Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 1 - Complaint for Damages

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

Samuel W. Eastman (CA SBN/00264565)

Sam.eastman@emfirm.com

EASTMAN MEYLER, PC

2301 E. Riverside Dr., Ste. A-50

Austin, Texas 78741

Tel: (512) 596-1957

Fax: (512) 857-1462

Attorneys for Plaintiff, Latrina Jackson

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LATRINA R. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

MANASSEH JORDAN MINISTRIES, INC., a 

New York Religious Corporation, and YAKIM 

MANASSEH JORDAN, an individual,

Defendants.

Case No. 3:17-cv-00453

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND 

INJUNCTIVE RELIEF PURSUANT TO 

THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER 

PROTECTION ACT, 47 U.S.C § 227 et 

seq. 

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL.

For this Complaint and Application for Permanent Injunction, Plaintiff Latrina Jackson, 

by and through the undersigned counsel, states as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This action arises out of Defendants’ repeated violations of the Telephone Consumer 

Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 (“TCPA”), and Defendants’ invasions of the Plaintiff’s 

personal privacy.

2. Supplemental jurisdiction exits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. 

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 1 of 22
Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 2 - Complaint for Damages

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

3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), in that one or more of 

the Defendants transacts business in this District, Plaintiff resides in this District and a 

substantial portion of the acts giving rise to this action occurred in this District.

PARTIES

4. Plaintiff Latrina Jackson (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) is an adult individual, presently residing 

in Union City, California and is a “Person” as defined by 47 U.S.C. § 153(39).

5. Defendant Manasseh Jordan Ministries, Inc. (“MJM”), is a New York Religious 

Corporation. MJM uses the address 310 Riverside Drive, New York, New York 10025. 

MJM also uses the address of 708 3rd Ave., 6th Floor, New York, NY 10163. MJM uses 

the website http://www.prophetmanasseh.com/ to market, advertise and sell products and 

services. MJM has organized and held speaking engagements in California and regularly

transacts business with and solicits payments from the citizens of California.

6. Defendant Yakim Manasseh Jordan (“Manasseh”) is an individual and citizen of the 

United States. Defendant Manasseh frequently travels throughout the United States to

perform speaking engagements and he regularly transacts business with and solicits

payments from the citizens of California, both in person and through robocalls. 

7. Whenever it is alleged herein that Defendants did any act, it is meant that: 

a. The Defendant(s) performed or participated in the act, and/or

b. The Defendants’ officers, agents, trustees or employees performed or participated 

in the act on behalf of and under the authority of Defendants.

FACTS

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 2 of 22
Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 3 - Complaint for Damages

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

8. In an effort to protect consumers against invasive and unauthorized telemarketing calls, 

Congress enacted the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA), Pub. L. No. 

102-243, 105 Stat. 2394, codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. § 227, to “ban all 

computerized calls to the home”—including “all autodialed calls * * * [to] cellular 

phones”— “unless the called party consents to receiving them, or unless the calls are 

made for emergency purposes.” S. Rep. No. 102-178, at 6 (1991); see also Mims v. 

Arrow Fin. Servs., LLC, 565 U.S. 368, 384, 132 S. Ct. 740, 752 (2012) (the TCPA 

restricts “computerized calls to private homes” and other “abuses of telephone 

technology”).

9. Congress also specifically found that “the evidence presented to the Congress indicates 

that automated or prerecorded calls are a nuisance and an invasion of privacy, regardless 

of the type of call....” TCPA, Pub. L. No. 102-243 at §§ 12-13. See also, Mims, 132 S. 

Ct. at 744.

10. As quoted by the United States Supreme Court, Senator Fritz Hollings, the sponsor of the 

TCPA, stated on the floor of the United States Senate:

Computerized calls are the scourge of modern civilization. They wake us up 

in the morning; they interrupt our dinner at night; they force the sick and 

elderly out of bed; they hound us until we want to rip the telephone right out 

of the wall. Id.

11. The problems Congress identified have grown only worse in recent years as the use of 

automated calls has exploded. When Congress enacted the TCPA in 1991, it found that 

telemarketers called more than 18 million Americans every day. TCPA § 2(3), 105 Stat. 

at 2394. By 2003, telemarketers were calling 104 million Americans every day, abetted 

by the proliferation of new and more powerful autodialing technology. In the Matter of 

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 3 of 22
Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 4 - Complaint for Damages

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

Rules and Regulations Implementing the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, 18 

FCC Rcd. 14014, ¶¶ 2, 8 (2003) (“2003 TCPA Order”).

12. The TCPA defines an “automatic telephone dialing system” or autodialer (“ATDS”) as 

“equipment which has the capacity (A) to store or produce telephone numbers to be 

called, using a random or sequential number generator; and (B) to dial such numbers.” 

47 U.S.C. § 227(a)(1).

13. The TCPA makes it unlawful:

(A) to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or 

made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any 

automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice- 

***

(iii) to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular 

telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other radio 

common carrier service, or any service for which the called party is 

charged for the call[.] Id. at § 227 (b)(1)(A)(iii).

14. A person may bring an action to enjoin a violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). Id. at 

§ 227(b)(3).

15. A person may bring an action to recover the greater of actual damages or $500.00 for a 

violation of 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). Id.

16. A court may award damages of up to $1,500.00 per violation if the court finds that the 

violations were made willfully or knowingly. Id. 

17. The TCPA was designed to prevent calls and messages like the ones described within this 

complaint, and to protect the privacy of citizens like the Plaintiff. 

18. As Judge Easterbrook of the Seventh Circuit explained in a TCPA case regarding calls to 

a non-debtor similar to this one:

The Telephone Consumer Protection Act ... is well known for its 

provisions limiting junk-fax transmissions. A less-litigated part of the Act 

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 4 of 22
Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 5 - Complaint for Damages

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

curtails the use of automated dialers and prerecorded messages to cell 

phones, whose subscribers often are billed by the minute as soon as the 

call is answered—and routing a call to voicemail counts as answering the 

call. An automated call to a landline phone can be an annoyance; an 

automated call to a cell phone adds expense to annoyance. Soppet v. 

Enhanced Recovery Co., LLC, 679 F.3d 637, 638 (7th Cir. 2012).

19. The TCPA directs the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) to prescribe 

regulations implementing restrictions on the use of autodialers. 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(2).

20. In 2012, the FCC emphasized that the term ATDS “covers any equipment that has the 

specified capacity to generate numbers and dial them without human intervention...” In 

the Matter of Rules & Regulations Implementing the Tel. Consumer Prot. Act of 1991, 

Declaratory Ruling, 27 F.C.C. Rcd. 15391, 15392 n.5 (2012).

21. According to the FCC, “Unwanted calls and texts are the number one complaint to the 

FCC. There are thousands of complaints to the FCC every month on both telemarketing 

and robocalls. The FCC received more than 215,000 TCPA complaints in 2014.”1

 

22. The Supreme Court has confirmed that there is vicarious liability for violations of the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) under common-law principles of agency. 

Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663, 674, 193 L. Ed. 2d 571 (2016), as revised

(Feb. 9, 2016) (Citing In re Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC, 28 FCC Rcd.

6574 (2013)).

Defendants’ Background.

23. Defendant Manasseh is the son of E. Bernard Jordan (“Jordan”).

24. Jordan is the founder and the leader of Zoe Ministries, Inc. (“ZMI”)2

, a “nonprofit,” 

“religious” organization.

 

1 https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-333676A1.pdf (last accessed January 29, 2017). 2 https://www.zoeministries.com/about/ (last accessed January 29, 2017).

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 5 of 22
Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 6 - Complaint for Damages

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

25. ZMI owns the website https://www.zoeministries.com, which it uses to market, advertise 

and sell products and services. 

26. Jordan is a self-identified “Master Prophet.”3

27. As the Times Herald-Record once wrote, “[o]ver the years, preaching a gospel of

prosperity and self-empowerment, Jordan built Zoe Ministries into a multimedia

enterprise that collected $2.8 million from its loyal following in 2001. ‘We live to give,’

Jordan teaches his followers to say. And give they do.”4

 

28. The Times Herald-Record wrote further, “‘You sow money, you're going to reap money,’ 

explains the bishop, seated on a red velvet couch near the foyer of his three-story 

mansion.” Id.

29. ZMI used robocalling to find donors and to generate revenue.

30. As a result of consumer complaints, the FCC issued a citation letter to ZMI and Jordan for

“prerecorded and autodialed call message violations.”5

 The FCC noted that “[i]f, after

receipt of this citation, you or your company violates the Communications Act or the

Commission’s rules in any manner described herein, the Commission may impose

monetary forfeitures not to exceed $16,000 for each such violation or each day of a

continuing violation.” Id.

31. Within two months of the FCC citation, three of Jordan’s children (including Defendant 

Manasseh), along with ZMI “Prophet” Charlie Berrian,6 incorporated MJM.

7

32. This newly-incorporated entity, MJM, overlaps substantially with ZMI.

 

3 http://www.bishopjordan.com/ (last accessed January 29, 2017). 4 McKenna, Chris. The Prophet of Profit Sows the Seeds of Wealth. Times Herald-Record (Sept. 14, 2003) (available

at http://www.recordonline.com/article/20030914/news/309149999) (last accessed January 29, 2017). 5 See FCC Citation, attached as Exhibit 1. 6 http://bishopberrian.com/ (last accessed January 29, 2017). 7 See Articles of Incorporation, attached as Exhibit 2.

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 6 of 22
Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 7 - Complaint for Damages

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

33. MJM and ZMI both use(d) the address 310 Riverside Drive, New York, New York

10025. 

34. MJM’s trustees are all members of the Jordan family or friends of the Jordan family and 

were all involved with ZMI.

35. At least one MJM trustee has previously listed a ZMI-owned mansion in Tuxedo Park, 

New York as their address.

36. Another MJM trustee lists his home address as an address associated with a ZMI phone 

number.

37. Both MJM and ZMI maintain the same “non-profit” status.

38. ZMI and MJM hold events jointly such as the “New Year’s Eve Prophetic Fireside 

Conference” in 2012.8

 

39. ZMI organizes events that Defendant Manasseh speaks at such as the 

“PROPHECOLOGY SUMMER 2016: Prophetic Ascension.”

40. Like his father, Defendant Manasseh is a self-identified “prophet.”9

41. At the age of 26, Defendant Manasseh resides in multi-million dollar residences.

42. Within the two years prior to the filing of this pleading, Defendant Manasseh has been 

the registered owner of a Rolls Royce Wraith, a Rolls Royce Ghost, a Rolls Royce 

Phantom and a Bentley Continental. 

43. The residences and vehicles owned and used by Defendant Manasseh are largely funded

through “seed-faith” money donated to the “nonprofit” corporation MJM and/or ZMI.

44. On information and belief, MJM and ZMI are alter-egos of each other and act as a single

business entity, with one committing TCPA torts and the other sheltering the assets

 

8 https://prophetmanasseh.com/itinerary/pastevents (last accessed January 29, 2017). 9 https://prophetmanasseh.com/aboutprophet#content (last accessed January 29, 2017).

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 7 of 22
Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 8 - Complaint for Damages

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

received from such torts. Defendant Manasseh and Jordan enrich themselves through selfdealing and purposeful tortious conduct, thus perverting the privilege of doing business in

a corporate form. 

45. On information and belief, Defendant Manasseh largely exercises his domination over

MJM to place the same types of robocalls ZMI previously placed, all to profit while

avoiding compliance with the TCPA and potential liability from ZMI’s FCC citation. 

46. On information and belief, MJM and ZMI intermingle and manipulate assets, such that

their assets concentrate under ZMI, Defendant Manasseh and Jordan while their TCPA

tort liabilities concentrate under MJM. This leaves MJM undercapitalized for the TCPA

liabilities it purposefully accrues. MJM generates proceeds through illegal robocalling

while attempting to artificially limit the recovery available to the thousands of innocent

consumers who never consented to interact with MJM and who are repeatedly harmed by

its tortious conduct.

47. On information and belief, both MJM and ZMI have non-functioning trustees that allow

Defendant Manasseh and Jordan to siphon off corporate assets for their own personal use,

at will. The entities have failed to maintain arm’s length relationships with their 

executives, as MJM and ZMI provide Defendant Manasseh and Jordan with salaries and

perquisites that far exceed the reasonable market value of services provided. This directly

contravenes the non-profit purposes for which such entities were purportedly created and

reflects self-dealing as opposed to honest and disinterested transacting.

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 8 of 22
Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 9 - Complaint for Damages

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

48. A search of “Manasseh” on 800notes.com results in 152 individual threads from 

consumers, with numerous complaints against Defendants in each thread, which are 

similar to Plaintiff’s complaints.10

49. A search of “Manasseh” on youtube.com results in numerous videos, some posted by 

Defendants, and some posted by others with complaints against Defendants similar to 

Plaintiff’s complaints.11 

50. Defendants have previously been sued for violations of the TCPA virtually identical to 

those alleged by Plaintiff, most of which Defendants have settled.12 

51. Defendant MJM was previously investigated by the Texas Public Utilities Commission 

and faced administrative penalties in connection with telemarketing and the use of an 

automatic dialing device. Despite all of this, Defendants still find it worthwhile to

continue using Defendant Manasseh’s voice to make prerecorded calls.

52. Defendant Manasseh uses his alter ego, MJM, to knowingly break the law and repeatedly

violate the TCPA, all to increase his personal wealth at the expense of non-consenting 

consumers.

53. Defendants either directly, or through the use of agents, place autodialed and prerecorded 

calls to individuals.

 

10 http://800notes.com/nb/search.aspx?q=Manasseh (last accessed on January 29, 2017). 11 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSxEr5TXa1U (last accessed on January 29, 2017).

12 See Bankosz v. Manasseh Jordan Ministries et al., 6:15-cv-01182 (M.D. Fla. July 22, 2015); Carter v.

Manasseh Jordan Ministries, 2:15-cv-14237 (S.D. Fla. June 30, 2015); Cotto v. Manasseh Jordan Ministries et

al., 6:15-cv-00741 (M.D. Fla. May 8, 2015); Robles v. Manasseh Jordan Ministries et al., 8:15-cv-00789 (M.D.

Fla. April 2, 2015), Bundrage v. Jordan et al., 8:15-cv-00618 (M.D. Fla. March 20, 2015), Linlor v. Manasseh

Jordan Ministries, 3:15-cv-00032 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2015); Rice v. Manasseh Jordan Ministries, 8:14-cv-02921

(M.D. Fla. Nov. 21, 2014); Friedman v. The Prophet Manasseh Jordan Ministries, 1:14-cv-03129 (S.D.N.Y. May

2, 2014); Lemberg v. Manasseh Jordan Ministries, 3:14-cv-00240 (D. Conn. Feb. 26, 2014); Romack, et al. v.

Yakim Manasseh Jordan, et al., 3:13-cv-02484 (N.D. Ohio Nov. 8, 2013); Bontrager v. The Prophet Manasseh

Jordan, 2:13-cv-01853 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 2013); Ferguson v. The Prophet Manasseh Jordan Ministries, 5:13-cv02463 (N.D. Cal. May 31, 2013); Alexander et al v. The Prophet Manasseh Jordan Ministries, 3:12-cv-02584

(S.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2012).

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 9 of 22
Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 10 - Complaint for Damages

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

54. Defendants select and control the manner and content of their solicitations, placing 

prerecorded called, using Defendant Manasseh’s voice.

55. Defendant Manasseh and his father use MJM and ZMI as sham corporations and alteregos so that they can commit willful torts for their own personal gain, all in abuse of the

Religious Corporation structure set forth by the State of New York. 

Unlawful calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. 

56. Starting in March, 2015, Defendants began contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular 

telephone (510-XXX-9021).

57. Between March, 2015 and January, 2016, Defendants called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone 

no less than 158 times in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff and/or sell a product or services to 

Plaintiff.

58. Plaintiff was unable to document all of Defendants’ calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone

but the records of Defendants, or those of Defendants’ agents and service providers will 

reflect the total number of calls. 

59. Defendants, or their agents, called Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using an artificial or 

prerecorded voice.

60. When Plaintiff answered the calls from Defendants, Plaintiff heard prerecorded 

message(s) from the “Prophet” Manasseh.

61. Defendants left voicemails for Plaintiff using an artificial or prerecorded voice.

62. When voicemails were left for Plaintiff, Plaintiff heard the prerecorded message(s) from 

the “Prophet” Manasseh.

63. The prerecorded messages Defendants made to Plaintiff were for marketing and 

solicitation purposes.

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 10 of 22
Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 11 - Complaint for Damages

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

64. When Defendants called Plaintiff, Plaintiff never had any interaction with a live person 

and there was no intervention by a live person. 

65. Some of the artificial or prerecorded messages provided a phone number to call, but 

calling the phone number would result in more soliciting by Defendants.

66. At all times relevant, Defendants, or their agents, contacted Plaintiff’s cellular telephone 

using an ATDS and/or a prerecorded voice.

67. Plaintiff has no business relationship with Defendants and never requested, in writing or 

otherwise, that Defendants contact Plaintiff.

68. Plaintiff never provided Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number to Defendants and never 

provided consent to be contacted on his cellular telephone by Defendants. 

COUNT I

VIOLATIONS OF THE TELEPHONE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT –

47 U.S.C. § 227

69. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the above paragraphs as though fully stated 

herein.

70. At all times mentioned herein, and within four years prior to the filing of this action, 

Defendants, or their agent(s), called Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using an 

ATDS.

71. At all times mentioned herein, and within four years prior to the filing of this action, 

Defendants, or their agent(s), called Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone using a 

prerecorded or artificial voice.

72. Plaintiff’s telephone number called by Defendants was assigned to a cellular telephone 

service.

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 11 of 22
Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 12 - Complaint for Damages

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

73. The calls from Defendants to Plaintiff were not placed for “emergency purposes” as 

defined by 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(i).

74. Calls that Defendants and/or their agents placed to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number 

violated 47 U.S.C. § 227.

75. Defendants continually harassed Plaintiff with the unauthorized calls and Plaintiff 

suffered an invasion of privacy and a loss of privacy as a result of the actions of 

Defendants.

76. Despite having knowledge that their actions violated the TCPA, Defendants and/or their 

agents continued to place telephone calls to Plaintiff’s cellular telephone. Each such call 

placed to Plaintiff was made in knowing and/or willful violation of the TCPA, and 

subject to treble damages of up to $1,500.00 per violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(3)(C).

77. Plaintiff is entitled to an order enjoining any further violation of 47 U.S.C. § 

227(b)(1)(A)(iii) pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3).

78. As a result of each call made by Defendants and/or by their agents in negligent violation 

of the TCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of the greater of actual damages or $500.00 

in statutory damages pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B).

79. As a result of each call made by Defendants and/or by their agents in knowing and/or 

willful violation of the TCPA, Plaintiff is entitled to an award of treble damages in an 

amount up to $1,500.00 per violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. 

§ 227(b)(3)(C).

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for the following relief against Defendants:

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 12 of 22
Case No. 3:17-cv-00453 - 13 - Complaint for Damages

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

1. That a PERMANENT INJUNCTION be issued, restraining and enjoining Defendants, 

Defendants’ successors, assigns, officers, agents, servants, employees and attorneys and 

any other person in active concert or participation with Defendants from communicating 

with Plaintiff in a manner that violates 47 U.S.C. § 227; and

2. That judgment be entered against the Defendants for the greater of actual damages or 

statutory damages of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for each and every negligent 

violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B); and

3. That judgment be entered against the Defendants for treble damages of up to One 

Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,500.00) for each and every willful and/or knowing 

violation pursuant to 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(B) and 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(3)(C); and

4. That the Court order such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

TRIAL BY JURY

Pursuant to the seventh amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, 

Plaintiff is entitled to, and demands, a trial by jury on all counts so triable.

Date: January 30, 2017 

EASTMAN MEYLER, PC

BY: /S/ SAMUEL W. EASTMAN 

SAMUEL W. EASTMAN

California State Bar No. 00264565

E-mail: sam.eastman@emfirm.com 

2301 E. Riverside Dr. A-50

Austin, TX 78741

Tel: (512) 596-1957

Fax: (512) 857-1462

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 13 of 22
EXHIBIT 1

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 14 of 22
Federal Communications Commission

July 16, 2010

VIA REGULAR MAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL

RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Zoe Ministries

Attn: Bishop E. Bernard Jordan

310 Riverside Drive

New York, New York 10025

RE: EB-10-TC-435

Dear Bishop Jordan:

This is an official CITATION, issued pursuant to section 503(b)(5) of the 

Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Act), 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(5), for violations of the 

Act and the Federal Communications Commission’s rules that govern telephone solicitations, 

prerecorded and autodialed telephone calls and facsimile (“fax”) transmissions.1 As explained 

below, future violations of the Act or Commission’s rules in this regard may subject you and 

your company to monetary forfeitures.

It has come to our attention that you or your company, acting under your direction, 

apparently sent one or more calls or faxes in violation of Section 227(b) of the Communications 

Act and the Commission’s related rules, as described in the attached complaint(s).2Specifically, 

one or more complaints have been filed against your company showing that your company, 

acting under your direction, committed the violation(s) checked below. Once you have 

identified the violation(s), proceed to the associated section(s) of the citation to obtain the legal 

requirements related to each violation and then read the section titled, “Responding to the 

Citation” if you wish to respond. While your company has not been accused of any of the other 

unchecked violations listed below, you might find it useful to familiarize yourself with the other 

1

47 U.S.C. § 227; 47 C.F.R. § 64.1200. A copy of these provisions is enclosed for your convenience. Section 227 

was added to the Communications Act by the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 and is most commonly 

known as the TCPA. The TCPA and the Commission’s parallel rules restrict a variety of practices that are 

associated with telephone solicitation and use of the telephone network to deliver unsolicited advertisements or 

prerecorded and autodialed telephone calls.. 47 U.S.C. § 64.1200(a)(3); Rules and Regulations Implementing the 

Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 – Junk Fax Protection Act of 2005, Report and Order and Third Order 

on Reconsideration, 21 FCC Rcd 3787 (2006) (2006 TCPA Report and Order).

2 We have attached 14 complaints at issue in this citation. The complaints address alleged TCPA violation(s) that 

contain the telephone number 212-967-8033, which you or your business utilized during the time period at issue.

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20554

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 15 of 22
Federal Communications Commission 

2

sections so that you or your company will be better informed of the Commission’s 

Telecommunications Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”) rules.

FACSIMILE VIOLATIONS 

Unsolicited Fax Advertisement (See Section I(A) – page 1)

Incomplete Fax Header (See Section I(B) – page 2)

Insufficient Opt-Out Notice (See Section I(C) – page 2)

Opt-Out Request Not Honored (See Section I(D) – page 3)

PRERECORDED AND AUTODIALED CALL MESSAGE VIOLATIONS

Prerecorded or Autodialed Call to a Cell Phone, Emergency Line or 

Health Care Facility (See Section II(A) – page 4)

Prerecorded Call to a Residential Line (See Section II(B) – page 5) 

Prerecorded Line Seizure (See Section II(C) – page 6)

Prerecorded Identification Not Provided (See Section II(D) – page 7)

DO-NOT-CALL VIOLATIONS

National Do-Not-Call (See Section III(A) – page 7)

Company-Specific Do-Not-Call (See Section III(B) – page 8) 

TIME OF DAY VIOLATION (See Section IV – page 9)

If, after receipt of this citation, you or your company violates the Communications 

Act or the Commission’s rules in any manner described herein, the Commission may 

impose monetary forfeitures not to exceed $16,000 for each such violation or each day of a 

continuing violation. 

RESPONDING TO THE CITATION

You may respond to this citation within 30 days from the date of this letter either through 

(1) a written statement, (2) a teleconference interview with the Commission’s 

Telecommunications Consumers Division in Washington, DC or (3) a personal interview at the 

closest Commission Field Office. Your response should specify the actions that you are taking 

to ensure that you do not violate the Commission’s rules governing TCPA violations, as 

described above. 

If you would like to submit a written statement, including any supporting 

documentation, send the response within 30 days of the date of this letter to the address 

below. If you would like to arrange a teleconference interview, please contact Al McCloud 

at (202) 418-2499. You should schedule an interview to take place within 30 days of the 

date of this letter.

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 16 of 22
Federal Communications Commission 

3

Joshua Zeldis

Assistant Division Chief

Telecommunications Consumers Division

Enforcement Bureau

Federal Communications Commission

445-12th Street, S.W., Rm. 4-A122

Washington, D.C. 20554

Reference EB-10-TC-435 when corresponding with the Commission.

Reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities are available upon request. 

Include a description of the accommodation you will need including as much detail as you can. 

Also include a way we can contact you if we need more information. Please allow at least 5 days 

advance notice; last minute requests will be accepted, but may be impossible to fill. Send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer & Governmental Affairs Bureau:

For sign language interpreters, CART, and other reasonable accommodations: 

202-418-0530 (voice), 202-418-0432 (tty);

For accessible format materials (braille, large print, electronic files, and audio 

format): 202-418-0531 (voice), 202-418-7365 (tty). 

Under the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(e)(3), we are informing you that the 

Commission’s staff will use all relevant material information before it, including information 

that you disclose in your interview or written statement, to determine what, if any, enforcement 

action is required to ensure your compliance with the Communications Act and the 

Commission’s rules. 

The knowing and willful making of any false statement, or the concealment of any 

material fact, in reply to this citation is punishable by fine or imprisonment under 18 U.S.C. § 

1001.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation.

Sincerely, 

Joshua P. Zeldis

Assistant Division Chief

Telecommunications Consumers Division

Enforcement Bureau

Federal Communications Commission

Enclosures

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 17 of 22
EXHIBIT 2

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 18 of 22
i ~, a ~ .~.

is

~~ ~ ~~ €~ ,

`„ a. ., ..,~ ,,~, ,

~,.~ ..,~,_. ai~~~ . }~.': ~s~ ., ..

. ~ _ t _.

r

r ~~~E ~.F~9t~&~ _,a~.,. .. 4.,t. .k«,~ r.. -. ~ ,y ~. 4th $~3~,' .;r .'Et . ~~ ~i: ', ~ir r ~ sr, ~

p 's~4. ~;~h;:..~._ ~ sts_ ~;_: ~, E~ a ,~ia;~~:~ ~~.~a~fi t~~ ..r~,r f ~~ ~~ .t_ _,~

't~,;k,..~'~~x~~G raa ~YE:t, .~~`~~'8Ft _ _~.,~:A~ s~~t .._.~ ~~»~ ~:}: , is ,dt~t~E._ ~_':;r; ~s.,~.;. E..il~~,-

,: ~~ ~.:i::._ ,.'~'~' ~...~;'.. ~. ~ ~ i $~c~ p'EC"Ztir .~t~~;}~ .:;~';i a'T..S ,~:,Y'~ .~, r~, ~1° ;-l~~.A°~ k~~~'~:,~Cl~y'~ ~.G~"

~a~~'~~ ~e~€ ~~ ~ rt ~~ q~ ~,~~~,~ :,~ t ~a.~~ ~ . ~ ire ~~ t~• ~~u~:

~N 

~~i."_'~ 1 f i. ~~tc.:'. i d. -"r-5~1 Fi ~~:k `~.w+~'~Ld~:~~ T'g. C.:t

-~:t~ 

f-atiF. ~'.~.~~C3~~€~ ~,cii3~T"i :. ~-t::;.~ ~~fs ~:.~~E.,F"'.:. '...

£ c

,'t.. ''3ef~d'lk,$f ~..~~'"~'~i~~"9 J''~:.~Ca:~€F ai'~Ta':r.'

i, q t }

~ ; ?~~£' ~~4~£'i~ ~~s~~~ '~I-~ ~Ji ~~ ~L'~I ,. _.._~sk a. ~~~'l~-~L~I aa~ ~iEIS`. I~~~...'. .i',~-1. li=..,1 $ig ~-y _,

6'~83~@;. ~~$`B~F F Iii. 4d i ._:~. -~~ [~.'•~. ~f _ ~„ ~ :"~ 'I: ~:~ ~, 

~j_.I ~ ~ 1- ;1~~ .1~~ 7.~. 1 -~~

~ ~ ~~~ _ G ~~~

~_ ~

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 19 of 22
~_ ~ '_ ~ ~ ~'. t`.` _iii ~4. ~+~ ~4~?.'~-''~.'`+.s`,. ~ 

-'~i.~~i!'a.~ "., ~r~~'~~~" ~ a~'l.~~ ~`,~,'~.~o

%'t< A _ ~ii. ~ C4si- ~_i~ +,a..3,adt~'1 iE4 ,`,>al~ .~?ntb..3 ~S~:s'; ,. .. _ _ _ 

_ ~ k ,~. '~;.,

~~~` ~'s ~' ~~ ~~~.= 's',irl~. iar .~~ iii ~~lt~'d :r ' ~ i`i ~° ,. ~ , .-~ j _ .,

ti' .;. 41`x''= a s; ~ll~;~l t~l?5 t:7~iTs E 1, ~.~ ~?a' ~ 1' u'~ J', I

~a ~~.~~i3~3~ e~iA~j a."F>~11 2ata~=7tj i~~C°i,a8~' t?]7~ a T P3>_ - ~t'~~ _ —, ~I~B `~ l7"'.. ':~'~I

i ' h`1~. ~'LkC~';~'~ ~f?,~i ~?i~~iE7li~ >~ ~z,~1~i;~" f~ ~r ?'_ I;'? ' _ ~ ~ i •' ~ ii:+~~'

~t kie .,t 'si ~'_~~ "La;63 Cm~ tY.:~ xd~ti ~ ~X.tr'z. ;'ei1 _ _- ~ 1 ~ ,.~ I '-. l'

~t~ ~~ t<<°~y"~lu~ii:F:1R~'~'tts~~.~i~t_~_. ~ ~~ ,~t~.~'3' ~:1 :'~171~,' -1 i~ ~. ,'i'

~~~ ~'Y~11L~ ~ia~~~ ~;~,11~"t Tl°l fi rtl~ ~~,~Ya.tb..'; ; 1~ ~~f~tt~~- —

S:. ~a:~ .E?. ~i~~ :t:.. I~~1.~.~ ~~ ~~&~ 13i ~'s_i;~- r. ~ ~~47;-~, eil~ n~; ;~ta ;Il 3. ~[_~~ pit s t;. ;~w.41,

~~ll'~ k~1V~`,~ I~h'~tili c' _~~' ~ I~~~C~i.

:~. l," ~.',:17~.~~1~t [3.lt6~'.I~,ta:': '~k.t~'1'i:."+, ] ~ "z;t1l.IE.CS~; :t8 ti, _ ,"+i~. 1["u'7i~astL :913 1 k?~'E'L':S'~ia,:

~ t'~` _1?itlg ~~~.' a'~'i'Yt`~ti ~~'d,.~ ~fl) ~3.'~s.~,tyt E~C~.-;:. ~i1ie't'i~ t. tet, x' ~t,~l <`~T'~ i~~( rr!4~1~ a .7i'at~~ aii ~#

;,- _ I ~,,.... ~r~r~~~

~'.. i t` "~Ik"~,~:° J"~L1~~1:"E€:~=, ti'i)k'~S~ts~ ~.."', y~ i;-~ f}I1 ~' r_d),~E l~d~~, PG?t?'ii t-i~'~~ }~~1°zai x.~`xifli`~.3~

~~i:.i`~.~ (,~ ~"3~~ L'('RS~Cq kk'~T~:a.~..~C?_ ~ ~l~,ifSttg ..~~;';.4. ka 28,!`x% i ~ I~~'~

~. ~ i is>I"3.':~III?t. i`iX15~?ti'~x~Cy' `vS'%k"~: titJ' I}>ti t~.'E=t ~11I1L~. i3~ 1~"1~" ~ 3s•.P ~'~ i°~ ~ °.91 ~, '~s ill ill"~1

.'~~s''lll'~ ~~'14. ~ t<7~t:;~ '~t~..l~t:°~; 1:`. , t;a?t:.r-l¢..~i~A'~l:'{~tc~7ita it ~ilc' l' 1.'i:- . '. t}l~' ~.,~~'fi,wxli~tl

~„': ~~ 1 ~~ ]! ?al' ~~3r 1, r+~.'i2!ttl.° t,?[ ~~1~` t~:~, +til e7' ~~4L?~ ~_ ~;F.i~ ~~.`~ i t~~::, [;tu 1,1~`rs76

}G3= tS' ',t]i~`

~. }k1~?'f i'S >1TIi~ t;.~C .i;:'.i3i7~ tB1t' C;a7R 97~t'I&I~+;,'~> ;tC6:~??i~i'1''. =i) t}l,''~+tk'»1~. i ~1'l' ~ ~'1'g`it3~'#t1

~,~"it~~'~~1.

~'.. ~ 5> ;.~~ ; Cil)~~ 1119.t~~t ~.. , . '4~. ~`E.~i31~i~173'14 ;:17iea ~LC4 n4 L'~; '?3 t~P4: ~~;'~. ra; ~'.~tTTi1T~°~1l~1~'t z981i,~ t.~~',:

~~~.t'.u' 1~ ~,?~~i3;6'C i.~S~<:]]s~~ls'P. iii. ..j~, ~ I t ~~i ;~ ,1 ~<p,:)'~S;}' dij~(~~;

1-i ~~.a' ; 'sddi.'s ~. '~t'+~i11ik L~,s~~~ s' a1 e~~ a;~b:" ~:J1 i~.i., ..

e

~. €l. ~«F l ~Ci3~t: ~Y" a'TL.P~«~:~?.:3.EC;t~1 ^~lJ~~'~.1'.z_"_~ ! ..:'', '_,,~~ ~ r i : 1 ~'i' T7~_~~".C~LC1 ~'~~;

= j ± ~"t'p.~~9~lt~1l,'`d :3~CiT' [`; CY."~'~'r1ll 3~1C, ,.:~2:t~,. ~i="~;;~ t E~~^t~ ::~~ ~°, i~lt'. i1&t~C` ~4~I~91 .;P_?

i _ ~ 3~~~.~'<'f.~ t~l~ .~~L~~ it 1' i^~7 C° ~ e~tJ [`.', j _

~, 1 ~~ f~k ~J't ~.%. ~~~~ 3i~~~43 tlk~ l~~$~.S.t ... _ ': ~.~ 1~:1~.. k~~.~~~~e ~}:' f'~~'.'~~~' ~: i'9 ~. ~. ~r!~. ~~ ~ '~ ~.f i~ir

ti~°a~.: t~-~tiat ~'~~~r~~~v ~r~~~ .~€~.~_,~., „3 ,j.,~ ~.~~K.~~ ~~.~r~tj ~~~, 1~~~~y~;t ~~c~~~~°~!.

~~. Ie3 t7('I~t~ iiC3Cj l.~'kt,'~~€' ittC:~;' ~?~'tt~yG:t`t1" 15v~,~~:,'% ti}1,,.~ ;'t)1T1W. ~ £~_, „~$t' ;"{}Stit:1 ', I *'7i~

'~'EaLip'ti.~~, ~Ad1i~ :~a?~~., ;~~s~t'd, Ei°4il~ttt"7 BtF~,~ ~".~3~Ct~'til: t~l..~~y*c ~~ a~1~;t';9:1~ z9~~ ~'' YEt

t..t':lY '~7;'^~. ~''E"i';~k I"t0C"5 a9l7,1 ''lt~~tl'~ ti~.'i`1tx~i 7tl~l 7$ 1~.;;`. T€it"i~ 3l :1;';~41~'Cc.: i'1' ::c'~tj ~?'4' t}3t''

~.~~t~.,t'Cf"k 3ali~ 1~1 4 ~~ ~'3``+~.` 4;~~; ~tF %~~:~5't ti~s`~~~1 i.3t~~? ~~"?~ :2lT']k, I~1 ..~, .T"'s ;!~ ?1~~~~4 u:r~i.i~~4'

}s(.'. 9;~4~1111 F.i31:UC:~ F.~1~:;. ~"t?t'v;`.+l E):€~1~:. 67~ s~":C ~.~:~1~E.J,f ; { i.)[ t7C.;"iii.€ail ~..~.: ...

~;,. ~ •.rt :~ ~`I'I,~+' [I1t?tF~"~ eli~4~' ~;3 L~€>tl~T"ul~ t :1t~'+.:~ 19 ~?i.`.%~ irk' L.i ~itT~~ ~l'i I li', ~'ta.i4:~;* °LEA 7C.4

,.:t'i~t)1"cl~t.'. ?'14_~ ~'i» ~'?Y~~~~~'[;,5.`'"v, ,f. ;b19' 33 ~ ct? "3_s itl"~'.~`°~ ~~~d'?:1?;,c Opt a'~ Sip1~11?s:~$1i1L1: _R~ a~

,I ~"tl~~~ E.~ _..~, j~~'~t'~: e~~ 1#a -[~fi ~i~~~t'-. =r.~ii'~. '.~}~ti~ ~a"~ ~~t,?1t._ $.~; az73i~ t~_ i17u 'r~?'_~~.~I,

a51 ~':e:~'~,ii~, til_'' ~i' ~ ii" i~~ li ._ ~ J', 

.. ,.., 

~ ~' ~ fs~ ` ~ ~ft~l,~'. a:~l ~~~ ~ ~~

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 20 of 22
,.

~. 

~—

,€ - . s

_ _

—.

~~ ~ ~~ .. —

i t-

~

.. tea~~t .€ ~.i `.I

~.

_. _. ,., 

t..,.

..

,_ _ l I

r

~ 3s

._

si .. _ _ _ _ ~ .-. Ga

t t~Et

.. ~ _ ~ ~F ~ i ,.'r6 ;C~~~IE

y~''.I~~~ ,r 1~ ~7. ` ~ ~ _

~n ~~y5 ~~i~ ., i_ .. .. _ l ""~, i k'i ~~.l .... '- il :.~~1p~L' :~ 1 _. ~i 111". ~.~~~ h~ 4~$~~•

~~ I~t~~ _ ~ ~ ~1.~ ~~.ta ~~~~~e~~`~„,~y 1. '~ ... .~1,, .. :. {fit S, ~~ ant i ~~ ~~i`~~R,~ ~~n~r

^y~a. 4.

~ Ell. 1~.i~ 4. f.I ~R~, ~k ul~~~~L ~~i.~x& t~hr t li t ~.1 't v

. 

~

i. .al ~:l _..:.~ F.~'.~1~,•~,

~...,.~. '~Ty.~ l ~1 

tl_~~~~::~~~. it,l +mil

b~ `~v~'~~j'~'~:~ t'~~€~~i"~::~ 2sd~~~ ~~'; s ~~,tE?:- ' ~

,.~.a ....,1 _:_s .tt:E~~.7 ~~~.!}".~ ~ ~ —.,.. v:i ~L~.'tFe~i1.

y.

` i _ e

~I~ a. E,.L3 ,~ ~~ ~~' ~ ~ f __.~ .~t €~_ l tP~;;_ S.. F ,. cis 1 .~.. F ?4~ c__"~5.~8.

q

a~

k~k~;ie' t`~::it"t

~ 1~,

,_r '~,._ .~,r ._ ~ ~.~~~

.. _ t., ... :I il, _ 'l v1 if °a~a3~ " .. l~;>i1ik

- ii _'r.~;-116"-Lii &itd _ i_ _ ,~.'~•~'~`.. 

_

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 21 of 22
..~ ~ ~ ~ ., nn,.o—_

a

~ ~ i. i

~~f ~ ~ ~. n

.... _. ~ tom. ~

'~ ~t~- ~:~t i' ~~t~ '. ,; ,~

e

# keg ~ ~ i~ s~ - ~ ~

t ~;*r1a~* 13:~r~~~~~.~~ _~,i~ - 1, wr~~f t1 ~;~ ~ _i~ _ ~ ~ l~ ~ ~ d

~..~~.1 ~~,. ~,. 4. .1 ~. ~', ,. l 1 ~.'. ii .,`1 I ... ~_i v~~w:n1 Sa -,~..a rt.xl.:. z _ `.i _ i ..l ti,~d. i:...

~ - a....

r` ~? ....

iu'~ i~`r~i Wll ~a^Cf3Lt3

Case 4:17-cv-00453-KAW Document 1 Filed 01/30/17 Page 22 of 22