Report: #821668

Complaint Review: Tim Sykes

  • Submitted: Thu, January 12, 2012
  • Updated: Thu, January 12, 2012
  • Reported By: David — New York New York U.S.A.
  • Tim Sykes
    900 Mix Ave
    United States of America

Tim Sykes Timothy Sykes Being sued, Intentional false statements, Defamation, Negligence, Tortious Interference of Prospective Business Relations Hamden, Internet

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Ripoff Report
About you?
Ripoff Report
A business' first
line of defense
on the Internet.
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..
Tim Sykes Falsely Accuses Fuse Sciences, Inc. of Engaging in a Pump-N-Dump Fraud -

Mr. Sykes is being sued for following reasons:

Mr. Sykes has NO clue what evidence is needed to satisfy the elements under a defamation cause of action. He repeatedly mentions research he conducted to prove Fuse Science, Inc. engaged in a fraud (pump-n-dump) and that they are incompetent. But his research pertains to irrelevant facts and third-parties that have nothing to do with Fuse Science, Inc. See Mr. Sykes statements on his website


Mr. Sykes accused Fuse Science, Inc. of a pump-n-dump fraud. To establish a PUMP-N-DUMP fraud, Mr. Sykes MUST prove to the Court with probative evidence that Fuse Science, Inc. made material false and misleading statements to the public about its product, Enerjel, for the purpose of pumping up their stock price and that the public was misled by these false statements, which caused them to buy the companys stock. [continued below]....
..... However, NOT once does Mr. Sykes provide any specific statements made by Fuse Science, Inc. about their product and its effects that have been false and misleading. Nor does he even make such an allegation in his post. Mr. Sykes merely accuses Fuse Science, Inc. of a pump-n-dump fraud and he uses references and links to data that are irrelevant and attached to third-parties, which have nothing to do with Fuse Science, Inc.

In this particular case, Mr. Sykes needs to first identify the SPECIFIC words used by Fuse Science, Inc about Enerjel that were false. And second, Mr. Skyes will then have to take those false statements and show how the multitude of consumers on who received the product, used it and left positive feedback were misled about Enerjel (If the consumers would be misled about the product than investors would also be misled). Furthermore, and to avoid punitive damges, Mr. Sykes will have to show the court that he conducted the minimum research that a reasonable and prudent person would have performed to uncover the consumers/witnesses statements on prior to making those false statements. However, this task would also be impossible to accomplish because on January 6, 2012, Fuse Science, Inc. issued a press release on their website that informed the public that its product was being sold on And prior to Mr. Sykes posting the false statements about Fuse Science, Inc. on his website on January 10, 2012, there were consumers/witnesses who received, used and left positive feedback about Enerjel on The mere fact that Mr. Sykes has failed to even conduct the minimum amount of research before making those false statements may constitute malice, which was perpetrated for the purpose of financial gain (Shorting DROP and subscriptions to his website). As of January 12, 2012, Enerjel has been ranked as No. 8 on Amazons best seller list for body creams. See Amazons best sellers list.Therefore, since Mr. Sykes has NOT proven that Fuse Science, Inc. engaged in a pump-n-dump fraud as a matter of fact and law, he has committed defamation per se. See GERTZ v. ROBERT WELCH INC. 418 U.S. 323 (1974). Listen to the actual oral arguments from the Supreme Court:


Mr. Sykes accused Fuse Science, Inc. of being incompetent on the grounds that their third-party credit card merchant failed to process his order. However, Mr. Sykes will have to prove to the Court that Fuse Science, Inc. was incompetent for hiring the credit card merchant and NOT merely that the merchant failed to process the order. In other words, Mr. Sykes CANNOT impute the merchants own incompetence on Fuse Science, Inc. unless he can prove that Fuse Science, Inc. selected a merchant that the company knew could NOT process the orders. However, since Fuse Science, Inc. utilized American Express to process Mr. Sykes order, which he admits, it would be virtually impossible to prove to the court that Fuse Science, Inc. selected an incompetent merchant to process its orders since thousands of merchants have used the service successfully for years. SeeJurliyue, Inc. v. Austral Biolab Pty., Ltd., 187 A.D.2d 4 3 7 , 639 (2 Dept. 1992). See also American Express Online Merchant Services: faad94RCRD

Therefore, the evidence against Mr. Sykes also disproves his claim of incompetence by Fuse Science, Inc. in selecting American Express to process its credit card purchases. And it further proves that Mr. Sykes has committed defamation per se against the company. See Ruderd & Finn, Inc., 52 N.Y.2d 663,670 ( I s t Dept. 1981)

Therefore, since Mr. Sykes has benefited from his false statements about Fuse Science, Inc via shorting the companys stock and by promoting his website services to consumers of Fuse Science, Inc., the actual tortious behavior here has been MALICIOUSLY perpetrated by Mr. Sykes on Fuse Science, Inc. for the purpose of gaining financial benefits.

Damages: damages are presumed under defamation per se and Mr. Sykes malicious conduct warrants an award of punitive damages against him.*I have contacted Fuse Science, Inc. about the derivative lawsuit against Mr. Sykes.

As soon as I hear back from them, or as soon as the statutory waiting period runs out, I will file the lawsuit against Mr. Sykes. At that point, Mr. Sykes will have ample opportunity to produce his so called research on Fuse Science, Inc. during discoveryUntil then, you can Google my lawsuit against Paypal. The allegation against Paypal was that their anti-fraud detection software was creating millions of false positives and to handle all the false positives, Paypal was making intentional false statements to consumers and wrongly taking fees and rejecting transactions. Paypal settled amicably. See Mehmet v. Paypal.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 01/12/2012 10:10 AM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
Also a victim?
Repair Your Reputation!
Ripoff Report Recommends
ZipBooks Accounting Software

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.