Gryphon Financial Inexplicably halted Emails of Stock Rec's, Refused Cancellation of Services, Intimidation to Obtain Funds under False Pretenses. New York New York

I too have had bad picks maybe 1/20 on scale are lucky . A monkey can make a pick on that percentage. The dart board would be my suggestion over Gryphon. After I told them to cancel this member ship no refunds. They decided to hire a credit agency to one time harrass me and I called him back and he was tongue tied could not answer any of my questions. How are they going to sue me in Canada for more than the membership. I investigated this and they can not do anything to me. I am greatfull to live in Canada. Stay away from these guys learn to trade on your own options or stock there are great books out there better than this scam.

This response is being posted by Adorno & Yoss LLP, counsel to Gryphon Holdings, Inc. d/b/a Gryphon Financial (“Gryphon”). We have been requested by Gryphon to respond to the false and defamatory statements posted in Report No. 283250.
We would like to address each of “Pcm's” allegations in turn. Pcm claims that she enrolled for one of our client's services at a price of $89.00 for two (2) years. However, Gryphon maintains that this could not have been the terms of the service as Gryphon has never offered that particular service under those terms at that price. The service was offered to Pcm (and accepted by her) at $99.00 for one (1) year.

The service purchased by Pcm enabled her to receive stock recommendations by e-mail. Gryphon makes very clear on its website that it is an educational service--not an investment advisor, stating in its Disclaimer:

GryphonFinancial.net is an educational service, not an investment advisor. All subscribers to each service receive the exact same trading signal publications. Active trading is not for everyone; please speak to your investment advisor before determining the suitability of GryphonFinancial.net educational services for your objectives and risk tolerance.

The Disclaimer further unambiguously states that the recommendations provided by Gryphon are not guaranteed.

When consumers visit Gryphon's website, they must agree to the terms and conditions specified therein and enter their credit card information in order to enroll in any particular service. The webpage clearly provides the Risk Disclosure, which states:

The risk of loss in trading…can be substantial. You should, therefore, carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your circumstances and financial resources. You should be aware of the following points:

(1) You may sustain a total loss of the funds that you deposit with your broker to establish or maintain a position in the commodity futures market, and you may incur losses beyond these amounts…

(2) Under certain market conditions, you may find it difficult or impossible to liquidate a position.

Our client's Return Policy, also detailed on the website, makes clear that “ALL CHARGES ARE NON-REFUNDABLE.” In order to register for the service, Pcm was required to agree to both the Risk Disclosure and the Return Policy. There is, therefore, no basis for her to claim that she is entitled to a refund.

Pcm further claims that she is entitled to a refund because she allegedly did not receive e-mail messages. Gryphon, however, has evidence indicating the contrary. Gryphon's e-mail distributor generates a record indicating how many e-mail messages a subscriber receives, as well as which e-mail messages are opened, and the number of times they are opened. Our client's records clearly indicate that Pcm received numerous e-mail messages from our client which she opened and referenced several times. At one point during Pcm's service, an error occurred which caused her to not receive several e-mail messages. However, the matter was promptly remedied, as evidenced by an e-mail message between Pcm and Gryphon.

Approximately two (2) months after Pcm subscribed for the service, she submitted a claim to her credit card company in order to receive a credit for her payment to Gryphon (the “charge back”). However, she continued to accept and review e-mails from Gryphon up until several days after she initiated the charge back. From the moment Gryphon was advised of the charge back, Gryphon discontinued Pcm's service and ceased sending e-mails to her. Gryphon made several attempts to have Pcm remit payment for the service prior to referring the matter to a collection agency.

Some time thereafter, our client spoke with Pcm in reference to the charge back. Pcm stated that she wished to re-subscribe to the service and would repay the $99.00 plus a $25.00 charge back fee. The following day, our client again spoke with her. She stated that she was unable to obtain e-mail messages because her computer was not functioning properly. Both of these telephone conversations are evidences in our client's notes, which are kept in the regular course of business.

Finally, after failing to repay the $99.00, our client forwarded this matter to a collections agency. The collection agency attempted to resolve this matter, to no avail.

We regret that Pcm either misunderstood the terms of the service or did not take full advantage of the information provided to her; however, we maintain that Gryphon is entitled to receive the funds Pcm was obligated to pay for the service ($99.00). Pcm voluntarily enrolled in the service, and she received the service, as indicated by Gryphon's e-mail distributor's records.

Gryphon has authorized Adorno & Yoss LLP to initiate any and all actions as may be necessary to prevent defamatory statements from being posted about its company on the Internet and will do so in the appropriate judicial forum, not on the Internet through an anonymous name.

The perpetrators of this scam have been busted.  The above attorney should be ashamed of himself for aiding the Mafia.  I am also a victim, and if there are any responsible attorneys starting a class action please contact me via this website:

RE: Case Number 2010R00826 and Court Docket Number 10-CR-00480


United States v. Kenneth Marsh et al

United States v. Nicole Marsh, 10-CR-00801 (JBW)

United States v. Greg Prasker, 10-CR-00700 (JBW)

United States v. Anthony Vecchione, 10-CR-00697 (JBW)

United States v. Anthony Dellaventura, 10-CR-00800 (JBW)

The above-referenced cases charge the defendants with fraud relating to their employment at Gryphon Financial.