Merchant Account Underwriting Tools

Ummm…….fighting over the “spoils”

We can tell you who will not win. THE ACQUIRER.

INTERVERNOR MOTION BY FTC
CARLIE CHRISTENSEN, United States Attorney (#633)
JEANNETTE F. SWENT, Assistant United States Attorney (#6043)
185 South State Street, #300
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
COLLOT GUERARD
cguerard@ftc.gov
J. RONALD BROOKE, JR.
Jbrooke@ftc.gov
TERESA CHEN
tchen@ftc.gov
Federal Trade Commission
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 288
Washington, DC 20580
202-326-3338 (Ms. Guerard)
202-326-3484 (Mr. Brooke)
202-326-3216 (Ms. Chen)
202-326-3395 (facsimile)
Attorneys for Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
CHAD ELIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
JEREMY JOHNSON, SUNFIRST BANK,
N.A., SUNFIRST CORP., TOWN &
COUNTRY BANK, TRIPLE SEVEN LLC,
SCOTT LEAVITT, JASON T. VOWELL,
TODD L. VOWELL, LOYD JOHNSTON, and
KERRY JOHNSON,
Defendants
FEDERAL TRADE
COMMISSION’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO INTERVENE
Case No. 1O-CV-01273
District Judge Ted Stewart
Case 2:10-cv-01273-TS Document 29 Filed 01/13/11 Page 1 of 10
2 INTERVERNOR MOTION BY FTC
The Federal Trade Commission (the “FTC” or “Commission”) hereby moves pursuant to
Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to intervene to prevent the issuance of any
Orders that would encumber the assets of defendant Jeremy Johnson and any entities that he
owns or controls. The Commission is entitled to intervene as a matter of right pursuant to
Rule 24(a) because it has an interest in ensuring that these assets are available for distribution to
consumers defrauded by Johnson and his companies, its ability to protect that interest may be
impaired by the disposition of the action, and its interests are not adequately represented by the
existing parties. Moreover, the FTC’s motion to intervene is timely.
As explained in detail below, the FTC seeks to intervene because plaintiff Chad Elie has
engaged in a secretive race to the courthouse in an effort to grab money held by the defendants.
Meanwhile, the FTC has filed a lawsuit in the District of Nevada, FTC v. Johnson, CV 10-2203-
RLH (GWF) (D. Nev.) (the “Nevada case”), charging Jeremy Johnson, nine of his underlings
(including defendants Leavitt and Johnston), and 61 of his corporations with orchestrating a
massive Internet fraud that has caused consumers to lose over $275 million. In the Nevada case,
the FTC has filed an emergency motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) that, among
other things, freezes the assets of Jeremy Johnson and the 61 corporations, and places the
corporations and the assets of Jeremy Johnson under the control of an equity receiver. And, as
final relief, the FTC is seeking judgments for restitution and disgorgement against Johnson,
Leavitt, Johnston, seven other individuals, and the 61 corporate defendants.

Leave a reply