1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SARAH WALDROP 

REENAH L. KIM 

Federal Trade Commission 

600 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. 

Mailstop M-8102B 

Washington, DC 20580 

Telephone: (202) 326-3444, -2272 

Facsimile: (202) 326-2558 

Email: swaldrop@ftc.gov, rkim1@ftc.gov 

BLAINE T. WELSH 

Assistant United States Attorney 

Nevada Bar No. 4790 

333 Las Vegas Boulevard South, Suite 5000 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89101 

Telephone: (702) 388-6336 

Facsimile: (702) 388-6787 

Email: Blaine.Welsh@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEVADA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

DAYTON FAMILY PRODUCTIONS, INC., et 

al. 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 2:97-CV-00750-PMP 

(LRL)

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS 

SECOND MOTION TO HOLD GLEN BURKE IN CONTEMPT 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 1 of 14
 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

STATEMENT OF FACTS ............................................................................................................. 1

I. The Original Action ............................................................................................................ 1

II. Burke’s Sweepstakes Marketing Scheme ........................................................................... 2

A. Burke Uses Deceptive Mailers to Convince Consumers to Pay. ............................ 2

B. Burke’s Operation Fails to Deliver the Promised Winnings and Is Permeated with 

Fraud. ...................................................................................................................... 6

C. Burke’s Direct Mail Scheme Caused Millions in Consumer Harm. ....................... 8

ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................................. 9

I. Burke’s Deceptive Mail Scheme Violates the Permanent Injunction. ................................ 9

III. Burke’s Direct Mail Violations Have Caused Millions in Consumer Harm. ................... 10

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 11

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 2 of 14
 

1 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTRODUCTION 

In addition to the deceptive telemarketing operation set out in the FTC’s January 28 

Motion for Contempt (“First Contempt Motion”), Contempt Defendant Glen Burke (“Burke”) 

runs an extensive network of deceptive sweepstakes schemes that violate the Permanent 

Injunction this Court entered against Burke in 1998. Burke’s direct-mail sweepstakes tout 

sizable cash payouts, from thousands to millions of dollars, which consumers purportedly can 

claim simply by sending back a form and “processing fee.” Burke sends the mailers under 

various fictitious company names, and directs consumers to send their fees to mailboxes around 

the globe, all rented by “fronts” Burke hires. Consumers send the fees expecting to receive far 

greater sums in return. Once Burke collects their money, however, he funnels it through a series 

of overseas processors and bank accounts, then sends consumers a check or money order for less 

than $2, or no money at all. Burke’s conduct violates Section II of the Permanent Injunction, 

which prohibits him from making misrepresentations to consumers. The Federal Trade 

Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) noted Burke’s likely involvement in mailed sweepstakes 

operations in its First Contempt Motion against Burke and American Health Associates, LLC 

(“AHA”). Pursuant to the immediate access provisions of the January 28, 2013 Temporary 

Restraining Order, the FTC gathered evidence confirming that Burke’s direct mailing scheme 

warrants additional contempt findings and compensatory relief. Further discovery, however, is 

necessary to ascertain the full nature and extent of harm the telemarketing and direct mail 

schemes caused consumers. Accordingly, the FTC respectfully requests a brief period of 

discovery for this purpose. The FTC further proposes that, following the conclusion of 

discovery, the Court address the Contempt Defendants’ liability and contempt sanctions for both 

the telemarketing and mailed sweepstakes schemes in one proceeding. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

I. The Original Action 

As stated in the FTC’s First Contempt Motion, Burke stipulated to the Permanent 

Injunction with the FTC to resolve charges that he telemarketed investments in a film company 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 3 of 14
 

2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

by making wildly inflated earnings representations. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶21-24; Dkt. 122). This Court 

entered the Permanent Injunction against Burke and others on October 1, 1998. (Dkt. 122.) 

Among other things, the Permanent Injunction prohibits Burke from misrepresenting any fact 

material to a consumer’s decision to buy a good or service. (Dkt. 122, Sec. II.B.) 

II. Burke’s Sweepstakes Marketing Scheme 

In addition to Burke’s violations of the Permanent Injunction through telemarketing 

company AHA, Burke has violated the Permanent Injunction by carrying out a deceptive 

sweepstakes mailing scheme since at least early 2008. Using an ever-shifting array of fictitious 

names, Burke sends mail to consumers across the United States claiming they have won 

thousands or even millions of dollars. The mailers lead consumers to believe they need only pay 

a small fee – usually $20 to $30 – to claim their winnings. Once consumers pay, however, Burke 

either fails to deliver any money, or sends consumers a check or money order for less than $2 – 

far less than the amount the consumer paid as a processing fee to claim the “prize,” and far less 

than his mailers promised. Burke has caused millions of dollars in consumer injury through this 

scheme. 

A. Burke Uses Deceptive Mailers to Convince Consumers to Pay. 

Burke’s sweepstakes scheme uses mailers carefully crafted to convince the recipients 

they have won thousands or millions of dollars. Some mailers use elaborate borders, stamps, and 

seals designed to look as though they were sent from a law firm or financial institution. (E.g., 

PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 6, 14, 28.)1

 Others use fonts and layouts similar to those used in state and 

federal tax forms, or are designed to look like checks or bond certificates. (E.g., PX22 ¶7, Att. D 

at 18, 35, 55, 56, 62). The mailers use a constantly changing roster of names to identify the 

purported senders, including, for example: “Hancock Financial Services;” “Peterson & 

Associates;” “SSI;” “Security Services;” “Cash Award Notification;” “Access America Financial 

 

1

 The FTC’s Second Motion for Contempt and its Reply in Support of Its Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction cite the FTC’s combined exhibits, which are being filed concurrently. 

For ease of reference, exhibit numbering continues from the FTC’s previously filed exhibits (dkt. 

155). 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 4 of 14
 

3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Group;” “Rushmore Financial Group;” and “Aggregate Merchants.” (PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 6, 10, 

13, 18, 35, 55, 68, 70.) 

The mailers promise recipients they will receive sizable payouts, stating, among other 

things: 

 “Our office has issued this Certified Letter to your immediate attention regarding 

money due you from our current award distribution and to make available to you 

as a CASH AWARD WINNER the mandatory & requisite data for proper filing 

and claim to total disbursement awards now in excess of TWO MILLION 

DOLLARS. ... By authority granted to me as Director of Financial Compliance, I 

am prepared to have Mr. Rowe, our Chief Payment Officer, send you a check for 

cash, and upon your timely filing and remittance, the mandatory and requisite data 

for your claim(s) to sponsored sweepstakes awards now totaling: $2,036,444.88. 

I cannot stress strongly enough the immediacy of this notice, and how important it 

is that you gain access to the vast amount of money referenced above.” (PX22 ¶7, 

Att. D at 6.) 

 “Attention: [consumer name], you have been assigned Folio #70036625460 with 

regards to unclaimed funds exceeding $75,000,000.00. ... The monies may be 

from a variety of sources, and may have been ‘lost’ to you for over 20 years. It is 

with great anticipation that we have prepared this information - $75,000,000.00 is 

a substantial sum.” (PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 10.) 

 “Congratulations, [consumer name]. If you can properly identify yourself with 

government issued picture identification (required for cash award incentives of 

$5,000 or more) as the [consumer name] of [city, state] – your bank check for an 

undisclosed amount is approved for immediate disbursement – the money is 

yours! The maximum cash allotment is $10,000.” (PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 35.) 

 “PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THIS IS YOUR OFFICIAL NOTIFICATION 

OF UNAWARDED FUNDS CURRENTLY TOTALING THE AMOUNT 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 5 of 14
 

4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

OVER: THE SUM $7,041,846.00. A bank check for an undisclosed amount has 

been approved for payment to [consumer name] at [address] in [city, state]. 

Check shall be delivered by uniformed courier and shall require signature over 

$5,000.” (PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 28.) 

Burke hires copywriters and designers to create these deceptive mailers, working closely 

with his personnel to ensure the mailers are enticing and convincing. (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 32-

48.) In one email exchange, Burke told a copywriter his mailers “were a little vanilla, could 

stand a little more heat.” (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 35.) In another, one of Burke’s designers 

formatted a mailer to “look like it came from a law firm, on official paper with borders.” (PX22 

¶16, Att. M at 37, 40, 41.) When the designer sent Burke the mailer, Burke replied, “This is 

more what we’re looking for.” (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 42.) Once the mailers are prepared to 

Burke’s satisfaction, Burke works with list brokers to generate mailing lists and send the letters 

out. (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 49-53.) 

The letters direct recipients to mail a claim form and a $20 to $30 “processing fee” by a 

specified deadline. (E.g., PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 13, 17, 19, 37, 55, 57, 68.) To receive the money, 

Burke hires fronts around the country and abroad to open rented mailboxes at commercial mail 

receiving agencies. (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 60-75.) For example, Burke’s emails and the mail 

returned to his offices show that he uses mailboxes in California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, 

Illinois, Mexico, Panama, and the Netherlands, among others. (E.g., PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 19, 69; 

¶16, Att. M at 20-22, 60-68; Dkt. 155-3 at 36, PX1 Att. V-2.) Furthermore, Burke’s emails show 

that he regularly changes his mailbox fronts to avoid detection by law enforcement. (PX22 ¶16, 

Att. M at 62-75.) As one of his associates stated in an email to Burke, “we don’t want all our 

eggs in one basket (box) especially when others are at the same location ... just makes it easier to 

get popped for everyone.” (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 76.) This concern is warranted, as the U.S. 

Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”) has conducted investigations of deceptive sweepstakes 

mailings tied to Burke and his associate Katrinka Willard, and, in 2009 and 2010, interviewed a 

number of fronts who rented boxes in Las Vegas. (Dkt. 155-4 at 11-13, PX3 ¶¶ 4, 6, 8-15.) 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 6 of 14
 

5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Burke is in constant contact with his network of associates around the world to keep track of his 

mailboxes, manage the mail directed to each box, and direct the opening and closing of boxes as 

necessary. (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 60-75.) 

Once consumers send their money to one of Burke’s boxes, his associates open and sort 

the returns. (Dkt. 155-4 at 6-7, PX2 ¶¶ 5-6; PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 12-13, 20-22.) Depending on 

Burke’s arrangement with the associate who holds a particular box, cash may be sent directly to 

Burke, split between Burke and the box holder, or deposited into one of Burke’s accounts. (Dkt. 

155-4 at 6, PX2 ¶6; PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 20-21, 27, 76.) Checks and money orders are harder to 

process, particularly as they are made out to many different payees. (E.g., PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 85-

93, checks to Security Services, RDC, SSI, Elective Entitlements, CAN, Processing Center, LFS, 

Peterson & Associates, and Heritage Funding Resources.) Burke has employed a range of 

solutions for this problem. For years, he arranged for his associates to open accounts at banks, 

including in Panama, willing to accept deposits of hundreds of checks each day. (PX22 ¶16, Att. 

M at 15, 17-22.) In one instance, to accomplish this, Burke agreed to pay a $2,000 “required 

gift” through his associates. (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 14-15.) 

Burke later found a much more streamlined check processing solution – a foreign 

payment processor that electronically processes checks for Burke’s operations and holds the 

money on his behalf. (Dkt. 167 ¶¶4-5; PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 2-4.) When Burke wants to 

withdraw funds, he simply emails the processor directions to wire the desired amount of money 

to a designated bank account. (Dkt. 167 ¶¶4-5; PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 6-8.) Burke pays his 

personnel, such as list brokers and mailbox fronts, by directing the processor to wire money to 

their accounts. (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 6-8, 12-13, 49-51.) He also has the operation’s profits 

wired out at regular intervals. (Dkt. 167 ¶5, Att. A.) In taking the profits, however, Burke 

interposes yet another layer between himself and the operation. Rather than wiring the money 

directly into his own accounts, Burke has it wired in large, round increments (often $10,000, 

$20,000, or more) to a bank account for National Print and Mail (“NPM”). (Id.) NPM then 

writes checks for the wired funds to one of Burke’s companies, Merchant’s Depot. (Dkt. 167 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 7 of 14
 

6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

¶¶4-5, Att. B; PX27 at 33:16-34:4, 35:4-12.) As Burke’s bookkeeper testified, these checks from 

NPM make up the vast majority of the deposits into Burke’s bank accounts, from which the 

bookkeeper then pays his personal expenses. (PX27 at 33:16-34:13.) 

If consumers fail to send in payment, Burke follows up with another mailing, referred to 

as “trouble tickets.” (PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 44-45; ¶16, Att. M at 43-48.) One such “trouble ticket” 

states, “[Y]ou should have already received your sweepstakes winner’s cash check. Again, we 

want to offer our congratulations. We know that a sum of unexpected money can sometimes be 

life-changing, and we hope you are enjoying your cash.” (PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 45; ¶16, Att. M at 

44.) The ticket then asks the consumer to confirm whether they have spent these purported 

winnings by, for example, buying a new home or car, paying for a child’s college education, 

purchasing a new wardrobe, or going on an exotic vacation. (PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 45; ¶16, Att. M 

at 44.) The ticket asks the consumer to report any problems – including, as is invariably the 

case, that the consumer has not received any check. (PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 44; ¶16, Att. M at 44.) 

The ticket promises such consumers that a “replacement check [is] guaranteed to be mailed by” a 

specified date. It then presents “final instructions for compliance,” stating, “Replacement 

WINNER’S SWEEPSTAKES CHECK will be sent gratis immediately. Elective ONE 

MILLION DOLLAR directives fee is $17.96,” and directing the consumer to send cash, check, 

or money order for the fee. (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 44; see also PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 44.) 

B. Burke’s Operation Fails to Deliver the Promised Winnings and Is Permeated 

with Fraud. 

After Burke takes consumers’ money, he fails to deliver even a fraction of the winnings 

he promised. At best, he sends consumers a check or money order for a paltry amount, such as 

$1 or $1.12. At worst, he sends them nothing. 

Files and shred bags in Burke’s offices contained numerous complaints from consumers 

asking why they never received the hundreds of thousands of dollars Burke’s mailers promised. 

(E.g., PX22 ¶5, Att. B at 21-22, 31; ¶7, Att. D-1 at 13, 22-39, 42-48, 51-53.) Furthermore, email 

exchanges between Burke and his associates show that he sought to obtain quantities of $1 

checks and that, when asked whether he would send out small checks in response to claim forms, 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 8 of 14
 

7 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Burke responded, “Ya ... $1.12, use [sic] to work really well.” (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 144-145.) 

Indeed, files found at one of Burke’s offices include receipts for money orders in the amounts of 

$1.12 and $0.79, marked “[Consumer Name] Winnings” or “[Consumer Name] Fulfillment” 

apparently mailed in response to the consumers’ complaints. (PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 41, 49-51.) An 

investigation by the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) further corroborates Burke’s 

failure to deliver the winnings he promised. In January of 2012, DHS intercepted packages full 

of checks and claim forms en route from Burke’s Mexican mailbox to his office at 2451 S. 

Buffalo Ave. in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Dkt. 155-3 at 36, PX1 Att. V-2.) A DHS investigator 

called two of the individuals identified in those documents and learned that, while they had been 

mailing checks in response to the sweepstakes solicitations for years, they never received any 

money. (Dkt. 155-3 at 39, PX1 Att. V-5.) 

Furthermore, Burke’s emails with his associates show he is well aware that his direct 

mail operation is fraudulent, and that he takes steps in addition to his network of far-flung 

mailboxes and multilayered payment processing to conceal that fact from law enforcement. In 

January 2010, an associate wrote to Burke, “Just got word that the post office in your mailing 

area is calling in a lot of mail they describe as ‘misleading.’ ... Have you been affected by any of 

this?” (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 137.) In response, Burke wrote, “Their [sic] hiding in the shadows 

but not affected yet.” (Id.) In April 2011, he consulted with another associate about a payment 

processer who offered to process checks for Burke and have the money “wired into you[r] off 

shore bank.” (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 138.) The processor, however, asked for a copy of Burke’s 

“ads or products” to keep on file. (Id.) Burke forwarded the request to his associate, saying, “I 

told him we run a MIO promo consisting of jewelry products ... the word sweeps never came up, 

but him needing a piece to keep for his records might get a little tricky!” (Id.) In response, the 

associate advised him that “any ads you give are kept in his files and as far as I know he does not 

clear them with the banks ... You can even send him a direct mail piece covering up any words 

mentioning sweeps or stuff like that.” (Id.) In May 2012, an associate wrote to Burke to ask, 

“since we are not sending responses to Nevada anymore ... boxes are everywhere else ... can we 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 9 of 14
 

8 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ask PAS [a list broker] to put NV back on the lists to mail to? We thought the original reason for 

suppressing NV was so no one could walk right into the box location and raise a fuss.” (PX22 

¶16, Att. M at 141.) In response, Burke apparently warned about the vigilance of Nevada-based 

Postal Inspector Vicki Lenard, who has conducted investigations into sweepstakes mail fraud 

and shut down a number of boxes in 2009 and 2010. (Dkt. 155-4 at 11-13, PX3 ¶¶ 4, 6, 8-15.) 

He told his associate, “remember vikki [sic] and the task force are located here and hit three 

companies last week.” (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 141.) 

When Burke’s efforts to shield his operation from law enforcement fail, he urges his 

associates to conceal his involvement in the direct-mail scheme. In January 2012, a package 

containing $12,000 cash from Burke’s mailbox manager in the Netherlands broke in transit, 

alerting customs and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) to its contents. (PX22 ¶16, Att. 

M at 24-26.) Burke exchanged a series of emails with an associate about how he should respond. 

(PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 23-28.) The associate drafted a suggested response to Burke’s contact in 

the Netherlands: 

“I do believe some caution needs to be taken if you have to deal with US authorities. 

Regardless of who you have interaction with on a day to day basis you should be very 

careful if you are asked who the client is and only give the information used for billing. 

Several of the people you deal with on a regular basis are consultants only and not 

principals in any of the businesses and I believe they should not be brought into the mix 

(for example, Glen is only a consultant, Errol [Burke’s hired Panamanian front] is the 

prinicipal [sic]). ... I know an unsatisfactory outcome could affect the consultant’s ability 

to earn a living if they were brought into the picture needlessly.” (PX22 ¶16, Att. M at 

23.) 

C. Burke’s Direct Mail Scheme Caused Millions in Consumer Harm. 

Burke’s network of overseas accounts, multiple payment-processing avenues, and 

extensive reliance on cash make it difficult to determine the total harm his sweepstakes ventures 

have caused. However, his current known check processor accepted a combined total of 

$206,339.11 in deposits from his operations during November 2012, December 2012, and 

January 2013, or an average of $68,779.70 per month. (Dkt. 167 ¶5, Att. A.) An extrapolation 

of that amount over the five years in which Burke ran his mail scheme would total more than $4 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 10 of 14
 

9 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

million. That figure, however, does not account for cash received, credit-card payments, or 

checks processed through other channels, and thus likely significantly underestimates the amount 

consumers paid in response to Burke’s mailers. 

ARGUMENT 

Civil contempt is warranted where there is clear and convincing evidence the contemnors 

violated a specific and definite order of the court. FTC v. Affordable Media, LLC, 179 F.3d 

1228, 1239 (9th Cir. 1999). Here, in addition to the violations outlined in the FTC’s First 

Contempt Motion, there is clear and convincing evidence that Burke’s deceptive direct-mail 

scheme violates the specific and definite provision of the Permanent Injunction prohibiting 

misrepresentations. Thus, following a brief period of discovery to establish the extent of the 

violative conduct and confirm the amount of financial harm to consumers, Burke should be held 

in contempt and ordered to pay compensatory sanctions in the amount of the harm he caused 

through his deceptive direct-mail and telemarketing schemes. 

I. Burke’s Deceptive Mail Scheme Violates the Permanent Injunction. 

Burke’s deceptive mail scheme violates a specific and definite provision of the 

Permanent Injunction: Section II.B’s prohibition against material misrepresentations. 

Specifically, Section II.B prohibits “[m]isrepresenting, in any manner, directly or by implication, 

or failing to disclose any fact material to a consumer’s decision to purchase any item, product, 

good, service, or investment.” 

Burke’s mailers promise consumers that they will receive sizable payouts. Some of the 

mailers state that consumers have won a cash award; others describe “unclaimed funds” ready 

for delivery to the mailer’s recipient. The mailers state that consumers are entitled to sums 

ranging from thousands to millions of dollars. The letters use carefully selected fonts, graphic 

designs, fictitious names, headings, and signatures to imply they are from a law firm, financial 

services firm, or government agency. The mailings direct consumers to send back a claim form 

and modest processing fee by a specified deadline to claim their winnings. If consumers do not 

send the fee, Burke sends an additional mailer reinforcing his promises about large cash prizes. 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 11 of 14
 

10 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Specifically, the additional mailer asks consumers what kinds of big-ticket items they purchased 

with their purported winnings and pushes consumers who have not yet received the “winnings” 

checks – which, in fact, include all consumers who receive the additional mailer – to send in a 

fee while Burke’s fictitious company prepares the “replacement check.”2

In reality, no consumer ever receives the promised winnings. The mailers do not come 

from law firms, financial firms, or government agencies; instead, Burke and his team of hired 

copywriters and designers create the letters and devise an official-sounding name to emblazon 

across the top. The purported “deadlines” creating a sense of urgency and legitimacy are false – 

Burke simply routes consumers’ funds into his own accounts whenever they arrive. Most 

importantly, not a single consumer ever receives the full amount of money the mailers so 

prominently and repeatedly promise. If Burke sends consumers anything at all, he sends a check 

or money order for less than $2. These misrepresentations deceive consumers into paying 

Burke’s fees, as demonstrated by the numerous complaints Burke received from consumers 

(many of which he shreds) and the actions he took to hide his misrepresentations from law 

enforcement. 

III. Burke’s Direct Mail Violations Have Caused Millions in Consumer Harm. 

After appropriate contempt proceedings, Burke should be found in contempt for both his 

deceptive telemarketing and his deceptive mailings, and ordered to compensate victimized 

consumers. The Court has broad authority to impose sanctions for violations of its orders, 

including requiring compensation for losses sustained as a result of the failure to comply with the 

order. United States v. United Mine Workers of Am., 330 U.S. 258, 303-04 (1947); Koninklijke 

Philips Elec. N.V. v. KXD Tech., Inc., 539 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2008) (purpose of civil 

contempt is coercive or compensatory). In an FTC contempt action, consumer loss is an 

 

2

 Some of the deceptive mailers include a dense block of text on the back titled “Consumer 

Disclosure,” which does nothing to cure the misrepresentations featured prominently throughout 

the mailer. (E.g., PX22 ¶7, Att. D at 69.) Indeed, the purported “disclosure” actually makes 

additional misrepresentations – claiming, for instance, that as part of a so-called “premium 

incentive” promotion, the consumer is “entitled” to receive a “prize” that may be thousands of 

dollars. (Id.) In fact, no consumer ever receives more than $1.12. 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 12 of 14
 

11 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

appropriate measure of the compensatory remedy. FTC v. EDebitPay, LLC, 695 F.3d 938, 945 

(9th Cir. 2012). In this case, consumer loss is the full amount consumers paid Burke through his 

fictitious companies, minus any refunds already given or nominal sums sent to complaining 

consumers. 

At this time, the FTC estimates Burke’s direct-mail scheme defrauded consumers of at 

least $4 million, based on amounts deposited into his known check-processing accounts in the 

three months preceding the FTC’s filing. However, given Burke’s extensive efforts to retrieve 

the cash sent to his fronts around the globe, the sizable amounts of cash these fronts sent in each 

mailing, and indications that Burke has yet more avenues for processing consumers’ payments, it 

is likely the actual consumer harm is significantly higher. The FTC seeks a short period of 

discovery regarding the workings and scope of Burke’s mail scheme and the total amount of 

resulting consumer harm. Following such discovery, the FTC will present any further evidence 

in support of its request for an order holding Burke in civil contempt and ordering him to pay a 

compensatory sanction in the full amount consumers paid. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the FTC requests that, following a brief period of discovery 

and appropriate contempt proceedings, the Court find Burke and AHA in contempt of the 

Permanent Injunction for their telemarketing scheme, and that the Court additionally find Burke 

in contempt for his direct mail scheme. The FTC further requests that the Court enter contempt 

sanctions measured by the full amount of consumer harm. 

Dated: March 1, 2013 Respectfully submitted, 

 

 /s/ Sarah Waldrop 

SARAH WALDROP 

swaldrop@ftc.gov, (202) 326-3444 

REENAH L. KIM 

Reenah L. Kim 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 13 of 14
 

12 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

rkim1@ftc.gov, (202) 326-2272 

600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, M-8102B 

Washington, DC 20580 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

Case 2:97-cv-00750-PMP-VCF Document 169-1 Filed 03/01/13 Page 14 of 14