1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO.: 20-CV-81205-RAR 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE

COMMISSION,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMPLETE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 

GROUP, INC. d/b/a PAR FUNDING, et al.,

Defendants.

/

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO NON-PARTY CAPITAL SOURCE 2000, INC.

MOTION TO INTERVENE AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW

COMES NOW Non-Party, Capital Source 2000, Inc. (“Capital Source”), by and through its

undersigned counsel and pursuant to this Court’s inherent authority, replies to the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (“SEC’s) Response in Opposition to Capital Source 2000, Inc.’s Motion to 

Intervene. Capital Source 2000, Inc.’s states as followed:

REPLY TO SEC’S INTRODUCTION SECTION

As a threshold matter, the SEC is completely off-base in their ad hominem comments. 

Capital Source’s motion to intervene is NOT Cole’s re-packaged motion to modify the preliminary 

injunction. Such a request would require that (1) there has been “a significant change either in 

factual conditions or in law[;]” and (2) “the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the 

changed circumstances.” Sierra Club v. Meiburg, 296 F.3d 1021, 1033 (11th Cir. 2002).

Moreover, Capital Source is not, nor has ever been, accused of being an alter ego of Cole. 

Capital Source is a separate entity, never a party to this instant action, but whose rights 

(independent of Cole) have been affected by this instant action. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1745 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 1 of 6
2

Although the SEC claims that the bank statements show that Cole has used Capital Source 

funds to pay for his defense counsel, there is no proof of that. There is no evidence, nor has the 

Court made a finding of fact, that Cole has used Capital Source funds for his own personal benefit, 

including the payment of his lawyers for this underlying litigation.

Cole testified, and his testimony is unrebutted, that Cole paid his lawyers for Capital Source 

solely for the work that was done for Capital Source, and no other individual or entity. The Court 

cannot simply disbelieve unrebutted testimony because it does not fit the SEC’s narrative. 

REPLY TO “THE COURT SHOULD DENY CS 2000’s MOTION TO INTERVENE”

The Response by the SEC as to what elements are met in Cole’s request pursuant to Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 24 is highly misleading. After laying out what is required for this Court to grant Capital 

Source’s Motion to Intervene, the SEC argues, “CS 2000 must demonstrate all of these factors. It 

can demonstrate none of them.”

Such a statement is simply intellectually dishonest. First of all, although the asset freeze has 

been in effect for years, it only prevented Capital Source from doing business recently. Likewise, 

Capital Source, nor Cole or Bromley for that matter, have sat idly by. Instead, Capital Source has 

attempted to work hand in hand with the SEC to provide them as much information as possible

voluntarily. Capital Source’s instant motion to intervene was a result of, “no matter what it 

provides, the SEC will never allow for the company to operate.” As such, Capital Source’s Motion 

to Intervene came after providing the SEC all documents requested, including a voluntary 

deposition. After the SEC received all of the information, it took no action, and made clear that it 

would not let Capital Source 2000, Inc. operate unless Cole pays the disgorgement judgment. 

The reason this is strange and improper is because there is no judgment against Capital 

Source 2000, Inc. Likewise, the SEC has, in the past, stipulated that it seeks not to collect from 

Capital Source 2000, Inc. If there is no judgment against Capital Source 2000, Inc., and no ability 

to collect from Capital Source 2000, Inc., why is the resumption of operation of Capital Source 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1745 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 2 of 6
3

2000, Inc. contingent on Cole paying? It certainly should not be. 

Likewise, the intervenor’s interest is not represented by Cole. Cole is an owner of Capital

Source 2000, Inc., but not the sole owner. Capital Source 2000, Inc. cannot act solely based on 

Cole’s whim. As Cole testified at length, Capital Source 2000, Inc. has its own employees, its own 

team of lawyers, and its own management process. Likewise, Cole cannot make a single decision 

in Capital Source 2000, Inc. without the approval of Mr. Bromley – something Cole testified about. 

The only commonality between Capital Source 2000, Inc. and Cole is that of its litigation 

counsel. However, Undersigned was hired by Capital Source 2000, Inc. with the consent of both 

Bill Bromley and Cole, and only after undersigned could demonstrate that he had the skill set to 

properly advise the company.

Regardless, there is no evidence, or even allegation in the Amended Complaint filed by the 

SEC, that Capital Source 2000, Inc. is an alter ego of Cole, and that Capital Source 2000, Inc.’s 

interests in this litigation is adequately represented by Cole. 

Finally, the SEC jumps over a major aspect: The innocent Capital Source 2000, Inc. 

noteholders. If this Court does not let Capital Source 2000, Inc. intervene, not only does it impede 

the ability for Capital Source 2000, Inc. to operate, but it also impedes Capital Source 2000, Inc. to 

pay back noteholders under the agreements it has with them. 

As such, freezing the accounts, at this point for no viable reason, places Capital Source 

2000, Inc. in legal jeopardy, and further makes it impossible to collect on merchant cash advances 

or pay back its noteholders, who are also innocent individuals. Alarming is that the SEC knows this 

but is all too willing to travel down this path, making sure noteholders do not get paid - all on a 

hunch that Cole is using money to pay for his lawyers. 

THE SEC INTENTIONALLY USES THE WRONG LEGAL STANDARD

The SEC argues that the Court should deny the Motion to Intervene for several reasons. The 

first one is that Cole is somehow an alter ego and has paid his lawyer $45,000.00 in fees from 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1745 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 3 of 6
4

Capital Source 2000, Inc. accounts. As stated before, this is fundamentally untrue and not 

supported by anything but speculation. Second, articulating the standard in Sierra Club, Cole 

cannot show a significant change in circumstance, nor is the modification suitably tailored to the 

change in circumstance

This Sierra Club analysis is fundamentally wrong. Because Capital Source 2000, Inc. is a 

non-party, this Court must use a completely different analysis. A federal court has the authority to 

freeze the assets of a party not accused of wrongdoing where that party: (1) has received ill-gotten 

funds; and (2) does not have a legitimate claim to those funds." SEC v. Wyly, 73 F. Supp. 3d 315,

321 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). As such, the SEC must prove that Capital Source 2000, Inc. received ill-gotten

funds, and does not have a legitimate interest in those funds. Not only does the SEC fail to do that,

they do not even attempt to distinguish this case, or the other cases stating the same.

Moreover, the Eleventh Circuit has held in FTC v. Vylah Tec Ltd. Liab. Co., 727 F. App'x

998, 1002 (11th Cir. 2018)

“that the district court did not make sufficient factual findings to support freezing

these assets. While the court stated in the TRO that Appellees had "sufficiently

shown that. . . Dennis . . . [has] engaged in and [is] likely to engage in acts and

practices that violate [the FTCA and FDUTPA]," the court did not find that Dennis

gained anything from the allegedly unlawful practices.

Similarly, the district court made no findings as to Olga's involvement, if any, in the 

alleged scheme, nor did it explain why assets she holds jointly with Robert are 

subject to a freeze regardless of whether she was involved.”

Scarily, the SEC does not argue that the Court should not use the analysis as outlined in 

Vylah Tec Ltd. Liab. Instead, the SEC is saying that the Court should simply ignore the legally 

proper analysis, and use a different analysis that does not fit a situation for a non-party. 

Fundamentally, this is improper. It is even more improper because the SEC has the benefit of 

Capital Source 2000, Inc.’s brief, yet chose to ignore binding precedent. 

All of the cases that the SEC cites to are cases where a party seeks to amend or alter an 

asset freeze, but not where an asset freeze touches a non-party that has not received ill-gotten 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1745 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 4 of 6
5

funds. 

Ultimately, in the SEC’s nine-page response in opposition, the SEC does not cite to the 

deposition transcript, does not attempt to distinguish case law cited by Capital Source 2000, Inc., 

does not attempt to show the court why intervention or an asset freeze extended to a non-party is 

proper. Instead, the SEC wishes for this Court to do mental gymnastics and use the improper 

standard of review in order to get to a result favorable to the SEC, but unfavorable to the pursuit of 

justice. 

Ultimately, the Court should grant Capital Source 2000, Inc.’s Motion to Intervene based 

on the fact that Capital Source 2000, Inc. is a separate entity, not an alter-ego of Cole, with no 

evidence of intermingling funds or interests. Capital Source 2000, Inc. should then be allowed to 

continue to operate so that it can pay innocent noteholders, who, like Capital Source 2000, Inc., are 

innocent non-parties that have now been unable to operate or receive payments, because of nothing 

more than a hunch by the SEC, not supported by fact, testimony, or evidence. 

As such, Capital Source 2000, Inc. is not only entitled to intervene, but also entitled to an 

Order dissolving/modifying the asset freeze so that Capital Source 2000, Inc. can resume 

operations. 

DATED: November 10, 2023

Respectfully submitted, 

By: Law Offices of Andre G. Raikhelson, LLC.

Counsel for Defendant, Joseph Cole Barleta

7000 W Palmetto Park Road

Suite 240 

Boca Raton, FL 33433

Telephone: (954) 895-5566

Primary Email: arlaw@raikhelsonlaw.com

/s/ Andre G. Raikhelson

Andre G. Raikhelson, Esq.

Bar Number: 123657

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1745 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 5 of 6
6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served to all counsel of 

record through the CM/ECF system. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1745 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/10/2023 Page 6 of 6