This is a heavy-hitting post.
I have been reporting extensively for the last seven months about the AFLDS saga (list & links below). Last January, it took an Arizona judge no time to clearly determine that America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) founder Dr. Simone Gold, is no longer a board member, chair, or president and, as I had mentioned numerous times in former posts, Dr. Simone Gold did formally resign in February of 2022.
Since then, Gold has continued her illegal financial control of AFLDS, still claiming that her February 2022 departure from the AFLDS Board was ineffective.
This is an extensive post…. I apologize, but this needs to get out.
COURTS ADMONISH GOLD AGAIN
The same Arizona judge who admonished Gold in January 2023 - determining that Gold has NO ASSOCIATION WITH AFLDS and that she had resigned in February of 2022 — had to set the record straight a second time this last June: Gold STILL HAS NO ASSOCIATION WITH AFLDS — and yet, she sends out daily ALFDS newsletters through the stolen AFLDS.org website, with a forged title, begging for donations to add to the already $30 million plus that she has absconded with from AFLDS and stashed in bank accounts around the nation….
This was the first time around with the AZ judge.
This was the second time…..
As you can all imagine, I receive emails and texts daily from people around the country with screenshots of emails sent out by Simone (and Israeli-based Frontline News) with her name signed on the bottom as President of ALFDS, requesting more money.
Each time I see this, I can only think that with each dollar Gold raises, each stage she steps onto, and each newsletter she puts out, she is stringing out the very rope that will be hanging her.
Gold is adamant about continuing the charade of being AFLDS Chairman & President of the Board. I’m not sure if it’s delusion or hubris. She even filed with the State of Arizona that she, Mack, Sarah Denis, and Troy Brewer are AFLDS officers.
While continuing the charade, she forbids opening her financials for a forensic financial audit.
As seen in this excerpt from AFLDS’ draft financial audit above, it could not be fully completed because Gold would not comply. Hence, the AFLDS board’s request for a court-ordered-receivership.
This comes from AFLDS June 6th, 2023, “Application for Appointment of Receiver”:
And the AFLDS’ boards desire for court-ordered receivership is understandable when you see how much money has gone missing and why Gold won’t open her books to complete AFLDS’ financial audit:
According to AFLDS CEO Kevin Jenkins, as soon as Gold got wind of the upcoming court order receivership, Gold tried to strike a deal with the AFLDS board. Of course, they did not capitulate.
All this has been submitted to the courts, plus some, by the way.
STILL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CRIME SPREE
Simone Gold hasn’t stopped. The crime has been occurring for over two years with no end.
And I now see this Gold crime spree as an unintended litmus test for everything medical freedom/patriot related. And I have been disappointed many times, particularly when I saw this:
Last week Dr. Robert Malone published in a Substack article that he will be standing alongside Gold for a “follow-up event” from the original AFLDS press conference in July of 2020 in Washington DC that launched AFLDS.
What should the theme be?
How about a thematic summary of How we behave like the monsters we call out? Or, How are we turning a blind eye to crimes — for our benefit?
We don’t want to allow the Fauci, Gates, and Wolenskies of the world to get away with their crimes, but we’ll protect the criminals in our movement rather than protect the people we speak of protecting?
The medical freedom/patriot movement is a small group (but proliferating), and nobody in either can claim they haven’t heard about the shenanigans around Gold, AFLDS, and the missing $30 million, plus some.
Where is the moral code of our movement(s)? Why do we call out the criminality of others but not our own?
Where is the press? If I stole the $370,000 Sheriff Mack took from ALFLDS, I would have been plastered on every front page, above the fold, across the nation, and raked over the hot coals for months to come.
But Gold? Mack? We have a near silence coming from the movement and the media.
All a reporter needs to do is read a few of my posts on this topic and realize they have a treasure trove of patterns, deceit, criminality, and evidence.
So what gives?
The Financial Times (FT) has contacted the President and Chair Kevin Jenkins for a story on Simone Gold, her AFLDS $30 million theft, fraud, and embezzlement. But one can tell from how FT is couching their questions to Jenkins that they will be siding with Gold….
So, this is Jenkins’ official response to the FT reporter to keep the record straight no matter how they spin the story in print and online.
AIDING AN ABETTING THE ILLUSION
How can Gold continue as she has? Where are the Attorney Generals? The demand from the medical freedom/patriot movements for answers? How can this continue? Seriously.
But amazingly, the movement and media continue to ignore a massive and well-documented crime story — the largest medical freedom crime the nation has seen.
How is the rest of the medical freedom/patriot movement unable to see this? My lord.
How blind are our “eyes?”
I’m not speaking in the past tense when I write of Gold's transgressions: Gold and Associates are still committing their crimes: They haven’t repented. They haven’t stopped. They are in the middle of a crime spree, and we keep standing with them in “medical freedom solidarity” for photo ops, on stage, and taking her money (stolen property) without blinking an eye.
LOOKING IN THE REARVIEW MIRROR
At the beginning of Covid, our world was in a tremendous flurry. Players and “experts” positioned themselves at the forefront of the medical freedom and patriot movement, many of whom we had never heard of until then.
But now, however, we have a 3-year rear view mirror.
We can watch a pattern of actions or empty platitudes.
Anyone who continues to go along with Gold’s thievery is partaking in it. Either by ignoring, covering, supporting…. or benefitting from it.
Why, oh why, would somebody associate so publicly with someone who has been documented as taking millions of dollars from a non-profit and from hundreds if not millions of donors and their AFLDS Telehealth clients?
ON A PERSONAL NOTE
And this is why I’m controversial in my community. I call out the uncomfortable, often involving those immediately around me.
How much evidence do people need? Just look at all of my past Substack posts on the topic. Posts that come along with a lot of evidence! Nobody can claim they weren’t warned.
America's Frontline Doctors Founder, Dr. Simone Gold; Delusional or a Controlled Operative?-
America's Frontline Doctors: All Roads Point to Israel-
BREAKING NEWS: AZ Judge Rules, Dr. Simone Gold is Not AFLDS President or Chair-
https://reinettesenumsfoghornexpress.substack.com/p/breaking-news-az-judge-rules-dr-simone
Former AFLDS CEO, Joey Gilbert Chronicles Org's Internal Strife, Answers More Questions re: Sheriff Mack & Simone Gold-
https://reinettesenumsfoghornexpress.substack.com/p/former-aflds-ceo-joey-gilbert-chronicles
America's Frontline Doctors Whistleblower, Jess Abu, Joins Reinette Senum-
https://reinettesenumsfoghornexpress.substack.com/p/americas-frontline-doctors-whistleblower
BREAKING: Criminal Charges Pressed Against Sheriff Richard Mack for Stealing $350,000 From America's Frontline Doctors-
America's Frontline Doctors; Oversight Chair, Kevin Jenkins, Keeps Check on Internal Strife, Reinette Senum Challenges Simone Gold to Debate-
Kevin Jenkins Joins Reinette Senum, Taking on AFLDS Founder Dr. Simone Gold's Conflation of Facts vs. Fiction-
Dr. Simone Gold: Becoming the Bernie Madoff of the Medical Freedom Movement-
Sheriff Richard Mack Update; Kevin Jenkins Gives Update, Answers Questions-
Grifters Grifting Grifters Pt 1-
We’ve all heard the adage, “I just want an honest politician.” From experience, I can say, for the most part, “No, folks don't.” As an elected official (I don’t consider myself a politician), I was as honest as one can be and created shitstorms left and right in my community. It took me some time to figure out why…. because “those around me were benefitting from the crimes and misdeeds I was calling out.”
As I have often said, I have a long list of enemies. Of which you would be very impressed. But this makes one unpopular very fast.
I’m not here to save a movement. I’m here to save lives, well-being, and freedom.
So, allow me to make enemies within the medical/patriot movement; I must call out their misdeeds and crimes.
As I have also said, “How you do one thing is generally how you do everything.” And though we were all foisted upon one another in spontaneous (or not) movements when Covid hit, most of us had no idea who we were playing with in the proverbial sandbox. We were new to each other and had little way to judge a person’s character beyond a few online interviews and blog posts.
And because of this, trusting people has been like playing Russian roulette. I now know I have been wrong at times and trusted some of the wrong people in both movements.
And let me tell you…. I no longer hear or watch the words come from people’s mouths. I am watching what they do. 100% actions. Where one REALLY puts their energy.
SO DEAR DR. ROBERT MALONE. DEAR MEDICAL FREEDOM/PATRIOT MOVEMENT. WTH?
And to be clear, I’m not here to cheer on Kevin Jenkins. This is not about Jenkins vs. Gold. I’m here to point out some serious criminal activity, and Jenkins and Team are the only ones giving me substantial proof of what is transpiring.
I see Gold continuing the fraud, embezzlement, and throwing around cease and desist orders and defamation threats like one throws frisbees in a disc golf tournament.
Gold’s attorney is sending out so many threatening letters he’s getting sloppy. He wanted me to respond to this letter by 2022 (not 2023), claiming I have smeared Gold’s reputation (I don’t think that was me)… when what I’m doing is producing court documents, first-hand accounts, and a ton of other supportive evidence up the wahzoo ( I have so much I don’t have time to post all of it).
To be clear, I haven’t “wronged” Simone Gold. I’m simply reporting on her actions and not her words.
I continue to hear that former AFLDS board members Reverend Aaron Lewis and Sheriff Richard Mack are claiming Gold did no wrong and are now using Jenkins as the fall guy.
But let me tell you, both Mack and Lewis were very aware of Gold’s serious criminal activity, as seen in this email exchange between them and AFLDS legal counsel Laura Bradford.
Also, as seen in this email response from Mack to another AFLDS attorney, he clearly understood the ramifications of Gold’s past and continued actions.
JES’ REPORTING THE FACTS, MA’AM
I’ll make a deal with all parties involved. If anyone thinks I’m doing some ill-reporting: Give me everything you have. Please give me all your evidence proving me otherwise. I’ll post it.
And if you don’t provide any evidence but are still upset with me for writing about your actions, I’ll make a deal with you, stop committing the crimes, and I’ll stop reporting them.
In the meantime, as I had promised in Grifters Grifting Grifters Pt 1, here is the AFLDS Board of Directors transcript below if you don’t have time to slog through the whole thing, scroll down and look for the highlights.
Much of what I have been reporting for months here, on substack, is backed up by this Exhibit F, May 3, 2023, Zoom Transcript of AFLDS video recorded meeting, 01:01:45).
AFLDS Emergency Board Meeting
May 3, 2023
10:52 am
Partial Transcribing of Aaron Lewis's Remarks
Notes transcribed via Zoom recording and transcribed notes
Kevin Jenkins: We have taken on this organization under the most extreme, extreme situations that you possibly can… 30 million dollars being misappropriated. Can't find it. People throwing suits all over the place. You know, we have a person that's completely insane, but we have to finish the job because there's a lot of assets out there that I think brings huge value for what we want to do in this country. For what we want to do around health care, and I just think it's so important that we win this battle completely.
So, the reason I’m calling this meeting and Lewis is on. I finally got in touch with him, and we talked briefly about all of this. Is that Cordie Williams has resigned from the board. Whatever the circumstances are, I really can't tell you. He's only been here for two weeks, so I don't really know. Maybe he's overwhelmed. Maybe he has some personal issues he had to resolve. That's not my responsibility to figure that out and Giordano. However, you say his name. Maybe that’s why I couldn’t say his name.
Rachel Rodriguez: Guffanti
Kevin Jenkins: Guffanti. He had a conflict of interest that we found out, because his lawyer represents Simone and certain cases, and he did not inform us of that of that, and he was acting a little peculiar. So, I thought that you know, instead of waiting around like they did in the former board, that we will resolve these issues sooner than later and so what that did is that open this up to two new Board members that I think that we have to put on today, so we can move this organization forward.
I had some conversation with Lewis procedurally, because, of course, he knows this stuff like the back of his hand. Also, about how we manage that, as it relates to, I'm. Sorry, as it relates to putting new board members on the board, because the doctor, G, is under the impression everyone, that he has the right to refuse his resignation. This is not a resignation based on the fact that we just asked him to resign. This is a a a request that he steps off the board because of this conflict of interest that he did not disclose, so he has no options for me. To have to come back and make any negotiations. I don't, I don't understand how we even get into that conversation. But what I’m trying to do is to put two people on the board that are key to the growth of the organization that can help us to grow and will work with us as opposed to being obstructionist.
We cannot have another board that way, and you know, I I just think, from an action perspective. I like to get on top of those issues as quickly as possible. So, I wanted to talk about that. I also want to talk about the fact that, you know, we are still in capture mode. We are still going after the 4.2. We're still going after the 1.7, which is fine. We’re on top of that, and I’ll let Rachel spend a little time in that space. But what I want to do is clear up this voting matter, for putting these two board members on the board, and then I want to end up in some public relations discussions…
…because I think we might have to go back on a road and then give some more clarity to the criminal behavior of Gold. We took a break, but I think we have to go back out there and continue to do what we do and explain that this woman has gotten even worse than she was last week now. I mean it's just gotten even worse. So, I’m thinking about doing a a a public relations piece on that or press release on that saying that this woman is still out of control, and if you're giving her money, you're a part of this this conspiracy to defraud Americans.
You know that kind of thing outside of the 15-million-dollar lawsuit that she's trying to find me to serve. I'm like, Give me a freaking break. Hmm.
So, I wanted to talk about that while we're on the call to see that we can get that done first. Sheila Ealey. I mean. I talked to you yesterday about where we were as a company, a nonprofit and Trent, you already know that. But I really appreciate. I really appreciate it that both of you came basically to our rescue. So we can get this ship righted because that's all we’re focused on is being able to capture and getting this ship righted and I wanted to give Lewis opportunity to say some of the stuff that he feels that he's been watching in the last couple of days or the last couple of weeks, because he's done a yeoman's job going around the country, doing what he does for us to try to get the money captured, and set the tone with the banks and all the people that that that are acting as obstructionist is to stop us from getting what we want. So, I wanted to see if Lewis wanted to say something about that, and then I wanted to go in about. How do we procedurally create this? Because I talked to Lewis had a great point about it about how we procedurally get this board placed today without a lot of fan fear. Lewis, you wanted to add something to that.
Aaron Lewis (4:34-9:49): Well, good to see my friend Sheila Ealey. Good to see you this morning. Good morning to all of you. Well with with regards to what’s been happening there….
There's a lot of things that has to be addressed regarding moving forward, and and also with regards to the actions that Simone Gold has been taking, and so many of the things she’s doing at this point could be stopped immediately, just by, you know, pressing criminal charges against her, because, you know now it's going from what she was doing to now actually creating very intentional, fraudulent reasons to to pretty much embezzle even more money than she already has. So, you know some of the things that she's been doing. We will have to take immediate and aggressive measures to stop her, because if if we don't it's going to be the end of the organization altogether. Secondly, we've been in recapture mode for the past month, and I was able to go to, you know, a a bank in the Gilbert, Arizona, and and recapture upwards of $400,000 from one bank and and deposit it to the rightful accounts, and was able to also receive funds from the law firm that was trying to withhold funds as well for nearly the same amount and and deposited those funds as well. And so there's funds that has been hidden around the country by Simone Gold, and we're discovering them and and doing what we need to do to capture those of funds and move forward with regards to of Guffanti he's in violation of the Board membership, and so it it would be the same as if he was a convicted felon, and we don't allow convicted felons on our board, it would be an immediate disqualification…..
And so, it's it's the same idea that you know there's a conflict of interest, and and every Every lawyer knows that there's a conflict of interest because he and Simone Gold share the same lawyer, and and based on some of the conversation that I've witnessed. It appears that he's being fed information from their mutual lawyer concerning Intel on what's happening in our space right now. So that's you know a a major violation of ethics and so that's not something. We we certainly as a board can vote, and and then that vote would make sacrosanct. You know the decision that's being made. But actually, even if we did not vote just sending him a letter, letting him know that the conflict of interest is in violation of our board, that in and of itself recuses him from the board. You know, he should recuse himself from the board; but if he doesn't, it's highly suspect as to why a person would remain on the board when they're in a very, very, you know, a troubling situation that that that has been proven to be a conflict. So that's something that needs to be dealt with sooner than later as well.
And then, of course, the other issue has to do with adopting two new Board members to our our board in the State of Arizona. All we're required to have is just one board in in our State, in order for the Board to be active and effectuated. Other States are different, other States is two board members. Both States are two Board members but the State of Arizona is one board member. And so so, with that being said, I have the capacity to be able to actually receive, adopt new Board members in, and and of course we don't have any other Board member to do that, because Guffanti is disqualified from the board. Cory Williams resigned from the board. So then, that would leave my myself as the only board member with the operating authority at this point.
Kevin Jenkins: So that's where we are right now, and everyone, and that's why I was important that you know Lewis gave us that overview legal overview. A synopsis of his perspective on being at a nonprofit out of Arizona, which gives us a lot of opportunity to make the decisions that we have to make today. I I think, while I'm on the call with with the people potential people that that want to join up and they're asking to join our board if you have any questions. But I wanted to find out, Rachel, are you, are you clear on some of the stuff that we were talking about?
Did we lose Rachel?
Lauren Bradford: Rachel you’re on mute.
Rachel Rodriguez: Sorry! Sorry I was looking at, at our bylaws, because this is a an extraordinary circumstance. And so, you know section 4.1, 2, and I know we. We are in in deep need of amending these bylaws, but that's the one that discusses resignation and removal of directors. Part of our our concern here is that the bylaws call for a vote of two-thirds of the directors, then in office. Well, that's a mathematical impossibility at this point. So, I, you know I I I think we can talk a little bit further about that. But that's one of the issues that I think is sort of in in my space to discuss. Another is a 7.2 regarding vacancies. If a, if an office, it becomes vacant by disqualification. So, I think that's really what we're we're looking at here and it it it describes how we, how we select a successor under Section 4 and 5, so we can, we can talk about that. Okay. There's also a conflict of interest. But unfortunately, it just refers to a conflict-of-interest policy which we need to instate.
I'm getting. I'm getting presumably Sally Wagonmaker is sending me finally after a week. Is it two weeks, or is it one week now? It's like ten days, almost two weeks - the entirety of her file for the organization. I will need to look into this to see if we do have some other policies we can use here on the board. But the other thing is we're looking at, speaking of recapture, is this what you want me to go into a little bit Kevin? Regarding recapture and what's happened in the last 48 hours?
Kevin Jenkins: Yeah, I want you to go into that. But the issue is, I want to make sure I close out the issue about the Board members. That's essential for me right now. Nothing else is that important. My issue. My issue is that we have a board that has abandoned us in a sense, not in a sense, but..and we have to make a decision about putting placing on two new board members on today. So that's where I want to get based on the circumstances, we are in. We don’t have a lot of options here so that’s why I wanted to make sure I close that up the right way.
Chris: Yeah, and I was just…again, I’m a recovering lawyer, so you know I would take everything I say with a grain of salt. But it would be my opinion that G is disqualified from serving on the board. So therefore, we have a vacancy on the board that can immediately be filled by the board chair. Which would then give us two Board members, who then could both vote unanimously to add the third board member like that? It would seem like to me that that would be at least from what you mentioned of the by, the bylaws, Rachel, that would seem to be a process that would allow us, I mean, certainly we can't allow the bylaws to cripple the organization so that we can't do anything.
Rachel Rodriguez: No, no, that's that's absolutely right, Chris. And I think the problem here is that we're we're running into areas that we are imminently needing to revise the bylaws to be more robust and clear.
Aaron Lewis (14:03-14:34): Rachel, The the bylaws is, is is completely irrelevant in this situation. I've lived this. This is not something that I’m saying, based on you know, conjecture or or just reason. I lived this I live, I lived this with the Scribe Institute. I lived this with the Y.M.C.A. and I've lived it where people resign from the board with people disqualified from the board and then what happens after that. So that's not…this is not a real extenuating circumstance whatsoever it's not. It's not that, it's not that big of a deal. It's just a matter of what action are we going to take and when we are going to take it. It's not. The bylaws are not sacrosanct to the point like to Chris's point that it kills the entire organization. That's not how this works whatsoever.
Rachel Rodriguez: No, no, I I I agree with that, and sorry to cut you off. I'm just we. We do have a circumstance that isn't like other circumstances, where we're under scrutiny by third party judiciaries that do have the power to install a a receivership or something else that completely strips us of power in this organization. Not that it’s right, I’m just saying.
Aaron Lewis 14:50- Rachel that's a supposition. That's like saying that, you know, in, you know, come December, that the the Easter Bunny is going to show up on Christmas. We have no idea about what will happen, and we can't run a board on the supposition that something twelve months from now might happen. We have to either make a decision or we don't make a decision. So, we make a decision to move forward. If we don't make a decision, then whatever is going to happen is gonna happen anyway. So, when you say that about receivership like that, that, I've never in 20 years of of of leading boards or serving on boards, I've never heard that ever. And so, because we, because we're talking about what if what if this happens. What if. What if you know Simone Gold becomes the President of the United States? It doesn't apply to what is needed to be done right this particular moment. You understand what I’m saying Rachel.
Rachel Rodriguez: I do, I do….
… And and and this this actually runs into what I need to to present to this meeting body, which is what has happened or what we found in the last 48 hours. So, we were apprised yesterday that Simone filed her third fraudulent state filing in Arizona, stating herself to be chairman of the board. She stated that Mac is a director; that Trent loose is the treasurer, and I think a director, and then named a Sarah Dennis as the secretary in an official filing to the State in Arizona. This was made, actually Lewis, this was filed when we were at the Tennessee bank. So, this also explains a few things with regard to how they behaved.
Lauren Bradford: Wait a minute.
Rachel Rodriguez: So Yeah, yeah. It was filed on the seventh of April. And it was not, it was not received, or, I guess, implemented until about the seventeenth. So, I’m not sure. You know how that applies to the Tennessee Bank, but I’m just making that point, because these are facts that we now.
Lauren Bradford: That’s weird Rachel. That’s very concerning.
Rachel Rodriguez: I'm, I’m not. I'm not. I'm I’m I’m I’m I’m certain that Troy did I say, Trent Toy, what's his last name?
Lauren Bradford: Brewer
Rachel Rodriguez: Brewer. Thank you. I'm sorry I get names mixed up Guys. So Troy Brewer was the only signatory on that Tennessee bank, and obviously has pull in Tennessee. So, we know that there are bad actors working in a conspiratorial – a literal, civil and and criminal, conspiratorial enterprise. But but here's Here's where I was going to go with this. There is now a situation from a, and and this is just my job to to present this information. There is now, from the perspective of a third party, any third party, and we now have at least four courts engaged with our organization, or our officers and board members, former and current and they are going to be looking at this and what they're seeing is a ping pong.
Kevin Jenkins: But the Ping-Pong is not coming from here. So, here's the problem with all of that right. I get what you're saying, but that's that's a different discussion. The ping pong is not coming from us. We are, we have, we are the authority she's not the authority. So, what they we need to be that that focus should be on what she's doing. What I’m saying to you is that we have a board dynamic that we have to fix right now. Right now. I think we have a pathway out of that, after listening to everyone and part two (audio transcript inaudible for four seconds)
We need to criminally file charges which I know we're doing today, and submitting that to the Attorney General's office, and also submitting that to the prosecutor of that state right, if that's the Attorney General, or whatever her the prosecuted her. So, the issue for me is not to deal with that. The issue for me is to make sure that this board has the right representation on it.
Rachel Rodriguez: No, I and I agree. I just. I make that point because this is this. Again, you know it is my obligation to present this information. That this is not with respectfully, I would say, this is not a speculation on my part….
There is a judge who has already stated that if requested. He will entertain a receivership. So, we are one request away from that reality.
Kevin Jenkins: But he was No, no, no, but he was saying that I I was there. He was saying, that, as it relates to the old board. That has nothing to do with us.
Rachel Rodriguez: I I understand that. But then. But then consider the fact that we enter a new board, and within one month we now have a new board again.
Aaron Lewis: Rachel, Rachel, Rachel. This this is my area of expertise a judge. That's one thing that a judge completely hates to do is to now decide on who's going to be on the YMC board, and you know whether you know the the President's friend is there. They don't have nothing to do with that. A judge Never! When when the judge said, I wasn't there. But when the judge said that they were going to enter into a receivership that was on that board, because that board had been found to be corrupted. So, he had to make a decision on that board, if if that board could not come to some level of resolution. So, if it's a brand-new board, a Judge doesn't even have real. They don't have any jurisdiction to even make any decisions on the board. That's why the Board exists…..
Every judge defaults everything back to the board, and the only time that a judge will have to enter is if the board is at odds with each other. We're not at odds with each other, but this board doesn't even know about some other board that that just got made up. So, us being perceivably at odds with some board that was made up over the weekend or three weeks ago.
….Is it relevant to this particular conversation? Because...
Rachel Rodriguez: I I and and you know ultimately it, it's just my job to provide advice and council on this, and so I I have provided that in terms of my observations. I think the important piece is that while while bylaws are not clear, there is a statement of a vacancy based on disqualification, and that applies here, and we have set the written record. I sent a letter to Guffanti and he has responded, refusing to resign on that basis, and refusing to recognize his conflict, and therefore, in my opinion, breach of fiduciary duty. I have also presented to him a response that clarifies that point, and he provided a response back. So there is a clear written record regarding this, and I’m happy to include that in the record of a resolution regarding you know the the Board, recognizing a a vacancy on the basis of this qualification, which, with the to a position Yes, there's a disqualification, so we do have two openings.
Aaron Lewis: But the the the disqualification is not information that he's required, because, after he's disqualified there's no more communication about what happens on our our board. So, you don't have to say to him that we that you know, because you're an opening, somebody's going to fill it, because that's giving him information that he's that he's not entitled to whatsoever. So, after you've sent the letter to him and and and I've informed him of the fact that it's a violation. That's that's your your you know your your responsibility, and that's you know, you know, showing that you you've done your, you know, your your job to to inform him.. That's it. There's nothing else. We don't have to have any more conversation back and forth with him after the point, because it's it's an irrelevant point.
Rachel Rodriguez: So, I think you know. Anyways I I I I hear that. I I think it brings us to the position which is, if, you know, procedure-wise. If this is now going to be a meeting in which the chairman of the Board is going to present appointments, then I’m. I'm happy to prepare a resolution in in that regard, and I think that would be the right way to to do this and you know that that would be the way to to have the written record for what I need to do in filing with State authorities and and and cutting off Simone’s nonsense. I will say this to everybody, Lewis, you would have been copied on this. So, I thought. I think I copied you on this. That I I sent a an email to several authorities in Arizona regarding her fraudulent filing, because clearly, she will just, she's following this filing - this account on the Secretary of State website. And so, she is going to just keep ping-ponging and filing fraudulent records. And so, I made a a note to the appropriate authorities in in Arizona that this was happening and presented, you know, a very summary position of what's happening. I also intend to send this exact correspondence along with some other detail, to the New York Bar and start that rolling to indicate that you know she's, she's filing fraudulent records.
Aaron Lewis: New York Bar or the California Bar. She She she's she's from California.
Rachel Rodriquez: I believe that her bar is in New York. But I will verify that.
Lauren Bradford: Yeah, she's barred in New York, and she has her medical license in California.
Rachel Rodriguez: I believe that we should send these records to California Medical Licensing Board. But I’m not sure that that's going to have the same weight yet.
Aaron Lewis: I don't think it's going to have any bearing, because the medical Board oversees violations in in terms of medical fraud. The the the two that it needs to go to is the the judge. Should receive that….
…because the judge did affirm that she's no longer on the board, and so that can be presented to that judge, saying, listen, you've affirmed that she's no longer [on] the board. Since then, she's taken retaliatory measures because of that decision, and and as a result we're letting you know this because he could then issue so some level of a rebuke, only through, toward her…..
That's number one, and then number two, and I know this because I have several with the Secretary of State in Connecticut. Send that to the Secretary of State. It's very, very simple. You send that same exact thing to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State hates fraud. They hate it, and so
Rachel Rodriguez: Well that that's who who I sent it to. I sent it to. I I called the for consumers in Arizona, which, thank God, was the right approach, because they always have a person answering the line.
Aaron Lewis: and say that you you you cut out Rachel. Say, say that once again you.
Rachel Rodriguez: I call the Arizona, ombudspend. Or however you say that word.
Aaron Lewis: Ombudsmen
Rachel Rodriguez: There we go. That's it. I never know how to say it, because I never say it out. You know audibly. I called that person, and sure enough, I had expected to get a person on the end of the line, which is exactly what they're supposed to do and as a result of that conversation I got about 5 direct emails and phone numbers for specific people that are related to this particular issue, and I chose 3 of those to send this to for the moment. One, including the regulatory body in Arizona, for all insurance and banking issues and then the other was the Secretary of State and the Assistant Secretary of State an individual Kelly, something or other, and and then the other is a general mailbox regarding the filing aspect. So, there's a the it's called the Corporation and Tradition and that's where these things are. E filed. So, all of those people have received this email with regard to what she's doing with the specific names that were in the latest filing.
But my intention is, you know, when when this board is is now constituted, and I have proper records…..
Then I'm gonna be able to make filings, you know, filing amendments in both Florida and Arizona, and then it's going to go into the eviction case, so it'll be on the public record in a court which is going to make it a lot harder for her to go ahead and do this again, because it will be in in in the judiciary. So that's the plan on as far as that.
Lauren Bradford: And also, Rachel, you, you forgot to mention that Rachel did put a call in to Nathan, who is the attorney representing the foundation. We're just waiting for him to call back because you are. You were gonna ask, I don't know how he'll want to handle it, but at least have the discussion of her false filings in Arizona, and potentially he'd want to get that.
Rachel Rodriguez: Well, I did better than that actually I blind copied him on it.
Lauren Bradford: Oh, okay, so he can so he can then decide, you know, if he wants to.
Rachel Rodriguez: Yeah, it's all there for him, and it's, and it's presented in that mail because he is already engaged to represent the organization. So, these are appropriate.
Kevin Jenkins: Okay, well, let's let's talk procedurally, how we.. Do we get off the call and then Lewis stays on with the two board members. So how do we want to execute this new and then come out of this with a resolution for them. How how did we want to do this?
Rachel Rodriquez: Well, I mean I I I think it's been clear. But you know, Lewis, I think what I'd like to to say is, you know I will present a written resolution that indicates that your position is that Guffanti has disqualified himself. The Board has also received and accepted the resignation of Cordy Williams, and that as a result, there are 2 vacancies on the board, and that in your position as chairman. Under these circumstances you have appointed the following 2 individuals, and that will be for your signature. I think that's the way to do this. If If the other 2 lawyers on the call have any other thoughts on that, that's that's kind of what I would do.
Aaron Lewis: That's the safeguard. That's the safeguard method. That's there. There's there's nothing else for I mean you. You know law better than I do. There's no other recourse there. There's nothing else to do.
Rachel Rodriquez: and so, I think I think upon upon sending you that you know I I think, the best course of action, of course, is to then call another board meeting with regard to appointing treasurer, secretary, that kind of thing and so I think I think upon upon.
Aaron Lewis: That kind of thing that we do, that after we're not even worried about that right now. It's just a matter of of getting the Board members on on first,
Rachel Rodriguez: Okay, so I’ll send that resolution then. Okay.
Kevin Jenkins: Lets send that resolution so we can get that done. And and Chris, as far as PR is concerned, what direction do you think we should be going like moving forward.
Chris: So, first, like we still we saw, or still have to announce you as CEO. We need to do that. We need to announce you as CEO and we should do that immediately. Like I should see that out first thing tomorrow morning. We should have the press release announcing you as CEO. Secondly, we need to have demonstrable actions that we can say we are undertaking. So, if there is a if there's a complaint filed with a New York bar because of fraudulent filings by Simone….
We need to put out a press release saying that it not that it's going to be fact that the complaint has been filed. If there are, if we are, if we have started proceedings to eject her from the home in Florida, then we need a press release, saying that we have begun the process of removing Simone Gold from AFLDs property in Florida. And again, we need to attach the actual documents because some of the pushback I’m getting PR wise from folks is like, is this really happening like? So, they want to see. Because, you know, we've been in this finger pointing with Simone for a long time. Now they want to see, like the actual. Okay, here's the filing, …here was the complaint here, so I think, on each one of those, we should be doing press releases and we should be presenting the actual documents. Here is the actual, you know, board complaint from New York about fraudulent filings that Simone Gold has made in Arizona. Like here's the actual like, you know, filing in Florida, moving to eject her from AFLDs property in Florida. I think we should definitely do press releases putting that stuff out there, but we got to make sure that we attach the actual documents to it. So, people know this is real - this is happening….
Lauren Bradford: Chris, two questions on that. Should we do separate press releases, or all at once like, here's everything that we're doing.
Aaron Lewis: Separately.
Chris: Absolutely
Lauren Bradford: Okay. And then my second thing was, could we because we do have a new website being built. Can we do what we were doing before? Which is, if you want the document, you gotta go into your email if you want them or just attached to the press release?
Chris: I mean, if if if the website is like up and running like asap, I don't have any problem with them being able to to to go and put their email in, because I’m all about the email capture. That's that's great.
Lauren Bradford: Okay, great.
Chris: But I don't want us to like if we're if we I don't want us to be having this conversation a week from now and saying we're still waiting on the the website to get this done, because some of this stuff we just need to.
Kevin Jenkins: We did, we did, we did. We did file the eviction notice to her right Rachel.
Lauren Bradford: Yes, yes we did
Rachel Rodriguez: Absolutely that that. So, there was a a proper notice at the end of January, and then the case was filed. When was that Lauren that was like right at March?
Lauren Bradford: Yeah. And then she was served.
Rachel Rodriguez: in March, and she was served the first week of April. She has filed a motion to dismiss and a sanctions motion against me and I know it's it's hilarious. Chris. I gotta send it to you for a good laugh. Okay.
Chris: Like she's a complete lunatic.
Rachel Rodriguez: She's a total freakin lunatic. And and so what I am going to do now is what I just mentioned. We want not just eviction, but an unlawful detainer. I've gotten some expert assistance with the real estate attorney on this point, and I will be making that amendment, together with the properly amended filings, and, as I understand it, in unlawful detainer, it's a summary process. There is no defense to it other than standing, and we will be able to resolve that once we can gain control of the LLC with the proper filing. So I’m looking at possibly a 30 day timeline.
Kevin Jenkins: For her to be out of the house.
Aaron Lewis: Everything, everything that that Chris said I wholeheartedly agree with, and, in fact, it's that that's a part of my world as well. In publishing you have to attach everything with facts, with filings, because nobody is going to look at it otherwise. And so that's 100% true and we need to do. We need to drop releases per case not combine them, because we we will lose the people's attention by combining them. But each case to show the the success of crimes that she's committing with regards to the website, though, Lauren, you know my, my, my my viewpoint, and my advice is that we stay away from doing what Simone did with regards to, you know, using the website in any kind of way to give her a you know, a a platform, or to even lambaste. There's other mechanism. I think that what Chris is doing will get the message out extremely well to those that it needs to go out to. But I don't. I….
I totally disagree that the website should be used as anything other than positioning our organization for for what we're getting ready to do and what we're doing right now, and so that level of information about her criminal activity, like I said we need to be, you know, aggressive about doing press releases, you know, as many as possible, but in terms of our website, I think that we need to keep that very, very, you know, pure, and let people know what the you know, going forward in in the organization that we we we're planning to do. And then finally., Trent Loose. He he knows these people. You know that you know that are involved, you know, from like Simone, Sheriff Mack. He knows them, and so he would be able to certainly give, I believe, intelligent Intel on how to deal with people psychologically like these people, because we don’t, I don't know them. I don't know neither one of them. I met Simone one time when we spoke at a a a trump event, in in Florida that's all, and I met her for a second. I don't know her at all. She doesn't know me, and I've never met Sheriff Mac other than the one time seeing him on the zoom when he when he was losing it. But anyway, Trent knows these people so that I believe would be helpful, moving forward in terms of how to navigate with them. You know concerning these matters, even with Sheriff Mack. That's something that he did, and he he was able to successfully get away with, because no one from our team did anything prosecutory whatsoever when he stole upwards of $370,000. He did steal it. We recovered it so that doesn't that doesn't make him a hero, that that I went into the bank you know and and and recovered stolen funds. He still stole the funds, but there's been no prosecution whatsoever. So, what's happening here?
And and maybe this is good for you, Chris, to even speak to having the you know previous law, experience, and and and and now PR experience as well. What what's happening to me is that all of the bad actors are being able to get away with all of their bad actions under the pretense that we don't want the people to know that any of these bad things are happening. You know, a receivership goes with somebody or the organization goes back. The organization is gonna go bad, regardless if we do nothing. I'm. I'm a firm believer that doing nothing gets us nowhere. That's what or gets us to a very, very bad place.
So, the fact that with the most I mean Simone gold is a convicted felon, good, bad or indifferent and we've not used that for our benefit whatsoever. And now she's actually dealing with money, laundering, and fraud which can put her in Federal prison. We're not using that to our benefit now. She actually filed with the Secretary of State of Arizona that she's the chair of a board that she didn't have the right to do that, and then name the person who actually committed fraud with her. So so, what I’m saying is that it's become a circus, and we're the we're the ones that have the capacity to end the circus immediately. This is, and I mean you could speak to that Chris.
Chris: Yeah, no, no, I I I would say one of the mistakes, and not to throw the the previous board under the bus here. But one of the one of the mistakes the previous board made is they were never willing to do everything in their capacity to stop Simone. I don't know if it's because they were afraid of her, or they thought that maybe something would get worked out, and this would all just go away. I don't know what it was. But the fact is, is, they didn't do those things, you know. Look the the the fact that no one has filed a a bar complaint against Simone for this kind of behavior before is absolutely bizarre to me. The fact that there's been no criminal charges attempt to be pressed against her, considering what she's done is absolutely bizarre to me. The fact that we're the first ones to actually attempt to evict her from that. How like that that should have been done on like day one like. So, I, you know you're absolutely right. We the the the the organization, has not done everything in its capacity until now to actually expose her for all of the the things that she has done for all of the malfeasance and it is my time that we make up for that.
Kevin Jenkins: I actually agree. Can you hear me? I actually agree with all of you…..
That's why we put the committee together to put us on the right track. We've been out there activating all of these things. We filed charges on Mac. We did talk about all of that stuff, but it's all about capacity. So, priority is we capture. Priority is to get the house now. To criminalize her….
To do that that means I’m gonna have to bring somebody else on to package all of that, because we only have 5 people, and I’m gonna keep it that way. Five people. That's it. So, at the end of the day, I mean filing charges and tracking those charges, and those complaints, and those bar complaints, and all of that stuff takes capacity to do that.
Aaron Lewis: So that's not something that's that's difficult. I brought people to the bar.
Kevin Jenkins: No, no, no, I'm suggesting that you're saying, you're suggesting that we haven't taken action, and I’m saying we have taken the appropriate action, and you're saying that procedurally, you can get this done any way you want to get it done.
Okay, that's fine. But at the end of the day these 5 people that are working for me right now are working on the capture. So, as the criminal aspect of it, we have a plan for the criminal aspect of it. That's why Rachel mentioned the bar situation. That's why she mentioned we've been talking about how we get that done. So, we want to go through the procedures of doing so. Let's talk about how we going to get these board members on the board. That's what we need to do to take all of the actions that everybody is talking about. That's what we have to do.
Chris: Well, it sounds like we've got a plan for that now that so? That sounds like I mean. It sounds like it's a done deal. We don't have any other option at this point.
Kevin Jenkins: I know we don't. I mean that's one of the reasons why I wanted this call. That's why I reached out to Trent, to Ealey, to see if we can. They can help us to continue to create this organization that we want, and they both agreed. And then there’s Lewis. I talked to him about it earlier, and we both agree that that should be done. So I just want to get that done. And I think procedurally all the things that Lewis and Chris and all you've been talking about. We just keep rolling that out. But as far as she's concerned, I think if Rachel just pursues the Attorney General in Arizona, and even write the letter to the judge based on what you were saying, Lewis, I got that. I think that's a good start and and push that to the bar situation, and she said she's barred in New York and California, where she
Rachel Rodriguez: New York, and and I’m sorry I might have missed this, but Lauren and I were talking about it….
Was this mentioned already: that one of the aspects of the case in Arizona is, if Gold continued, the judge would be inclined to revisit the preliminary injunction order. Did we talk about that, Lauren?
Lauren Bradford: No, that was a footnote that the judge put. He. He he stated that he would not, you know, issue an injunction against either party. And then the footnote said: If she continues to hold herself out as part of the organization that he would.
Yeah, I I don't know the exact wording Rachel, but that he would be inclined to, you know. Consider at that point in junction, and that's why we want to speak to the attorney and say, Listen! Should we put something into court? She's clearly causing damage, in fact, in filing. So, we just need to hear back.
Rachel Rodriguez: and luckily it was done in Arizona, too. I mean she. She engaged in fraud in Arizona. And now the attorneys on notice of that I've got a good relationship with Nathan. I think he's competent. I'll have an opportunity to talk to him about.
Lauren Bradford: Now, do we have the… Do we have the option of calling Tennessee Bank to see if the money is still there, because I’m thinking she filed, that for one or 2 reasons, either to complicate the Eviction or B to go to Tennessee Bank and say, oh, look! Here's the Here's the rightful board. Give up. We know the money's gone.
Kevin Jenkins: If If Tennessee bank did that? their fucked.
Lauren Bradford: I know, Kevin, but we need to check, because if they did do that, then something serious is happening, and we need to take action.
Aaron Lewis: But but still because they were served. A letter went to the bank from Virus Law Group. So, if they did that in this day and age. We don't know what people can do or not do; but if they did that,they would be in the worst shape of their luck, because, in so far as they put a hold on the funds as it related to us. They can't now just release it to them after they've received another letter. They told us that those funds was on hold because they've received communication. Now they now receive communication from us. So, what what are they gonna say that we like their communication over there. They if they did that, I’m like I said, I’m not. I don't I’m. I'm with you. Lauren, I you never know what people could do but if they did that, it would be. It would be scary for them. Because now, you know. Chris, Baron would have, you know, at at least a good 2 years’ worth of of work, because you know what I mean like what bank does that?
Seriously, if Gold is NOT arrested and thrown behind bars for a good, long time, then we know she is an inside player.
If you find these interviews and articles informative, please become a paid subscriber for under 17¢ a day. I don’t believe in paywalls, but this is how I make a living, so any support is appreciated. Either way…. it’s available to you….
Share this post