You may be interested in some information about Primerica’s lawsuit against Marco Moukhaiber.
On this link, you can start your Marco Moukhaiber is being sued by Primerica research.
Here are some excerpts from this Affidavit regarding marco Moukhaiber:
40 – Marco – Schedule “A” STATUTORY DECLARATION – [List of Items] – [Draft?]
45 – Letter – Good morning Avnish, Please see attached a screenshot of your client’s YouTube page this morning, hosting two posts of the Infiltrating A Pyramid Scheme in breach of Justice Graesser’s order. Kindly arrange to have them removed immediately. Kind regards, Tommy Gelbman
48 – Hi Tommy, Those are not my client’s posts and what is depicted is not my client’s account ‐‐ you have provided search results and the entries that depict the video are posted by Fifty Forty‐Three MMA and NAAIP, accounts that do not belong to my client. My client has no ability to take down those posts. If you would like my client can flag or report the posts to YouTube, which any viewer can do, but cannot guarantee that they will be removed. Best, Avnish
61 – It has come to our attention that Mr. Moukhaiber has: (i) pinned a post on his Discord channel MULTI-LEVEL MARCO allowing for his Discord followers to download a copy of Primerica’s Social Media & Digital Marketing document, an internal document that is protected by copyright and which Mr. Moukhaiber is prohibited from distributing; and (ii) used the tag “primerica” on a new YouTube video titled “When Presidents Promote Pyramid Schemes.” Screenshots of the posts are enclosed.
99 – 2023 07 – Order – [Handwritten Notes]
102 – Marco – Schedule “A” STATUTORY DECLARATION – [List of Items] – [Handwritten Notes]
119 – Marco – STATEMENT OF DEFENCE
130 – 2023 0924 – Marco – Schedule “A” STATUTORY DECLARATION – [List of Items]
146 – Payment of Conduct Money
160 – Letter – Expert Witnesses – Rule 8.16 prohibits more than one expert to opine on any one subject without leave. Among other things, the purpose of the rule is to prevent abuse, expense, and delay caused by the excessive use of unnecessary expert evidence. No leave has been sought to file the Affidavits, which contain considerable overlap in subject matter. As a result at least two of the Affidavits are inadmissible. Further, none of the affiants are independent or impartial, and the Affidavits contain irrelevant content, speculation, hearsay and argument. For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiffs will seek to have the Affidavits struck. The defendant has the option of withdrawing two of the three Affidavits, which would simplify this application and allow the parties to avoid the cost and delay associated with (i) questioning those affiants, and (ii) written and oral submissions on this issue. Kindly confirm whether you will agree to withdraw two of the Affidavits, and if so, which ones.
164 – APPLICATION BY MARCO MOUKHAIBER
175 – February 6, 2024 – Letter
176 – 1. Mr. Moukhaiber prepared an affidavit in support of the substantive application and shortly thereafter left the jurisdiction to a secret location, for reasons outlined in a 12-minute video posted on YouTube.1 The dispute between the parties is whether, in the circumstances, the Plaintiffs should be forced to question Mr. Moukhaiber remotely, and if not, who should be responsible for conduct money.2
187 – Letter – 2024 0209 – ABKB Action No. 2303 13143 – Primerica v Moukhaiber – March 5, 2024 Appearance before Justice Little
The Defendant anticipates relying on the following materials:
• Affidavit of Marco Moukhaiber, affirmed November 10, 2023;
• Affidavit of William Keep, sworn September 28, 2023;
• Affidavit of Robert L. Fitzpatrick, sworn November 28, 2023;
• Affidavit of Douglas M. Brooks, sworn October 27, 2023;
• Transcript from the proceedings from July 21, 2023 in this action; and
• July 21, 2023 Order of Justice Graesser.