← Wealth and Health Podcast
Loading summary
Transcript179 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hi, this is Joe from Vanta. In today's digital world, compliance regulations are changing constantly and earning customer trust has never mattered more. Vanta helps companies get compliant fast and stay secure with the most advanced AI automation and continuous monitoring out there. So whether you're a startup going for your first SoC2 or ISO 27001, or a growing enterprise managing vendor risk, Vanta makes it quick, easy and scalable. And I'm not just saying that because I work here.
- [00:27]
B
Get started@vanta.com my name is David Jaffe. Welcome to the wealth and Health Podcast, where you'll learn valuable skills and positive habits that will improve your life. This podcast originally aired as a video on my YouTube channel at YouTube.com Best Stop Strategy. The wealth and Health Podcast is brought to you by beststockstrategy.com.
- [00:55]
C
I believe it was possible that she was down around $100,000 or around 28% because the market fell 5%. I saw this video from Abundantly Erica last month. It came out October 20, 2025, and currently I'm recording this on November 28, 2025. And I wondered, why didn't she release an update video for this month? So I went through her video last month and I'm pretty sure I know the reason why. Stay tuned for the entire video because you're definitely not going to want to miss these drawdowns.
- [01:33]
D
Hey there.
- [01:34]
E
Hey, girl.
- [01:36]
D
An account update.
- [01:37]
C
Oh, yeah, yeah.
- [01:40]
D
Last time I updated you on my account was like around September 24th. Something like September 22nd, I think it was. And I said it would come back on October 22nd. It's October 20th. I have time today, so I'm doing it today.
- [01:52]
C
Well, currently it's November 28th and we haven't gotten that update, so I'm wondering, where is it?
- [01:58]
D
Yeah, so here we are, just a general account overview. All right. 31.67.
- [02:04]
E
Wow.
- [02:06]
D
When I open the account, put 100k and I didn't trade it too much. Then you guys remember I didn't really start trading until February and then I made more deposits.
- [02:15]
C
Look at these drawdowns, though. You can see that here she was lagging all the benchmarks. Then here again, she was lagging all the benchmarks, and then in October, she was pulling ahead. But you'll see that it doesn't last long. Drawdowns like these, it immediately tells me that for me it's not a viable strategy. There's just way too much variability. And if we get even a 10% pullback, this entire account could potentially blow up.
- [02:43]
D
So we're now at 31 return.
- [02:46]
C
Wow. Happy?
- [02:47]
D
I always try to be spy. Otherwise, what's the point in doing this? Okay, so right.
- [02:53]
C
What's the point of doing this? So let's remember that. 31.67.
- [02:58]
D
And then I just wanted to address something about people saying that certain options traders are manipulating their account values by depositing funds and taking them out. Like, if any.
- [03:09]
C
Is she referring to me there where I made a comment about options with Ryan, where he was manipulating his account balance? I think so showing you this page.
- [03:17]
D
Here, it's pretty difficult to manipulate what?
- [03:21]
E
Right.
- [03:22]
C
But again, Ryan wasn't showing that. He was just showing his total account value. He wasn't showing his value versus net contributions.
- [03:30]
D
The highest his account got was 361. So it's like on a day that AST as my own were like flying really high and they send full box. So now we are at 349. Okay, so we're gonna go over and check out some of the trades. Is this interesting or what? Did not height just say the account was worth 349? It's not. It's 355. But anyway, yeah, 355. The highest we've been is 361 in the last month that I've seen you. I always like to see those highs. Not because I think that that's what I wore at that point in time because I know that one day that will be my love.
- [04:09]
C
Yay.
- [04:10]
D
So I just keep at it, keep plugging away, but these are the individual trades in my account.
- [04:17]
C
Right now.
- [04:18]
D
We're trading Apple.
- [04:20]
C
All right, let's check out some of these positions. So here, remember, her account value at this moment is $355,000. Apple. She has 200 shares. And she also has a bunch of call options. She's short and in the money call on Apple right here, the 245, which in my opinion is very dumb to hold on to that position because the 245 is secured by the 100 shares. And those 100 shares where you have the capped upside are still using up a tremendous amount of buying power. If you're using regulation T, then those shares are going to reduce your buying power by 50% of the notional value. So let's just mark that down 200 times 263. So as a result, this Apple position by itself is going to reduce her buying power by about $26,000. Then she has a short put with a strike of 240. Now remember when you're trading options on Regulation T, your buying power is reduced by 20%. All right, let's check out the Amazon position. Amazon, she has 400 shares. The market value is 86,278. Let's see what Amazon fell to back during this low point. Amazon fell to a low of $215.25. Here she has the 220 puts that expire on November 21st. But on November 21st, the high point of Amazon is was 217.91. So 218 and the low point was 215.25. So that 220 put option was in the money. Either she took assignment or she had to extend duration. But this position right here was problematic because it expired in the money. Either way, this position is using up a decent amount of buying power. But this is a position that you definitely should ask her about. What did she do with it? Did she roll it forward in time and extend duration? And this position, the December 19th is also incredibly problematic because right here it was trading at $14.50 on 1121 when Vix was trading around 25. This position was probably showing her a major loss. But in addition to the loss, this position was also using up a tremendous amount of buying power. Now, I'm not going to go through every single position, but these call options right here. We're also going to show her a major loss on November 21st. And remember, when a trade is showing a major loss, it decreases your available buying power and it can easily force you into a margin call.
- [07:04]
E
Hey.
- [07:05]
D
October 20th.
- [07:07]
E
Wow.
- [07:07]
D
I have another account that I doubled because of my ASTS holdings.
- [07:11]
C
I would love to subpoena all her trading statements and I'll get into that more later in this video. But let's go through ASTS. She has 700 shares here. It's trading at 85 34. So currently the market value is 59,738. That means that the buying power requirement for this is going to be around $30,000. Currently, ASTS is trading at 5624. That means at this specific moment, she's showing a loss of $20,000 from where they were when she created this video. But here's the worst part. Let's go back to when the market only pulled back by 5%. In this situation on November 21, ASTS hit a low of 49.31. Let's just call it $50. That means that those 700 shares were trading for 30, $35,000. At this moment, she was showing a $25,000 decrease in her net liquidation value when compared to when she created this video. That's really, really important because we have to track the approximate net liquidation value to see if she was forced into a margin call. So the approximate net liquidation value, if we look at the Amazon positions, they were showing her a loss plus a loss on these calls. Let's approximate and say that that decreased our net liquidation value by 10,000. And then the ASTS shares decreased it by about 25,000. So that means that we're decreasing the original net liquidation value by about $35,000. That's $320,000. And there's a reason why we're doing that because we want to see whether she was placed into a margin call. And here's the approximate buying power reduction. So you can see that we're already up to $150,000 in buying power reduction. And her approximate net liquidation value is around $320,000. Let's go through the rest of the ASTS positions. Here we have a long put that expired. Then we have a short put at 80. Let me see if that was assigned. That's a very aggressive put. Strike 1031. Interesting. So here on October 31st, ASTS closed at $80.27. I don't know it until expiration. But let's give her the benefit of the doubt and say that that trade expired worthless. Then we have the 105s, the 60s, the 90s. And here she's long some calls. One, three, two, one. So that's seven right. Now let's take a look at this. 9618 is trading for about $8.80 and she bought it for $18. So she's showing a loss of about $1,000. Let's look at the 600 and 18100 where it looks like she paid about $25 each for them. The 618100 is trading for about $7.25 even though she paid $25 for it. So she's taking a loss there of about $5,400 here. The 110, the 15, 20, 27. Let's check those out. Those are currently trading for about $13. She paid about $29.50. So it's trading for about 40 to 45% of what she paid for it. So those are also showing a major loss. Here's the problem. It's all about buying power. And when you buy long dated leaps and think that the market is only going to go up and then the.
- [10:52]
E
Market pulls back by only 5%.
- [10:55]
C
Imagine if it pulled back by 20%. This type of portfolio, in my opinion, is 100% gambling. I don't believe that there is any possibility for a portfolio using this type of strategy to be profitable long term. Remember, on 1121, ASTs fell to about $50. So to approximate the NLV, let's approximate what the losses are on these trades. Now, we can't do all them because I don't want this video to be three hours, but let's just approximate it. Let's take these positions. The 90, the 110. She has six of them. So I would approximate that this fell down to about $6. Maybe this one fell down to about $7. That would mean if this fell down to $6, that the market value would be about $1,800. That means a change of about $5,500. Here. Let's say it's about a $2,000 loss. We're looking at about a $7,500 change. And then here for the 110, I would say that this got down to about $10. She has two of them. So that would mean it would be trading at about $2,000. So that would be a $4,000 change. So in total, we can approximate that this decreased her net asset value by about $11,500. Let's mark that down.
- [12:24]
E
A lot of leaps.
- [12:25]
D
So I've been trading leaves on these, but I might cash it out and sell it for a loss at the end of the year for a tax loss pharmacy. We're going to see what happens. Costco people say, don't share my losses. This has been in here forever. Guys.
- [12:38]
F
There's criticism sometimes I might be like.
- [12:40]
D
You must not share your losses. Look at this. Cocoa weeks, guys, it's at negative $9,000. This one is not working out for me.
- [12:48]
C
All right, we'll let Costco go because its market value is only about $1500. Let's check out IonQ 700 shares at a price of $60. Okay, IonQ 700 shares, $60. That means that at that time the market value was approximately $42,000. Then the buying power reduction would be half of that because they're shares. So that's $21,000. Her buying power reduction or her maintenance margin requirement is already around $170,000 for these positions. And I'm not even including all of the positions. And her approximate net liquidation value is approximately $309,000. Currently, IonQ is trading at 4930. So at this specific moment, the market value of her shares are around $34,510. That means that she has a loss in total, it's about $8,000 there from the decrease in market cap plus the loss of about 3,800. So around $12,000 loss on these shares. But again, let's look at it how it was on November 21st, IonQ fell all the way down to about $38. It says 3802 for the low. And here it says it actually closed at 3,850. Let's not even use the intraday low. Let's use the $40 number. Okay, so right here we're going to say that it fell to about $40 times 700 shares. 40 times 700 equals 40, $28,000. That's going to be the market value of those 700 shares on November 21st. Then we can see that her market value here is around $42,000. So therefore there's going to be a decrease in market value of about $14,000 relative to where it was when she recorded that video. The approximate net liquidation value here is about $294,500. Let's look at these positions here. On 1024, she has an in the money put at 67. Here you can see that IRQ closed at about $60. So my gut feeling is that she was assigned these shares at $60 for this position.
- [15:22]
E
It's going to get a little bit tricky.
- [15:25]
C
Let's just say that she took a loss of $700. Then she was assigned 100 shares at 60. That means $6,000. Her buying power is then going to be reduced by 50% of that, which is going to be $3,000. And her market value is going to decrease by $700. So let's do this. Assigned 100 shares at 60. Now remember, we have to take into account these assignments at that $40 price point. Okay? So this is something that is really important. So we took care of this 67. Then she short a put credit spread of 66 by 55 on 11 7. So 117 was very interesting for IonQ because at a low point, it was trading at 51. And then at a high point, it actually hit $59. But in any case, she's going to be assigned those 300 shares at $66. All right? So assigned 300 shares. Let's just use $66. Now, it's definitely possible that she closed out that position.
- [16:45]
D
But.
- [16:46]
C
But we don't know that. Maybe she even rolled the position. Although it's very difficult to roll vertical credit spreads, but assigned 300 shares and buying it at 66, that is going to decrease her buying power by 50% of 1980. So that's going to decrease her buying power by another $9,900. And remember, we have to figure out these market value reductions to the approximate net liquidation value. Then we have the short calls. Thankfully, we don't have to worry about them. Then she has the long calls. She has five long calls for 618 and 918. Let's do the 618 first. But before we do that, let's reduce the net liquidation value on a pro forma basis. Assuming that these 400 shares were assigned at 60 and then at 66, and then assuming that on November 21st, when it was trading at about $40, these 100 shares would show her a loss of about $2,000. And then these 300 shares would show her a loss of about $26 per share. So that works out to 300 times 26. That's $7,800. Well, we're getting down there two hundred and eighty four. Let's see what the buying power reduction or the maintenance margin requirement is. We're only about a hundred thousand dollars away and we didn't factor in all the positions at all. Here we have the long call and IonQ618 with the 80 strike, it's currently trading at about $6.40. She ended up paying $1,600, and therefore she's taking a loss here of about $1,000. Now on November 21st, we can approximate and say that it was probably trading for about $4.50. But, you know, let's give her the benefit of the doubt. I'm only going to reduce the NLV by a thousand dollars. Then the 75, the 918. 918 75. It's currently trading for, let's say, around $10. She has four of them. That means that she paid over $2,000 for every one and currently is trading for around $10. So at this specific moment, she has more than a 50% loss or more than a $4,000 loss on this position on November 21st. I would estimate that those were trading as opposed to $10, around $7. So therefore, the market value of this would be $2,800. Therefore, she would have sustained a loss of about $5,000 on this one position for the $75 call option. Therefore, let's reduce her Nov. By around $5,000. Here she's long a put. Then here she has the January 2027 90s, which is currently trading at about $11. She paid $2,600. So it's currently showing her a loss of about $1,500. On November 21, I would estimate that it would be trading at about $9 or that the market value would be about $900, therefore decreasing her Nov. By an extra $1,000. Here we have two of the 120s for January 2027. It's currently trading at about $8. She paid 4800. That's a loss of about $3200. The market value right now is about $800. So therefore the difference between where it was when she recorded the video would be about $1,400 on November 21st. I would estimate that those probably got down to about $6.50, meaning that the market value was about $1,300, which would give us an approximate decrease in her net liquidation value of about $1,700. All right, and I think that's it for Ionq. Let's check out what her approximate NLV was at that specific moment. On a pro forma basis, based upon IonQ, we see a decrease of $8,700.
- [21:42]
E
Boom.
- [21:42]
C
So 275. And then her margin requirement is $183,000. Oh, man, here we're at 275. Previously, she was showing $355,000. Now, because I didn't go through every single position, in my opinion, I believe that this number is overstated. But I could be wrong. Regardless, I think it's a pretty good approximation based upon just those four or five positions. She is already down around $80,000 in this account. And remember, her year to date is $99,000. Let's continue onwards. Let's check out Palantir. She has 330 shares. The market value is $60,000. That means that her buying power is going to be reduced by 50%. That's $30,000 of maintenance that's required. Man, we're really getting close here. I don't know, guys. Is she going to be able to pull it off without getting into a margin call? I think I've been very fair. I tried to only focus on the big positions that are going to move the needle. Palantir, you can see that she's showing a minor gain. She probably purchased it at about$175.1031. I'm sure that that expired Worthless. Here we have a short call again. So she's holding on to the shares which are eating up her buying power, but she's not participating in the upside. And she also has a tremendous amount of downside risk. These are all short calls. Let's see what Palantir got down to on November 21st. We can see the Palantir got down to about, let's say one. So that means that at that moment its market value instead of being 60,000, was 4,950. So let's just say that that decreased her approximate NLV by $10,000. So she's at 265,000 approximate NLV and her maintenance margin requirements are about $213,000.
- [24:09]
E
Keep going. And remember, this is only a 5%.
- [24:12]
C
Move down in the S P. Okay?
- [24:15]
D
And then Walmart put all the order in the money so you know, down 900 profit on two months.
- [24:21]
C
Walmart, 600 shares, guys.
- [24:24]
E
Oh no. I just don't know if she's gonna be able to make it.
- [24:30]
C
600 shares. Market value is $64,000. As you can see right here.
- [24:37]
E
Here.
- [24:40]
C
That means that because it shares, that's going to reduce it by 50%. That brings up her margin requirements to about $245,000. And her approximate net liquidation value is about 265,000. And I didn't even take into account all of her positions and I didn't take into account any new positions that she might have put on. That's going to be the kicker. If she was very aggressive and put on a lot of new positions when the market fell, then I believe that she got a margin call, but I don't know for sure. Let's check out the remaining positions. Walmart short call. Sure, call. All right, these are fine, no problem. She has some long calls here. Let's see what Walmart fell down to. I think Walmart was actually pretty stable. 1121. Yeah, it fell down to about 105. Not really a big deal. Okay, so Walmart was pretty stable, so I'm not going to factor that in. I would estimate based upon the information in her last video, that in the.
- [25:44]
E
Best case scenario her net liquidation value.
- [25:48]
C
On November 21st was around $265,000. That means that she was down approximately $90,000 just based upon a 5% pullback in the market. If this is true, that she got down to about $265,000, that would mean that she would have lost almost her entire year to date profits. Just because the market pulled back by 5% percent. Do you want to be in a position where you can lose almost 100% of your year to day gains because the market pulls back by 5%? In my opinion, this is a horrible trading strategy. And let's look at her buying power requirements or her maintenance margin requirements. They're at around $245,000. Considering that every single one of these long calls, the leaps and the short puts that they have additional buying power requirements, and considering that there's a very high probability that she put on new trades from when she recorded this video in October 2025, I think that she would have been very, very lucky to have not received a margin call. Because think about it here, 265 minus 245, she has about $20,000 of potential leeway. But we didn't take into account all the maintenance margin requirements for these long calls. We didn't take into account all the maintenance margin requirements for the Palantir calls. And we didn't take into account the new positions that she might have put on between her posting this video in October 2025 and when the market hit its low point on November 21, 2025. When you leave yourself only around $20,000 of leeway, you are asking for trouble. A 5% pullback in the market is nothing. I believe that at one point on November 20th or November 21st, 2025, that her year to date profits might have actually slipped into the negative. It's possible that she could have lost over $100,000 just due to a 5% pullback in the market. Crazy. And I tried to give her the benefit of the doubt. I do not count the buying power requirements on those leaps. And I also don't know what new position she put on from when she recorded this video until November 21, 2025. So again, I believe it was possible that she was down around $100,000 or around 28% because the market fell 5%. Let that sink in for a second. I think it's possible that she was down around $100,000 of 355, which I believe is about 28% because the market fell around 5%. Let's go through the comments and see what she has to say. One note. I made $43,000 in this account.
- [29:08]
E
I have 8 accounts.
- [29:09]
C
I trade this month.
- [29:10]
E
I crossed 100k in profits.
- [29:13]
C
Why on earth would anyone need to trade eight accounts? It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Contracts were usually profitable this month. Well, if we look at the spreadsheet we can see that apparently owning LEAPS contracts when the market falls by 5% and then you potentially losing 28%. It definitely wasn't profitable for you in that particular situation then this book, a Millionaire Mentorship discovery is really funny to me considering that I believe this is where she lives. A building built in 1926. Let's check out what the comments are.
- [29:46]
E
Wow, what a great month Erica. Congratulations. I wish I would have bought ASTs leaps along with you. My cover calls on it blue so far past the strike price.
- [29:57]
C
It was crazy. Well Scott Smith, you're actually very fortunate that you didn't buy STS Leaps along with her. So you're not able to participate in the upside, but you know what you.
- [30:08]
E
Are able to participate in?
- [30:10]
C
You got it. The downside. So when the market falls by 5% and some of these stocks fall by 15, 20, 25%, you're basically selling covered calls and picking up pennies.
- [30:20]
E
But you're losing 10 to 100 times that.
- [30:24]
C
This type of video is interesting. Thanks Erica.
- [30:27]
E
Well, I wonder what you think about my video.
- [30:29]
C
Great video.
- [30:31]
E
Nice video Erica. Impressive results.
- [30:34]
C
Yeah, if these numbers are accurate then I definitely don't believe that those results are impressive. But what do I know?
- [30:42]
E
These are always great to see. Lots of little lesson nuggets in your.
- [30:46]
C
Monthly trading account summary videos. I also trade ASTS and Ionq and.
- [30:51]
E
Was surprised to see that you were doing LEAPS on them since they're not gold stakes standard proven track record companies that would otherwise be on your master list.
- [30:59]
C
Oh my God this commenter. You need to start a YouTube channel because in my opinion you are more.
- [31:04]
E
Knowledgeable in not making self destructive and.
- [31:07]
C
Degenerate trades like Erica has. How long are you holding the leaps for? All sorts of time frames. Sometimes only a day, sometimes a year.
- [31:17]
E
Hey Erica, thanks for sharing. I'm learning so much from your channel. Also, is it realistic to pull down 3k per week on an 85-119k account? The 3k per week is too aggressive in my opinion.
- [31:31]
C
At least you're being honest. 3k per week definitely too aggressive. This person wants to make about 10% a month. I would tell them to go take a hike because they're better off buying lottery tickets.
- [31:42]
E
You are likely getting killed with short term capital gains taxes and state income.
- [31:45]
C
Taxes depending on your state.
- [31:47]
E
That's what I really dislike about stocks. Stupid government gives incentive for real estate.
- [31:51]
C
Investing but not stocks. Hey you know what? In my opinion you do not have.
- [31:56]
E
To worry about that if you trade this strategy because I believe you are.
- [32:00]
C
Not going to make money by trading this strategy.
- [32:03]
E
So you're not going to have to.
- [32:03]
C
Worry about capital gains, taxes or profits. So don't worry about that because as.
- [32:08]
E
The spreadsheet shows, a 5% pullback in the market is projected to show around a 28% loss in this portfolio. So this is an additional account you just started this year. This is not the account you use for monthly income.
- [32:21]
C
Right.
- [32:21]
E
So you made 100k this month. Wow, Nice. All anyone needs to know at this point about how much I make is it's over 45k a month. Oh, wow. Well, you know, that is actionable.
- [32:36]
C
This account is up 105k since February. This account made 43k this month. That's not a part of the 45k I make in my not public accounts. All of this, you're putting definitive numbers there, Erica, I hate to say it, but this stuff is actionable.
- [32:53]
E
Oh no. Better get those subpoenas ready.
- [32:57]
C
So I would highly recommend that if you're interested in trading this strategy, that you ask Erica about these specific trades and about these numbers and ask her to show you her account statement for the month of November. Because I want to see what those trades are that she made in early November. And I also want to see whether she was forced into a margin call. Now, in my opinion, I believe that.
- [33:22]
E
Erica is a compulsive liar.
- [33:24]
C
And I also believe that she's not going to tell you the truth. And why do I say that? Why do I think that Erica is a compulsive liar? Well, because I had some prior experience with her where someone asked me about her and then within a minute she somehow commented about that. She said this to me.
- [33:42]
E
Yeah, you have clear copyright infringements left, right and center. You're not legally allowed to post this guy's photo. He owns the copyright to that you don't. He also owns all the copyrights to his footage, which you regularly sample. If any of these guys register their.
- [33:58]
C
Images or videos with the copyright office I have, and you sample them, it's.
- [34:02]
E
A 150k settlement to them that you will find impossible to argue in court and will lose. Without copyright registration, you'll owe about 80k per image or video clip use. In my former career I worked in image licensing.
- [34:18]
C
Well, I wonder also about that where she says, in my former career, because if you go to this website, this is etc creative, you you can see that she's still listed as the principal.
- [34:28]
E
Agent, even though I believe she said.
- [34:30]
C
In one of her other videos that she's been able to retire. In my opinion. I believe that the only reason why she's been able to become financially stable is because she has an audience of inexperienced traders who are paying her money to learn a strategy that I believe is going to blow up their accounts and and substantially underperform the market.
- [34:54]
E
But let's go back to what she.
- [34:56]
C
Wrote in her original comment on my YouTube video.
- [34:58]
E
In my former career, I worked in image licensing and we sued all the time for this.
- [35:03]
C
We always won. Basically telling you, oh my God, David, you best be careful because I will sue you. How we always won. Boy, you best be careful.
- [35:14]
E
You don't want to mess with me.
- [35:16]
C
You should really take all of these down.
- [35:19]
E
People who mess with my copyrighted videos and photos learn the hard way. It's a very experience mistake to make. All those other attorneys simply took the wrong approach.
- [35:31]
C
So basically I knew she was bullshitting. So I'm like, I explicitly asked for the case number to your alleged litigation, which she just said that they always won. Why are you unable to provide that? Is it because you're lying? You claim that you won all the time. So again, send me one case number so I can review the docket. Also, I want to be 100% clear. I searched the online court system for Cook County, Illinois and I didn't see anything for her or her company. I searched it. Now the online court System is not 100% comprehensive, but I would estimate the probability that she sued anyone for copyright infringement is probably around 10 to 20%. Anyway, she said we always settle.
- [36:15]
E
In fact, we're bound by NDAs not.
- [36:17]
C
To reveal anything as part of the settlement agreement. That's common. Well, Erica, let me educate you about something. When you litigate, you have something called litigation privilege. That means that even if you sign a non disclosure in your settlement agreement.
- [36:31]
E
You still have litigation privilege because those filings are in the public domain.
- [36:36]
C
They're in the public record. So you could definitely 100% give me at least one case number and you're not going to be violating your NDA. But again, the probability that she's bullshitting me here is close to 100%. We're bound by NDAs. Again, that doesn't apply due to litigation privilege. Copyright cases are so strong they rarely go to court. Ask your attorney. Okay, I'll show you a few filings later on in this video. Thyro lol. You're such a lying, pathetic degenerate. You claim to have won every case then. Now you're claiming to be bound by an NDA Ha, ha ha. And then she said, you know that anyone you make a video is about you Help, man. This is like the third or fourth typo that she's had. Someone were asking me to pay them 3 to $5,000 in order to learn their strategy. I would hope that they would be able to write, and more importantly, I would hope that if the market pulled back by around 5%, that their portfolio might not drop by about 28%. But hey, what do I know?
- [37:40]
E
They get more followers because they have.
- [37:42]
C
More eyes on them.
- [37:43]
E
Anytime someone has tried to make bad press about me, I've just gotten more clients from them talking about me. The worst thing that can happen to anyone online is that everyone stops talking about them.
- [37:56]
C
All publicity is good publicity, as they say. I responded back, I just want to litigate with you. This video has gotten extremely long, but let me say I've reviewed a bunch of her videos and she should really be worried. She has a lot of actionable statements in there, a lot. But I hear she knows a really good lawyer, which she's probably going to need because she posted this about me on X. Someone sent this to me in August. I see this guy on YouTube picking.
- [38:25]
E
On other traders all the time. He samples their videos. He posts their portraits in his videos. He's been sued for defamation and claims he wins. He's simply a jackass.
- [38:35]
C
Yes. Let me be 100% clear.
- [38:39]
E
I have been sued for defamation numerous times. In fact, I would highly recommend that.
- [38:45]
C
You reach out to Raging Bull, that you reach out to Warrior Trading and ask them what their experience was when litigating with me.
- [38:52]
E
Because Warrior Trading and Raging Bull were then both sued by the ftc, which.
- [38:58]
C
I might have had something to do with.
- [39:00]
E
In fact, if you check out this email. Hi, Jeff and Jason. Hope both of you are having a fine day. I wanted you to know who did this to you. It's important to know it was me.
- [39:11]
C
I told you, Jeff, when you sued David Jaffe, that you were going to pay, that you went too far, and now you are paying the price. And then Jeff responded, what do you.
- [39:22]
E
Want from me at this point?
- [39:23]
C
You have obviously won here.
- [39:25]
E
My business is ruined. Our employees are kicked out in the street with no pay at Christmas time. My wife is in the process of leaving me. I hope you feel good about yourself. What else do you possibly have in store for me? I hope we can just end this now.
- [39:42]
C
Then, going back to what Erica posted. And I just want to say if someone is picking on you and using your footage or photos to do it. Sue them for copyright infringement, not defamation. Reach out to me.
- [39:54]
E
If you need an attorney, it's a simple win.
- [39:58]
C
You'll get 30k per image or clip they use. Yes, I would highly, highly recommend that you reach out to Erica. Apparently she knows her good attorney and I would say the probability is she's really going to need that attorney if.
- [40:11]
E
You register those vids and portraits with the copyright office before the troll takes them.
- [40:15]
C
Oh, I'm a troll now.
- [40:16]
E
It goes up to 150k per image or piece of footage. Anyway, if you've been a victim of.
- [40:22]
C
This guy, reach out to me. I know some stellar attorneys, which, again, I believe Erica is definitely going to.
- [40:29]
E
Need in this field from my previous.
- [40:31]
C
Career in video and photography production on advertising. They don't lose.
- [40:36]
E
Well, again, I'm a little bit confused.
- [40:38]
C
Because it seems like you haven't retired and it seems like you still have that career in video and photography production, even though I believe you told people that you were retired.
- [40:48]
E
And just like I said, I would.
- [40:50]
C
Really, really, really love to litigate with you, and I'm pretty sure it's going to happen. In fact, I'm extremely litigious. In fact, right now I'm actually suing YouTube. I'm going to file a notice of appeal and get in front of the court of appeals. You can see this is what I filed. And I just love litigating.
- [41:08]
E
In fact, I'm going to be a.
- [41:09]
C
Lot more aggressive with litigation in the future. And those lawyers that you mentioned, which are stellar and which always win, can definitely help you out.
- [41:19]
E
Because, baby girl, we're probably going to.
- [41:22]
C
Be issuing some subpoenas for your statements.
- [41:24]
E
Just like we did with Warrior Trading. And then they begged the judge for a protective order. We'd hit them with a subpoena. And then, without meeting and conferring, Warrior Trading filed their motion for a protective order on June 9, 2021. Warrior Trading's motion for a protective order is entirely devoid of an attorney declaration or other statements of good faith. The subpoena is narrowly tailored to omit issues surrounding prior litigation and only seeks relevant information regarding the FTC's believed inquiry and investigation into Warrior Trading.
- [41:55]
C
Warrior's motion for a protective order should.
- [41:57]
E
Be denied because there was no meet and confer.
- [42:00]
C
This subpoena was reasonably calculated to lead.
- [42:03]
E
To the discovery of admissible evidence.
- [42:09]
C
And.
- [42:09]
E
Their requests for a protective order are lacking in merit.
- [42:16]
C
Mr. Jaffe is expected to testify that.
- [42:18]
E
Part of his reason for stating that Warrior Trading had a criminal element was because their former COO and co founder Jeffrey Fortis pleaded guilty to lewd acts with a minor. That is true.
- [42:29]
C
He was actually charged with graping a child. And he pled guilty to two counts of lewd conduct. And then, you know, Erica, these people.
- [42:38]
E
Who sued me, I'm sure they also.
- [42:40]
C
Thought that they had stellar attorneys.
- [42:43]
E
End up begging to settle. When we say, I will be serving.
- [42:48]
C
This subpoena on Google tomorrow. See file copy attached.
- [42:52]
E
But Instead of the August 2nd date, I will set compliance for August 16th. I will also cc you on correspondence.
- [42:58]
C
With Google if when they contact me.
- [43:01]
E
Also, can you update me on the Deutsche bank subpoena?
- [43:04]
C
Yeah, they actually played some games on the DB subpoena. We subpoenaed Deutsche Bank. They objected to it. Then Deutsche bank released the results to the opposing council, and then opposing counsel dragged their heels on giving us discovery.
- [43:19]
E
After we told them that we were issuing a subpoena to Google, they responded. I called to say that I'm revising the settlement agreement and sending it over to you tonight. I would prefer, as I'd mentioned before, that we stop working on the case and settle. It'll both save our clients money and help settlement discussions move forward. Well, I think I know why. Because when they sued me for defamation.
- [43:46]
C
I actually ended up suing them in.
- [43:49]
E
Federal court with a much stronger complaint. I sued them in federal court and then immediately issued subpoenas to TD Ameritrade.
- [43:57]
C
They started flipping out.
- [43:58]
E
In fact, let me show you that.
- [43:59]
C
Complaint that I filed against them.
- [44:02]
E
And you can see, look, just like.
- [44:05]
C
Erica has actionable statements. False advertising, false advertising, False advertising.
- [44:27]
E
So, four count complaint. And then, as you can see, when.
- [44:33]
C
We issued subpoenas, they ran to the judge for a protective order, but unfortunately.
- [44:42]
E
Their protective order was denied for failing to comply with the discovery procedures. So my gut feeling is that is why they were begging to settle in this case. But you know what, Erica, I am.
- [44:54]
C
So happy for you that you know stellar attorneys, because in my opinion, you are definitely going to need them.
- [45:03]
B
Visit beststockstrategy.com and submit your email address to receive valuable free training. Please give this podcast a positive reading and review. If you have any questions, visit beststockstrategy.com and send me a message.
- [45:27]
G
Well, the holidays have come and gone once again, but if you've forgotten to get that special someone in your life a gift. Well, Mint Mobile is extending their holiday offer of half off unlimited wireless. So here's the idea. You get it now, you call it an early present for next year.
- [45:42]
C
What do you have to lose.
- [45:43]
G
Give it a try at mintmobile.
- [45:45]
F
Com Switch Limited time 50% off regular price for new customers. Upfront payment required $45 for 3 months, $90 for 6 month or $180 for 12 month. Plan taxes and fees. Extra speeds may slow after 50 gigabytes per month when network is busy. See terms.