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.

/

LISA MCELHONE’S AND JOSEPH LAFORTE’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO 

THE RECEIVER’S MOTION FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

The Receiver’s Motion for an Order to Show Cause (the “Motion”) is long on theory and 

short on proof. The Receiver contends that Joseph LaForte and Lisa McElhone (collectively the 

“Defendants”) orchestrated a conspiracy to divert millions of dollars in merchant collections from 

CBSG and CFS to persons and entities they allegedly control, who then allegedly funneled the 

money back to the Defendants. Although the Receiver is legally required to establish these 

allegations by clear and convincing evidence, he has not presented any affidavits, declarations or 

other evidence in admissible form to support his claims. Instead, the Motion is based entirely on 

an unsubstantiated narrative extrapolated from a handful of transactions involving third parties.

None of these transactions actually show that any funds were diverted from the Receivership or 

that either of the Defendants were involved in the transactions. Indeed, although the Motion states 

that millions of dollars in payments were diverted from the Receivership, the only specifics the 

Receiver providesis a single $5,000 wire transfer from a merchant to Financial Mutual, Inc. (which 

is not owned or controlled by the Defendants) which is proffered without any supporting 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 1 of 17
- 2 -

documentation to establish its purpose. (See D.E. 1328-8). Of paramount importance, there is not 

a shred of evidence in the entire Motion to suggest that either of the Defendants knew about – let 

alone directed – any of the transactions at issue. 

As will be shown in this response brief, the Receiver has simply not met his burden of 

proof and seeks to support his case by casting aspersions on the Defendants (and anyone who is 

associated with them). Because the Receiver lacks actual evidence, he needs the Court to assume 

the worst about the Defendants (and the various non-parties identified in the motion) and presume 

wrongdoing in transactions the Receiver has not properly investigated and does not actually 

understand. Although it is not the Defendants’ burden to prove a negative, this response will show 

that the Receiver has misapprehended various payments from third-parties which it points to as 

evidence of wrong-doing. In particular, the evidence will show that Joseph LaForte’s brother, 

James LaForte, used his personal income, and borrowed money from his personal and business 

contacts, in order to help pay for the Defendants’ legal fees and otherwise assist them in paying 

their expenses while Defendants’ assets are frozen. The Receiver asserts that Financial Mutual 

made approximately $3 Million in payments to professionals engaged by the Defendants1 and 

concludes that these payments “must” have come from diverted funds – however, the payments 

Financial Mutual made to professionals actually came from a $3 Million loan it provided to James 

LaForte.2 None of these funds represent diverted receivables owned by CBSG or CFS in any way. 

Moreover, James LaForte obtained the loan from Financial Mutual and directed several payments 

 1 The Receiver does not present any documentation or supporting affidavits to substantiate his

allegations concerning $3 million in payments. See DE 1328 p.11. Later in the motion, the 

Receiver presents a chart which states Financial Mutual paid $2,059,129.95 in professional fees –

again, without any substantiation. Id. at 23. This discrepancy is never explained. 

2 See the Declaration of James LaForte (attached as Exhibit 1) and the Declaration of Francis 

Scarpati (attached as Exhibit 2), and the loan agreement attached to the Declarations (Exhibit A to 

the LaForte Declaration and Exhibit B to the Scarpati Declaration).

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 2 of 17
- 3 -

to the various professionals. The Receiver has been unable to adduce any evidence which suggests 

– let alone proves by clear and convincing evidence – that the Defendants orchestrated the 

diversion of Receivership assets. And without such evidence, the Receiver fails to carry his burden 

of proof.

It is also notable that, during the timeframe the Receiver contends the Defendants were 

orchestrating an elaborate conspiracy to divert money from CFS merchants, over $950,000 was 

sitting in two CFS bank accounts to which the Defendants had free access. (See CFS account 

statements, attached as Exhibit 3). The Defendants did not touch these funds once the Receivership 

was established, even though the Receivership was not expanded to cover CFS until May 5, 2021, 

fully ten months later. If the Defendants had wanted to “divert” money from CFS during this time, 

they could simply have made a withdrawal from this unfrozen account – but they did not so. Given

these facts, it is fanciful for the Receiver to contend – without evidence – that the Defendants 

engaged in an elaborate conspiracy to divert receivables from CFS through companies they did 

not own or control. 

For all of these reasons, and as discussed further herein, the Receiver has not – and cannot 

– meet his burden of proof to show a violation of the Receivership Orders. Accordingly, the

Defendants cannot properly be held in contempt.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

As the Receiver emphasizes in his Motion, the Court may enter an order to show cause

when the conduct alleged in the motion would constitute a violation of the Court’s order. (See DE 

1328, p. 16; citing Mercer v. Mitchell, 908 F. 2d 763, 768 (11th Cir. 1990)). However, the movant

always has the burden to prove a violation by clear and convincing evidence before an actual 

finding of contempt can be made. See Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co., 307 F.3d 1277, 1296 (11th 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 3 of 17
- 4 -

Cir. 2002); see also F.T.C. v. Leshin, 618 F.3d 1221, 1232 (11th Cir. 2010); Major v. Orthopedic 

Equipment Co., Inc., 496 F. Supp. 604, 611 (E.D. Va. 1980) (the moving party must carry its 

burden to prove each violation “with competent, credible and admissible evidence in each 

instance”) (emphasis supplied).

“The clear and convincing evidence must establish that: (1) the allegedly violated order 

was valid and lawful; (2) the order was clear and unambiguous; and (3) the alleged violator had 

the ability to comply with the order.” Riccard, 307 F.3d at 1296. It is not sufficient for the movant 

to establish the mere possibility of a violation. Id. at 1297 (noting that ““maybe” is not close 

enough when measured against the “clear and unambiguous” standard” the Court must apply); see 

also United States v. Latney's Funeral Home, Inc., 41 F. Supp. 3d 24, 30 (D.D.C. 2014) (“In the 

context of civil contempt, the clear and convincing standard requires a quantum of proof adequate 

to demonstrate a reasonable certainty that a violation occurred”) (emphasis supplied) (citations 

omitted). 

Assuming the movant can meet its burden to present clear and convincing evidence of a 

violation, “the burden then shifts to the alleged contemnor to produce evidence explaining his 

noncompliance at a ‘show cause’ hearing.” See Leshin, 618 F.3d at 1232 (citations omitted). 

THE DEFENDANTS HAVE NOT VIOLATED THE RECEIVERSHIP ORDERS, AND 

THE RECEIVER FAILS TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY DID

I. The Receiver Fails to Present Clear and Convincing Evidence that the Defendants

Carried Out the Alleged “Diversion Scheme”

The Receiver contends that the Defendants violated the Court’s Order appointing the 

Receiver and the Amended Order of appointment (D.E. 36 and D.E. 141, referred to collectively 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 4 of 17
- 5 -

as the “Receivership Orders”),3 by perpetrating a complex scheme to divert millions of dollars in 

merchant collections from CBSG and CFS. However, the Receiver has not presented any evidence 

to support this theory, let alone the clear and convincing evidence needed for the Receiver to carry 

his burden. Undeterred by a complete absence of proof, the Receiver purports to have uncovered 

three “variants” of the purported “diversion scheme.”

First, the Receiver contends that a person known as “Terry Lane” and other “unknown 

individuals” contacted unnamed CFS merchants by telephone and email to explain that their 

merchant balances owed to CFS had been assigned to Platinum Rapid (a company owned by 

Vincent Bardong, which Defendants have no ownership or control over). Although the Motion 

claims that this was done to “dozens of CFS merchants” and that Platinum Rapid succeeded in 

collecting at least $1.15 Million from at least 86 CFS merchants between July 2020 and July 2021, 

the only example the Receiver purports to show is a single email chain between Terry Lane and 

Tyson Hoff (neither of whom are known to the Defendants). This email appears to relate to 

funding that Alpero General Contracting and Roofing Systems LLC received from Main Line 

Funding4 – not from CFS – and contains no mention of an assignment to Platinum Rapid. This

unauthenticated email chain – even if accepted at face value – is evidence of nothing, since it does

not show a purported assignment from CFS to Platinum Rapid or that any funds owed to CFS were 

 3 The Receiver excerpts the provisions of the Receivership Orders in its Motion. (See D.E. 1328, 

p. 18-19). While the Receivership Orders speak for themselves, this proceeding hinges on the 

Receiver’s erroneous allegations regarding the Defendants’ conduct, and not on any nuances in 

the interpretation of the Receivership Orders. 

4 Exhibit 7 to the Receiver’s motion includes a letter from Platinum Rapid, which may have been 

an attachment to the email chain at issue. The image quality on the letter is so poor it cannot be 

read with the naked-eye – but when the document is enlarged it clearly refers to a debt owed to 

Main Line Funding. Upon information and belief, Main Line Funding is the d/b/a for Financial 

Mutual, which is Francis Scarpati’s company. The Defendants have no interest in, or control over,

Financial Mutual or Main Line Funding. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 5 of 17
- 6 -

diverted to the Defendants or for their benefit.

5 Furthermore, even if this email chain did show a 

diversion of merchant receivables from CFS to Platinum (which does not appear to be the case) 

there is no indication that any of this was done with the Defendants’ knowledge or at their 

direction.6

For the so-called second variant, the Receiver contends that unnamed CFS merchants made 

wire transfers using wire instructions provided by a person purporting to represent Platinum Rapid

without realizing that the payments were directed to Financial Mutual and not to Platinum Rapid 

or CFS. The Receiver suggests this was a widespread pattern of behavior, but – again – has only 

identified a single $5,000 wire transfer made by Hendrick Varona to Financial Mutual from an 

account belonging to Lee Roofing LLC.

7 (See Receiver’s Exhibit 8, DE 1328-8). Again, the 

Receiver has not presented any evidence that the $5,000 payment was earmarked to pay for a debt 

owed to CFS, or that Mr. Varona was tricked into believing that this wire payment would be 

credited against any debt he may have owed to CFS. The Receiver also has not presented a shred 

of proof that the Defendants knew about this transaction – let alone that they orchestrated or 

 5 The Receiver appears to believe that this email exchange reflects an effort to collect from a CFS 

merchant because “Terry Lane” used an “@contractfinancingsolution.com” email address to 

communicate with Mr. Hoff. However, the attachment to the email refers to funding provided by 

Main Line Funding, and the emails provide no indication that “Terry Lane” was attempting to 

collect a balance owed to CFS. To the extent Tyson Hoff and/or Alpero General Contracting and 

Roofing Systems LLC had MCA contracts with CFS, it is entirely possible that they obtained 

separate and/or additional funding agreements with Platinum Rapid and/or Main Line Funding, 

and that the subject emails reflect efforts to collect on those MCA contracts. 

6 The Defendants have no personal knowledge regarding the collection efforts reflected in the 

emails. To the extent “Terry Lane” was trying to collect a debt owed to CFS, he or she did not do 

so on the Defendants’ behalf.

7 Public filings identify Mr. Varona as the Manager and Registered Agent of both Lee Roofing 

LLC and Alpero General Contracting and Roofing Systems LLC. (See Exhibit 4). Notably, Alpero

is the corporation discussed in connection with the Receiver’s first alleged variation of the 

“diversion scheme.” Thus, two of the three “diversion schemes” the Receiver purports to have 

uncovered appear to be based on efforts to collect from a single merchant – a merchant who has 

not provided a declaration or given testimony to support the Receiver’s unsubstantiated claims.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 6 of 17
- 7 -

approved it.8 

Third, the Receiver contends that three of CBSG’s “exception portfolio merchants – B&T 

Supplies, Inc., Lifeguard Office Supplies, Inc. and Bene Market – made payments to Financial 

Mutual (which is owned by Francis Scarpati) and to BG Sky Trade LLC (which is owned by John 

Mulvihill), and that these payments were diverted from CBSG. The Motion presents charts that 

purport to show $500,000 in payments from B&T Supplies and Lifeguard Office Supplies to BG 

Sky Trade (Tzvi Odzer’s companies), $1,085,000 in payments from Bene Market (Alan 

Redmond’s company) to BG Sky Trade, and $1,500,000 in payments from Bene Market to 

Financial Mutual. While the Receiver makes the bold assertion that these charts demonstrate a

“complex web of rerouted payments through nominee-controlled or shell corporations” (DE 1328, 

p. 14), once again, absolutely no proof is provided. Indeed, the Receiver has presented no evidence

that these monies were actually paid,

9 that the monies constitute payments on MCA contracts with 

Receivership Entities which were being diverted, or – most importantly – that either of the 

Defendants directed (or even knew about) these payments. 

Having failed to present any proof that the monies which were allegedly paid to Financial 

Mutual, BG Sky Trade and Bushwick BG were diverted from the Receivership, the Receiver 

proceeds to speculate about payments these companies made to professionals hired by the 

Defendants and to other persons and entities who are not subject to the Receivership.

10 The 

 8 The Defendants do not have any knowledge regarding this transaction. However, they believe 

that some merchants likely sought funding from other MCA lenders after the Receivership was 

established and they were no longer able to obtain funds from CBSG or CFS. It is entirely possible 

that this merchant received separate funding from Financial Mutual, and that this wire payment 

may have been a payment on cash advanced by Financial Mutual. 

9 There are no bank statements or other records attached to the Motion to evidence the payments.

10 The Receiver cynically labels such payees “shell corporations owned by loyal nominee owners” 

and “straw check cashers” – but presents no evidence to support these claims.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 7 of 17
- 8 -

Receiver appears to believe that the mere existence of these payments shows, ipso facto, that 

Financial Mutual, BG Sky Trade and Bushwick BG received diverted funds and then paid them

out at the Defendants’ direction as part of a diversion scheme. While the payments at issue 

obviously fail to provide such proof, the Defendants will now discuss other evidence which 

expressly contradicts many of the Receiver accusations.

11 

II. The Defendants Have Marshalled Evidence to Debunk the Receiver’s 

Unsubstantiated Allegations 

While the Receiver has clearly not met its burden of proof (and the Defendants are under 

no obligation to prove a negative) counsel for the Defendants have investigated some of the thirdparty transactions at issue and have discovered facts and evidence which contradict many of the 

Receiver’s claims. While the Defendants were not personally involved in the transactions at issue, 

they believe the following to be true based on what they have learned to date:

A. Payments for the Defendants’ Professional Fees

The Receiver points to payments that Financial Mutual, BG Sky Trade and Bushwick BG

made to lawyers and other professionals retained by the Defendants as evidence of wrongdoing. 

However, all of these payments were arranged by Joseph LaForte’s brother, James LaForte, out of 

legitimate monies he was entitled to as part of his efforts to assist his family with their legal 

problems in their hour of need. (See, generally, James LaForte Declaration, Exhibit 1). The 

Receiver states that Financial Mutual paid $2,059,129.95 to Defendants’ professionals and asserts 

(apropos of nothing) that these were diverted funds. (See D.E. 1328, p. 23). But James LaForte 

 11 The fact that the Defendants do not attempt to explain every payment by a third-party referred 

to in the Motion should not be construed as an admission that any payments were illegitimate or 

improper. The Defendants do not bear the burden of proof and are not obliged to prove anything. 

In the absence of substantiation provided by the Receiver, it is simply not possible for Defendants 

to identify merchants who were allegedly involved in transactions which the Receiver questions, 

but does not identify.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 8 of 17
- 9 -

and Francis Scarpati (the owner of Financial Mutual) have provided sworn Declarations attesting 

to the fact that Financial Mutual made payments to these professionals as part of a $3 Million loan 

Financial Mutual provided to James LaForte. (See Exhibit 1, ¶ 6-7; Exhibit 2, ¶ 6). Likewise, 

James LaForte has attested that he made payments to professionals out of the account of his 

restaurant business (Bushwick Beer Garden), and that he arranged for BG Sky Trade (where he 

earns commissions from his work as an account representative) to make payments to attorneys in 

satisfaction of certain commissions owed to him by BG Sky Trade. (See Exhibit 1, ¶ 8). These 

Declarations demonstrate that none of these payments came from diverted funds.

B. Payments from Tzvi Odzer and his Companies 

The Receiver states that two companies owned by Tzvi Odzer – B&T Supplies and 

Lifeguard Office Supplies – made $500,000 in payments to BG Sky Trade. The Defendants do not 

have any direct knowledge regarding these payments, but James LaForte has attested that Mr. 

Odzer agreed to make this payment to BG Sky Trade (and other payments to Joseph LaForte’s 

attorneys) in partial satisfaction of a $1.5 Million commission Mr. Odzer (or his companies) owed 

James LaForte for procuring a very large shipment of PPE during the early days of the Pandemic. 

(See Exhibit 1, ¶ 12). 

C. Payments from Bene Market to Financial Mutual and BG Sky Trade

The subject Motion lists 19 payments totaling $1.5 Million from Bene Market to Financial 

Mutual that were made between January 15 and May 18, 2021, and baldly asserts that these 

represent diverted funds. However, Francis Scarpati attests that these were payments Financial 

Mutual earned for leads it provided to Bene Market, and he has provided invoices which perfectly 

match the payments identified by the Receiver. (See Exhibit 2, at ¶ 5 and Ex. A).

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 9 of 17
- 10 -

Likewise, the Receiver points to $1,085,000 in payments from Bene Market to BG Sky 

Trade that were made between August 2020 and January 2020. However, James LaForte attests 

that he does business with and through BG Sky Trade, that BG Sky Trade has provided leads to 

Bene Market on a commission basis, and that he believes the payment at issue reflect earned 

commissions for leads. (See Exhibit 1, ¶ 13). Accordingly, all of these payments appear to reflect

legitimate transactions between third-parties – which have absolutely nothing to do with the 

Defendants, the Receivership, or diverted funds which ought to have been paid to the Receivership.

D. Funds Paid To and By Dayne Property Management

The Receiver states that James LaForte’s company, Bushwick BG, LLC, paid $1,392,400 

to Dayne Property Management Group, Inc., and that Dayne paid $94,281 in property taxes on 

Lisa McElhone’s home in Jupiter, Florida in May of 2022. James LaForte has confirmed that he 

paid Dayne $1,392,412, but these payments do not constitute diverted funds – they were made for 

substantial renovation work Dayne performed for several restaurants in which James LaForte has 

an ownership interest. (See Exhibit 1). James LaForte has provided the invoices reflecting the work 

performed, the total amounts paid, as well as photographs showing a representative sampling of 

the work Dayne performed in order to earn these payments. (Id. at Ex. B and C).

James LaForte also attests that he asked Joe Talamini (who owns Dayne, and is a good 

friend with whom James LaForte does a significant amount of business) to pay the property taxes 

on the Jupiter home at a time when James LaForte was cash strapped. (Id. at ¶ 15). Mr. Talimini 

agreed to make the requested payment, and James LaForte quickly repaid Mr. Talimini as he had 

promised to do.12 (Id.). Once again, these payments have nothing to do with CBSG and provide 

 12 Given the friendship between James LaForte and Mr. Talimini, and their significant business 

ties (James’ company paid Mr. Talimini’s company more than $1.3 Million for services over a 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 10 of 17
- 11 -

no evidence of a diversion scheme – let alone one orchestrated by the Defendants 

E. Platinum Rapid and Financial Mutual Deny the Receiver’s Allegations

 The Receiver claims that Platinum Rapid and Financial Mutual were at the center of two 

of the three alleged “diversion scheme variants” identified in the Motion. Specifically, the Receiver 

asserts that: 1) unknown individuals contacted CFS merchants to trick them into thinking their 

account balances had been transferred to Platinum Rapid, and that Platinum Rapid collected at 

least $1.15 Million from at least 86 CFS merchants; and, 2) that a person purporting to act on 

behalf of Platinum Rapid tricked CFS merchants into submitting payments to Financial Mutual’s 

bank account. (D.E. 1328, p. 10-11). The Receiver has not provided a shred of evidence to prove 

that any CFS merchants were tricked in these ways – let alone that any of this was done for the 

Defendants’ benefit or at their direction. Furthermore, Vincent Bardong (the owner of Platinum 

Rapid) and Francis Scarpati (the owner of Financial Mutual) have provided sworn declarations in 

which they flatly deny these allegations and affirm that the Defendants did not have any 

involvement in their businesses or attempt to orchestrate their actions in any way. (See Declaration 

of Vincent Bardong, attached as Exhibit 5, and Scarpati Declaration, Exhibit 2).

The Receiver also attempts to draw an inference of wrongdoing by asserting that Francis 

Scarpati emptied and closed Financial Mutual’s bank account with Bank of America four weeks 

after the Receiver issued a subpoena to obtain records from that account. The Defendants have no 

personal knowledge of these matters. However, Mr. Scarpati has declared under penalty of perjury 

that it was Bank of America that chose to close the account after it was subpoenaed. (See Exhibit 

2, ¶ 10). Thus, the Receiver appears to have jumped to conclusions – once again – in an attempt to 

 

sixteen-month period) it is not unusual that Mr. Talimini would agree to provide James LaForte 

with a short-term loan.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 11 of 17
- 12 -

substantiate its false allegations against the Defendants. 

III. The Court Must Decline the Receiver’s Invitation to Consider Hearsay and 

Unproven Collateral Allegations in Connection with the Present Motion 

Instead of presenting actual evidence that the Defendants have violated the Receivership 

Order, the Receiver relies on bald rhetoric by simply proclaiming that the Defendants’ “egregious 

and numerous violations” are “emphatically clear.” (D.E. 1328, p. 18). Then – in an attempt to 

deflect from the obvious factual and evidentiary deficiencies in the Motion and overcome the 

Defendants’ anticipated counter-arguments – the Receiver asks that the Court “consider 

[Defendants’] explanations in light of” other unproven matters which pre-date the Receivership 

and/or have nothing to do with the issues presented in the present Motion. Id. at p. 22. Although 

the Receiver’s irrelevant allegations regarding these collateral matters are addressed briefly below, 

it is clear that the Receiver is simply trying to muddy-the-waters, and this Court (which sits in 

equity) need not and should not countenance the Receiver’s improper arguments.

First, the Receiver contends that the Court should consider the Defendants’ alleged “PreReceivership efforts to collect cash from merchants, thereby keeping the money off of the CBSG’s 

books and unavailable to investors.” Id. Although the Receiver does not cite any support for the 

contention, he appears to be referencing the self-serving and unsubstantiated hearsay statements 

of Tzvi Odzer (a/k/a Stephen Odzer), contained in a “report” by an accounting firm Mr. Odzer 

retained. (See D.E. 1328-12, referred to herein as the “Report”). To begin, the Report is pure 

hearsay and is inadmissible for any purpose in this proceeding. Second, the Report acknowledges

that Mr. Odzer and his companies borrowed more than $92 Million from CBSG, and presents 

salacious and unsupported allegations in an effort to offset this enormous debt.

13 Indeed, the 

 13 Although the Receiver contends that Odzer participated in the diversion of funds from the 

Receivership, the fact of the matter is the Receiver is in possession of a Confession of Judgment 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 12 of 17
- 13 -

Report admits that – even if Mr. Odzer were entitled to all of the unsubstantiated offsets he is 

claiming (which he absolutely is not) – he and his companies would still owe CBSG more than

$8.5 Million.14

The self-serving and unsworn Report is almost exclusively directed to events and 

transactions which allegedly occurred before the Receivership incepted on July 27, 2020. The only 

transactions referenced in the Report which occurred after the Receivership are a handful of wire 

transfers made to persons and entities outside of the Defendants’ control. While the Report 

contends that “LaForte” (it does not specify whether this refers to Joseph or James) directed Odzer 

to make these payments, this statement constitutes inadmissible hearsay, and is not supported by 

any actual evidence. Furthermore – and laying aside all of the evidentiary issues only for the 

moment – Mr. Odzer’s credibility is sorely lacking. In addition to the fact that Mr. Odzer has a 

direct financial interest in saying anything he can to eliminate or reduce his nearly $100 Million 

debt, Mr. Odzer is a convicted felon having been found guilty of bank fraud and conspiracy, for 

which he served a prison sentence and was ordered to pay more than $16 Million in restitution.15

 

for Mr. Odzer’s companies, and a Surety Agreement in which Mr. Odzer personally guarantees 

those debts. Notwithstanding, the Receiver has not filed the COJ or taken any legal action to collect 

the $92 Million debt from Mr. Odzer or his companies – even though they are solvent and have 

substantial assets. The Receiver’s silence and inaction on these issues speaks volumes about the 

Receiver’s belief in Odzer’s credibility.

14 To be absolutely clear, the debt at issue is much larger than $8.5 Million, and Mr. Odzer’s selfserving statements about the alleged reduction of his debt should not begiven any credit at all. 

15 In January of 2021, Mr. Odzer received a presidential pardon, which was conditioned on 

payment of the outstanding balance of the restitution order to his victims. (See Pardon, attached as 

Exhibit 6). It is unclear whether the restitution has been made. In seeking the pardon, advocates

for Mr. Odzer attempted to portray him as a philanthropist, citing his donation of PPE during the 

Covid crises. (See Statement from the Press Secretary Regarding Executive Grants of Clemency, 

attached as Exhibit 7). Ironically, the PPE Mr. Odzer donated was purchased with funding 

obtained from CBSG (which he has not repaid). Furthermore, the Odzer Report alleges that PPE 

Odzer procured from James LaForte with CBSG funding was “worthless” and “non-salable” and 

that he is therefore entitled to offset his debt to CBSG by $1.5 Million (which is the amount of 

James LaForte’s commission on the PPE deal). Aside from the fact that Odzer’s self-serving claims 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 13 of 17
- 14 -

It is notable that the Receiver fails to mention this in the Motion, since he took great pains to note 

the criminal history of each person who is allegedly associated with Joseph LaForte (no matter 

how attenuated). The Receiver’s efforts to paint LaForte and his alleged “associates” in a bad light 

based on their prior records – while completely ignoring Odzer’s fraud convictions and his 

enormous ($92 Million) financial interest in avoiding his debts to CBSG – speaks volumes. 

Second, the Receiver contends that the Court should consider the Receiver’s prior 

unproven allegations that the Defendants violated the Receivership Orders based on an alleged 

data breach, and a separate contempt motion relating to the transfer of property to Kingdom 

Logistics (which was not adjudicated on the merits in this Court, and is now the subject of a 

separate lawsuit brought by the Receiver in Texas). The Defendants previously settled the 

Receiver’s “data breach” claim without admitting any wrongdoing in order to avoid getting 

bogged-down in expensive and distracting collateral proceeding. The Kingdom Logistic lawsuit is 

still pending, and Lisa McElhone (who is a party to that action) has denied all liability and is

vigorously defending herself. The Receiver is aware that there was no adjudication of wrongdoing 

in either of these proceedings and that he amicably resolved the alleged “data breach” matter, but 

he is nevertheless attempting to use these unproven collateral allegations to cast doubt on the 

Defendants’ credibility. But no amount of commentary about prior unrelated matters can serve as 

a surrogate for clear and convincing evidence in admissible form – of which the Receiver has none. 

In short, salacious hearsay and unproven allegations of unrelated bad conduct are not 

substitutes for clear and convincing evidence of the specific alleged contempt violations at issue 

in this Motion. Accordingly, the Court may not properly consider the Odzer Report or the 

 

are hardly credible, it bears mention that Mr. Odzer presumably did not disclose these alleged

“facts” in connection with his application for a pardon. 

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 14 of 17
- 15 -

Receiver’s prior contempt allegations in connection with the present Motion. 

IV. The Receiver Presents No Evidence Whatsoever Relating to Lisa McElhone

The subject motion is premised on the Receiver’s unsupported allegations that Joseph

LaForte’s “personal contacts” received payments from CFS merchants and funneled it back to the 

Defendants as part of massive diversion scheme. While these allegations are based on pure 

conjecture and cannot be sustained, it is important to note that the Receiver does not even insinuate 

that Lisa McElhone had any knowledge of or involvement in any of the transactions at issue, or of

the alleged orchestration of this scheme. 16

V. Demand for an Evidentiary Hearing

The Court’s Order to Show Cause provides that an evidentiary hearing will be held on the 

Receiver’s Contempt Motion. (D.E. 1332, p. 3). But in an abundance of caution, the Defendants 

demand an evidentiary hearing to address the numerous disputed issues of fact presented in the 

Receiver’s Motion and this Opposition. 

CONCLUSION

As discussed in the Court’s Order to Show Cause (D.E. 1332), the Motion alleges that the 

Defendants violated the Receivership Order by: 1) diverting merchant collections from CBSG and 

CFS to other entities they controlled; 2) laundering the diverted funds through shell and nominee 

corporations; and 3) using the laundered funds for their personal use and fund. However, the 

 16 Furthermore, from July 28, 2020 through the expansion of the Receivership on December 16, 

2020, Ms. McElhone had access to the bank accounts of Eagle Six Consulting, Heritage Business 

Consulting, and the various commercial real estate properties which were rented and managed 

through LM Property Management (amongst other accounts). Ms. McElhone did not touch these 

bank accounts (which had a combined value of over $8 Million) during this timeframe. Indeed, 

she continued to manage and maintain the commercial properties – without compensation – while 

rent payments accumulated in the bank accounts, thus preserving these funds for the Receiver. 

Ms. McElhone’s conduct during this time speaks volumes, and should be weighed against the 

Receiver’s vague and unsubstantiated claims that she somehow participated in a diversion scheme.

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 15 of 17
- 16 -

Receiver has not presented any evidence to support these allegations – let alone the clear and 

convincing evidence needed for the Receiver to carry his burden. Indeed, the Motion does not 

present a scintilla of evidence to show that either of the Defendants was involved in any of the 

transactions at issue. Moreover, the evidence proffered by the Defendants debunks many of the 

Receiver’s unsupported allegations. For all of these reasons, there has been no showing that the 

Defendants violated the Receivership Orders in any way, and the Defendants cannot be held in 

contempt. 

Dated: August 29, 2022.

KOPELOWITZ OSTROW 

FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT

Attorneys for Joseph W. LaForte

One W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301

Tel: (954) 525-4100

By: /s/ David L. Ferguson

DAVID L. FERGUSON

Florida Bar Number: 0981737

Ferguson@kolawyers.com 

JOSHUA R. LEVINE

Florida Bar Number: 91807

Levine@kolawyers.com

LAW OFFICES OF ALAN S. FUTERFAS

565 Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor

New York, New York 10017

Telephone: 212-684-8400

asfuterfas@futerfaslaw.com

Attorneys for Lisa McElhone

By: /s/ Alan S. Futerfas 

 ALAN S. FUTERFAS 

 Admitted Pro Hac Vice

KAPLAN ZEENA LLP

Attorneys for Defendant Lisa McElhone

2 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3050

Miami, Florida 33131

Telephone: (305) 530-0800

Facsimile: (305) 530-0801 

By: /s/ James M. Kaplan

JAMES M. KAPLAN

Florida Bar No.: 921040

james.kaplan@kaplanzeena.com 

elizabeth.salom@kaplanzeena.com

service@kaplanzeena.com 

NOAH E. SNYDER

Florida Bar No.: 107415

noah.snyder@kaplanzeena.com

maria.escobales@kaplanzeena.com

julie.valdes@kaplanzeena.com

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 16 of 17
- 17 -

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 29th day of August 2022, I electronically filed the 

foregoing document with the clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. I also certify that the foregoing 

document is being served this day on counsel of record via transmissions of Notices of Electronic 

Filing generated by CM/ECF.

By: /s/ James M. Kaplan

 JAMES M. KAPLAN

Case 9:20-cv-81205-RAR Document 1385 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/29/2022 Page 17 of 17