Quatloos!

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2013 12:18 am**

Skapegoat13 wrote:Judge Forrester also dismissed the case later on for LACK OF EVIDENCE to support the FHTM horseshit.

Yet another Isaacs lie. Here is the entire order:

This matter is before the Court on the Court’s inherent authority to ensure the efficient administration of its docket.

The Court notes that on May 17, 2010, defendants’ motion to compel arbitration was granted in part, but denied with respect to the motion for preliminary injunction. The said motion for preliminary injunction was resolved by the parties, with the Court entering an Agreed Order on May 18, 2010, addressing the preliminary injunction issue. In a Joint Status Report filed on September 19, 2011, the parties “agreed that this action should remain on the active docket to facilitate the parties’ investigation into whether the conditions are being met, and the parties respectfully request that the Court permit this action to remain on the active docket for that purpose.” By Order of November 4, 2011, the Court held that “this action may be used to facilitate the parties’ investigation into whether the conditions of their settlement agreement are being met, including but not limited to the use of third party discovery.”

After further review, the Court notes as it previously held, that there is a valid agreement to arbitrate between the parties that provides that “[a]ny controversy or claim arising out of or relating to the Agreement, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration” [DE #22]. This is a broad provision, encompassing all disputes arising out of or relating to the agreement, including but not limited to its breach. As a result, the Court granted the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. While the Court did exercise its jurisdiction to grant preliminary injunctive relief, there is no authority for its continued exercise of jurisdiction. See Performance Unlimited, Inc. v. Questar Publishers, Inc., 52 F.3d 1373, 1380 (1995). As this matter is currently before the arbitrator, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and will strike this matter from the Court’s active docket.

Accordingly, the Court, being otherwise fully and sufficiently advised, HEREBY ORDERS that this action shall be STRICKEN from the active docket of the Court. The defendants’ pending motion to dismiss [DE #86] is HEREBY DENIED AS MOOT.

That in no way, shape or form says "lack of evidence". It says, "We're done here, go arbitrate".

Oh, and Joe, it's Judge Forester. Sooner or later, perhaps you'll get one thing right.

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2013 12:52 am**

Joe, Joe, Joe, or Scapegrace, or whoever you're pretending to be this week.

You have to be awfully slow on the uptake, or else think everyone else is as gullible as you are, don't know which, doesn't matter. You've proven it often enough as it is.

FHTM was a ponzi, and a poorly run one, you thought you'd get in on it, and couldn't, so you thought you'd con the other suckers players, and couldn't even pull that off. FHTM got brought down by state legal action and started falling apart even before you started your scam and attempt to hijack FHTM's logo and service mark. FHTM was a ponzi, and was legally adjudged so and shut down, so you can't claim it wasn't. The fact that they didn't have any legal claim to the trademark they were using doesn't alter the fact that you tried to steal it for your own con. You got caught, taken to court, and YOU signed a consent to quit using it, which means you had been using. So you can't claim that you didn't and weren't. The fact that you were trying to con an already failing con, just points to and proves your own incredible ineptitude.

You can try and rewrite history as hard as you can, as was pointed out, but people here have very long memories, and copies of your documents, pronouncements, and web pages simply proclaim you for the liar that you are, pitiful at it though you are. The legal judgments against FHTM, and you are public record, and still stand.

So, by all means continue to provide us with free amusement, but don't for a second think that anyone here believes a word you say, or takes you seriously for that matter.

Incidentally, and in passing, I think it is unlikely Joe will get a life and move on, as that would mean that he would have to admit he has lied repeatedly, was/is a scam artist, pathetic though he be, and that he wasn't even smart enough to see that the con he was trying to insinuate himself in was failing all the while he was trying to run his con. This does not present the image of a competent individual. Plus it means he might have to do something like real work for a change, and I just don't see it happening. Besides, he'd rather sit and feel sorry for himself and pretend to martyrdom, since he really doesn't have anything else to fall back on, like skill or talent.

**********************

I know the truth, (I'm sure you do) you, like Joe, seem to have a talent for if not outright mis-statement, then not stating the entirety. Joe was not sued for using the name Fortune, but for using the FHTM logo and service marks, a minor but significant difference, to which he had absolutely NO right to regardless of who actually owned what. As to "Joe has won his case", on what planet, in which universe? I could insert something snarky here, but the facts speak for themselves. If you can prove otherwise, please, by all means, prove it.

As to Joe helping the FTC, I find that even more implausible than any of his other assertions. In fact, I am more than certain that the last group, with the possible exception of the US Attorney, that he wanted to have any contact with was the FTC.

In spite of the rest of your blather, the ONLY thing Joe Isaacs is interested in is trying, and trying ineptly at that, to bury the truth that he tried to get in to the con, couldn't, tried to con the rest of the group, got caught, slapped down in court, admitted to what had been complained and was forced to stop, and is now busily trying to hide from the facts, basically, a loser on all fronts and points.

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2013 11:47 am**

What a blatant bunch of crap. The case went from Judge Forrester to Arbitration and was later dismissed there as well. Isaacs never used any of the FHTM logos and that fact was never proven by anyone in either Federal Court or Arbitration.

Here is the big question for all you spineless responders -

WHY DID FHTM PAY ISAACS AND AGREE TO HAVE THE ARBITRATION DISMISSED (http://www.joseph-isaacs.com/Fortune%20 ... 0order.pdf) IF THEY REALLY THOUGHT OR HAD ANY HARD EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD VIOLATED THEIR USE OF THE FHTM TRADEMARK?

THAT WOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED IN THE REAL WORLD.

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2013 12:15 pm**

SKAPEGOAT_13 wrote:What a blatant bunch of crap. The case went from Judge Forrester to Arbitration and was later dismissed there as well. Isaacs never used any of the FHTM logos and that fact was never proven by anyone in either Federal Court or Arbitration.

Isaacs is obviously a charter member of the "If I Repeat Bullshit Enough Times Maybe Someone Will Believe It" school.

Here is the big question for all you spineless responders -

WHY DID FHTM PAY ISAACS AND AGREE TO HAVE THE ARBITRATION DISMISSED (http://www.joseph-isaacs.com/Fortune%20 ... 0order.pdf)

And here's the big answer: For all the arbitration order you posted proves, you paid FHTM. Why don't you link to "the Settlement Agreement and Release dated June 6, 2011"? Please be aware that I can verify its authenticity with AAA.

Moreover, you personally (not your lawyer, you) filed a status report with Judge Forester on December 18, 2012 in which you said, "The arbitration is proceeding, the Arbitrator's discovery order, (Exhibit B), closed the Plaintiff's discovery window on November 1, 2012, the Arbitrator has set a status conference on December 18, 2012 (Exhibit C) to set the final hearing". That arbitration order you linked to was dated June 30, 2011. Doesn't sound like the arbitration was over as of five months ago, does it?

Last time: this board does not permit sock puppets. You currently have at least three different logins, and you used two others in the past. I'm deleting the last one, but leaving its sole post, since it's the one I'm responding to. Next sock puppet, you're gone. All of you.

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2013 12:25 pm**

Cathulhu wrote:Boy howdy, this one's got the density of plutonium! Can it be he hasn't bothered to read any of this website previous to attempting to claim it as his personal soap box? I really can't think of any reason for him to want to appear so dumb, but there it is.

I think it's actually an as-yet-undiscovered element, but definitely transuranium, probably translivermorium. Unobtainium comes to mind.

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2013 2:58 pm**

wserra wrote:Oh, and Joe, it's Judge Forester. Sooner or later, perhaps you'll get one thing right.

Wanna bet?

SKAPEGOAT_13 wrote:The case went from Judge Forrester to Arbitration and was later dismissed there as well.

wserra wrote:You currently have at least three different logins, and you used two others in the past

Which only goes further to show how pathetic Isaac's actions are in trying to fool everyone into believing he is pure as the driven snow. It is no coincidence that the words "pathological", "liar", and "congenital" are running through my mind.

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2013 4:59 pm**

wserra wrote:
Cathulhu wrote:Boy howdy, this one's got the density of plutonium! Can it be he hasn't bothered to read any of this website previous to attempting to claim it as his personal soap box? I really can't think of any reason for him to want to appear so dumb, but there it is.
I think it's actually an as-yet-undiscovered element, but definitely transuranium, probably translivermorium. Unobtainium comes to mind.

I was thinking upsiedaisieum...but that's the opposite of dense. Joe here is Boris and Natasha dense.

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2013 7:25 pm**

wserra wrote:
Cathulhu wrote:Boy howdy, this one's got the density of plutonium! Can it be he hasn't bothered to read any of this website previous to attempting to claim it as his personal soap box? I really can't think of any reason for him to want to appear so dumb, but there it is.
I think it's actually an as-yet-undiscovered element, but definitely transuranium, probably translivermorium. Unobtainium comes to mind.

With apologies to Asimov: Thiotimoline -- an elememt which ecists in the present, past, and future all at once.

Thus, Isaacs can use thiotimoline to revisit the past and rearrange events to comply with his perceptions and assertions.

Posted: **Thu May 30, 2013 8:08 pm**

It would appear that Scapegrace is under the delusion, well several actually, but the currentest one being that he doesn't seem to think anyone has access to the arbitration findings or rulings. I guess, confused again, is too mild for what that actually is, but certainly disingenuine at the very least and basically dishonest when it comes right down to it.

Whatever, it still boils down to Joe trying to deny/reinvet the past and bury his failures, and it isn't working any better than his attempts at conning the con artists.

I think I am beginning to see a pattern here????

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 2:25 pm**

Once and for all, why don't all of you geniuses get copies of all of the Arbitration documents and post them here so everyone can see you haven't a clue and I was right in his analysis of the Isaacs case.

Isaacs never tried to scam the scammer. None of the FHTM allegations in any of their litigation against him was ever proven. No FINAL rulings were ever made in FHTM's favor. Anyone can sue anyone in this great country but that sure doesnt make the litigator right until the fat lady sings.

In this case of FHTM vs. Isaacs - the fat lady sang in Isaacs favor. He was paid by FHTM to go away and they dropped the cases because of a little principle called - NO PROOF, NO EVIDENCE, NO WIN!

Why does everyone here seem to be so hung up on the beginning of the case instead of the outcome?

Your facts are gravely twisted and I sure Mr. Isaacs be more than glad to debate any of the salient points with anyone here. Contact him directly at author@joseph-isaacs.com

Until then - shut up your pie holes.

Posted: **Tue Jun 18, 2013 3:14 pm**

Skapegoat13 wrote:Once and for all, why don't all of you geniuses get copies of all of the Arbitration documents and post them here so everyone can see you haven't a clue and I was right in his analysis of the Isaacs case.

Why don't you post or link the documents if they support what you are claiming? After all, it would be in your best interest to prove how wrong the "geniuses' are. Or even better, why don't you respond to wserra's reasonable and relevant question:

wserra wrote:Why don't you link to "the Settlement Agreement and Release dated June 6, 2011"? Please be aware that I can verify its authenticity with AAA.

You have been raising a lot of smoke here, but none of us can see if there are real flames causing that smoke. And as you create more smoke, the likelihood of any of the regulars here believing you diminishes.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:13 pm**

Try reading the link that was posted here a long time ago
http://www.joseph-isaacs.com/Settlement%20Agreement.pdf

Now choke on that guys!!

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2013 1:59 pm**

Skapegoat13 wrote:Isaacs never tried to scam the scammer. None of the FHTM allegations in any of their litigation against him was ever proven. No FINAL rulings were ever made in FHTM's favor. Anyone can sue anyone in this great country but that sure doesnt make the litigator right until the fat lady sings.

In this case of FHTM vs. Isaacs - the fat lady sang in Isaacs favor. He was paid by FHTM to go away and they dropped the cases because of a little principle called - NO PROOF, NO EVIDENCE, NO WIN!

They were not proven because it never went all the way through a trial since they went to arbitration. And as far as dropping the case, it went to arbitration so nothing was dropped, there was an agreement reached. An agreement which, by the way, appears to say Isaacs willingly dropped the motions he filed, willingly abandoned all the websites he started that used the name "Fortune" in them (which you claimed he never had earlier) and they settled, more then likely, just to be done with it after Isaacs did everything they wanted him to. You even just stated he was paid to go away, does that sound like a winner?

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:20 pm**

Are you kidding?

Nothing was proven because all cases filed by FHTM against Isaacs (in both Federal court as well as Arbitration) were DISMISSED! The settlement agreement gave FHTM nothing other than Isaacs agreeing to dismiss all counter-cases for operating a pyramid scheme, and against one another and not speak about FHTM for 12 months. They never got what they wanted. They were put out of business and in all likelihood the founders will end up in prison - they are already broke.

The URLS with the name "Fortune" in them were transferred to Time magazine because Isaacs wanted to and not because he was ordered to. He agreed not to give them to FHTM but instead he agreed not to renew them. Any preliminary injunctions FHTM won early on in the case were dismissed when the case was finally taken off the federal court roster. They won nothing. Isaacs put them out of business for exposing the truth about their very scandalous ways and the massive Ponzi they ran.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2013 2:23 pm**

Joe, Joe, Joe. You're repeating the same old previously debunked crap. Bored now.

Why is it that compulsive liars think repetition creates believability?

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:11 pm**

What makes you so right and Joe so wrong? Were you an insider that knows the truth or just a bystander that loves to throw digs and insults at this guy? You have no clue yet you speak as if you do. What a douche

.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2013 7:51 pm**

Irrespective of the concessions made in the arbitration agreement (which contains a non-disclosure clause that seems to have been violated)-- No jail time & no financial penalty. VICTORY

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:32 pm**

Joe: prove us wrong by backing up your claims or we're going to continue to operate off the evidence we have available to us - which all indicate that you're a liar.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:51 pm**

Webhick:

I have provided links to Joe's website that clearly links to to a multitude of documents that show the case was dismissed, Mr. Isaacs was NOT found guilty of anything and he was paid by FHTM to f**king go away. You on the other hand have not shown a stitch of evidence to the contrary and continue to interpret things from some warped demented plane. Original briefs filed by FHTM from a case 3 years ago before resolution are NOT evidence of any conclusion.

For some reason the participants in this blog only have focused on a deluded reality of the situation, not the actual case files the final outcome or even the reason for things.

Mr. Isaacs has NOT lied about anything - he has presented the court files to back up his story, unlike the rest here.

Posted: **Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:38 pm**

That arbitration agreement does not say that Joe was found not guilty. It says:

3.2 Each Party acknowledges and agrees that the Parties have decided to enter into this Agrement to avoid the expense and uncertainty of further litigation. Each Party ackowledges and agrees that this Agreement is not intended to be and should not be construed as an admission of liability or non-liability as to any Party, or an admission of the validity or invalidity of any claim.

Emphasis mine. You weren't not guilty and according to the following, from the same section:

Each Party agrees not to represent to the contrary, publicly or privately, to any person or entity.

And you're not allowed to go around telling people otherwise.

And #4 says you're not supposed to be posting about the agreement online unless you like those $15k to $20k fines per instance.

As to the claim of "giving" the URLs to Time not because Joe was ordered to:

Isaacs shall abandon and shall not renew the registration of the following uniform resource locator (URL) names: http://www.fortunesocial.com; http://www.fortunewebinars.com; and http://www.fhtmwebconnec.com.

You were ordered to abandon them as part of the agreement. There wasn't much "choice" there since I doubt you could have walked away from the table with those still in your possession. Whether you ended up transferring them to Time or Time just snapped them up when you didn't renew them remains to be proven.

The case was dismissed because it was successfully arbitrated, not because anyone won or lost.

FHTM was already on the way out the door when your relationship soured - and it seems to have only soured when you infringed on their trademarks (which we've proven earlier in the thread). You didn't sue FHTM - they sued you. And then suddenly you try to paint yourself as some kind of hero taking down the big, bad scammer. It's like you got tapped by a car that was already nearly totaled, got up and shouted "I totaled their car!"

Your posts give me brain damage. I'm out.

Perhaps someone here with more experience with arbitration, there's a bit in there where FHTM had to give the AAA $50k which would be payable to Joe's lawyer within one year. Does that mean that it goes to Joe or does it just go towards legal fees? It doesn't specify what happens after it goes to the lawyer.

Quatloos!

FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)

Re: FHTM (Fortune High Tech Marketing)