1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Steven Giammichele (SBN 299488) Clare Wernet (SBN 322452) Law Offices of Steven Giammichele 24361 El Toro Road, Suite 260 Laguna Woods, California 92637 Telephone: 949-830-6660 Email: Steve@GiammicheleLaw.com Email: Clare@GiammicheleLaw.com Attorney for Plaintiff, JOSEPH A. TRAVERS 9 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 10 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO 11 12 JOSEPH A. TRAVERS, 13 Plaintiffs, 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Case No.: 37-2019-00047644-CU-DF-CTL VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR: vs. (1) NEGLIGENCE; CHRIS REYNOLDS, and Does 1 through 25, (2) DEFAMATION (SLANDER); (3) DEFAMATION (LIBEL) Inclusive, (4) INVASION OF PRIVACY- FALSE LIGHT; Defendants. (5) INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS; AND (6) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 21 22 Plaintiff, JOSEPH A. TRAVERS (“Plaintiff”) complains and alleges: 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Plaintiff is, and at all relevant times was, a resident of the State of California, County of San Diego. 2. Defendant Chris Reynolds (“Reynolds”) was and is at all time referenced herein a resident of Sonoma California and doing business in the County of San Diego, California. 3. Plaintiff has learned the true name of defendant designated as Doe 1 and substitutes the true name Dotti Laster (“Laster”) for the fictitious name. 30 4. 31 Antonio, Texas. 32 5. Plaintiff believes and is informed that Defendant Laster works and resides in San The Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and capacities, whether individual, VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—1 1 corporate, associate or otherwise, of defendants Does 2 to 25, inclusive, and therefore sue these 2 defendants by fictitious names. The Plaintiff is informed and believe and on that basis alleges 3 that these Does, and each of them, are in some manner responsible and liable for the acts and/or 4 damages alleged in this verified first amended complaint (“Complaint”). The Plaintiff will seek 5 leave of court to amend this Complaint to show the Doe defendants' true names and capacities 6 when they have been ascertained. 7 6. The Plaintiff is informed and believe and on that basis allege that at all relevant 8 times, except where pled otherwise, defendants, and each of them, were acting as the agents, 9 servants and employees of each of the other defendants, and each of them, and were acting 10 within the full course and scope of their agency and employment with the full knowledge, 11 consent, permission and ratification, either express or implied, of each of the other cross- 12 defendants in performing the acts acknowledged in this complaint. 13 7. Plaintiff is the co-founder and executive director of the non-profit organization 14 Saved in America, Inc. (“SIA”). SIA was founded to help stop child trafficking in the United 15 States. SIA assists parents and/or guardians in locating abducted and runaway children at no 16 costs. SIA’s mission: “CHILD SAVED NOT SOLD.” Once the child is located, SIA reports the 17 location to law enforcement and thereafter assists law enforcement in recovering the child. 18 Thereafter, SIA assists the parent and/or guardian in placing the child in an rehabilitation facility 19 and thereafter may assist providing prosecutors with evidence to prosecute the predator(s) and 20 may assist in the filing of a civil action against the predators. SIA also provides private 21 investigators to rehabilitation facilities to protect the children therein from leaving the facility 22 and being taken back into sex trafficking by their exploiters/pimps. 23 24 8. On or around December 6, 2018, Defendant Reynolds made the following statements to SIA’s agent Dan Shomo (“Shomo”): 25 (a) Joseph Travers was scam artist. 26 (b) Joseph Travers was the head of a cover up with fellow Cali Members. 27 (c) Joseph Travers was notorious for using people to get what he wants and 28 when he is done with them, he finds ways to discredit them or get rid of 29 them. 30 (d) Joseph Travers is well known for being a scam artist. 31 (e) Strategic Opps Security & Investigative Services (“SOSIS”) was a 32 coverup because it was the same business as SIA and was operating VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—2 through Joseph Travers’ church. 1 2 3 4 9. Further, on that same day, Defendant Reynolds directed Shomo to ask to see all financial records of SIA and to “follow the money.” 10. On December 19, 2018, SIA’s agent Toshiro Carrington (“Carrington”) made a 5 telephone to Defendant Reynolds regarding a communication Defendant Reynolds had with a 6 former SIA team member. Defendant Reynolds did not answer his phone so Carrington left 7 Defendant Reynolds a voice mail message. 8 9 11. At about 3:08 pm that same day, Defendant Reynolds returned Carrington’s phone call. Carrington introduced himself to Defendant Reynolds as team lead for the former 10 Special Warfare operators of SIA. At first Defendant Reynolds was very confrontational and told 11 Carrington that Carrington maybe trying to pull something over on him and that he did not know 12 who Carrington was and would not speak with Carrington. 13 12. Carrington explained that Carrington needed to know if Joseph Travers was doing 14 anything illegal and or unethical with SIA because as team-lead, Carrington needed to protect the 15 reputations of the other team members, who are retired Special War veterans. 16 13. Defendant Reynolds then stated Defendant Reynolds knew that Travers and 17 Carrington were partners in a business and that Defendant Reynolds was unwilling to talk to 18 Carrington anymore. Carrington explained that the SIA team had just lost a team member due to 19 a conversation that team member had recently had with Defendant Reynolds. Initially, Defendant 20 Reynolds acted like he did not know what Carrington was referring to. Carrington informed 21 Defendant Reynolds that the former team member Carrington was referring to was Dan Shomo. 22 At that point in the conversation, Defendant Reynolds made the following statements to 23 Carrington about Travers and SIA: 24 (a) accounting were all businesses operating under Mr. Travers’ Church. 25 26 SIA, SOSIS and National Christian Information Center’s (“NCIC”) tax (b) SIA has not rescued as many girls as advertised and there is no proof of 27 rescue and that Mr. Travers is misleading the public in order to get 28 donations for Mr. Travers’ non- profit. 29 (c) Mr. Travers has run many scams in the past. 30 (d) Mr. Travers covered up an incident concerning Dana Griffith with CALI 31 when Mr. Travers was president of CALI. Mr. Reynolds stated that Mr. 32 Travers was unethical, arrogant and unremorseful for Mr. Travers’ actions VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—3 1 as president of CALI. 2 (e) Defendant Reynolds claimed that SOSIS is an illegitimate business and 3 none of its members would not receive their private investigation hours for 4 the QM status. 5 (f) 6 7 Defendant Reynolds compared Travers to President Trump that one day they will pay for their crimes. 14. On or about September 13, 2019, Defendant Reynolds published a 73 page report 8 on his website https://cdrpi.com/ entitled “Confidential Investigation Report Re: Joseph A. 9 Travers” (“Reynolds’ Report” or “RR”). 10 15. Reynolds’ Report states that Travers: (a) “made intentional misrepresentations 11 about Mr. Travers alleged charitable work, successful saving of children and his misuse of a 12 charitable, non-profit church for the operation of private enterprises, including a private 13 investigation business” (RR p. 5); (b) “has a pattern of providing false and misleading 14 information to the public about his qualifications, background and financial positions” (RR p. 5); 15 (c) committed the crime of perjury in bankruptcy actions to avoid paying thousands of dollars he 16 owed to friends and colleagues (RR p. 5); (d) misrepresented his POST certification 17 qualifications and he misrepresented his experience as a police officer (RR p. 6); (e) worked for 18 three agencies and failed to complete their probationary periods to obtain permanent employment 19 (RR p. 6); (f) misrepresented to the public the true number of successful rescues by reporting 20 “false figures” (RR p. 6); (g) misrepresented to the public that Saved in America does not charge 21 for rescuing girls because SIA was paid by Casa De Amparo to provide weekend security 22 services around the perimeter of Casa De Amparo to discourage sex traffickers and pimps from 23 exploiting the girls (RR p. 6); (h) intent was to obtain money and assets from the public, local 24 charitable groups and the San Diego government by conflating his rescue figures and presenting 25 a misleading picture of his success rate”(RR p. 6); (i) continues to allow the media to publish 26 information, including statistics that he has a 100% success rate. Those statements are false, yet 27 Mr. Travers posted those news articles or videos on his Saved in America website, creating a 28 false and misleading impression about the program. Those false and misleading impressions 29 cause the public to donate money to the program (RR p. 6); (j) constantly in litigation over his 30 financial affairs (RR p. 7); (k) falsely represented to the public that he held the lofty position of 31 “Professor Emeritus” (RR p. 7); (l) employment at a vocational college was terminated based on 32 his misrepresentations about the true value of the business and its assets (RR p. 7); (m) misused VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—4 1 the Bankruptcy court system by repeatedly making false statements under penalty of perjury (RR 2 p. 7); (n) had a practice of failing to disclose his true financial condition, including the 3 misrepresentation of his income (RR p. 7); (o) Mr. Travers’ abuse of the system allowed him to 4 discharge almost $2,000,000 of debt he compiled between 2003 and 2012 (RR pp. 7-8); (p) 5 conduct as an officer of two trade associations was further evidence of his incompetence and 6 misconduct (RR p. 8); (q) covered up embezzlement of CALI funds by his friend, breaching his 7 fiduciary duties to the association (RR p. 8); ( r) as the treasurer of a non-profit organization, 8 failed to ever examine the books or prepare any financial oversight (RR p. 8); (s) duped local 9 philanthropic members of the San Diego community into giving him significant money for his 10 programs (RR p. 8); (t) and Saved in America, through misrepresentations and embellished 11 figures, were able to receive grants from the Neighborhood Reinvestment Program for almost 12 $300,000 (RR p. 8); (u) the electronic products purchased with grant money were being used by 13 Mr. Travers for-profit businesses (RR p. 8); (v) has multiple business entities and he claims to 14 supervise over twenty-five people who were given private investigator licenses because of their 15 affiliation with Mr. Travers, not because they had special skills that would allow for licensing. 16 (RR p. 8); (w) “partners” or “vice president (s)” had no relationship to their experience. If the 17 individuals made applications for a separate BSIS Private Investigator license, they would have 18 been rejected by BSIS for a lack of qualified experience and training (RR p. 8); (x) took 19 advantage of loopholes within the Department of Consumer Affairs to give Private Investigation 20 and Private Patrol licenses to people with little or no experience in the field. This action 21 represents a threat to the public as these people have no training as investigators or guards (RR p. 22 9); (y) developed a licensing scheme to allow Mr. Travers to misrepresent that his Saved in 23 America crew had special experience because they were all licensed investigators. The 24 unsuspecting public did not know these “investigators” had no experience that would allow them 25 to be licensed under the normal licensing processes in California (RR p. 9); (z) misled the 26 “investigators” working under him to believe their hours working for him would count toward 27 the qualifying hours needed to receive a real private investigator license (RR p. 9); (aa) had no 28 reservations about giving a Private Investigator license to Mr. William Norwood, the former 29 police chief of Lake Arthur, New Mexico, even after Mr. Norwood was exposed as the leader of 30 an unethical and controversial plan to give concealed weapons permits to private citizens under 31 the guise of appointing them as “reserve police officers” in Lake Arthur, a town of under 500 32 residents. (RR p. 9); (bb) encouraged his staff to acquire concealed weapons permits through this VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—5 1 questionable and inappropriate program, even though Mr. Travers was aware of the laws in 2 California that forbid the action (RR p. 9); (cc) staff by Mr. Norwood were part of a quid pro quo 3 exchange for a California private investigator license from Mr. Travers. (RR p. 9); (dd) 4 circumvented the Department of Consumer Affairs LLC regulations by making his crew 5 “partners” in the LLC/LP, making them eligible for licenses (RR p. 10); (ee) history of criminal 6 conduct involving domestic violence and stalking was not always properly disclosed during Mr. 7 Travers’ licensing with the Department of Consumer Affairs (RR p 10); (ff) Mr. Travers failure 8 to disclose was consistent with his pattern of misrepresenting himself to the public for his own 9 purposes (RR pp. 10-11); (gg) failed to disclose to BSIS on multiple occasions his criminal 10 background. Even when Mr. Travers made a disclosure, he misrepresented the convictions and 11 the sentencing by the court (RR p. 11); (hh) ownership of the Universal Schools & Colleges of 12 Health and Human Services, Inc. dba US Colleges, was completely misrepresented to the 13 Bankruptcy courts. Mr. Travers falsely claimed in the Bankruptcy court that he only received 14 $25,000 from the sale of the business, when the sales agreement he signed stated the sale was for 15 $250,000, of which he received $125,000 (RR p. 11); and (ii) claimed he was virtually without 16 funds during his bankruptcy proceedings, he was successful in buying three homes. One home 17 was purchased for $600,000, less than two months after he emerged from bankruptcy. The court 18 was advised Mr. Travers earned less that $7,000 for the entire year. As soon as the bankruptcy 19 ended, Mr. Travers bought the $600,000 home (RR p. 11); (jj) directed his NCIC/SIA staff to 20 arrive at the Casa De Amparo facility carrying weapons and on one occasion, children who left 21 the facility and were directed at gunpoint to return by NCIC/SIA staff (RR p. 35); 22 16. On or about September 18, 2019, Defendant Reynolds provided a copy of his 23 report to Dotti Laster (“Laster”). Thereafter, Laster republished the Defendant Reynolds report to 24 Kelly Litvak. 25 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 26 (For Negligence Against Defendant Reynolds and Defendant Laster 27 And Does 2-25, Inclusive) 28 29 30 31 32 17. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 16 above, inclusive. 18. Defendant Reynolds and Defendant Laster owed the Plaintiff a duty to act reasonably in his conversations with the public about Plaintiff. 19. Defendant Reynolds acted negligently in making the following statements to VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—6 1 Shomo: 2 (a) Travers was scam artist; (b) Travers was the head of a cover up with fellow CALI Members; 3 (c) Travers was notorious for using people to get what he wants and when he is done with them, 4 he finds ways to discredit them or get rid of them; (d) Travers is well known for being a scam 5 artist; (e) SOSIS was a coverup because it was the same business as SIA and was operating 6 through Travers’ church. 7 8 20. Defendant Reynolds acted negligently in making the following statements to Carrington: 9 (a) SIA, SOSIS and NCIC’S tax accounting were all businesses operating under Travers’ Church; 10 11 (b) SIA has not rescued as many girls as advertised and there is no proof of 12 rescue and that Travers is misleading the public in order to get donations 13 for Travers’ non- profit; 14 (c) Travers has run many scams in the past; 15 (d) Travers covered up an incident concerning Dana Griffith with CALI when 16 Travers was president of CALI, Defendant Reynolds stated that Travers 17 was unethical, arrogant and unremorseful for Travers’ actions as president 18 of CALI; (e) Defendant Reynolds claimed that SOSIS is an illegitimate 19 business and none of its members would not receive their private 20 investigation hours for the QM status; 21 (f) 22 23 Defendant Reynolds compared Travers to President Trump that one day they will pay for their crimes. 21. Defendant Reynolds acted negligently in making and publishing the following 24 statements on the internet in the Reynolds’ Report: Reynolds’ Report states that Travers: (a) 25 “made intentional misrepresentations about Mr. Travers alleged charitable work, successful 26 saving of children and his misuse of a charitable, non-profit church for the operation of private 27 enterprises, including a private investigation business” (RR p. 5); (b) “has a pattern of providing 28 false and misleading information to the public about his qualifications, background and financial 29 positions” (RR p. 5); (c) committed the crime of perjury in bankruptcy actions to avoid paying 30 thousands of dollars he owed to friends and colleagues (RR p. 5); (d) misrepresented his POST 31 certification qualifications and he misrepresented his experience as a police officer (RR p. 6); (e) 32 worked for three agencies and failed to complete their probationary periods to obtain permanent VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—7 1 employment (RR p. 6); (f) misrepresented to the public the true number of successful rescues by 2 reporting “false figures” (RR p. 6); (g) misrepresented to the public that Saved in America does 3 not charge for rescuing girls because SIA was paid by Casa De Amparo to provide weekend 4 security services around the perimeter of Casa De Amparo to discourage sex traffickers and 5 pimps from exploiting the girls (RR p. 6); (h) intent was to obtain money and assets from the 6 public, local charitable groups and the San Diego government by conflating his rescue figures 7 and presenting a misleading picture of his success rate”(RR p. 6); (i) continues to allow the 8 media to publish information, including statistics that he has a 100% success rate. Those 9 statements are false, yet Mr. Travers posted those news articles or videos on his Saved in 10 America website, creating a false and misleading impression about the program. Those false and 11 misleading impressions cause the public to donate money to the program (RR p. 6); (j) constantly 12 in litigation over his financial affairs (RR p. 7); (k) falsely represented to the public that he held 13 the lofty position of “Professor Emeritus” (RR p. 7); (l) employment at a vocational college was 14 terminated based on his misrepresentations about the true value of the business and its assets (RR 15 p. 7); (m) misused the Bankruptcy court system by repeatedly making false statements under 16 penalty of perjury (RR p. 7); (n) had a practice of failing to disclose his true financial condition, 17 including the misrepresentation of his income (RR p. 7); (o) Mr. Travers’ abuse of the system 18 allowed him to discharge almost $2,000,000 of debt he compiled between 2003 and 2012 (RR 19 pp. 7-8); (p) conduct as an officer of two trade associations was further evidence of his 20 incompetence and misconduct (RR p. 8); (q) covered up embezzlement of CALI funds by his 21 friend, breaching his fiduciary duties to the association (RR p. 8); ( r) as the treasurer of a non- 22 profit organization, failed to ever examine the books or prepare any financial oversight (RR p. 23 8); (s) duped local philanthropic members of the San Diego community into giving him 24 significant money for his programs (RR p. 8); (t) and Saved in America, through 25 misrepresentations and embellished figures, were able to receive grants from the Neighborhood 26 Reinvestment Program for almost $300,000 (RR p. 8); (u) the electronic products purchased with 27 grant money were being used by Mr. Travers for-profit businesses (RR p. 8); (v) has multiple 28 business entities and he claims to supervise over twenty-five people who were given private 29 investigator licenses because of their affiliation with Mr. Travers, not because they had special 30 skills that would allow for licensing. (RR p. 8); (w) “partners” or “vice president (s)” had no 31 relationship to their experience. If the individuals made applications for a separate BSIS Private 32 Investigator license, they would have been rejected by BSIS for a lack of qualified experience VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—8 1 and training (RR p. 8); (x) took advantage of loopholes within the Department of Consumer 2 Affairs to give Private Investigation and Private Patrol licenses to people with little or no 3 experience in the field. This action represents a threat to the public as these people have no 4 training as investigators or guards (RR p. 9); (y) developed a licensing scheme to allow Mr. 5 Travers to misrepresent that his Saved in America crew had special experience because they 6 were all licensed investigators. The unsuspecting public did not know these “investigators” had 7 no experience that would allow them to be licensed under the normal licensing processes in 8 California (RR p. 9); (z) misled the “investigators” working under him to believe their hours 9 working for him would count toward the qualifying hours needed to receive a real private 10 investigator license (RR p. 9); (aa) had no reservations about giving a Private Investigator license 11 to Mr. William Norwood, the former police chief of Lake Arthur, New Mexico, even after Mr. 12 Norwood was exposed as the leader of an unethical and controversial plan to give concealed 13 weapons permits to private citizens under the guise of appointing them as “reserve police 14 officers” in Lake Arthur, a town of under 500 residents. (RR p. 9); (bb) encouraged his staff to 15 acquire concealed weapons permits through this questionable and inappropriate program, even 16 though Mr. Travers was aware of the laws in California that forbid the action (RR p. 9); (cc) staff 17 by Mr. Norwood were part of a quid pro quo exchange for a California private investigator 18 license from Mr. Travers. (RR p. 9); (dd) circumvented the Department of Consumer Affairs 19 LLC regulations by making his crew “partners” in the LLC/LP, making them eligible for licenses 20 (RR p. 10); (ee) history of criminal conduct involving domestic violence and stalking was not 21 always properly disclosed during Mr. Travers’ licensing with the Department of Consumer 22 Affairs (RR p 10); (ff) Mr. Travers failure to disclose was consistent with his pattern of 23 misrepresenting himself to the public for his own purposes (RR pp. 10-11); (gg) failed to 24 disclose to BSIS on multiple occasions his criminal background. Even when Mr. Travers made a 25 disclosure, he misrepresented the convictions and the sentencing by the court (RR p. 11); (hh) 26 ownership of the Universal Schools & Colleges of Health and Human Services, Inc. dba US 27 Colleges, was completely misrepresented to the Bankruptcy courts. Mr. Travers falsely claimed 28 in the Bankruptcy court that he only received $25,000 from the sale of the business, when the 29 sales agreement he signed stated the sale was for $250,000, of which he received $125,000 (RR 30 p. 11); (ii) claimed he was virtually without funds during his bankruptcy proceedings, he was 31 successful in buying three homes. One home was purchased for $600,000, less than two months 32 after he emerged from bankruptcy. The court was advised Mr. Travers earned less that $7,000 for VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—9 1 the entire year. As soon as the bankruptcy ended, Mr. Travers bought the $600,000 home (RR p. 2 11); and (jj) directed his NCIC/SIA staff to arrive at the Casa De Amparo facility carrying 3 weapons and on one occasion, children who left the facility and were directed at gunpoint to 4 return by NCIC/SIA staff (RR p. 35). 5 22. Laster acted negligently in republishing Reynolds’ Report to Kelly Litvak. 6 23. At all relevant times herein, Plaintiff was a member of the public, SIA, SOSIS 7 and NCIC in good standing. As a member of the public, SIA, SOSIS and NCIC, Defendant 8 Reynolds and Defendant Laster owed Plaintiff a duty to act reasonably. 9 24. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant Remolds and Defendant Laster’s 10 negligence as alleged above, the Plaintiff has suffered loss of his personal and professional 11 reputation causing Plaintiff to suffer general damages according to proof at time of trial. 12 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 13 (For Defamation (Slander) Against Defendant Reynolds 14 And Does 2-25, Inclusive) 15 16 17 25. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 24 above, inclusive. 26. On or about December 6, 2018, Defendant Reynolds made the following 18 statements to Shomo: (a) Travers was scam artist; (b) Travers was the head of a cover up with 19 fellow CALI Members; (c) Travers was notorious for using people to get what he wants and 20 when he is done with them, he finds ways to discredit them or get rid of them; (d)Travers is well 21 known for being a scam artist; (e) SOSIS was a coverup because it was the same business as SIA 22 and was operating through Travers’ church. 23 24 27. On December 19, 2018, Defendant Reynolds made the following statements to Carrington: 25 (a) SIA, SOSIS and NCIC’S tax accounting were all businesses operating under 26 Travers’ Church; (b) SIA has not rescued as many girls as advertised and there is 27 no proof of rescue and that Travers is misleading the public in order to get 28 donations for Travers’ non- profit; (c) Travers has run many scams in the past; (d) 29 Travers covered up an incident concerning Dana Griffith with CALI when 30 Travers was president of CALI, Defendant Reynolds stated that Travers was 31 unethical, arrogant and unremorseful for Travers’ actions as president of CALI; 32 (e)Defendant Reynolds claimed that SOSIS is an illegitimate business and none of VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—10 1 its members would not receive their private investigation hours for the QM status; 2 (f) Defendant Reynolds compared Travers to President Trump that one day they 3 will pay for their crimes. 4 28. Defendant Reynolds’ statements to Shomo and Carrington were false. 5 29. Defendant Reynolds’ statements to Shomo and Carrington are slanderous on its 6 face because they state that Travers was committing the crime of defrauding people as a “scam 7 artist” for his personal gain. In fact, Travers has never defrauded anyone. Defendant Reynolds’ 8 statement to Shomo and Carrington were understood by Shomo and Carrington to be true such 9 that Shomo stopped working with Travers. Accordingly, Defendant Reynolds’ statements to 10 11 Shomo and Carrington defamed Travers’ good character. 30. As a proximate result of the above-described slander, Travers has suffered loss of 12 its reputation, has been exposed to ongoing contempt and ridicule, and suffered loss of reputation 13 and standing in the investigative community across the United States as whole which has caused 14 Travers humiliation, embarrassment, and loss of prospective business advantages and 15 relationships, all to his general damage in an amount according to proof at trial. 16 31. The defamatory statements made by Defendant Reynolds was done with malice in 17 that the statements were made either with knowledge of their falsity or in reckless disregard for 18 the truth in that the statements were blatantly untrue as Travers denies ever defrauding anyone at 19 anytime. 20 32. In creating the above publicity, Defendant Reynolds acted with hatred and ill will 21 towards Travers within the meaning of Section 48a(4)(c) and (d) of the Civil Code, in that the 22 statements were blatantly untrue as Travers denied ever participating in any of the described 23 misconduct or any misconduct whatsoever. Travers therefore seeks an award of punitive 24 damages against Defendant Reynolds. 25 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 26 (For Defamation (Libel) Against Defendant Reynolds and Defendant Laster 27 And Does 2-25, Inclusive) 28 29 30 33. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 above, inclusive. 34. At all times herein mentioned, Plaintiff Travers was, and now is, a private 31 investigator duly licensed by the State of California and engaged in business throughout the State 32 of California for over 30 years and at all times has enjoyed a good reputation both generally and VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—11 1 in her occupation. 2 35. 3 4 Saved in America is a non-profit organization operating in the City and County of San Diego, State of California and at all times has enjoyed a good reputation. 36. On or about September 14, 2019, Defendant Reynolds, a private investigator 5 licensed in the State of California, published a 73 page written report on his website 6 https://cdrpi.com/ entitled “Confidential Investigation Report Re: Joseph A. Travers.” 7 37. The two negative reviews described above are libelous because the language 8 contains defamatory meanings, as opposed to innocent meanings. The negative post of 9 Defendant Reynolds Report contains false and unprivileged statements about Plaintiff that 10 exposes him to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, or that causes Plaintiff to be shunned or 11 avoided, or which has a tendency of injuring SIA and all other organizations and business 12 associations that Plaintiff has formed. 13 14 15 38. The publication of the Reynolds Report was made about and concerning Plaintiff and was so understood by those who read the publication. 39. On or about September 18, 2019, Defendant Reynolds provided a copy of his 16 report to Defendant Laster. Thereafter, Defendant Laster republished the Defendant Reynolds 17 report to Kelly Litvak. 18 19 20 40. The following statements from the September 13, 2019 posting of the Defendant Reynolds Report are false, unprivileged and libelous as they apply to Plaintiff: (a) “made intentional misrepresentations about Mr. Travers alleged charitable 21 work, successful saving of children and his misuse of a charitable, non- 22 profit church for the operation of private enterprises, including a private 23 investigation business” (RR p. 5); 24 (b) about his qualifications, background and financial positions” (RR p. 5); 25 26 (c) 27 28 (d) misrepresented his POST certification qualifications and he misrepresented his experience as a police officer (RR p. 6); (e) 31 32 committed the crime of perjury in bankruptcy actions to avoid paying thousands of dollars he owed to friends and colleagues (RR p. 5); 29 30 “has a pattern of providing false and misleading information to the public worked for three agencies and failed to complete their probationary periods to obtain permanent employment (RR p. 6); (f) misrepresented to the public the true number of successful rescues by VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—12 reporting “false figures” (RR p. 6); 1 2 (g) misrepresented to the public that Saved in America does not charge for 3 rescuing girls because SIA was paid by Casa De Amparo to provide 4 weekend security services around the perimeter of Casa De Amparo to 5 discourage sex traffickers and pimps from exploiting the girls (RR p. 6); 6 (h) intent was to obtain money and assets from the public, local charitable 7 groups and the San Diego government by conflating his rescue figures and 8 presenting a misleading picture of his success rate”(RR p. 6); 9 (i) continues to allow the media to publish information, including statistics 10 that he has a 100% success rate. Those statements are false, yet Mr. 11 Travers posted those news articles or videos on his Saved in America 12 website, creating a false and misleading impression about the program. 13 Those false and misleading impressions cause the public to donate money 14 to the program (RR p. 6); 15 (j) constantly in litigation over his financial affairs (RR p. 7); 16 (k) falsely represented to the public that he held the lofty position of “Professor Emeritus” (RR p. 7); 17 18 (l) employment at a vocational college was terminated based on his 19 misrepresentations about the true value of the business and its assets (RR 20 p. 7); 21 (m) 22 23 statements under penalty of perjury (RR p. 7); (n) 24 25 (o) (p) 32 conduct as an officer of two trade associations was further evidence of his incompetence and misconduct (RR p. 8); (q) 30 31 Mr. Travers’ abuse of the system allowed him to discharge almost $2,000,000 of debt he compiled between 2003 and 2012 (RR pp. 7-8); 28 29 had a practice of failing to disclose his true financial condition, including the misrepresentation of his income (RR p. 7); 26 27 misused the Bankruptcy court system by repeatedly making false covered up embezzlement of CALI funds by his friend, breaching his fiduciary duties to the association (RR p. 8); (r) as the treasurer of a non-profit organization, failed to ever examine the books or prepare any financial oversight (RR p. 8); VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—13 1 (s) 2 3 duped local philanthropic members of the San Diego community into giving him significant money for his programs (RR p. 8); (t) and Saved in America, through misrepresentations and embellished 4 figures, were able to receive grants from the Neighborhood Reinvestment 5 Program for almost $300,000 (RR p. 8); (u) the electronic products 6 purchased with grant money were being used by Mr. Travers for-profit 7 businesses (RR p. 8); 8 (v) 9 has multiple business entities and he claims to supervise over twenty-five people who were given private investigator licenses because of their 10 affiliation with Mr. Travers, not because they had special skills that would 11 allow for licensing. (RR p. 8); 12 (w) “partners” or “vice president (s)” had no relationship to their experience. If 13 the individuals made applications for a separate BSIS Private Investigator 14 license, they would have been rejected by BSIS for a lack of qualified 15 experience and training (RR p. 8); 16 (x) took advantage of loopholes within the Department of Consumer Affairs 17 to give Private Investigation and Private Patrol licenses to people with 18 little or no experience in the field. This action represents a threat to the 19 public as these people have no training as investigators or guards (RR p. 20 9); 21 (y) developed a licensing scheme to allow Mr. Travers to misrepresent that his 22 Saved in America crew had special experience because they were all 23 licensed investigators. The unsuspecting public did not know these 24 “investigators” had no experience that would allow them to be licensed 25 under the normal licensing processes in California (RR p. 9); 26 (z) misled the “investigators” working under him to believe their hours 27 working for him would count toward the qualifying hours needed to 28 receive a real private investigator license (RR p. 9); 29 (aa) had no reservations about giving a Private Investigator license to Mr. 30 William Norwood, the former police chief of Lake Arthur, New Mexico, 31 even after Mr. Norwood was exposed as the leader of an unethical and 32 controversial plan to give concealed weapons permits to private citizens VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—14 1 under the guise of appointing them as “reserve police officers” in Lake 2 Arthur, a town of under 500 residents. (RR p. 9); 3 (bb) encouraged his staff to acquire concealed weapons permits through this 4 questionable and inappropriate program, even though Mr. Travers was 5 aware of the laws in California that forbid the action (RR p. 9); 6 (cc) 7 8 California private investigator license from Mr. Travers. (RR p. 9); (dd) circumvented the Department of Consumer Affairs LLC regulations by making his crew “partners” in the LLC/LP, making them eligible for 9 10 11 staff by Mr. Norwood were part of a quid pro quo exchange for a licenses (RR p. 10); (ee) history of criminal conduct involving domestic violence and stalking was 12 not always properly disclosed during Mr. Travers’ licensing with the 13 Department of Consumer Affairs (RR p 10); 14 (ff) Mr. Travers failure to disclose was consistent with his pattern of 15 misrepresenting himself to the public for his own purposes (RR pp. 10- 16 11); 17 (gg) failed to disclose to BSIS on multiple occasions his criminal background. 18 Even when Mr. Travers made a disclosure, he misrepresented the 19 convictions and the sentencing by the court (RR p. 11); 20 (hh) ownership of the Universal Schools & Colleges of Health and Human 21 Services, Inc. dba US Colleges, was completely misrepresented to the 22 Bankruptcy courts. Mr. Travers falsely claimed in the Bankruptcy court 23 that he only received $25,000 from the sale of the business, when the sales 24 agreement he signed stated the sale was for $250,000, of which he 25 received $125,000 (RR p. 11); 26 (ii) claimed he was virtually without funds during his bankruptcy proceedings, 27 he was successful in buying three homes. One home was purchased for 28 $600,000, less than two months after he emerged from bankruptcy. The 29 court was advised Mr. Travers earned less that $7,000 for the entire year. 30 As soon as the bankruptcy ended, Mr. Travers bought the $600,000 home 31 (RR p. 11); and 32 (jj) directed his NCIC/SIA staff to arrive at the Casa De Amparo facility VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—15 1 carrying weapons and on one occasion, children who left the facility and 2 were directed at gunpoint to return by NCIC/SIA staff (RR p. 35). 3 4 5 41. Each statement described in paragraph 39, above, is libelous on its face. Each statement clearly exposes Plaintiff to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy because: (a) the statement made in 39(a) above, “made intentional misrepresentations 6 about his alleged charitable work, successful saving of children and his 7 misuse of a charitable, non-profit church for the operation of private 8 enterprises, including a private investigation business” blatantly states that 9 Plaintiff made fraudulent misrepresentations about his charitable work in 10 saving children and that Plaintiff misused his charitable non-profit church 11 to operate private enterprises. 12 (b) the statement made in 39(b) above “has a pattern of providing false and 13 misleading information to the public about his qualifications, background 14 and financial positions” blatantly states that Plaintiff has a pattern of 15 defrauding the public by giving false and misleading information 16 concerning his qualifications, background and financial positions; 17 (c) the statement made in 39(c) above, that Plaintiff committed the crime of 18 perjury in bankruptcy actions to avoid paying thousands of dollars he 19 owed to friends and colleagues, blatantly states that Plaintiff has 20 committed the crime of perjury in court proceedings for the purpose of 21 avoiding his financial responsibilities to his friends and colleagues. 22 (d) the statement made in 39(d), that Plaintiff misrepresented his POST 23 certification qualifications and he misrepresented his experience as a 24 police officer, blatantly states that Plaintiff lied about his qualifications 25 and experience as a police officer. 26 (e) the statement made in 39(e) that Plaintiff worked for three agencies and 27 failed to complete their probationary periods to obtain permanent 28 employment. blatantly states that Plaintiff lied about his permanent 29 employment in law enforcement agencies. 30 (f) the statement made in 39(f) that Plaintiff misrepresented to the public the 31 true number of successful rescues by reporting “false figures,” blatantly 32 states the Plaintiff lied to the public about the number of children that SIA VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—16 1 2 had rescued. (g) the statement made in 39(g) that Plaintiff misrepresented to the public that 3 Saved in America does not charge for rescuing girls because SIA was paid 4 by Casa De Amparo to provide weekend security services around the 5 perimeter of Casa De Amparo to discourage sex traffickers and pimps 6 from exploiting the girls, blatantly states that Plaintiff defrauded the public 7 by lying to them that SIA’s services for locating children was free. 8 (h) 9 the statement made in 39(h) that Plaintiff’s intent was to obtain money and assets from the public, local charitable groups and the San Diego 10 government by conflating his rescue figures and presenting a misleading 11 picture of his success rate, blatantly states that Plaintiff intended to obtain 12 money from the public, local charities and the San Diego government by 13 defrauding them by lying to them about his success rate in rescuing 14 children. 15 (i) the statement made in 39(i) that Plaintiff continues to allow the media to 16 publish information, including statistics that he has a 100% success rate. 17 Those statements are false, yet Mr. Travers posted those news articles or 18 videos on his Saved in America website, creating a false and misleading 19 impression about the program. Those false and misleading impressions 20 cause the public to donate money to the program, blatantly states that 21 Plaintiff is using the media coverage to defraud the public to obtain their 22 donations by giving false information about his success rate in rescuing 23 children. 24 (j) the statement made in 39(j) that Plaintiff is constantly in litigation over his 25 financial affairs, blatantly states that Plaintiff is litigious for his own 26 financial affairs. 27 (k) the statement made in 39(k) that Plaintiff falsely represented to the public 28 that he held the lofty position of “Professor Emeritus,” blatantly states that 29 Plaintiff lied to the public about his position of Professor Emeritus. 30 (l) the statement made in 39(l) that Plaintiff’s employment at a vocational 31 college was terminated based on his misrepresentations about the true 32 value of the business and its assets, blatantly states that Plaintiff was fired VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—17 1 because he made fraudulent statements about the true valse of the business 2 and its assets. 3 (m) the statement made in 39(m) that Plaintiff misused the Bankruptcy court 4 system by repeatedly making false statements under penalty of perjury, 5 blatantly states that Plaintiff committed the crime of perjury in court 6 proceedings. 7 (n) the statement made in 39(n) that Plaintiff had a practice of failing to 8 disclose his true financial condition, including the misrepresentation of his 9 income, blatantly states that Plaintiff lies about his financial condition and 10 11 income. (o) the statement made in 39(o) that Plaintiff has abused of the bankruptcy 12 system so that he was allowed to discharge almost $2,000,000 of debt he 13 compiled between 2003 and 2012 blatantly states that Plaintiff wrongfully 14 used the bankruptcy system to his own financial gain. 15 (p) the statement made in 39(p) that Plaintiff’s conduct as an officer of two 16 trade associations was further evidence of his incompetence and 17 misconduct blatantly states that Plaintiff participated in misconduct and 18 that Plaintiff is incompetent; 19 (q) the statement made in 39(q) that Plaintiff covered up embezzlement of 20 CALI funds by his friend, breaching his fiduciary duties to the association 21 blatantly states that Plaintiff committed the crime of covering up an 22 embezzlement for a friend and that Plaintiff breached his fiduciary duty. 23 (r) the statement made in 39(r) that Plaintiff as the treasurer of a non-profit 24 organization, failed to ever examine the books or prepare any financial 25 oversight blatantly states that Plaintiff was incompetent as in his position 26 as treasurer; 27 (s) the statement made in 39(s) that Plaintiff duped local philanthropic 28 members of the San Diego community into giving him significant money 29 for his programs, blatantly states that Plaintiff defrauded philanthropist in 30 San Diego community; 31 32 (t) the statement made in 39(t) that Plaintiff and Saved in America, through misrepresentations and embellished figures, were able to receive grants VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—18 1 from the Neighborhood Reinvestment Program for almost $300,000, 2 blatantly states that Plaintiff defrauded Neighborhood Reinvestment 3 Programs for $300,000; 4 (u) the statement made in 39(u) that the electronic products that Plaintiff 5 purchased with grant money were being used by Plaintiff for his for-profit 6 businesses, blatantly states that Plaintiff defrauded the grant givers and 7 misappropriated the electronic products for his own profit; 8 (v) 9 the statement made in 39(v) that Plaintiff has multiple business entities and he claims to supervise over twenty-five people who were given 10 private investigator licenses because of their affiliation with Mr. Travers, 11 not because they had special skills that would allow for licensing, blatantly 12 states that Plaintiff is defrauding the licensing agencies to give licenses to 13 unskilled people; 14 (w) the statement made in 39(w) that Plaintiff’s “partners” or “vice president 15 (s)” had no relationship to their experience. If the individuals made 16 applications for a separate BSIS Private Investigator license, they would 17 have been rejected by BSIS for a lack of qualified experience and training, 18 blatantly states that Plaintiff is defrauding the licensing agencies to obtain 19 licenses to unqualified, untrained people; 20 (x) the statement made in 39(x) that Plaintiff took advantage of loopholes 21 within the Department of Consumer Affairs to give Private Investigation 22 and Private Patrol licenses to people with little or no experience in the 23 field. This action represents a threat to the public as these people have no 24 training as investigators or guards, blatantly states that Plaintiff is 25 defrauding the licensing agencies to obtain licenses to unqualified, 26 untrained people and these untrained people have put the public at risk; 27 (y) the statement made in 39(y) that Plaintiff developed a licensing scheme to 28 allow Mr. Travers to misrepresent that his Saved in America crew had 29 special experience because they were all licensed investigators. The 30 unsuspecting public did not know these “investigators” had no experience 31 that would allow them to be licensed under the normal licensing processes 32 in California, blatantly states that Plaintiff is defrauding the licensing VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—19 1 agencies to obtain licenses to unqualified, untrained people and these 2 untrained people have put the public at risk; 3 (z) the statement made in 39(y) that Plaintiff misled the “investigators” 4 working under him to believe their hours working for him would count 5 toward the qualifying hours needed to receive a real private investigator 6 license, blatantly states that Plaintiff defrauded his “investigators” into 7 believing that if they worked for him that would receive their private 8 investigator’s license; 9 (aa) the statement made in 39(aa) that Plaintiff had no reservations about 10 giving a Private Investigator license to Mr. William Norwood, the former 11 police chief of Lake Arthur, New Mexico, even after Mr. Norwood was 12 exposed as the leader of an unethical and controversial plan to give 13 concealed weapons permits to private citizens under the guise of 14 appointing them as “reserve police officers” in Lake Arthur, a town of 15 under 500 residents, blatantly states that Plaintiff violated the law in 16 giving William Norwood a private investigator license despite the fact that 17 Norwood was involved in an unlawful scheme; 18 (bb) the statement made in 39(bb) that Plaintiff encouraged his staff to acquire 19 concealed weapons permits through William Norwood’s questionable and 20 inappropriate program, even though Plaintiff was aware of the laws in 21 California that forbid the action, blatantly states that Plaintiff has engaged 22 in criminal activities with William Norwood; 23 (cc) the statement made in 39(cc) that Plaintiff’s staff by William Norwood 24 were part of a quid pro quo exchange for a California private investigator 25 license from Plaintiff, blatantly states that Plaintiff has engaged in 26 criminal activities with William Norwood ; 27 (dd) the statement made in 39(dd) that Plaintiff circumvented the Department 28 of Consumer Affairs LLC regulations by making his crew “partners” in 29 the LLC/LP, making them eligible for licenses, blatantly states that 30 Plaintiff defrauded the Department of Consumer Affairs LLC; 31 32 (ee) the statement made in 39(ee) that Plaintiff history of criminal conduct involving domestic violence and stalking was not always properly VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—20 1 disclosed during Plaintiff’s licensing with the Department of Consumer 2 Affairs, blatantly states that Plaintiff has a criminal background and 3 defrauded the Department of Consumer Affairs; 4 (ff) the statement made in 39(bb) that Plaintiff ‘s failure to disclose his 5 criminal background was consistent with his pattern of misrepresenting 6 himself to the public for his own purposes, blatantly states that Plaintiff 7 has a criminal background and defrauded the public; 8 (gg) 9 the statement made in 39(gg) that Plaintiff failed to disclose to BSIS on multiple occasions his criminal background. Even when Mr. Travers made 10 a disclosure, he misrepresented the convictions and the sentencing by the 11 court, blatantly states that Plaintiff has a criminal background and 12 defrauded the BSIS; 13 (hh) the statement made in 39(hh) that Plaintiff ‘s ownership of the Universal 14 Schools & Colleges of Health and Human Services, Inc. dba US Colleges, 15 was completely misrepresented to the Bankruptcy courts. Mr. Travers 16 falsely claimed in the Bankruptcy court that he only received $25,000 17 from the sale of the business, when the sales agreement he signed stated 18 the sale was for $250,000, of which he received $125,000, blatantly states 19 that Plaintiff defrauded the Bankruptcy court; 20 (ii) the statement made in 39(ii) that Plaintiff claimed he was virtually without 21 funds during his bankruptcy proceedings, he was successful in buying 22 three homes. One home was purchased for $600,000, less than two months 23 after he emerged from bankruptcy. The court was advised Mr. Travers 24 earned less that $7,000 for the entire year. As soon as the bankruptcy 25 ended, Mr. Travers bought the $600,000 home, blatantly states that 26 Plaintiff defrauded the Bankruptcy court; and 27 (jj) the statement made in 39(jj) that Plaintiff directed his NCIC/SIA staff to 28 arrive at the Casa De Amparo facility carrying weapons and on one 29 occasion, children who left the facility and were directed at gunpoint to 30 return by NCIC/SIA staff, blatantly states that Plaintiff directed and his 31 staff complied, in holding children at gunpoint to return to the Casa De 32 Amparo facility, thereby putting the children that they were protecting in VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—21 1 2 mortal danger. 42. These statements contained in Reynolds’ Report that he posted on his website 3 were seen and read by hundreds if not thousands of people in the general public, prospective 4 supporters and associations, law enforcement departments that work with Plaintiff, as well as by 5 professional colleagues, who reside in and around the San Diego, and were no doubt seen and 6 read by many persons outside of California with whom Plaintiff works. 7 43. The negative posts were known by Defendant Reynolds to be false at the time he 8 made them, or Defendant Reynolds acted in reckless disregard of the truth when he created and 9 published the Reynolds’ Report on the internet, with knowledge that the posts would be viewed 10 11 12 13 by persons identified in paragraph 41. 44. As a proximate result of the above-described publication, Plaintiff has suffered loss of reputation, shame, mortification, and hurt feelings all to his general damages. 45. As a further proximate result of the above-described publication, Plaintiff has 14 suffered the following special damages: injury to Plaintiff’s non-profit organization, business and 15 profession and professional reputation, all to his injury. 16 17 18 46. The above described publications were published by Defendant Reynolds, and republished by Laster with malice, oppression and fraud in that: a. Defendant Reynolds and Defendant Laster knew and understood before 19 that before the publication, that Plaintiff lawfully and ethically performed 20 all his duties as the CEO of SIA, as well as any and all other non-profit 21 organizations, associations, companies and corporation with which he is 22 affiliated. 23 b. Defendant Reynolds and Defendant Laster knew that the Reynolds’ 24 Report was based on false information and yet knowingly published the 25 false statements that Plaintiff engaged in the fraudulent and criminal 26 activities set forth in paragraph 39, subdivisions (a)-(jj) in order to, and 27 with the intention of, destroying Plaintiff’s reputation, and to cause 28 Plaintiff to lose his ability to pursue his work with SIA in finding missing 29 and/or runaway children, or to be shunned by society. 30 c. After Defendant Reynolds made the publications, Plaintiff in writing twice 31 or more requested a retraction of all false and defamatory statements in 32 said publication, advising defendant how and why said statements were VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—22 1 false, but Defendant Reynolds refused in writing to do so, and did so with 2 the intent to cause further damage and harm. 3 47. Thus Plaintiff seeks an award of punitive damages to punish Defendant Reynolds 4 and Defendant Laster for their malicious conduct, by way of example, and to deter similar 5 conduct in the future. 6 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 7 (For Invasion of Privacy-False Light-Against Defendant Reynolds 8 And Does 2-25, Inclusive) 9 10 11 48. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 47 above, inclusive. 49. On or about September 13, 2019, Defendant Reynolds, without Plaintiff’s 12 consent, invaded Plaintiff’s right to privacy by publishing the Reynolds’ Report about Plaintiff 13 on the internet, which, inter alia, falsely stated that Plaintiff had defrauded the public, 14 governmental agencies, courts and donors and that he had engaged in criminal conduct and had a 15 criminal history. 16 50. The Reynolds’ Report published by Defendant Reynolds created false publicity in 17 the sense of a public disclosure to a large number of people in that it was published on the 18 internet on Defendant Reynolds website. 19 51. The publicity created by Defendant Reynolds placed Plaintiff in a false light in 20 the public eye in that the review intentionally contained false statements and inaccuracies which 21 incorrectly portrayed Plaintiff as fraud and a criminal. 22 52. The publicity created by Defendant Reynolds was offensive and objectionable to 23 Plaintiff and to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities in that it made Plaintiff the object of 24 scorn and distrust. 25 53. 26 27 The publicity created by Defendant Reynolds was done with malice in that it was made either with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth in that: a. Defendant Reynolds knew and understood before that before the 28 publication, that Plaintiff lawfully and ethically performed all his duties as 29 the CEO of SIA, as well as any and all other non-profit organizations, 30 associations, companies and corporation with which he is affiliated. 31 32 b. Defendant Reynolds knew that the Reynolds’ Report was based on false information and yet knowingly published the false statements that Plaintiff VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—23 1 engaged in the fraudulent and criminal activities set forth in paragraph 39, 2 subdivisions (a)-(jj) in order to, and with the intention of, destroying 3 Plaintiff’s reputation, and to cause Plaintiff to lose his ability to pursue his 4 work with SIA in finding missing and/or runaway children, or to be 5 shunned by society. 6 c. After Defendant Reynolds made the publications, Plaintiff in writing twice 7 or more requested a retraction of all false and defamatory statements in 8 said publication, advising Defendant Reynolds how and why said 9 statements were false, but Defendant Reynolds maliciously refused to do 10 11 so with the intent to cause further damage to Plaintiff. 54. The above described publication was published by Defendant Reynolds with 12 malice, oppression and fraud, and Plaintiff is entitled to punitive damages against Defendant 13 Reynolds. 14 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (For Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Against Defendant Reynolds 16 And Does 2-25, Inclusive) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 55. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 54 above, inclusive. 56. Defendant Reynolds intentionally published on the internet disparaging and false statements about Plaintiff in the Reynolds’ Report. 57. At the time of publication, Defendant Reynolds knew his publication contained false statements that would defame Plaintiff. 58. Defendant Reynolds’ publication of false and disparaging statements was made 24 intentionally and with malice with the intent to cause Plaintiff to suffer emotional distress and 25 embarrassment. 26 59. Defendant Reynolds' publication and continued publication of known false 27 statements with intention to cause harm to Plaintiff’s reputation, businesses and inflict mental 28 suffering amounts to extreme and outrageous conduct exceeding all bounds of decency usually 29 tolerated in a civilized society. 30 31 32 60. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Reynolds’ publication of disparaging false statements about Plaintiff, Plaintiff has suffered severe emotional distress. 61. Defendant Reynolds’ outrageous conduct was directed primarily at Plaintiff and VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—24 1 2 3 4 caused Plaintiff to suffer severe emotional distress. 62. Plaintiff suffered nervousness, grief, anxiety, worry, mortification, shock, humiliation and indignity as a result of Defendant Reynolds’ outrageous conduct. 63. Defendant Reynolds was advised after his first slander and libelous statements 5 were published that the statements were defamatory per se and were causing Plaintiffs harm. 6 Plaintiff and/or his counsel of record have 2-3 times requested Defendant Reynolds cease and 7 desist making slanders and libelous statements against Plaintiff. 8 9 10 64. Defendant Reynolds, after being advised of the harm of the false statements, refused in writing to remove o amend her publication. 65. Defendant Reynolds’ failure to act upon Plaintiff’s requests to cease and desist his 11 false and malicious publication constitutes an omission to act that was made willfully while 12 knowing that the failure to do so would likely cause Plaintiff extreme mental distress. 13 Accordingly plaintiffs are entitled to punitive damages. 14 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (For Injunctive Relief Against Defendant Reynolds 16 And Does 1-25, Inclusive) 17 18 19 66. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 65 above, inclusive. 67. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant Reynolds’ ongoing wrongful acts, 20 Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer substantial pecuniary losses and irreparable 21 injury to his reputation and goodwill. 22 68. As such, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to compensate them for the 23 continuing injuries inflicted by Defendant Reynolds. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to 24 temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. 25 26 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment as follows: 27 28 AS TO THE FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 1. 29 For general damages; AS TO THE SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 30 2. For general damages; 31 3. For exemplary and punitive damages; 32 VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—25 1 AS TO THE THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 2 4. For general damages; 3 5. For exemplary and punitive damages; 4 AS TO THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 5 6. For general damages; 6 7. For exemplary and punitive damages; 7 AS TO THE FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 8 8. For general damages; 9 9. For exemplary and punitive damages; 10 11 AS TO THE SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 10. For injunctive relief prohibiting Defendant Reynolds from continuing to defame 12 Plaintiff as complained of herein, and requiring Defendant Reynolds to remove 13 the Reynolds’ Report and each and every other defamatory statement he has 14 published on the internet or otherwise about Plaintiff. 15 AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 16 11. For costs of suit herein incurred; 17 12. For reasonable attorneys' fees; and 18 13. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper. 19 20 Dated: October 6, 2019 LAW OFFICES OF STEVEN GIAMMICHELE 21 22 23 Steven Giammichele, Esq. 24 Attorney for Plaintiff, JOSEPH A. TRAVERS 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—26 1 2 VERIFICATION I, Joseph A. Travers, am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. The matters stated in 3 the foregoing document are true of my knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on 4 information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. 5 6 7 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.. 8 9 10 Dated: October ____, 2019 JOSEPH A. TRAVERS 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT—27 ~l 'dJ awn?SZO ~oomqomswtu?ocmqon WON 1. Joseph A. Travers. am the Plaintiff in the above-entitled action. The matters stated in the foregoing document are true of my knowledge except as to those matters which are stated on information and belief. and as to those matters. I believe them to be true. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. . 5% Dated:0ctober{ v?Z .2019 .M l: 10556: A. TRAVERS VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED