaacs agreed to a court order requiring him to

"1) immediately take offline and render inaccessible www.fortunesocial.com; www.fortunewebinars.com; and fhtmwebconnect.com

2) Immediately cease and desist using the trademarks in Exhibits A) and B) to Fortunes' motion for preliminary injunction;

3) immediately cease and desist offering for sale the FHTM Webconnect and Fortune Webinars products"

http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/kentucky/kyedce/5:2010cv00123/63457/41/

The subsequent FHTM "Motion for Contempt" was dismissed as being moot after the court noted:

"The court understands FHTMs concern that it is only after the filing of two motions for contempt that Isaacs fully agreed with the agreed order.

While Isaacs has offered excuses for his delay in full compliance, the court will not accept any more excuses.

The agreed order is clear, and Isaacs must make all reasonable efforts to ensure he continues to obey the courts' Agreed Order.

Accordingly, the court, being fully and sufficiently advised, hereby ORDERS that FHTMs motion for contempt [DE #34] is denied as moot

This December 21, 2010

IOW,

FHTM got what it wanted, Isaacs was slow to comply

FHTM issued 2 contempt motions,

Isaacs finally complied with the original order.

The court indicated his compliance made the contempt orders unnecessary and therefore declared them "moot"

Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing, Inc. v. Isaacs et al Document 41 - :: Justia Docs

Anything else is just froth and bubble, they are the court documents

Court documents trump "we heard" and "we believe" and "it is our understanding" or "Isaacs told me" or any amount of fake press releases and forum spamming every time.

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/consumer/index.shtml

Notice of Settlement Procedures for State of Texas v. Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing

As required by the terms of a recent settlement with the Office of Attorney General, Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing has emailed notice of the settlement to consumers who may qualify for a settlement payment.

The most recent notice was emailed by the Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing to consumers on October 28, 2011.

The email "sender" is from "Notice of Potential Texas Claim," and the subject line of the email is "Notice of Texas Settlement and Claim Procedures."

The Notice will direct you to a link for instructions on submitting a claim.

Please read the instructions thoroughly and follow the instructions for submitting a claim.

NOTE: The claims period ends November 28, 2011.

Please be sure to submit your claim on or before the deadline.
There will be no additional notices or extensions of the deadline.

Download a copy of the consent order in .pdf format from the Texas Attorney Generals' office
One of the conditions agreed to by FHTM is:

2.0 PAYMENT TO CLAIMANTS/RESTITUTION
2.1 FHTMI agrees to provide up to one million three hundred thousand dollars
($1,300,000) in direct economic benefit to Claimants as defIned in the AVC.

wserra had an awesome update! Kudos to Greg Abbott.

Quatloos! • View topic - FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Soapboxmom

Mr. Isaacs didnt lose anything. FHTM and Isaacs agreed to go their separate ways after seFHTM realized their case againgst Isaacs was without merit. The original caase for trademark infringement claiming they owned the word "Fortune". FHTM wanted to stiffle Isaacs ability to damage their reputation online but it backfired and they eventually paid him to leave them alone. Wserra looked at documents that were from the beginninfg of his case. True, there was an injunction to take certain websites offline. It was a temporary injunction. All cases against Isaacs were dropped as part of a confidential settlement between the parties. You should get your facts straight before posting BS online.

Originally Posted by littleroundman

For goodness' sakes,

Mr Isaacs "lost" the trademark infringement case:

Isaacs agreed to a court order requiring him to



http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/kentucky/kyedce/5:2010cv00123/63457/41/

The subsequent FHTM "Motion for Contempt" was dismissed as being moot after the court noted:



IOW,

FHTM got what it wanted, Isaacs was slow to comply

FHTM issued 2 contempt motions,

Isaacs finally complied with the original order.

The court indicated his compliance made the contempt orders unnecessary and therefore declared them "moot"

Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing, Inc. v. Isaacs et al Document 41 - :: Justia Docs

Anything else is just froth and bubble, they are the court documents

Court documents trump "we heard" and "we believe" and "it is our understanding" or "Isaacs told me" or any amount of fake press releases and forum spamming every time.

Oh, stop your bloody nonsense.

http://www.box.com/shared/static/04gk4m0ant.pdf

No matter how you or Isaacs (if you're not the same person) try to spin it, FHTM got what they wanted and Isaacs didn't.

You unfortunately are reading documents from the beginning of the lawsuit against Isaacs. Agreeing to take down a website is NOT the same as LOSING a federal lawsuit? Where did you get your legal background from? FHTM won nothing and there are no case documents to prove otherwise. Your posting are the fluff FHTM wanted everyone to see so they could justify their existence with Isaacs. THE COURT NEVER GRANTED THE CONTEMPT MOTION EITHER! It was denied!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by littleroundman

For goodness' sakes,

Mr Isaacs "lost" the trademark infringement case:

Isaacs agreed to a court order requiring him to



http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/kentucky/kyedce/5:2010cv00123/63457/41/

The subsequent FHTM "Motion for Contempt" was dismissed as being moot after the court noted:



IOW,

FHTM got what it wanted, Isaacs was slow to comply

FHTM issued 2 contempt motions,

Isaacs finally complied with the original order.

The court indicated his compliance made the contempt orders unnecessary and therefore declared them "moot"

Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing, Inc. v. Isaacs et al Document 41 - :: Justia Docs

Anything else is just froth and bubble, they are the court documents

Court documents trump "we heard" and "we believe" and "it is our understanding" or "Isaacs told me" or any amount of fake press releases and forum spamming every time.

OPINION & ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the MOTION for Contempt by Fortune Hi-Tech Marketing, Inc. 34 is DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Karl S. Forester on 12/21/2010.(GLD)cc: COR

Not only are you obstinate, you appear to have learning difficulties and comprehension problems as well.

The complete paragraph reads:



Get it ???

The third FHTM "motion for contempt" was denied as being "moot" when the court ordered Isaacs to comply with the first 2 FHTM motions for contempt.

IOW, it was no longer necessary because Isaacs was ordered to stop being an ass and do what the court ordered and that no more excuses would be tolerated.

Your friend Isaacs should go down on his knees and give thanks the court was as tolerant as it was and didn't kick his ass till his nose bled.

Here ya go, in recognition of your obvious lack of knowledge of both court proceedings and the English language, here's the definition of the word "moot"

moot/mo͞ot/

Adjective:

Subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.

Verb:	Raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility).
Synonyms:	adjective. debatable - disputable - controversial - arguable verb. discuss - debate - dispute - canvass - talk over - argue

Originally Posted by littleroundman

Not only are you obstinate, you appear to have learning difficulties and comprehension problems as well.

The complete paragraph reads:



Get it ???

The third FHTM "motion for contempt" was denied as being "moot" when the court ordered Isaacs to comply with the first 2 FHTM motions for contempt.

IOW, it was no longer necessary because Isaacs was ordered to stop being an ass and do what the court ordered and that no more excuses would be tolerated.

Your friend Isaacs should go down on his knees and give thanks the court was as tolerant as it was and didn't kick his ass till his nose bled.

Here ya go, in recognition of your obvious lack of knowledge of both court proceedings and the English language, here's the definition of the word "moot"

moot/mo͞ot/

Adjective:

Subject to debate, dispute, or uncertainty, and typically not admitting of a final decision.

Verb:	Raise (a question or topic) for discussion; suggest (an idea or possibility).
Synonyms:	adjective. debatable - disputable - controversial - arguable verb. discuss - debate - dispute - canvass - talk over - argue

Actually, I believe the usage in US legal proceedings is closer to

(US) An issue regarded as potentially debatable, but no longer practically applicable. Although the idea may still be worth debating and exploring academically, and such discussion may be useful for addressing similar issues in the future, the idea has been rendered irrelevant for the present issue.

http://www.fhtm.net/documents/IDS_Form_3.pdf