1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No.: 0:20-cv-61023-RUIZ/Strauss

EDWARD MATTHEW

BUCKLEY and TOP GUN 

OPTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EMMETT MOORE and 

TRADINGSCHOOLS.ORG,

 Defendants.

 /

EMMETT MOORE

Counterclaim-Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD MATTHEW 

BUCKLEY, SUSAN BUCKLEY,

and TOP GUN OPTIONS, LLC,

Counterclaim-Defendants.

___________________________/

DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM-PLAINTIFF EMMETT MOORE’S 

COUNTERCLAIM

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Emmett Moore brings the following counterclaim 

against Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Edward Buckley (an individual), CounterclaimDefendant Susan Buckley (an individual), and Plaintiff/Counterclaim-Defendant Top Gun 

Options, LLC (a limited liability corporation) (hereinafter collectively as “CounterclaimDefendants”) in relation to the Third Amended Complaint filed on August 9, 2021 [D.E. 96], and 

alleges as follows:

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 1 of 39
2

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action against Counterclaim-Defendants for violation of Florida’s 

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”). By this action, Counterclaim-Plaintiff 

seeks actual damages, injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees, and all other relief to which 

Counterclaim-Plaintiff may be entitled.

THE PARTIES

2. Counterclaim-Plaintiff Emmett Moore (“Mr. Moore”) is a citizen of the state of 

California, County of San Diego. Mr. Moore operates a website known as Tradingschools.org.

3. Counterclaim-Defendant Edward Buckley (a/k/a Matthew Buckley) is a manager 

of, and on information and belief, the CEO of Top Gun Options, LLC. Edward Buckley is a 

citizen of the State of Florida, Palm Beach County, which is within this Court’s District.

4. Counterclaim-Defendant Susan Buckley is a manager and director of Top Gun 

Options, LLC, and serves as a 50% owner of Top Gun Options LLC’s parent company, Strike 

Fighter Financial, LLC. Counterclaim-Defendant Susan Buckley is a citizen of the State of 

Florida, Palm Beach County, which is within this Court’s District.

5. Counterclaim-Defendant Top Gun Options, LLC, is a Florida limited liability 

corporation with its principal place of business in Palm Beach County, which is in this Court’s 

District.

6. All Counterclaim-Defendants transact the vast majority of their business that give 

rise to this counterclaim, in the State of Florida.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of Counterclaim-Plaintiff’s 

claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as the Counterclaim-Plaintiff on the one hand, and the 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 2 of 39
3

Counterclaim-Defendants on the other hand are citizens of different states, and the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000, as is defined by case law on FDUTPA claims. In addition, this 

Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2201 for claims arising under the Declaratory 

Judgment Act.

8. The Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Counterclaim-Defendants 

Edward Buckley and Top Gun Options, LLC, as they have consented to this Court’s personal 

jurisdiction by way of their complaint, and citizenship.

9. The Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Counterclaim-Defendant Susan 

Buckley as she is a citizen of the State of Florida, Palm Beach County, and her actions subject to 

this Counterclaim were conducted in this Court’s District.

10. As such, venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Counterclaim-Plaintiff, Mr. Moore’s, Background

11. Mr. Moore has operated the website known as tradingschools.org since 

approximately 2014, where he authors and publishes content for the public’s consumption 

regarding investment services, investment fraud, investment or financial software, and 

particularly about educational services that are provided by various individuals and vendors.

12. Since the creation of the website tradingschools.org, Mr. Moore has authored 

hundreds of articles.

13. Mr. Moore’s website contains unbiased, informational articles regarding trading 

and investment products and services.

14. With respect to educational materials provided by trading vendors, Mr. Moore 

generally will not publish a positive review unless the trading vendor can show at least 12 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 3 of 39
4

months of consistent brokerage statements that demonstrate his or her ability to actually trade in 

the live market.

15. The importance of actual trading is simple: many self-proclaimed successful 

trading educators only use simulated trading. Simulated trading, otherwise known as “paper 

trading” or “fake trading” does not use real currency. Some brokerage accounts will provide an 

applicant with a fake trading account so that they can practice trading on a simulated market 

account before taking any risk with real money.

16. Using fake trading not only has zero risk to the trader using such a system, but on 

information and belief, some of the brokerage accounts, like the one used by CounterclaimDefendants, do not keep a paper trail or any record of the gains or losses from use of the 

simulator. 

17. In other words, a person can dump as much fake money into or out of a simulated 

account with no record of them doing so. This tactic is used to deceptively “puff” up a balance, 

but also to hide significant losses and emphasize winning trades, in the absence of proof or a 

record from the brokerage company.

18. As a general matter, Mr. Moore will ask for verified brokerage statements or tax 

returns of an investment educator prior to publishing an article, in order to verify that the trading 

educator earns profit trading in the live market.

19. In addition, Mr. Moore frequently works with law enforcement and regulatory 

agencies, such as the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”), the Federal Trade 

Commission (“FTC”), the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”), with respect to certain individuals and companies 

engaging in violation of securities laws, and investment fraud.

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 4 of 39
5

20. Mr. Moore’s work is not without risk—Mr. Moore has been threatened with, and 

has defended lawsuits in the past that attack his First Amendment Rights as a publisher of 

newsworthy matters of the public interest—specifically frauds and scams in the trading industry.

21. For example, Mr. Moore was once the target of a “murder for hire” crime that was 

thwarted by law enforcement. The motivation of the alleged crime was because Mr. Moore 

exposed the fraudulent activities of an unlicensed and unregistered investment advisor.

22. Mr. Moore has also been an eligible recipient of numerous whistleblower actions 

regarding violations of the Commodity Exchange Act.

23. Somewhat recently, Mr. Moore provided key evidence that the FTC used to seize 

the company assets of a company named “RagingBull,” which purportedly scammed consumers 

out of approximately $137 million dollars in an investment education scheme.

24. Mr. Moore provided key evidence to the CFTC in their prosecution of another 

investment education scheme named “School of Trade” which resulted in a 4.9 million dollar 

restitution order.

25. Mr. Moore provided key evidence to the FBI in their apprehension of “Michael 

Salerno,” an individual running $76 million-dollar investment fraud and is now facing multiple 

charges of securities fraud and significant time in federal prison.

26. In the past six years, Mr. Moore has assisted law enforcement and regulatory 

agencies in dozens of investment fraud schemes resulting in numerous convictions, restitution

orders, and/or industry banishment.

27. Mr. Moore authors neutral or negative reviews when he discovers potentially 

fraudulent or misleading activity for an individual or entity in the trading services industry. 

28. At times, Mr. Moore will change his review in a more positive light if the subject

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 5 of 39
6

of his article provides documentation of actual trades for a year, or otherwise is open and 

transparent with Mr. Moore about his/her trading practices.

29. At other times, Mr. Moore will change a review to reflect a more negative aspect, 

such as what happens when a regulatory body like the CFTC or FTC takes enforcement action 

against the subject of his article, after an article has been published.

30. Aside from advertising on tradingschools.org, Mr. Moore discloses “affiliates” 

that he has reviewed and written positively about. These affiliates have produced actual, live 

brokerage statements to Mr. Moore to prove that the trader was actually trading for at least one 

year. The existence of the affiliate relationship is clearly disclosed, and their trading results are 

discussed within the article.

31. Mr. Moore does not charge companies or individuals for writing positive material, 

nor does he ask for or receive payment for not writing material.

32. Mr. Moore wrote a truthful and informative article about CounterclaimDefendants Edward Buckley and Top Gun Options, LLC in June of 2017, entitled “Top Gun 

Options: Paper Tiger?” The article primarily addressed the lack of trading history, even after 

written request, for Top Gun Options, LLC and Edward Buckley.

33. Approximately three years later, Counterclaim-Defendants filed suit in the 

Southern District of Florida for counts including defamation and violation of FDUTPA. 

34. In order to make an end-run around Mr. Moore’s First Amendment protections, 

Counterclaim-Defendants included a false and outrageous allegation that Mr. Moore called 

Edward Buckley on his personal cellphone to demand money in exchange for not writing a 

review.

35. Subsequently, on or about July 26, 2021, Mr. Moore published a second article 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 6 of 39
7

regarding Counterclaim-Defendants, entitled “Top Gun Options, 2021 Review,” that again 

focused on the lack of brokerage statements proving that the Counterclaim-Defendants actually

traded, along with public records indicating Mr. Buckley’s lack of financial stability, his past 

frivolous lawsuit, and arrest for a DUI that also included Mr. Buckley’s attempt to arguably bribe 

the arresting officer with statements that he would no longer donate large sums of money if 

charges were sought against him, and claiming to be with the Broward’s Sheriff’s Department 

with a fake badge, all while accusing the arresting officer of being the real criminal 

approximately two dozen times. (See https://www.tradingschools.org/top-gun-options-2021-

review/ and at Document B, page four, and embedded video of Mr. Buckley’s arrest).

B. Background on Counterclaim-Defendant Top Gun Options, LLC

36. Counterclaim-Defendant Top Gun Options, LLC was incorporated around 2011 in 

the State of Florida.

37. Top Gun Options, LLC, markets its educational services on the internet to a 

worldwide population. Top Gun Options, LLC, advertises, markets, distributes, promotes, and 

sells programs for profit on trading and investing via social media, their website, YouTube, live 

seminars, their public relations manager, word of mouth, trustpilot.com, Twitter (before being 

banned), emails, trading alerts, affiliate marketing, and other means that may be discovered 

during the course of litigation. In addition, Counterclaim-Defendants have given interviews for 

outside media about their alleged successful trading.

38. To entice consumers to purchase investment education services, CounterclaimDefendants make false or unsubstantiated earnings claims throughout the sales process, as is 

described more fully infra.

39. As a general matter, Counterclaim-Defendants represent, explicitly or implicitly, 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 7 of 39
8

that anyone, regardless of skill level or experience can learn Counterclaim-Defendant Top Gun 

Options, LLC’s strategy to profit, that it is accessible to all, and that attaining proficiency in 

trading does not require any special aptitude or faculty.

40. Counterclaim-Defendants make these representations while they themselves have 

either 1) not traded in the actual market from calendar years 2016-2020, or 2) when trading, have 

suffered significant and demonstrable loss in live trading.

41. Top Gun Options, LLC, solicits individuals to subscribe to its services with 

monthly, annual, lifetime or promotional subscriptions based on its fake trading results.

42. Most subscriptions to Top Gun Options, LLC range from approximately 

$2,000.00 annually up to approximately $9,000.00 annually, depending on promotions, for 

calendar years 2016 through 2020.

43. Top Gun Options, LLCs targets seniors or those close to retirement, with what is 

called “Accelerated Retirement.” This program is on information and belief, the most expensive 

subscription to purchase, with an asking price of $8,995.00 from years 2016 to at least 2020.

44. Top Gun Options, LLC sells a subscription service that gives “urgent alerts,” 

which are believed to be Counterclaim-Defendant’s stock picks on a weekly basis. However, 

because none of the Counterclaim-Defendants are believed to have actually traded during 

calendar years 2015, 2016, 2018, or 20191

, these are predominantly, if not all, fake trades with 

no risk to Counterclaim-Defendants, as opposed to their subscribers who are risking their real 

1 On information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendants engaged in minimal trading in calendar

year 2017, with a resulting year-end loss. This live trading is believed to be directly in response 

to Mr. Moore’s first article from June of 2017. Similarly, on information and belief, 

Counterclaim-Defendants began trading again a week prior to filing their complaint in May of 

2020--again as a reaction to Mr. Moore’s successful article and again at a loss to CounterclaimDefendants the approximate amount of over $200,000.00 by the end of 2020.

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 8 of 39
9

money on the live market.

45. In addition, Top Gun Options, LLC offers one-on-one coaching for “personal 

financial strategic planning session(s)” at approximately $7,995 a year. All sessions are 

allegedly recorded as well.

C. Background on Counterclaim-Defendant Mr. Edward Buckley

46. Counterclaim-Defendant Mr. Buckley served in active duty for approximately a 

decade in the U.S. Navy from the early 1990s, until approximately November 2000. Although 

Mr. Buckley served active duty during peace time, he used to describe his missions as mere 

“patrols” over southern Iraq (sometimes referred to correctly or incorrectly as the “No Fly 

Zone”). 

47. Frequently, Mr. Buckley now states he flew “Forty-Four Combat Missions” over 

Iraq in promotional materials.

48. Mr. Buckley began referring to himself as a “financial consultant” beginning in 

early 2011. Prior to that date, Mr. Buckley’s only known options trading experience began in or 

around 1995 when he traded on behalf of his wife, Counterclaim-Defendant Susan Buckley, 

while on active duty in the U.S. Navy.

49. Mr. Buckley has testified under oath that he essentially experienced losses, and no 

income from his trading during the 1990’s.

50. Since then, Mr. Buckley has marketed himself and Top Gun Options, LLC as a 

“financial service.”

51. Mr. Buckley has no known educational credentials or licensing credentials that 

support a contention that he is a successful, experienced, or knowledgeable options trader.

52. Mr. Buckley is not believed to be licensed by FINRA (the Financial Industry 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 9 of 39
10

Regulatory Authority) or the SEC as a financial advisor or asset manager. In addition, Mr. 

Buckley and Top Gun Options, LLC are not registered with Florida’s Office of Financial 

Regulation as managers of securities or associated persons for securities management.

53. On information and belief, Mr. Buckley and/or Top Gun Options, has been 

operating several brokerage accounts for individuals, either “on the side” or through his “one-onone” private coaching subscriptions. Said operation and management of brokerage accounts on 

behalf of individuals is believed to be illegal pursuant to the Investment Advisors Act of 1940 

and Florida Statute Sec. 517.021 et seq.

54. For example, the following screenshot image taken from 2021 depicts some of the 

many account logins Counterclaim-Defendants have access to with E*Trade Financial.

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 10 of 39
11

55. In addition, Counterclaim-Defendants’ theory of trading and teaching is based 

upon objectively extremist views. For example, Mr. Buckley has made threats to burn his 

passport and leave the country if Joe Biden were to be elected, called Chief Justice Roberts a 

domestic enemy, advocated for the murder of journalists or those in the White House Press Corp, 

appealed for a U.S. civil war, referring to the Covid-19 pandemic as a “plandemic,” among other 

arguably atrocious statements.

56. It is alleged herein that no known trading professionals rely on extremist views or 

violent views of political occurrences to predict the market, unlike Mr. Buckley. It is alleged 

herein that Top Gun Options, LLC, under the leadership of Mr. Buckley is more akin to a cult of 

disreputable belief systems, than actual trading recommendations based upon objective market 

factors.

D. Background on Counterclaim-Defendant Susan Buckley

57. Counterclaim-Defendant Susan Buckley is, on information and belief, a comanager of Top Gun Options, LLC, according to a May 2021 filing with the Florida Secretary of 

State. Ms. Buckley is also believed to have been Mr. Buckley’s spouse during the relevant time 

period of this counterclaim, or 2016 through 2020.

58. From at least 2014 through 2016, Top Gun Options, LLC was a subsidiary of 

Strike Fighter Financial, LLC. Susan Buckley, on information and belief, is a 50% owner of 

Strike Fighter Financial, LLC, according to IRS tax returns. 

59. Subsequent to 2016, it is believed that all gross revenue from Top Gun Options, 

LLC is transferred to Strike Fighter Financial, LLC. As such, Susan Buckley is sued herein in 

her official capacity as to Top Gun Options, LLC. Ms. Susan Buckley is also the vice president 

of Strike Fighter Financial, LLC.

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 11 of 39
12

60. Counterclaim-Defendant Ms. Buckley also manages and promotes the Top Gun 

Options affiliate program where internet marketers are paid commissions to promote Top Gun 

Options, LLC’s products and to promote its alleged investment performance via social media and 

mass emails.

61. Ms. Susan Buckley is not believed to be licensed by FINRA (the Financial 

Industry Regulatory Authority) or the SEC as a financial advisor or asset manager. In addition, 

Ms. Buckley is not, on information and belief, registered with Florida’s Office of Financial 

Regulation as managers of securities or associated persons for securities management.

62. Ms. Susan Buckley’s relative(s) are believed and herein alleged to have filed 

incomplete or potentially untruthful tax returns for calendar years 2014-2016 for Top Gun 

Options, which resulted in unpaid tax liens for those years until December 2020.

63. Said relatives have also been disclosed as quasi-experts in the underlying case 

against Mr. Moore, and share an office with Top Gun Options, LLC, according to the Florida 

Secretary of State, which further indicates and demonstrates the scams and wrongdoing alleged 

herein are believed to be part of a close-nit family operation between Counterclaim-Defendants 

and their relatives.

64. On information and belief, Ms. Susan Buckley is responsible for the acts and 

omissions alleged herein as violations of FDUTPA given her capacity as a manager, owner, 

director, and vice president of Top Gun Options, LLC, and/or Strike Fighter Financial, LLC, 

specifically in her several roles of creating revenue and thereby is complicit in the violations of 

law alleged herein that amount to consumer fraud.

65. Counterclaim-Defendants, have also consistently touted that they have 

connections to persons in high levels of our federal government, who provide CounterclaimCase 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 12 of 39
13

Defendants with insider information of likely government actions. 

66. For example, in April of 2017, Mr. Buckley wrote to his private Top Gun Options 

members, “I’m keeping my powder dry for now. I think there might be a short-term cruise 

missile strike...I’ll know more after the meeting with the Chinese president. I have a buddy who 

is a White House aid from the Pentagon, so he’s tapped into a lot of this stuff. Also a TGO 

member.”

67. As recently as May 17, 2021, Mr. Buckley stated, “This phone right here 

[Buckley’s phone] is priceless. I’ve got buddies in the Pentagon, I got buddies at the time who 

was [sic] at the White House...my network is ginormous. I knew what the intelligence that he 

[Trump] was getting.”

68. To the extent Counterclaim-Defendants are receiving insider knowledge about 

U.S. or foreign intelligence matters, as Mr. Buckley clearly claims, and sharing this information 

for their and their subscriber’s profit, then Counterclaim-Defendants are guilty of violating SEC 

regulations against insider trading. (See Dirks v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 463 U.S. 

646 (1983)). It is alleged herein that other, criminal violations may also be at hand given these 

statements, which are not subject to this counterclaim. (See Espionage Act codified at 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 793, 798).

69. To the extent government officials did not and have never provided 

Counterclaim-Defendants with non-public information for the use of trading or purchasing 

securities, then Counterclaim-Defendants are in violation of FDUTPA for explicit 

misrepresentations of fact, and fraudulent inducement in a money-making scheme by falsely 

claiming illegal insider information and access.

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 13 of 39
14

COUNT I

Violation of FDUTPA

Florida Statute Sec. 501.202 et seq.

As To All Counterclaim-Defendants

70. Mr. Moore incorporates paragraphs 1 through 69 as though fully set forth herein.

71. FDUTPA was created in part with the purpose to “[p]rotect the consuming public

and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or 

unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” 

See Fla. Stat. Sec. 501.202(2).

72. FDUTPA even specifically defines violations to mean, “ (a) Any rules 

promulgated pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S. C. ss. 41 et seq. (b) The 

standards of fairness and deception set forth and interpreted by the Federal Trade Commission or 

the federal courts; or (c) Any law, statute, rule regulation, or ordinance which proscribes the 

unfair methods of competition, or unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable acts or practices.”

73. In fact, FDUTPA has been referred to as Florida’s “Little FTC Act” given the 

weight and deference the statute places on violations of FTC regulations.

1. False and Deceptive Practices regarding Trading Profit from 2016-2020

74. From approximately 2016 until, on information and belief, present day, 

Counterclaim-Defendants have been falsely, deceptively and unfairly proclaiming their success 

as trading educators, investors, and financial service persons in the course of their business 

operations.

75. For example, Counterclaim-Defendants proclaimed on a YouTube video on 

September 6, 2017, that their trading results for calendar year 2016 were as follows:

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 14 of 39
15

 

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ME47h2pnivA&list=PLFuOfPJW97dbgR1o_em7hwBEpP

bomgtiA&index=512, last accessed August 22, 2021).

76. In addition, Counterclaim-Defendants stated that these alleged, enormous gains 

represented a 102% gain in profits for one portfolio, and 112% gain in another portfolio.

77. On information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendants, never traded with real

money in the live market for the entire calendar year of 2016.2 At no point have CounterclaimDefendants disclosed to consumers the material fact that they never traded in the live market 

with real currency during 2016 in their website advertisements or disclaimers.

78. In 2018, Counterclaim-Defendants claimed that their end-of-year results for 

2 When Counterclaim-Plaintiff Mr. Moore pleads on “information and belief” as to 

Counterclaim-Defendants’ actual trades in any calendar year in this counterclaim, he does so on 

the basis of reviewed brokerage statements and tax documents for Counterclaim-Defendants 

from E*Trade for calendar years 2015-2020, obtained via subpoena.

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 15 of 39
16

calendar year 2017 were as follows: 

 

79. Again, Counterclaim-Defendants proclaim to the public via their webpage that 

three portfolios earned $409,717.00 in actual monetary profit.

80. On information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendants only began trading again in 

the live market after Mr. Moore published his first article in early June of 2017. 

81. On information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendants actual trading results were 

as follows for calendar year 2017: Counterclaim-Defendant Mr. Buckley made a handful of 

trades for a year-end loss of approximately $750.00, and Counterclaim-Defendant Ms. Susan 

Buckley ended the year with a loss of approximately $200.00, with minimal live trading. 

82. Mr. Moore believes and thereon alleges herein that Counterclaim-Defendants 

have not shared with the public their losing trades in the live market, which is a material, and 

deceptive omission. 

83. For calendar year 2018, Counterclaim-Defendants marketed their trading profits

as follows on their website in 2019: 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 16 of 39
17

84. On information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendants did not engage in any actual 

trading in the live market in 2018. At no point have Counterclaim-Defendants disclosed the 

material fact that they never traded in the live market with real currency during 2018 in their 

website advertisements or disclaimers to their subscribers or to the public.

85. For calendar year 2019, Mr. Moore does not have evidence of proclaimed success 

from Counterclaim-Defendants’ marketing online at this time, however on information and 

belief, Counterclaim-Defendants claimed market success for that year.

86. On information and belief, none of the Counterclaim-Defendants performed any 

actual trading in 2019 in the live market with real money.

87. For calendar year 2020, Counterclaim-Defendants claimed the following with 

respect to their alleged, tremendous success:

88. As such, Counterclaim-Defendants marketed their profits as $1,867,400.00 in 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 17 of 39
18

portfolio gains from their simulated trading accounts. 

89. Counterclaim-Defendants claim that 2020 was their best year ever, publicly and in 

pleadings in the underlying case. 

90. Counterclaim-Defendants even made the following, outrageous claim in 

November of 2020: 

 

91. As shown above, Counterclaim-Defendants claim that all of their trades are real 

and documented. On information and belief, they are not, and such claims are false, misleading 

and material misrepresentations of fact that are deceptive to the average consumer. 

92. In fact, on information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendants began actually 

trading again in the live market approximately a week before filing their frivolous complaint 

against Mr. Moore on or about May of 2020. 

93. However, on information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendants’ true market 

results for calendar year 2020 were as follows: Counterclaim-Defendant Mr. Buckley ended his 

2020 year with a loss of approximately $140,000.00 and Counterclaim-Defendant Ms. Buckley 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 18 of 39
19

ended her year with an approximate $200,000.00 loss.

94. In sum, from 2016 though the end of the year 2020, Counterclaim-Defendants 

have misled its customers, consumers, and the public at large with what is alleged to be material,

false claims about their trading profits and trading ability, through deceptive and unfair trade 

practices alleged in this section. 

95. On information and belief, on the rare occasions that the CounterclaimDefendants have traded, it has been at a loss and mostly a significant loss for calendar years 

2015-2020.

96. When consumers like Mr. Moore and others have asked for verified, live trading 

results, Counterclaim-Defendants have falsely claimed that providing actual brokerage 

statements would be a violation of law. 

97. Counterclaim-Defendants, specifically Mr. Buckley, have made this false claim to 

consumers because Counterclaim-Defendants either 1) had no real trades to show, but if they did, 

2) they showed substantial and humiliating losses, especially for calendar year 2020.

98. On information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendants’ real trading record is so 

vastly worse than the advertising and marketing that they claim for fake trades because 1) 

Counterclaim-Defendants are depositing simulated money into their simulated accounts and 

hiding simulated losses, 2) Counterclaim-Defendants have several dozen simulated accounts and 

only show the ones that show wins, and/or 3) they are trading in hindsight as some of their 

statements suggest. 

This is alleged to be a deceptive practice as well because Counterclaim-Defendants claim 

consistent, unrealistic wins that on information and belief, cannot even be achieved by 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 19 of 39
20

professional, expert investors or hedge fund managers.

3

2. Counterclaim-Defendants’ Use of Testimonials

99. Counterclaim-Defendants’ earnings claims are false or unsubstantiated. On 

information and belief, Counterclaim-Defendants’ strategy does not work as advertised, and the 

Counterclaim-Defendants do not track the trading performance of their customers, and have no 

data that would allow them to predict the performance of their customers.

100. In fact, an alleged consumer by the name of “Joel Gilbert” from Facebook claims 

that from February to March 11, 2020, he earned $260,000.00. 

101. However, Joel Gilbert’s profile on Facebook is largely blank, with the exception 

of liking Top Gun Options, LLC and a sports team. Therefore, on information and belief, 

testimonials like Joel Gilbert’s that Counterclaim-Defendants post are believed to be fake and 

false reviews.

102. In another example, a customer by the name of “Ms. Tamara Post” has 

proclaimed significant trading success with Counterclaim-Defendants’ investment services (over 

470% investment returns “in only a few days,” in February of 2020). 

103. Counterclaim-Defendants also asked Ms. Post to provide “reputational repair” 

work for them in the underlying action. However, Ms. Post was not paid any money—rather, 

she was given free services from Counterclaim-Defendant Ms. Susan Buckley shortly before 

Plaintiffs filed their original complaint, but after retaining Charles Lee Mudd, Esq. 

3 For example, for calendar years 2016 through 2020, hedge funds saw an average of 6.55%

growth per calendar year. See Mark J. Perry, “The SP 500 Index Out-Performed Hedge Funds 

Over the Last 10 Years. And It Wasn’t Even Close,” The American Enterprise Institute (January 

7, 2021), (https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/the-sp-500-index-out-performed-hedge-funds-overthe-last-10-years-and-it-wasnt-even-close/). Counterclaim-Defendants, however, claim they 

outperform hedge fund managers by multiples of ten to forty times, as outlined supra.

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 20 of 39
21

104. The only known work that Ms. Post did was post a nasty, false and defamatory 

comment about Mr. Moore accusing him of being an extortionist on Mr. Moore’s website years 

ago, and claiming she doubled her portfolio size with Counterclaim-Defendants. 

105. In addition, Ms. Post has no known reputational repair experience, and declared 

herself to be fully disabled and unable to work at all when she sued her insurance company in 

2001. See the complaint in Tamara Post v. National Life Insurance Co., Case No. 2:99:-cv00613-PGC, D.E. 5, p. 2 (C.D. Utah, June 28, 2001). To the extent she is now able to work, she 

didn’t do so for money, but rather at the urging of providing false testimonials for CounterclaimDefendants.

106. Ms. Post’s testimonials and conduct towards Counterclaim-Plaintiff Mr. Moore at 

the request of Plaintiffs are alleged herein to be false, deceptive, unfair and the pattern and 

practice of Counterclaim-Defendants with respect to testimonials and their affiliate program.

107. Counterclaim-Defendants routinely boast of their alleged client testimonials, 

without stating a necessary disclaimer that any such results, if truthful, are not verified and not 

representative of the performance that reasonable consumers can expect to achieve. (See e.g. 

Exhibit A).

108. Using false or fabricated results in a testimonial is also a violation of FTC rules 

and regulations pursuant to Section 5(a) of 15 U.S.C. Sec. 45(a).

3. Counterclaim-Defendants’ False and Misleading Promises to Consumers

109. Adding to their deceptive and untruthful business practices, CounterclaimDefendants have induced others to subscribe to their business by promising actual profits in the 

live market.

110. For example, Counterclaim-Defendants routinely make statements to the public at 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 21 of 39
22

large that their program makes real people actual money in the live market, such as: “The fastest 

way to experience huge profit potential with options;” “Learn how YOU can trade weekly 

options for quick profits;” “[T]OPGUN Options members used their Full Throttle training to 

become millionaires;” and their subscribers are “making an average of $16,000.00 every month.”

111. Counterclaim-Defendants targets everyday Americans and the consuming public 

with statements like, “You make sure your kids have everything they need. That their education 

is taken care of, no matter what. You pay off their college tuition ahead of time, and set up the 

grandkids forever, and then you can retire on your own terms,” (emphasis in the original), the 

full statement from the year 2020 is produced below:

(See https://go.topgunoptions.com/go, last accessed on August 21, 2021).4

4 Between approximately August 18, 2021, and August 21, 2021, Counterclaim-Defendants 

substantially modified the webpage.

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 22 of 39
23

112. As alleged above, Counterclaim-Defendants have not made profits from 2016 

through 2020 in the live market, and have only suffered substantial investment losses when 

trading live with real money. As such, the advertisement of their money-making skills to the 

public are alleged to be deceptive, misleading and material misrepresentations of fact.

113. In addition, Counterclaim-Defendant Mr. Buckley states on Top Gun Options, 

LLC’s website that he has “30 years of successful trading.” This is a false allegation of fact, and 

is a misrepresentation of his abilities that is used to deceptively induce uninformed members of 

the public to pay for Counterclaim-Defendants’ services.

114. Counterclaim-Defendant Mr. Buckley has attempted to bolster the appearance of 

his wealth and power with public false statements about the worth and square footage of his 

home, happiness of his marriage, and with statements that he has “been God,” and came back 

from “being God” while doing an (illegal) Class I controlled substance (Ibogaine) in a foreign 

country, and by having more guns than your “local RCM unit.” 

These statements are alleged herein to be typical of investment educators Mr. Moore 

reviews who portray themselves in the best, most powerful light possible in order to attract 

unwitting subscribers under false pretenses to subscribe to their services.

115. In February of 2020, Counterclaim-Defendants Mr. Buckley and Top Gun 

Options, LLC, posted the following as to why the consuming public should listen to or pay 

money for their services:

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 23 of 39
24

(See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tmN5oOVHNE, last accessed August 21, 2021)

116. Again, Counterclaim-Defendants have never earned $4 million in profit from 

trading and any claims otherwise are deceptive and unfair practices used to lull reasonable 

consumers into spending thousands of dollars a year with a company whose managers traded at a 

loss for the relevant time period of 2016-2020.

117. From 2016 through 2020 based on IRS tax returns, it is believed and therefore 

alleged herein that Counterclaim-Defendants have defrauded the consuming public out of over 

$3,000,000.00 dollars based on these material misrepresentations of their trading success and 

deceptive and unfair trade practices. 

118. Because Counterclaim-Defendants have been operating their business with these 

and other deceptive and unfair business practices since approximately 2011, it is alleged on 

information that a more accurate figure of the amount of profit from their wrongful conduct 

exceeds $6,000,000.00.

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 24 of 39
25

119. As stated supra paragraphs 65 through 69, it is alleged that CounterclaimDefendants promise access to insider or non-public information by means of communications 

with persons in high levels of our federal government. 

120. As such, Counterclaim-Defendants illegally market and promote their expertise 

on the basis of what would be considered a violation of SEC insider trading regulations. It is 

further alleged based on case law that Counterclaim-Defendants are guilty of violating SEC 

insider trading regulations, which would be a violation of FDUTPA as well.

4. Counterclaim-Defendants’ Deceptive and Unfair Advertising Practices

121. Under FTC guidelines and Section 5(a) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 45(a), an 

advertisement or marketing is deceptive when it contains statement-or omits information- that is 

likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances and is important to a 

consumer’s decision to buy or use the product. See FTC Policy Statement on Deception; In 

re Cliffdale Associates , Inc ., 103 F.T.C. 110, 165 (1984); accord F.T.C. v. Verity Int'l Ltd., 443 

F.3d 48, 63 (2d Cir. 2006); F.T.C. v. Cyberspace.Com LLC, 453 F.3d 1196, 1199 (9th Cir. 

2006); Federal Trade Commission v. Cantkier, 767 F. Supp. 2d 147, 151-52 (D.D.C. 2011).

122. Counterclaim-Defendants place a disclaimer at the bottom of their advertisement 

that appears as follows from years 2016 to 2020:

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 25 of 39
26

5

123. Counterclaim-Defendants deliberately violate FTC guidelines that require 

disclaimers to prevent deception, in that necessary disclaimers must be clearly and prominently 

placed. 

124. Counterclaim-Defendants fail to place their disclaimer prominently, it is not in 

close proximity to the trading results they claim to have, and the size, font, and color of the 

disclaimer renders it unreadable to someone with 20/20 vision. 

125. Furthermore, the disclaimer does not state 1) that Counterclaim-Defendants have 

only traded approximately eleven months from years 2015 through 2020, or that 2) when 

Counterclaim-Defendants have traded, it has been at a significant loss, based on actual trades. 

This lack of disclaimer is alleged herein to be a material omission that is deceptive and 

5 This capture was taken from an adobe document that was magnified at 100%, or the length and 

width of a standard letter that would result from printing the advertisement from Top Gun 

Options, LLC’s website. Online version available at 

https://web.archive.org/web/20191216021430/go.topgunoptions.com/getft (last accessed August 

22, 2021). 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 26 of 39
27

misleading to the reasonable consumer.

126. Counterclaim-Defendants also fail to consistently post a necessary disclaimer 

about their paper or fake trades when marketing their alleged successes. (See Exhibit A). 

127. This enriches Counterclaim-Defendants directly as any reasonable consumer 

would believe that they too can earn millions of dollars in a month (see image at paragraph 90), 

and therefore pay subscription fees to Counterclaim-Defendants.

128. In addition, as stated supra paragraphs 51 through 54, Counterclaim-Defendants 

have for a period of time uncertain between 2016 and 2020, advertised one-on-one coaching to 

individuals in private sessions to advise them on their individualized investment goals and 

strategies. (See Exhibit B, available at https://go.topgunoptions.com/club, last accessed on 

August 21, 2021).

129. Such conduct is alleged herein to be a violation of the Investment Advisers Act of 

1940, § 202(a)(11) and subdivision D of that section because Counterclaim-Defendants provide 

investment advice that is individualized, and specified to subscriber’s needs, without 

Counterclaim-Defendants being registered investment advisors with FINRA or any 

governmental agency for licensing or registration. See 15 U.S.C. Sec. 80(b); Lowe v. Securities 

& Exchange Commission, 472 U.S. 181 (1985).

130. Mr. Moore is a “consumer” as defined by FDUTPA under Fla. Stat. Sec. 501.203.

131. Mr. Moore’s readers of his articles located at tradingschools.org are consumers as 

defined by Section 501.203.

132. The general public at large (or those on the internet) are “consumers” as defined 

by Section 501.203.

133. An entity does not have to be a consumer to bring a FDUTPA claim, but injury 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 27 of 39
28

must be alleged against or to consumers. See Caribbean Cruise Line, Inc. v. Better Bus. Bureau 

of Palm Beach Cty., Inc., 169 So. 164, 169 ( Fla. 4th DCA 2015).6

134. Counterclaim-Defendants are engaged in commerce, as defined by FDUTPA, and 

their acts arise in the State of Florida.

135. Counterclaim-Defendants’ practices outlined supra are unfair in that they are 

unethical, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to consumers, as outlined in Rollins, Inc. v. 

Butland, 951 So. 2d 860, 869 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006).

136. Counterclaim-Defendants’ practices outlined supra are deceptive because they are 

material misrepresentations, omissions and because Counterclaim-Defendants deliberately 

mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances. (See Zlotnick v. Premier Sales 

Grp., Inc., 480 F.3d 1281, 1284 (11th Cir. 2007).

137. The deceptive, unfair and misleading practices and statements outlined supra for 

Count One have caused harm to Mr. Moore as his mission is to root out and uncover fraud in the 

trading education industry. 

138. Counterclaim-Defendants have intentionally misled Mr. Moore about their trading 

success. Mr. Moore was only able to recently verify the truth of Counterclaim-Defendants’ 

actions, statements and deceptive and unfair trade practices, given Counterclaim-Defendants’ 

trading records. 

139. As such, Counterclaim-Defendants’ material misrepresentations, omissions, 

deceptive and unfair trade practices have harmed Mr. Moore from the benefit of conducting his 

work expeditiously and fully for the benefit of his readers, advertisers, affiliates and the public at 

6 This allegation is now the “law of the case.” See Order on Defendants’ 12(b)(6) Motion, [D.E. 

94], ordered on July 26, 2021, at p. 17.

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 28 of 39
29

large.

140. Counterclaim-Defendants have also harmed Mr. Moore’s readership base

(consumers under FDUTPA) by falsely proclaiming to be successful traders with a “proven” 

track record. Mr. Moore’s readership base are susceptible to Counterclaim-Defendants’ false 

claims, material omissions and misrepresentations. As such, his readership is therefore alleged to 

have been harmed as they reasonably rely on Counterclaim-Defendants’ materially misleading 

statements and omissions in making trading education service decisions or subscriptions.

141. Counterclaim-Defendants have also harmed Mr. Moore’s affiliates with their 

unfair business practices, as Mr. Moore’s affiliates have shown one year of actual trading results, 

whereas Counterclaim-Defendants mislead the public into thinking their results are real or 

verifiable, to which Mr. Moore alleges they are not, as advertised. 

142. As such, Counterclaim-Defendants’ material misrepresentations and omissions 

drive business away from Mr. Moore’s affiliates (also consumers under FDUTPA) who do not 

engage in deceptive or unfair practices, and towards vendors like Counterclaim-Defendants.

143. Counterclaim-Defendants have falsely induced their own customer base into 

paying thousands of dollars for yearly subscriptions to a trading service offered by “traders” 

(Counterclaim-Defendants) who have not traded for substantial lengths of time, do not reveal the 

truth about their trading, and in fact lie about their successes, is alleged to manipulate fake trades 

and make promises of huge profits, in an amount over $3,000,000.00. 

144. Current, past, and future subscribers to Counterclaim-Defendants’ services have 

suffered harm, and will continue to suffer harm unless and until corrective action in the form of 

injunctive relief is taken.

145. Counterclaim-Defendants have and are continuing to mislead the public with their 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 29 of 39
30

intentional misrepresentations, unverified trading history, and their trading experience and 

profitability in order to obtain thousands of dollars from the general public as subscribers, and 

will continue to harm the public at large, unless and until the injunctive relief sought in this 

action is taken.

146. The acts and omissions described in this Count constitute unfair methods of 

competition, unfair and/or deceptive practices in the conduct of commerce, and violative of 

Section 5(a) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 45(a). See Fla Stat. Sec. 

501.204.

147. As a direct result of Counterclaim-Defendants statements, acts and practices 

described herein, Mr. Moore has expended money on corrective advertising, which constitutes

actual damages under FDUTPA.

148. As such, Mr. Moore makes a claim for damages permissible under FDUTPA, 

including attorneys’ fees should he prevail on his causes of action under FDUTPA, in addition to 

injunctive relief, as outlined infra in Mr. Moore’s prayer for damages.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Defendant/Counterclaim-Plaintiff Mr. Moore prays for the following relief:

a) An award of actual damages in the amount to be determined at trial in this 

case;

b) An award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Florida Statutes Sections 

501.211 and 501.2105 in an amount to be determined;

c) Injunctive relief in the form of an order(s) that instruct CounterclaimDefendants as follows:

i. To cease and desist any one-on-one advisement or instruction on 

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 30 of 39
31

securities purchases, investments or trading, absent proper licensing or 

registration of any manager of Counterclaim-Defendant Top Gun Options, 

LLC;

ii. To cease and desist the managing of any live brokerage accounts 

of any individual, absent proper licensing or registration of any manager 

of Counterclaim-Defendant Top Gun Options, LLC;

iii. Disclaimers need to comply with FTC regulations and/or 

guidelines;

iv. Removal of all webpages, videos, and marketing materials that 

lack compliant disclaimers (including those for false or unsubstantiated 

testimonials). All materials to be removed under this section must be 

preserved for purposes of litigation or administrative enforcement actions 

from a U.S. or Floridia regulatory agency, prior to their removal;

v. Removal of statements from all webpages, videos, and marketing 

materials that Counterclaim-Defendants Mr. Buckley and Top Gun 

Options have been “successful traders” for thirty years or twenty years. 

All materials to be removed under this section must be preserved for 

purposes of litigation or administrative enforcement actions from a U.S. or 

Floridia regulatory agency, prior to removal;

vi. Notification to all past customers from 2016-2020 sufficient to 

identify years where no trading existed and when principals did trade 

during those years, it was at a loss, and to provide contact information for 

the FTC and SEC complaint webpages;

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 31 of 39
32

vii. All incoming funds to Counterclaim-Defendants immediately be 

placed into a receivership overseen by this Court until said orders take 

effect;

viii. Notification to all employees, agents, contractors, and 

PR/Advertising agencies of any order from this Court granting any of the 

injunctive relief ordered in this action.

d) Any such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: August 23, 2021 Respectfully Submitted,

__/s/ Matthew Fornaro____________

Matthew Fornaro, Esq.

Matthew Fornaro, P.A.

Florida Bar No.: 0650641

mfornaro@fornarolegal.com

11555 Heron Bay Blvd., Ste. 200

Coral Springs, FL 33076

Tel.: (924) 324-3651

 /s/Susanne Arani_______________ 

Susanne Arani, Esq.

Arani Law

Admitted Pro Hac Vice

California Bar No. 238891

susarani@gmail.com

1028 Rosario Lane

Vista, California 92084

Tel.: (760) 331-8426

Attorneys for Defendants Emmett Moore &

Tradingschools.org

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 32 of 39
33

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on August 23, 2021, a true and correct copy of this document was 

electronically filed via CM/ECF system, which will send notice of the electronic filing to all 

counsel of record.

By: /s/ Matthew Fornaro

Matthew Fornaro

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 33 of 39
Exhibit A

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 34 of 39
Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 35 of 39
Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 36 of 39
Exhibit B

Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 37 of 39
Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 38 of 39
Case 0:20-cv-61023-RAR Document 101 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/23/2021 Page 39 of 39