by Structured Settlement Watchdog
Further research has revealed even more discrepancies in testimony of David Springer in his deposition by attorneys for Woodbridge Structured Funding.
In his deposition David Springer admitted to creating numerous phony names (which were held out to be employees of Sovereign Funding Group and used in public facing social media to promote the business of Sovereign Funding Group). The David Springer explanation has been rubbished here.
But just how long has David Springer and Sovereign Funding Group been faking it? A little over 3 months after testifying to being the sole employee of Sovereign Funding Group in his June 28, 2013 deposition the following appeared on the about Sovereign Funding web page.
"It’s our team that makes the difference. Each staff member brings an enormous amount of experience in settlement financing". October 10, 2013 screenshot
"Our people make the difference. Each staff member brings a tremendous amount of experience in specialty financing and is committed to exceeding your expectations".
"...and we will provide the best possible pricing for your settlement payments and put the full force of our staff together"
Did David Springer just go on a hiring bonanza, or is there some other explanation?
The explanation appears simple. The same text appears in screenshots from the Sovereign Funding Group website going back at least 8 years, well before Springer allegedly hatched his redirect schemes! Springer just took it to the next level when he began to use images and cite fraudulent academic and employment credentials as well as violate the terms of service on Linkedin and other social media in which the phony names created by David Springer appeared.
- Link to Screenshot about Sovereign Funding Group website page February 17, 2011.
- Link to Screenshot of about Sovereign Funding Group website page January 16, 2010
- Link to Screenshot of about Sovereign Funding Group website page February 12, 2006
Here's one example of how one of David Springer's phony names was used to promote Sovereign Fundng Group. This tweet posted May 10, 2013, refers to Sandy Jackson one of the names of Sovereign Fundnng Group "employees" that David Springer admitted was phony ["her" Linkedin profile is still active at the time of posting]
Even after his sworn testimony David Springer and Sovereign Funding Group continue to engage in deceptive business practices that are potentially harmful to consumers. How would a structured settlement consumer know without going to the depth of research and legal expense that JG Wentworth, Woodbridge and I have, that Springer and Sovereign Funding Group have engaged in these practices? The Google Plus profile for Sandy Jackson today lists a high school , a college, a bachelors degree, former employment and that "Sandy Jackson" is in a relationship and lives in Bethesda, MD where David Springer's current attorney is attempting to convince the court to shed her, her partner and her firm's role in Springer's defense.
Many of our readers are familiar with the defamation websites that appeared in 2012 and the content of what was on those sites.
In the matter of John Darer v PPC Ltd., Private Protection Co. LTD and Gary Brown WIP Arbitration and Mediation Center Case No. D2012-2032 decided December 10, 2012 regarding the identity of the Respondent, the Panelist " finds that the facts of this case support a finding that the Disputed Domain names were more likely than notcontrolled by the same person/entity", citing among other things:
at 5(iv) "the Complainant submitted affidavit evidence to the effect that he was the plaintiff in John Darer v. John Does 1-25 d/b/a johndarer.com, johndarer.net and johndarer.org, Case No. 3:12-cv-00383-JCH, (commenced in the US District Court for the District of Connecticut on March 14, 2012 and closed without prejudice to renewal on September 25, 2012), where it was revealed during discovery that the same email address was previously used in connection with the registration and/or operation of each of the Disputed Domain Names. Further, in response to subpoenas in such proceedings, internet service providers and IP anonymiser services utilized in connection with the Disputed Domain Names informed the Complainant that the IP addresses used to register and/or operate the Disputed Domain Names previously pointed towards one individual/entity".
In a September 14, 2012 motion filed by Plaintiff in the Darer v Does case (Document 18 page 2) it states:
"Pursuant to the Court’s Order, the Plaintiff engaged in certain third party discovery in an effort to identify the defendants at issue in this litigation. The nature of the information uncovered suggested that defendants had been purposefully concealing their true identities and employing significant technological means to do so. Despite these efforts, the Plaintiff obtained evidence of certain Internet Protocol (“IP”) addresses and other information utilized by the John Doe defendants allegedly involved in the activity at issue in this litigation and traced that information through multiple layers of service providers and internet companies. The Plaintiff believed he had identified at least two (2) of the John Doe defendants (David and Melissa Springer), and had contacted those individuals regarding this litigation..."