IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Transcription

1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION DINAR CORP, INC. ) a Nevada corporation, and ) HUSAM TAYEH, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) Civil Action File No.: ) v. ) 1:14-cv AT ) STERLING CURRENCY GROUP, ) LLC, TYSON A. RHAME, ) FRANK BELL, JORDAN DOE, ) MATTHEW ADAMS, MARK ) DILEO AND JOHN DOE, ) ) Defendants. ) ANSWEWR TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT Defendants Sterling Currency Group, LLC readily admits to having helped inform the general public about Plaintiffs unethical and illegal business practices. For example, Sterling has communicated to others that Plaintiff has been ordered not to conduct business in at least three states (Texas, Illinois, and Arizona). Defendants comments were made to help keep the foreign currency industry, in which Defendant Sterling Currency Group, LLC participates along with Dinar Corp., safe and trustworthy. The reality is that Plaintiff has not filed this

2 lawsuit because the statements of Defendants were untrue, but because the truth hurts. Sterling Currency Group, LLC, Tyson A. Rhame, Frank Bell, Jordan Doe and Matthew Adam s (collectively Defendants ) answer the Third Amended Verified Complaint 1 (hereinafter referred to as Complaint ) [Dkt. No. 148] as follows: Defenses By alleging the defenses below, Defendants do not admit they have the burden of proof on such matters. First Defense 1 By filing this Answer, Defendants do not waive their objection that the Third Amended Complaint constitutes a massive re-writing of Plaintiffs Complaint that is beyond the scope of the leave to amend which was specifically granted so that Plaintiffs could narrow the scope of their claims against Defendants or abandon certain claims entirely. Defendants position as to the overbreadth of the Third Amended Complaint is set forth in Defendants Motion to Strike filed concurrently herewith. While that Motion to Strike alters the time for Defendants to Answer, Defendants Answer the Third Amended Complaint in order to demonstrate that the new allegations are as meritless as the allegations in the previous Complaints. Specifically, Defendants are aware that Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint has already been published on the Internet. Defendants therefore file this Answer to counter any claims by third parties that the allegations in the Third Amended Complaint are meritorious

3 The statements complained of in Plaintiffs Complaint are true based on Defendants investigations and publically available information. Accordingly, the statements are not false or defamatory and have not damaged Plaintiffs Second Defense Plaintiffs Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Third Defense Plaintiffs claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. Fourth Defense Plaintiffs claims are barred by estoppel. Fifth Defense Plaintiffs claims are barred by fraud. Sixth Defense Plaintiffs are defamation-proof. Seventh Defense Defendants statements are privileged under O.C.G.A (3). Eighth Defense Defendants are immune from civil liability under 31 U.S.C. 5318(g). Ninth Defense - 3 -

4 Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the statute of limitations, illegality, waiver, laches, and assumption of risk. Defendants expressly reserve the right to assert any additional defenses that further investigation or discovery may otherwise indicate. Moreover, in further response to Plaintiffs Complaint, Defendants incorporate by reference the foregoing defenses and respond to the allegations of the Complaint by correspondingly numbered paragraphs, as follows: Responses to Enumerated Paragraphs in the Complaint [Dkt. No. 148] PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. Defendants admit Plaintiff Dinar Corp, Inc. ( DCI ) is incorporated in the State of Nevada and admits that DCI purports to maintain its principle place of business in the State of Illinois. Defendants do not contest the allegation that DCI is a citizen of the States of Illinois or Nevada. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that Sam maintains a primary residence in Chicago Ridge, Illinois or whether he is a citizen of the State of Illinois. Defendants admit that Sam contends that he is the sole shareholder and President of DCI but aver that - 4 -

5 Sam has provided no proof as to the truth of that contention. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit Sterling Currency Group, LLC is a limited liability company duly organized and created under the laws and ordinances of the State of Georgia and that Sterling Currency Group maintains a place of business in the State of Georgia. Defendants further admit that Sterling Currency Group is a citizen of the State of Georgia within the meaning of 28 U.S.C Defendants also admit that Sterling currency group also does business under the names Dinar Banker. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that Tyson Rhame is, indirectly, a member of Sterling Currency Group. Defendants admit Mr. Rhame maintains a primary residence in Atlanta, Georgia and admit Mr. Rhame is a citizen of the State of Georgia within the meaning of 28 U.S.C Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that Mr. Bell is the chief Operating Officer of Sterling Currency Group. Defendants further admit that Mr. Bell is a citizen of the State of Georgia within the meaning of 28 U.S.C Defendants deny that Mr. Bell is - 5 -

6 a resident of Atlanta, Georgia. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that Jordan Bliss ( Bliss ) is an employee of Sterling Online Processing Services LLC. Defendants admit that Bliss maintains a residence in Atlanta, Georgia and is a citizen of Georgia. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that Mr. Adams is an employee of Sterling Online Processing Services LLC. Defendants further admit that Mr. Adams is a citizen of the State of Georgia. Defendants deny that Mr. Adams is a resident of Atlanta, Georgia. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 8 and therefore deny same. 9. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 9 and therefore deny same. Defendants aver that Plaintiffs originally filed a Complaint on this same subject matter in state court in Nevada on October 1, Defendants further aver that, upon information and belief, that Plaintiffs have conducted no discovery attempting to find the identities of the Doe Defendants

7 10. Paragraph 10 of the Complaint alleges conclusions of law, to which no response is required. To the extent required, if any, Defendants admit that the Complaint purports to raise a cause of action for false advertising and unfair competition under the Lanham Act. Defendants do not contest the Court s jurisdiction but aver that the Complaint fails to state a claim for false advertising or unfair competition under the Lanham Act. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Paragraph 11 of the Complaint alleges conclusions of law, to which no response is required. To the extent required, if any, Defendants are without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of whether Plaintiffs and Defendants are residents of different states. Defendants further deny that the amount in controversy is in excess of $75, Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Paragraph 12 of the Complaint alleges conclusions of law, to which no response is required. To the extent required, if any, Defendants state that they do not challenge the Court s supplemental jurisdiction. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that the answering Defendants are residents of the State of Georgia and subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Defendants are - 7 -

8 without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the residence of Defendant Mark Dileo and therefore deny same. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants do not challenge the Court s jurisdiction. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Denied. In further response, Defendants state that they made no defamatory statements. 16. Paragraph 16 of the Complaint alleges conclusions of law, to which no response is required. To the extent required, if any, Defendants do not challenge venue. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Paragraph 17 of the Complaint alleges conclusions of law, to which no response is required. To the extent required, if any, Defendants do not challenge this Court s jurisdiction or venue. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph 17. FACTS 18. Defendants incorporate their responses to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-17 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein

9 19. Defendants do not know who owns the website at dinarcorp.com. Defendants deny that the website provides customers with a safe and reliable means to acquire new Iraqi Dinar. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that Sterling Currency Group owns and operates a website located at which provides customers a means to purchase Iraqi Dinar. Defendants further admit that its previous website at the address is currently redirected to and that Sterling Currency Group and DCI are competitors. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that on March 13, 2013 Bliss posted the following under the name Mark Barnes: BEWARE of DINARCORP, Inc. Somehow this company, led by Samir Altayeh, alias Samir Al-Tayeh continues to avoid prosecution & shut down by closing under past company names as US Dinar, US Foreign Exchange, Inc. Mid America Trade, US Trade LLC, US Dinar LLC,, etc. Currently operating as DINARCORP, Inc. the story remains the same: they take your money and you get no currency or no refunds. Defendants aver that the posting was made based on information posted on Ripoff Report as well as the employee s personal knowledge of DCI based on investigations and actual purchases by Sterling Currency Group of Iraqi Dinar - 9 -

10 from DCI. Defendants deny the Sterling Currency Group employee pretended to be a former customer of DCI or that that any information in the post was false damaging, misleading and defamatory, as claimed in Paragraph 21 of the Complaint. Defendants further that the posting made any implication or statement that Sam has changed his name or attempted to change his name. Defendants specifically object to Plaintiffs characterization of the post as a False Statement or Shill Review. Defendants aver that the information posted can be verified through publically available sources including documents filed in the State of Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation for the case styled In the Matter of Dinar Corp., Inc., 12CC329, the Nevada Secretary of State, the Illinois Secretary of State, the Indiana Secretary of State and the Better Business Bureau. Defendants admit that Exhibit A appears to be a copy of the webpage containing the posting by Bliss. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that on August 31, 2012, Bliss, using the name Max posted the following: Never bought from these guys before but I have heard and read more than enough. These guys are up to some sketchy activity

11 and they keep their owners hidden. I recommend a google search for DinarCorp review and see what comes up Defendants deny that Bliss pretended to be a neutral consumer. Defendants further deny that the posting contained false, damaging, misleading and defamatory statements. Defendants aver that the posting was made based on information posted on Ripoff Report as well as the employee s personal knowledge of DCI based on various investigations and purchases by Sterling Currency Group of Iraqi Dinar from DCI. Defendants specifically object to Plaintiffs characterization of the post as a False Statement or Shill Review. Defendants aver that the information posted is true and can be verified through publically available sources including documents filed in the State of Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation for the case styled In the Matter of Dinar Corp., Inc., 12CC329, the Nevada Secretary of State, the Illinois Secretary of State, the Indiana Secretary of State and the Better Business Bureau. Defendants admit that Exhibit A appears to be a copy of the webpage containing the posting by Bliss. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that on August 29, 2012, Bliss, using the name Sarah posted the following: Customer service is awful and they took forever to ship my order. I recently read an article online reviewing DinarCorp in

12 depth, and now I wish I had never done business with them at all. Defendants deny that the employee pretended to be a former customer of DCI. One or more Defendants have placed orders with Dinar Corp. and have experienced Dinar Corp. s poor service. Also, this posting, like the ones above, were made based on information posted on Ripoff Report as well as the employee s personal knowledge of DCI based on various investigations and purchases by Sterling Currency Group of Iraqi Dinar from DCI. Defendants further deny that the posting contained false, damaging, misleading and defamatory statements. Defendants specifically object to Plaintiffs characterization of the post as a False Statement or Shill Review. Defendants aver that the information posted can be verified through publically available sources including documents filed in the State of Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation for the case styled In the Matter of Dinar Corp., Inc., 12CC329, the Nevada Secretary of State, the Illinois Secretary of State, the Indiana Secretary of State and the Better Business Bureau. Defendants admit that Exhibit A appears to be a copy of the webpage containing the posting Bliss. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants object to the implied juxtaposition of Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 as the dates on the printouts are not the same. Accordingly, they do not consist of

13 true and accurate depictions of postings that appeared on the website at the same time. Defendants further aver that the Dinar Review website consisted of multiple postings regarding multiple Iraqi Dinar currency sellers and thus object to the juxtaposition of Exhibits 1 and 2. Exhibit 2 speaks for itself. Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue post through the use of only select quotations and aver that the post must be taken in its entirety. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Denied. 26. Denied. 27. Denied. 28. Denied. 29. Denied. Defendants aver that while Sam has made statements that he is the sole owner of DCI, Plaintiffs have provided no proof that such statement is true. 30. Denied. 31. Denied. 32. Denied. 33. Denied. 34. Denied

14 35. Defendants admit that Bliss made three postings to Dinar Review. Defendants further admit that Mr. Bliss made the posts as the general direction of Frank Bell. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Denied. 37. Denied. 38. Denied. 39. Denied. 40. Denied. 41. Denied. 42. Defendants deny that DCI lost any sales or goodwill as a result of the postings on Dinar Review. Rather any lost sales or loss of goodwill is solely the result of DCI s poor customer service and business practices. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph 42. Defendants aver that it not only denies the factual allegations of Paragraph 43 but states that Plaintiffs have mischaracterized the law. 43. Denied. Defendants aver that it not only denies the factual allegations of Paragraph 43 but states that Plaintiffs have mischaracterized the law. 44. Defendants admit that on June 4, 2012 at 3:52:08 PM CDT, Mr. Rhame sent an , a copy of which appears to be attached to the Complaint as Exhibit

15 Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue the through the use of only select quotations and aver that the must be taken in its entirety. Defendants deny that any information in the is false, defamatory, untrue or damaging and specifically object to Plaintiffs characterization of the as a False Statement[]. Defendants deny that Mr. Rhame directed the recipient to additional defamatory content and aver that Mr. Rhame directed the recipient to the webpage of the Illinois Attorney General, the Better Business Bureau, Ripoff Report, and investorsiraq.com. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Denied. 46. Denied. 47. Defendants admit that on Tuesday June, 12, 2012 at 1:15 pm, Frank Bell sent an , a copy of which appears to be attached as Exhibit 6 to the Complaint. Defendants deny the imply[ed] that Sam and DCI were involved in a lawsuit brought by the Illinois Attorney General. The drafted by Mr. Bell (Exhibit 5 to the Complaint) does not contain the language attributed by Plaintiffs to Mr. Bell. More specifically, the following sentence quoted in the Complaint: Iraqi Dinars on the Internet and accepting payments from consumer of failing to fulfill orders appears in an attachment to Mr. Bell s and Mr. Bell

16 did not draft the attachment. Rather, this sentence is contained in a Press Release by the Illinois Attorney General attached to the sent by Mr. Bell. Defendants further deny that any statement made by Mr. Bell in the was false, defamatory, untrue or damaging. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that Bell posted the following statement on RipoffReport,com: Dinar Corps owner, Husam Tayeh has formed a shell company to launder payments for Dinar Corp. Once banks began to find out his reputation, and of the suit filed by the Illinois Attorney General, they closed his accounts, not wanting to be associated with a fraudster. In response, Husam Tayeh formed a shell company in Carson City, Nevada to mask payments to Dinar Corp from his bankers. The company will tell you Dinar Corp has always been owned by My Monex, but My Monex was just formed in the fall of check the Secretary of States records in Nevada for yourself, they are available on line. This company will lie about their ownership and will break the law to get your payments into their bank accounts. If the FDIC, FinCEN or their banks find out what they are doing, you can bet they will no longer let them have banking at best and the government might issue a cease and desist - which will leave all you reserve holders high and dry. Do your research and educate yourself. Defendants deny that the post contains false, damaging, misleading or defamatory statements. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegations of Paragraph

17 49. Denied. 50. Denied. 51. Defendants admit that on August 20, 2012, at 4:32 pm Bliss sent an , a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 8 to the Complaint. Defendants deny that the body of Jordan s (Exhibit 8) imply[ed] that Sam and DCI were involved in a lawsuit brought by the Illinois Attorney General as stated in the Complaint. Defendants aver that the Bliss contained a copy of a report, which was not drafted by Jordan, stating that Samir Altaech, also known as Samir Al-Tayeh was sued by the Illinois Attorney General and that the report also provided evidence from the State of Illinois showing that Sam Tayeh is an assumed name of Samir Altaeh. Defendants further aver that the report specifically stated that [t]he lawsuit I mention was not against Dinar Corp., Inc. Defendants specifically object to Plaintiffs characterization of the as a False Statement[]. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Denied. 53. Denied. 54. Denied. Defendants aver that in the original Complaint, First Amended Complaint, and Second Amended Complaint that this allegation was directed only to Defendant Dileo and not to Defendants. Defendants further aver that Plaintiffs

18 have produced absolutely not evidence regarding why nearly 18 months after filing the original Complaint in Nevada, they have suddenly changed this allegation to all Defendants. 55. Denied. 56. Denied. 57. Defendants admit that Frank Bell placed approximately orders of Iraqi Dinar with Dinar Corp. since Defendants specifically deny that such transactions induced Dinar Corp. to provide Defendants with sensitive information. Specifically, upon information and belief such information was readily provided by Dinar Corp. to each and every customer. Moreover, when Defendants marked documents showing some of those orders as CONFIDENTIAL, Plaintiffs sought to have the documents de-designated stating that the documents contained no sensitive information. Regarding those same documents, Plaintiffs also represented to this Court that there was no... sensitive information referenced in the Documents. Plaintiffs Motion to File Under Seal Filed November 25, 2014 signed by Daniel R. Warner. Defendants aver that Bell was a legitimate customer in that he paid for every order of Iraqi Dinar that he received. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph

19 58. Defendants deny that they have refused to produce any relevant documents. Specifically, the referenced page of Sterling s response to DCI s First Request for Production of documents states:... Sterling will produce responsive documents. Defendants further aver that Defendants were not aware that Dinar Corp. would file a baseless suit regarding competitive purchases and thus was under no obligation to preserve such documents. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants deny that they have refused to produce any relevant documents. Specifically, the referenced page of Sterling s response to DCI s First Request for Production of documents states:... Sterling will produce responsive documents. Defendants further aver that Defendants were not aware that Dinar Corp. would file a baseless suit regarding competitive purchases and thus was under no obligation to preserve such documents. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Denied. 61. Denied. 62. Defendants admit that Bell would, when making purchases from Dinar Corp., used names and addresses other than his own. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph

20 63. Defendants admit that they sent various letters or other correspondence to various banks, the Better Business Bureau ( BBB ) and various regulatory agencies. Defendants specifically deny that they fraudulently obtained any information sent to the banks, BBB, or agencies. Defendants further aver that this Court has previously found that such transactions were not fraudulent as a matter of law and that all allegations that Defendants fraudulently obtained information are thus immaterial and impertinent. Defendants also deny they sent false, misleading or defamatory information to the institutions. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegations of Paragraph Denied. 65. Defendants deny that the referenced letters contain any false or defamatory information. Defendants admit that Bell sent letters to TCF Financial, BMO Harris, PNC Bank, First Midwest Bank, and HSBC. The letters speak for themselves and Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue the letters through the use of only select quotations and aver that the letters must be taken in their entirety. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Defendants admit that Plaintiffs originally filed a Complaint in Nevada state court on October 1, Defendants further admit that the letter from Bell to

21 HSBC is dated November 19, Defendants further aver that the allegation regarding when the letter was sent is immaterial and impertinent. Defendants specifically deny that the letter from Bell to HSBC contains any false or defamatory statements. 67. Defendants admit that Bell would place orders for Iraqi Dinar from DCI using the website Defendants further admit that as instructed by DCI Bell would pay for the order by cashier s check or money order made out to a different company (My Monex, Inc.). Defendants admit that Bell would sometimes obtain a copy of the cancelled check or money order. Defendants further admit that Bell sent letters to the banks alerting them to DCI s activity which violated banking regulations regarding providing services to foreign currency exchange entities. Defendants deny that any of the letters contained false, misleading, or defamatory statements. Defendants further object to Plaintiffs definition of Company as DCI and My Monex. Specifically, DCI and My Monex are separate entities, having separate MSB licenses and separate EIN numbers. Further, My Monex holds itself out as a check cashing business or a retail establishment selling t-shirts and hats not as an entity providing foreign currency exchange. Upon information and belief My Monex had different ownership from DCI when My Monex was first created and may continue to have

22 different ownership as ownership information regarding DCI and My Monex is not publicly available. 68. Defendants admit that Bell placed an order for over $10, that was subsequently cancelled. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph 68. Defendants object to Exhibit 10 under Federal Rule of Evidence 106 as pages attached as Exhibit do not include the full copy of the documents but rather only selected pages of those documents. 69. Defendants admit that Rhame was aware that Bell sent letters to banks and agencies warning those banks and agencies of suspected illegal conduct by DCI and My Monex. Defendants specifically deny that any purchase was fraudulent. The Court has already found that, as a matter of law, Defendants purchases from DCI did not constitute fraud. Accordingly, the allegation is immaterial and impertinent. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Defendants specifically deny that the bank terminations were caused by Defendants. Defendants aver that Plaintiffs and My Monex s conduct, including failing to inform the banks that My Monex would be processing payments for Irqai Dinar sold through DCI, was the cause of the bank terminations. Defendants admit that TCF terminated My Monex s account on February 15, Defendants

23 further admit that PNC terminated My Monex s account on May 8, 2013 and that First Midwest terminated My Monex s account on August 20, Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Denied. Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue the statement on RipOffReport.com through the use of only select quotations and aver that the statement must be taken in its entirety. Defendants further aver that the statement on RipOffReport.com was specifically directed to Dinar Corp. bank accounts while the terminations complained of in the Third Amended Complaint are My Monex bank accounts. 72. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 72 and thus deny same. 73. Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 73 and thus deny same. 74. Denied. Defendants deny that they were the cause of the bank terminations. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 75 and therefore deny same. 76. Denied. 77. Denied

24 78. Denied. Defendants aver that the allegations of Paragraph 78 are immaterial and impertinent. 79. Denied. Sterling Currency Group processes all payments for orders through its own bank accounts which were obtained after informing the banks that Sterling Currency Group is a foreign currency exchange entity. Sterling Currency Group s MSB licenses also state that Sterling Currency Group is a foreign currency exchange entity. Defendants aver that the allegations of Paragraph 79 are based solely on rank speculation and are immaterial and impertinent. 80. Defendants deny each and every allegation wrongdoing in Paragraph 80. Specifically, Sterling Currency Group processes all payments for orders through its own bank accounts which were obtained after informing its banks that Sterling Currency Group is a foreign currency exchange entity. Sterling Currency Group s FinCen and MSB licenses also state that Sterling Currency Group is a foreign currency exchange entity. Defendants aver that the allegations of wrongdoing contained in Paragraph 80 are based solely on rank speculation and are immaterial and impertinent. Defendants further aver that it uses Sterling Currency Group and Sterling interchangeably throughout its webpages. Defendants admit to the statements on its webpages but specifically deny Plaintiffs interpretation of those statements. Defendants specifically object to Plaintiffs selected quotation of

25 certain portions of Defendants website to draw untrue and unwarranted conclusions regarding Defendants banking practices. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Denied. Sterling Currency Group processes all payments for orders through its own bank accounts which were obtained after informing its banks that Sterling Currency Group is a foreign currency exchange entity. Sterling Currency Group s FinCen and MSB licenses also state that Sterling Currency Group is a foreign currency exchange entity. Defendants aver that the allegations of wrongdoing contained in Paragraph 81 are based solely on rank speculation and are immaterial and impertinent. 82. Denied. Sterling Currency Group processes all payments for orders through its own bank accounts which were obtained after informing its banks that Sterling Currency Group is a foreign currency exchange entity. Sterling Currency Group s FinCen and MSB licenses also state that Sterling Currency Group is a foreign currency exchange entity. Defendants aver that the allegations of wrongdoing contained in Paragraph 82 are based solely on rank speculation and are immaterial and impertinent. 83. Denied

26 84. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 84 and therefore deny same. 85. Defendants admit that Bell made a report to the BBB using the name Jim Thompson. Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue post through the use of only select quotations and aver that the post must be taken in its entirety. Defendants deny that the statements in the report were false or defamatory. Defendants further deny that the statement caused the F rating. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Denied. 87. Defendants deny that any statements are defamatory. Defendants admit that the July 19, 2012 submission to the BBB stated that: This company is a continuation of US Dinar run by Sam Al-Tayeh and Fereidoun Fred Khalilian. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Denied. 89. Defendants admit that the desired resolution was that the BBB [l]ink their past activity to their current business. Defendants deny that the statement is false, defamatory, or indicative of an intent to cause harm. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph

27 90. Defendants admit that Bell made a complaint to the BBB using the name Jim Thompson on January 17, Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue post through the use of only select quotations and aver that the post must be taken in its entirety. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Denied. 92. Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation regarding Dinar Corp. s rating prior to January 17, Defendants deny that the January 17, 2013 complaint caused a decrease in DCI s rating. 93. Defendants admit that Bell made a complaint to the BBB on April 25, 2013 using the name Frank Bell. Defendants deny that the complaint contained any false or misleading information and specifically deny that the statements imply that DCI s failure to obtain licensure in one state makes it unsafe for people located in the other 49 states to do business with DCI. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants aver that Sterling Currency Group s licensing practices are not at issue in this litigation and the allegation is thus immaterial and impertinent. However, Defendants further aver that being sanctioned by a regulatory agency is a

28 grave matter that Sterling Currency Group takes seriously. Defendants further aver that Plaintiffs failure, to date, to obtain the necessary licensing in Illinois (where Plaintiffs sometimes claim Dinar Corp. s principal place of business is located) suggest that Plaintiffs are unable to meet the licensing requirements of Illinois, likely due to Sam s involvement with businesses sued by the Illinois Attorney General in Defendants aver that the allegation is immaterial and impertinent. Exhibit 28 speaks for itself. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Denied. Defendants aver that it is unsafe for consumers to do business with Plaintiffs because Plaintiffs have a history of accepting orders, failing to fulfill those orders, and refusing to refund customers for the payment of those orders. Defendants further aver that Sam was directly involved in the fraud leading to the 2007 Illinois Attorney General lawsuit and that it is unsafe for consumers to do business with Plaintiffs for that reason. Defendants also aver that Plaintiffs have been actively engaged in obtaining banking under false pretenses further demonstrating that unsound nature and character of Plaintiffs business practices. 97. The allegation fails to take into account when certain states required licenses. The allegation is also immaterial and impertinent as Sterling Currency

29 Group s licensing practices are not at issue in this litigation. Defendants admit that they obtained licensing for Alaska in 2013 but avers that it had obtained licensing prior to June, 2013 in other states. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that Bell made a complaint to the BBB on August 27, 2013 using the name John Cartwright. Defendants deny that the complaint contained false or substantially misleading information. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Defendants admit that in the August 27, 2013 complaint, Bell stated as a business resolution that [i]f they will not deliver my produce as advertised I want my money back to use with another dealer. Defendants deny that there is any false or deceptive implication in this statement. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Defendants deny that they fraudulently obtained any information. Defendants aver that this Court has previously found that such transactions were not fraudulent as a matter of law and that all allegations that Defendants fraudulently obtained information are thus immaterial and impertinent. Defendants deny that they sent false or misleading information to any Agency. Defendants further deny that they caused the F rating with the BBB. Defendants

30 admit that Bell did cite to the F rating at least once in reporting Plaintiffs business practices to various agencies Denied. Defendants aver that the allegations of Paragraph 101 fail to take into account the date that various states required licensing. Defendants further aver that as Sterling Currency Group s licensing practices are not at issue in this litigation the allegations of Paragraph 101 are immaterial and impertinent Denied Denied. Defendants aver that they have a legal and moral obligation to keep the foreign currency industry safe and trustworthy Denied. Defendants aver that any allegations regarding Defendants banking practices are not only immaterial and impertinent, they are based on rank speculation and have no basis in fact Defendants admit that Bell sent its marketing agent, Youssef El Hodaigui the referenced . Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Denied. The Court previously denied Plaintiffs request for a preliminary injunction ordering Defendants to refrain from negative SEO because Plaintiffs failed to cite and the Court was unable to locate any authority that negative SEO violated any Georgia or Federal law. To date, Plaintiffs have failed to provide any

31 authority. Defendants, accordingly, aver that the allegation is immaterial and impertinent. Defendants also aver that the implication that Defendants have failed to provide relevant documents within Defendants possession, custody or control is immaterial and impertinent Defendants admit that Bell sent the referenced letter. Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue post through the use of only select quotations and aver that the post must be taken in its entirety. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that by March 22, 2013, Bell was aware that Sam and Samir were not the same person. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit to sending the referenced communications. Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue post through the use of only select quotations and aver that the post must be taken in its entirety. Defendants deny that the referenced communications made a false impression as Sam was directly involved in the conduct that led to the 2007 Illinois Attorney General lawsuit. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph

32 110. Defendants admit that Sterling Currency Group released a press release that stated that The bank commissioner of Texas reviewed Sterling Currency Group and determined that under the Texas Finance Code, Chapter 151, licensing is not required in that state. Defendants further admit to sending a letter to the Texas Department of Banking on January 6, Defendants deny that the letter was sent to cause Plaintiffs hardship but rather as part of Defendants legal and moral duties. Defendants further aver that Plaintiffs were ordered to Cease and Desist from conducting business in Texas for failure to obtain the proper licensing. Exhibit A. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Denied. Defendants aver that the implication in Paragraph 111 of the Complaint that Defendants are attempting to manufacture any evidence in this case is immaterial and impertinent, is rank speculation, and has no basis in fact Denied Denied Defendants aver that they were under no obligation to refrain from any conduct merely because Plaintiffs sued Defendants. Defendants admit that Bell sent the referenced communications in accordance with Defendants legal and moral duties. Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue

33 communications through the use of only select quotations and aver that the communications must be taken in its entirety. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Denied Defendants admit that Plaintiffs requested that Defendants agree to a preliminary injunction and that Defendants declined to do so. Defendants deny all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that they agreed to refrain from certain conduct based on the Court s request that Defendants narrow the issues before the Court. Defendants further aver that the Court subsequently denied Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction. Defendants deny that Defendants continue to engage in wrongful conduct. Specifically, Defendants deny that they threatened to sue PeoplesTalkRadio, Inc. if it did not abandon DCI as a client. Defendants further deny that they stated that Sam was a criminal and going to jail in the next week. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Defendants admit to sending the referenced . Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue post through the use of only select quotations and aver that the post must be taken in its entirety. Defendants deny that the referenced was sent with the approval of their counsel. Defendants

34 further deny that they implied, stated, or intend to harass or intimidate Plaintiffs or its witnesses and specifically aver that prior to the referenced , Plaintiffs vigorously denied that PTR had any information relevant to this lawsuit. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Denied Denied Denied Denied. First Claim for Relief DEFAMATION 123. Defendants incorporate their responses to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein Denied. While Defendants admit that Bell sent letters to TCF Financial, BMO Harris, PNC Bank, First Midwest Bank, and HSBC, Defendants deny that the letters contained false or defamatory statements or implications. Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue the letters through the use of only select quotations and aver that the letters must be taken in their entirety. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that Plaintiffs originally filed a Complaint in Nevada state court on October 1, Defendants further admit that the letter from Bell to

35 HSBC is dated November 19, Defendants aver that the allegation regarding when the letter was sent is immaterial and impertinent. Defendants specifically deny that the letter from Bell to HSBC contains any false or defamatory statements. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations of Paragraph Defendants admit that Rhame was aware that Bell sent letters to banks and agencies warning those banks and agencies of suspected illegal conduct by DCI and My Monex. Defendants specifically deny that any purchase was fraudulent. The Court has already found that, as a matter of law, Defendants purchases from DCI did not constitute fraud. Accordingly, the allegation is immaterial and impertinent. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Defendants specifically deny that the bank terminations were caused by Defendants. Defendants aver that Plaintiffs and My Monex s conduct, including failing to inform the banks that My Monex would be processing payments for Iraqi Dinar sold through DCI, was the cause of the bank terminations. Defendants admit that TCF terminated My Monex s account on February 15, Defendants further admit that PNC terminated My Monex s account on May 8, 2013 and that First Midwest terminated My Monex s account on August 20, Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph

36 128. Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied. Defendants deny that they were the cause of any bank terminations. Defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether or not Plaintiffs were unable to deposit customer payments as a result of the bank terminations. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegations of Paragraph Denied. Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue the statement on RipOffReport.com through the use of only select quotations and aver that the statement must be taken in its entirety. Defendants further aver that the statement on RipOffReport.com was specifically directed to Dinar Corp. bank accounts while the terminations complained of in the Third Amended Complaint are My Monex bank accounts Denied Denied

37 138. Denied Defendants are without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 139 and therefore deny same Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied. Sterling Currency Group processes all payments for orders through its own bank accounts which were obtained after informing the banks that Sterling Currency Group is a foreign currency exchange entity. Sterling Currency Group s MSB licenses also state that Sterling Currency Group is a foreign currency exchange entity. Defendants aver that the allegations of Paragraph 145 are based solely on rank speculation and are immaterial and impertinent Denied Denied. Defendants aver that any allegations regarding Defendants banking practices are not only immaterial and impertinent, they are based on rank speculation and have no basis in fact Denied Denied

38 150. Denied Denied. DEFAMATION PER SE 152. Denied. While Defendants admit that on August 29, 2012, Bliss made the following statements: and BEWARE of DINARCORP, Inc. Somehow this company, led by Samir Altayeh, alias Samir Al-Tayeh continues to avoid prosecution & shut down by closing under past company names as US Dinar, US Foreign Exchange, Inc. Mid America Trade, US Trade LLC, US Dinar LLC,, etc. Currently operating as DINARCORP, Inc. the story remains the same: they take your money and you get no currency or no refunds. Never bought from these guys before but I have heard and read more than enough. These guys are up to some sketchy activity and they keep their owners hidden. I recommend a google search for DinarCorp review and see what comes up Defendants deny that they are false or per se defamatory. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Denied Denied Denied. While Defendants admit that Rhame sent an to Randy Koonce, Defendants deny that the contained false or per se defamatory information

39 156. Denied Denied Denied. While Defendants admit that Bell made a posting on RipoffReort.com, Defendants deny that any of the statements were false or per se defamatory Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied. While Defendants admit to making statements to the BBB, they deny that any such statements are false or per se defamatory Denied Denied Denied Denied. Defendants aver that any allegations regarding Defendants banking practices are not only immaterial and impertinent, are based on rank speculation, and have no basis in fact Denied Denied

40 170. Denied Denied. Second Claim for Relief FALSE ADVERTISING AND UNFAIR COMPETITION UNDER THE LANHAM ACT 43(A)(1)(B), 15 U.S.C Defendants incorporate their responses to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein Denied. While Defendants admit that Bliss posted material on the Dinar Reviews website, Defendants deny that any of the information was false, damaging, misleading or defamatory Denied. While Defendants admit that Bliss posted material on the Dinar Reviews website, Defendants deny that any of the information was false, damaging, misleading or defamatory Denied. While Defendants admit that Bliss posted material on the Dinar Reviews website, Defendants deny that any of the information was false, damaging, misleading or defamatory Defendants object to the implied juxtaposition of Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 as the dates on the printouts are not the same. Accordingly, they do not consist of true and accurate depictions of postings that appeared on the website at the same time. Defendants further aver that the Dinar Review website consisted of multiple

41 postings regarding multiple Iraqi Dinar currency sellers and thus object to the juxtaposition of Exhibits 1 and 2. Exhibit 2 speaks for itself. Defendants object to Plaintiffs attempt to truncate and misconstrue post through the use of only select quotations and aver that the post must be taken in its entirety. Defendants deny any and all remaining allegations or Paragraph Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied. While Defendants admit that Bliss made three postings to Dinar Review at the general direction of Frank Bell, Defendants deny each and every allegation of wrongdoing made or implied in Paragraph Denied

42 189. Denied Denied Defendants admit that they posted reviews on the Internet. Defendants deny each and every remaining allegation of Paragraph Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied Denied. Third Claim for Relief PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEVEE UNDER GEORGIA S UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT, O.C.G.A (8) and Defendants incorporate their responses to the allegations set forth in Paragraphs of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein Paragraph 201 alleges conclusions of law, to which no response is required. To the extent a response is required, Defendants deny that they are liable to Plaintiffs under O.C.G.A (8)